Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 82

Thread: What if the "flutz" and "lip" jumps were ratified?

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,052
    you are correct under the cop they haven't been ratified, buy under the 6.0's they were when people won.

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I vaguely remember something like this, but now I can't find much information about Alois Lutz at all. His dates are given as 1898 to 1918. If this is right, he invented his jump at age 15 and died at 20.
    1918 was a year with more deaths than usual. :(

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7,437
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    1918 was a year with more deaths than usual. :(
    World War I and a particularly virulent influenza took its toll. That flu epidemic was more deadly to healthy young people than to any other group.

  4. #19
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by chuckm View Post
    World War I and a particularly virulent influenza took its toll. That flu epidemic was more deadly to healthy young people than to any other group.
    In spite of the huge death toll, more than 2/3s of Europe did not get the plague. THEORY: There is a gene that does not permit certain infections. Similarly with Aids.

    But back to Flutz and Lip.

  5. #20
    it's olympic season :D bethissoawesome's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    NYC; Tokyo
    Posts
    495
    You would still be able to distinguish between the jumps by their entries, particularly the lutz. The flutz would simply be a jump that is ratified as entering the jump on the outside edge and switching to the inside upon take-off.

    For me personally, I rather see the flutz get some sort of base value and then be graded on its execution just like every other jump. Because when it comes down to it, do you really call something by its true name if its an attempt. If I were a gymnast doing a back layout and put my hands down during it, it would become a back handspring, not a "back layout attempt". Or with skating, if I'm saying that what I am about to do is a sit spin but simply can't get into the squated position and remain standing, its just a standing spin, not an "attempt" at a sit spin. I certainly shouldn't be credited as doing a sit spin and just having a negative GoE. So why should a lutz that isn't truly a lutz but "attempted" to be one be called a lutz and given the same base value just with deductions?

    In my mind, it just makes more sense to just say, "Okay. This has technically become a new jump, so we might as well give it a base value and grade it on how it's performed." The fact of the matter is, right edge or not, it could still be done with three beautifully positioned and complete revolutions in the air with a clean landing worthy of positive points. Somehow it just makes more sense to say, fine, a flutz is worth a base of 3.0 (just an example), and have it be judged it from there. That way, you are awarding the true lutz more and it can't be taken advantage of by a skater who can't properly do one adding it as a part of their program for points or just to have it, even though they know they will have edge deductions and negative GoE's for their "attempt."

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    599
    Quote Originally Posted by bethissoawesome View Post
    In my mind, it just makes more sense to just say, "Okay. This has technically become a new jump, so we might as well give it a base value and grade it on how it's performed." The fact of the matter is, right edge or not, it could still be done with three beautifully positioned and complete revolutions in the air with a clean landing worthy of positive points. Somehow it just makes more sense to say, fine, a flutz is worth a base of 3.0 (just an example), and have it be judged it from there. That way, you are awarding the true lutz more and it can't be taken advantage of by a skater who can't properly do one adding it as a part of their program for points or just to have it, even though they know they will have edge deductions and negative GoE's for their "attempt."
    I'm not so sure whether it makes sense or not but if we regard flutz and lip as ratified new jumps, technically aren't skaters supposed to learn and excute all four flip, lutz, lip and flutz to maximize their scores? In that way, they can do at least two more triples.
    That sounds very, very strange. It seems to be very funny answer to me.

  7. #22
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,959
    Quote Originally Posted by gourry View Post
    I'm not so sure whether it makes sense or not but if we regard flutz and lip as ratified new jumps, technically aren't skaters supposed to learn and excute all four flip, lutz, lip and flutz to maximize their scores? In that way, they can do at least two more triples.

    That sounds very, very strange. It seems to be very funny answer to me.
    That's a great point. If the flutz and lip were ratified, without a further change in the number of passes and the Zayak rule, a skater (lady) could present this jump card:

    3Lz, 3F, 3flz, 3lip, 3flz+2T, 3lip+2T, 2A.

    There is another strange thing, too. If the flutz were a recognized jump, which a skater could do without penalty, then what would be the rationale for giving it a lower base value than easier jumps like the toe-loop and Salchow?

