Ladies Free Skate | Page 20 | Golden Skate

Ladies Free Skate

Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Again, a skater does NOT get the base value of a Lutz/flip if the tech panel determines WET. There is an AUTOMATIC REQUIRED negative grade of execution which means less that the base value of either jump for the final score for that element. If you don't believe the incessant discussion of how it is scored, please go look at the protocols.
I do understand what you are saying, and I believe it is ok to disagree with the scoring.

However, if one is called on WET, what was the name of the jump which took off on the wrong edge? Certainly, there is good reason to belief it was a Flip. No? It was definitely not a Lutz. No?

Have you checked out the Definitions of the Elements? A toe-off from a back inside edge is a Flip. It's a SalChow with a toe-off. Please do check and go to
the Lutz. and see it takes off on a back outside edge, counter rotates and it is not like any other jump.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
However, if one is called on WET, what was the name of the jump which took off on the wrong edge? Certainly, there is good reason to belief it was a Flip. No? It was definitely not a Lutz. No?

Why do you need it to have a name at all? What of a triple toe-loop that ends in a fall? Is that not still called a triple toe-loop? The definition of the jump is a landing on RBO edge - if the jump ends in a fall it technically does not fall within the definition of the jump then is it no longer a toe-loop?

Have you checked out the Definitions of the Elements?

So far as i'm aware there is no official "definition of elements" anywhere in the rulebook.

A toe-off from a back inside edge is a Flip. It's a SalChow with a toe-off.

:eek: I think you've been spending too much time worrying about flutzes if you think a Salchow has a "toe-off" :laugh:

and see it takes off on a back outside edge, counter rotates and it is not like any other jump.

Depends on what you mean by "not like any other jump". It is a toe-jump which puts it in the same category as at least two other "listed" jumps and a whole host of other unlisted jumps. It is also a counter-rotation jump which puts it in the same category as a walley.

Ant
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Why do you need it to have a name at all?

So far as i'm aware there is no official "definition of elements" anywhere in the rulebook.

Still, there must be something going through the technical specialist's head when he/she writes down "Lz" in the protocols, instead of some other random letters.

I think you've been spending too much time worrying about flutzes if you think a Salchow has a "toe-off" :laugh:

I think Joe is saying that a flip is like a Salchow, except that the flip has a "toe-off" and the Salchow doesn't.

Depends on what you mean by "not like any other jump". It is a toe-jump which puts it in the same category as at least two other "listed" jumps and a whole host of other unlisted jumps. It is also a counter-rotation jump which puts it in the same category as a walley.

I am pretty sure Joe means that the Lutz is the only listed jump with a counterrotation. If you slip over to the wrong edge on a Lutz, it no longer has that counterrotation feature that distinguishes a Lutz from all other jumps (and makes it harder than all other jumps).

Here is one solution to the flutz controversy. The ISU could replace the short program with a technical elements contest. In the jump category you could do each of the six jumps. Maybe twice each and take the higher of the two scores. If you can't do a triple Lutz, then you could do a double Lutz in that scoring box. (This still gives you more points than an underroated triple.) If you can't do a quad toe, do a triple. If you can't do a triple Axel, do a double.

If you cannot do a Lutz at all, even a single, then you must leave that box blank. Same with the other elements. if you can't get down into a sit posoition on your sitspin, then you must omit that element. If you can't hold your spiral position for the required number of seconds, you get zero in that box.

Then, having been super hardnosed in the technical part of the contest, in the LP the judges would lighten up on some of these details and the scoring system would give more weight to presentation, musicality, and "whole-is-greater-than-the-parts" considerations.

Why don't they elect me as president of the ISU. :laugh:
 
Last edited:

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
I do understand what you are saying, and I believe it is ok to disagree with the scoring.

However, if one is called on WET, what was the name of the jump which took off on the wrong edge? Certainly, there is good reason to belief it was a Flip. No? It was definitely not a Lutz. No?

Have you checked out the Definitions of the Elements? A toe-off from a back inside edge is a Flip. It's a SalChow with a toe-off. Please do check and go to
the Lutz. and see it takes off on a back outside edge, counter rotates and it is not like any other jump.


I am WELL aware of elements and how they are defined, being a skater. I also understand how to execute them at least at a single rotation level both logically and body awareness/muscle memory-wise. I am saying that if a person slips over to the wrong edge on a take off, then they are scored such that it is worth less points than the intended jump AND less points than the "accidental" jump is (so you don't get the points for a Lutz when doing a flip). This is probably the fairest way to treat these elements in the way that the scoring system is designed. It's "fairer" than how close under-rotations are treated.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I think a lot of points have been mentioned.

As Mathman eluded to: how does a Tech Specialist know there was a WET, if he didn't know the definition of the jump which has a name? (There was a suggestion way back on doing away with the names of the toe-off jumps. Of course that limits the jumps in a program to 6 and 7. But Flutzing and Lipping will no longer be a WET. Jump which ever is the easiest to rotate 3 times in the air and land on one foot. I'll buy it.

I agree with Mathman again and reiterate, there is no other jump like the Lutz or as difficult (unless you consider the toeless Wally which of course no one will do at the triple rotation level.)

msskater. Nice to read you are a skater. Single jumps are soooo important in the process of being a real competitor. Also the fastest you skate, the easier the jump but it is also the hardest fall if you falter.

If you have natural air rotation, you can work towards a perfect 3 Lutz. Takes time. But if you are anxious to be the next champion without really practicing the lutz, then, well, you know.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
Here is one solution to the flutz controversy. The ISU could replace the short program with a technical elements contest. In the jump category you could do each of the six jumps. Maybe twice each and take the higher of the two scores. If you can't do a triple Lutz, then you could do a double Lutz in that scoring box. (This still gives you more points than an underroated triple.) If you can't do a quad toe, do a triple. If you can't do a triple Axel, do a double.

If you cannot do a Lutz at all, even a single, then you must leave that box blank. Same with the other elements. if you can't get down into a sit posoition on your sitspin, then you must omit that element. If you can't hold your spiral position for the required number of seconds, you get zero in that box.

Then, having been super hardnosed in the technical part of the contest, in the LP the judges would lighten up on some of these details and the scoring system would give more weight to presentation, musicality, and "whole-is-greater-than-the-parts" considerations.

Why don't they elect me as president of the ISU. :laugh:

I like that idea - it could be like the CD - same music, same choreo into the elements and like you say - if you can't do the element as a triple/quad then do it with one less revolution. No second chances though - you get the one chance to hit it in the program.

Ant
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
I think a lot of points have been mentioned.

As Mathman eluded to: how does a Tech Specialist know there was a WET, if he didn't know the definition of the jump which has a name? (There was a suggestion way back on doing away with the names of the toe-off jumps. Of course that limits the jumps in a program to 6 and 7. But Flutzing and Lipping will no longer be a WET. Jump which ever is the easiest to rotate 3 times in the air and land on one foot. I'll buy it.

I was being facetious because we all know that the jumps are not defined anywhere in the rule books and that there is a difference of opinion with some people about it just being the edge the balde is on at the split second of take off that gives the jump it's name.

The end point of the debate that i'm trying to get to with you Joe on the WET is that i don't think calling the jump based on it's take off edge and letting Zayak rule prevail actually penalises the skaters at all because the base value difference between a flip and a lutz is what 0.5 points. Doing this also results in a flip with a wrong edge take off getting credit for a good lutz. This does not make any sense.

Current GOE rules deal with the change of edge on both jumps and overall punish the skater more than calling the jump in a purist way and letting Zayak prevail. If that rule came in then skaters who flutz would simply drop the lutz from their repetoire and repeat the flip and loop. Skater who lip could also drop the Lutz and do (and repeat) their easier flip jump, get credit for a lutz and score more points and also repeat the loop. I wonder how the skater who could could execute both flip and lutz would feel about skaters who can't do a proper flip getting credit for a lutz? Currently a skater who can do both jumps sees skaters getting dinged for faulty technique.

You seem to care an awful lot about the lutz, but not at all about the flip but if memory serves me well, in your youth you didn't have a problem executing the lutz but had a tendancy to change edge on your flip :p am I correct?

Ant
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
I did indeed, Ant, have an easier time with the lutz than the flip but i was also able to overcome the faults with practice.

I know how upset you get with discussion on WET, and if I didn't bring it up so often, you would be a happier person/skater.

If, as you say, there is no definitiion of Alois Lutz jump, then how does one get marked with a wrong edge take-off? Like how does one get a WET mark if there is no definition of the more precise take-off:

Bottom Line a Lutz is a Lutz; a Flip is a Flip. both by how they are defined and coached.

It's not the end-of-the-world. There are so many ways to make points besides avoiding the Zayak rule.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
I know how upset you get with discussion on WET, and if I didn't bring it up so often, you would be a happier person/skater.

I don't get upset at all by discussions on the WET, what annoys (rather than upsets) me is that you take over every thread saying exactly the same thing - that a lutz that takes off from an inside edge should be called a flip, make statements decrying the current system as totally wrong and make no workable suggestion for how to fix it, or address the issue of what of a flip that takes off from an outside edge.

As poorly as you believe the current system deals with it, it penalises the WET more than the only solution you have proferred which is why i am confused as to the issues you have. Even more frustrating is that you simply don't reply to direct questions that undermine your hypothesis or could possibly lead you to *gasp* admit that while not perfect the current system tries to address the issues and punish flaws in jumps.

If, as you say, there is no definitiion of Alois Lutz jump, then how does one get marked with a wrong edge take-off? Like how does one get a WET mark if there is no definition of the more precise take-off:

I have never said that there is no definition of a Lutz jump. You told someone to check the rule book. There is no rule book containing definitions of jumps, that was the only thing i was referring to (facetiously as I admitted in my post).

Bottom Line a Lutz is a Lutz; a Flip is a Flip. both by how they are defined and coached.

They are indeed, and different people define them, coach them and teach them in many different ways.

Ant
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
OK, so let's tackle the question head on. A skater intends to do a triple flip, attempts a triple flip, but slips over to the outside edge on take-off.

Since "intentions" and "attempts" don't count in sports, should the skater get 6.0 base points for having done a triple Lutz?

This is the question that pushes me in the direction of the technical element jump-off kind of contest, replacing the short program. Line everyone up. This is the Lutz part of the contest. Everyone show me your Lutz. If you don't have one, pass.

Now this is the flip part of the contest.

That way, we take the idea of the skater's intention off the board. It is the ISU judges that say, now do a Lutz, not the skater.
 

PolymerBob

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2007
Line everyone up. This is the Lutz part of the contest. Everyone show me your Lutz. If you don't have one, pass.

Now this is the flip part of the contest.

Excellent idea! I really like that one. :thumbsup:

OK skaters ........... everybody line up ............

............... Now everyone show me your pearl spin. :eek:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
About the pearl spin, I think it would go like this.

One of the elements in the Technical Elements part for ladies would be a layback spin. It would be judged on such considerations as centering, speed and body line.

Save the pearl for the LP. There it would be judged not so much by flexibility but by how well the skater incorporates it into the choreography, the degree to which it enhances the interpretation of the music, and whether the skater is able to draw in the audience and make them go :rock::clap::bow::party2:

Same for a Tano Lutz. In the technical part, do your regular Lutz, making sure you hold that BOE, get the full revolutions, and a smooth outflow on the landing.

Then do the Tano thing in the LP and collect your oh's and ah's.

(And now that I think of it, maybe they should toss in a couple of figures in the technical part to demonstrate edge control :yes: )
 

AwesomeIce

Match Penalty
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
(And now that I think of it, maybe they should toss in a couple of figures in the technical part to demonstrate edge control :yes: )

Well, nearly everyone is incorporating loops into their footwork. I know those loops are not done with the same precision as they were when one was testing/competing figures, but they are they in a way.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Well, nearly everyone is incorporating loops into their footwork. I know those loops are not done with the same precision as they were when one was testing/competing figures, but they are they in a way.
and Twizzles galore even as much if not more than in Skate Dance.
 
Top