    The suggestions on the board have mostly been somewhere around 3 points base value for a correctly done flutz -- less than a double Axel. This means that we have not really recognized the flutz after all. Three points is about what a skater can get for a flutz already, after GOE deductions for wrong edge.

    So this would not really be a change. Skaters would still try to do a real Lutz to get the full six points, and if they messed up the entry they would have to settle for fewer points.

    I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.

  8. #23
    Awaiting Boris and Oleg
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    1,108
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.
    I'm liking this more and more, too, as the discussion has unfolded. We've seen here right on this thread that, to some reasonable minds, a flutz is ultimately a flip, even if the entry was different and the switch of edge occurred right before takeoff. Others see it as a different jump because of the different approach and entry into the rotations by the arms/upper body.

    As the coaches propose, let's just call it one jump, but give more points to the harder lutz/outside edge takeoff.

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by rallycairn View Post
    As the coaches propose, let's just call it one jump, but give more points to the harder lutz/outside edge takeoff.
    But that penalizes skaters who really can do the jumps as two completely different takeoffs clearly from the outside or inside edges.

    Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the way they are currently handled: jumps called "e" with blatant edge change must have negative GOE, jumps called with "!" for a possible/minor edge change will be penalized slightly but other aspects of the element especially in combination can allow for positive GOEs where appropriate, and jumps indisputably done from the correct edge will be rewarded or penalized for whatever else is good or bad about them. Or I suppose if the outside edge takeoff is especially strong on a lutz, that in itself could make the difference to bump up the GOE one point higher.

  10. #25
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    [QUOTE=Mathman;328582?

    The suggestions on the board have mostly been somewhere around 3 points base value for a correctly done flutz -- less than a double Axel. This means that we have not really recognized the flutz after all. Three points is about what a skater can get for a flutz already, after GOE deductions for wrong edge. [/QUOTE]
    Nonsense. Good jumpers will attempt a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers will Never Ever do a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers know how to get an extra jump pass without attempting and turning a difficult jump into a much easier one. Show a back outside edge, straighten that edge to a flat, then put pressure on the inside edge and you have a perect Flutz with big cop points and only a -1 deduction because you fooled the caller who thought you were attempting a ratified Lutz jump.

    I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.
    Which coach said that? New definitions??? when they can't satisfy the ones in existent. BTW, I for one am not worried about the present definitions. If they re meant to be broken, say so. Put it in writing that a loop jump may at the discretion of the skater take off on two feet but must land on one.
    Last edited by Joesitz; 08-15-2008 at 03:18 PM. Reason: duplica te

  11. #26
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman;328582?
    [I
    The suggestions on the board have mostly been somewhere around 3 points base value for a correctly done flutz -- less than a double Axel. This means that we have not really recognized the flutz after all. Three points is about what a skater can get for a flutz already, after GOE deductions for wrong edge. [/I]
    Nonsense. Good jumpers will attempt a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers will Never Ever do a perfect lutz. Bad jumpers know how to get an extra jump pass without attempting and turning a difficult jump into a much easier one. Show a back outside edge, straighten that edge to a flat, then put pressure on the inside edge and you have a perect Flutz with big cop points and only a -1 deduction because you fooled the caller who thought you were attempting a ratified Lutz jump.

    I still like the coaches' proposal. If you are worried about definitions, come up with a new jump with its own definition. That will satisfy everyone, and have the additional advantage that the top skaters will not be able to leave other jumps, like the loop, out of their programs.
    Which coach said that? New definitions??? when they can't satisfy the ones in existent. BTW, I for one am not worried about the present definitions. If they re meant to be broken, say so. Put it in writing that a loop jump may at the discretion of the skater take off on two feet but must land on one.

  12. #27
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,959
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz
    Which coach said that?
    This was the Coaches' Committee that formulated a long list of recommendations for improvements to the CoP. For instance, they proposed much higher base values for the hardest elements like triple Axels and quads.

    This list of proposals was debated at some length on the board. The proposals were forwarded to the ISU technical committee, but without any guarantee that the committee would give them a serious hearing.

    We never did find out exactly which "internationally renowned" coaches actually took part in these proposals.
    Personally, I'm quite satisfied with the way they are currently handled: jumps called "e" with blatant edge change must have negative GOE, jumps called with "!" for a possible/minor edge change will be penalized slightly but other aspects of the element especially in combination can allow for positive GOEs where appropriate, and jumps indisputably done from the correct edge will be rewarded or penalized for whatever else is good or bad about them. Or I suppose if the outside edge takeoff is especially strong on a lutz, that in itself could make the difference to bump up the GOE one point higher.
    The main advantage that I see to the proposed "New Jump" is this. In any sporting event, you want the contest to be decided on the field of play, not by an arguable referee's decision.

    The best thing is when you don't even notice that the sport has referees and judges. The worst is when a controversial judgment call takes the victory from one athlete and gives it to another.

    In the case of figure skating, you don't want the gold medal to be determined by which skater was out of favor with the technical caller and gets hit with a slew of questionable e's and <'s.

  13. #28
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    ^^^

    Indeed. There is the element of revenge. I forgot about that.

  14. #29
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    The main advantage that I see to the proposed "New Jump" is this. In any sporting event, you want the contest to be decided on the field of play, not by an arguable referee's decision.
    Compared to all the other decisions that go into scoring a figure skating program, deciding whether a jump was a correct lutz, correct flip, intended lutz left the ice from an inside edge, or intended flip left the ice from an outside edge is minuscule. It's almost never going to be the primary deciding factor.

    And all the other decisions by the technical panel and the judges (the referee in figure skating does not make any decisions that factor into scoring -- I think you used that word to mean "technical specialist") are still going to be arguable. If you flatten out the difference between lutz and flip and remove that as a point of discriminating between skaters, then some other arguable decision or combination of many on the part of both panels -- number of revolutions in jumps, levels of elements, whether an element failed to meet the definition of an allowable to fill an available element slot, whether to reward or penalize the quality of an element with both good and bad points with positive or negative GOE or just 0s, how to score the various program component criteria, etc. -- will end up being the deciding factor(s). And anyone who disagrees with the final result will find plenty of individual decisions to argue against.

    The best thing is when you don't even notice that the sport has referees and judges. The worst is when a controversial judgment call takes the victory from one athlete and gives it to another.
    I defy you to come up with a system for scoring a sport as qualitative and complex as figure skating that does not rely on judgment calls.

    Redefining lutz and flip and flawed versions of either as all the same jump and allowing judges to determine whether and how much to reward or penalize the takeoff edge only shifts the responsibility of defining the jump from the technical panel to the judging panel. It doesn't remove reliance on judgment calls.

    The way the system is set up now, or under the old system to the extent that judges did factor the takeoffs of these jumps into 0.1-0.3 of the required element marks in short programs or some fraction of 0.1 worth of technical merit in long programs, if there are differences of opinions among the judges, all their opinions will get factored into the results somehow, whereas with the technical panel decision, whatever at least two of the three members decides determines the base value of the element and whether or not there's any alert to the judges to reduce the GOE.

    In the case of figure skating, you don't want the gold medal to be determined by which skater was out of favor with the technical caller and gets hit with a slew of questionable e's and <'s.
    There are three members of the technical panel. It would be very difficult for a single technical specialist to systematically make multiple questionable calls against an out-of-favor skater without the controller and the assistant TS actually questioning those calls and overruling them if they both disagree with the TS.

  15. #30
    L'art pour l'art Medusa's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    2,752
    I don't get this. Or at least I think that I don't get this.

    A Flutz is not a Lutz because you actually take off on the inside edge instead of the outside edge. The jump that takes off on the inside edge is actually the Flip. So isn't the Flutz just a Flip with an unusual entrance? And a Lip just a Lutz with an unusual entrance?

    So why reinvent a new jump - why not just call the Flutz a Flip and the Lip a Lutz and therefore force the skater to either learn a real Lutz / Flip - or reduce their number of possible Triple jumps because of the Zayak-rule. A woman could still do 6 Triples, if she can do all the other usual Triples. If Asada relearnt her Salchow and couldn't correct her Flutz - she still would have a 7-Triple program.

    By the way, I am against the "!" - the "e" is alright, because the judges have to take off points. But a "!" basically tells the judges: take GOE off if you don't like the skater, don't take GOE off if you do like the skater.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •