Jenny Kirk's Blog: The Quad

[Joesitz]

I think it is to prevent the Buttle Syndrome. To prevent skaters from throwing in the quad even thought they cant do it just to get the points and extra jump(zayack rule). I think is was the smartest idea the ISU had. It was a way to increase the quad value but also keep the balance between difficulty and quality.
In realty a quad to is worth 9.8 + (extra triple toe)zayack rule 4.0 + the Pcs bonus that quads seem to get + 2.5 for a grand total of 16.3. Any more and the quad would be all you need aka 2006 torino. So I think the balance is pefect . The quad give you the winning edge if you take advantage of it. but if forget about rest of skating you give your edge up.

Is the CoP consistent? It's ok to ATTEMPT a Lutz knowing full well that the skater has never done one successfully in competition, but should it not receive credit for the Quad ATTEMPT?

I don't think the ISU ever uses the term "ATTEMPT" officially, but fans love to use it.

[jennylovskt]

The choreo isn't what caused Joubert to finish second. first, Joubert lost some points in the SP, because he fell (IIRC on the 3Lz) and had a music deduction. In addition, Joubert had a relatively low base value LP, not miximizing the combinations and having lower level spins than usual. Edge calls on the 3F, which he did twice, did not help his score. A better jump layout would have gotten a higher score, though it might not have been enough due to having points to make up from the SP. This has nothing to do with choreography.

Dai and Stephane made mistakes in both the SP and the LP. Had everyone skated their planned LPs with no major mistakes (which never happens anyway), my guess is that Dai would have won that year.

Thank you, B! You are right. I forgot about it and was too lazy to do the research.

And saying that Joubert's choregoraphy wasn't as good as Buttles is just stating the obvious, like saying Buttle didn't have a quad. That's the point with these two skaters - Buttle could never do the jumps that Joubert tries just as Joubert couldn't do the choreography that Buttle does - that doesn't mean either of their skates were bad, they were actively good.

Ant, you don't give up, do you?! Allright, I have to agree with you on this part this time. Next time, I'll pick fight more carefully and fight you back! :banging:

[antmanb]

Ant, you don't give up, do you?! Allright, I have to agree with you on this part this time. Next time, I'll pick fight more carefully and fight you back! :banging:

No I don't give up! But honestly it was because i really liked both of their LPs. Despite writing a lot of negative things about Joubert afterwards based on his behaviour in interviews afterwards i actually liked his skate and thin kboth skaters deserved the credit for what they put out there.

Ant

[jennylovskt]

No I don't give up! But honestly it was because i really liked both of their LPs. Despite writing a lot of negative things about Joubert afterwards based on his behaviour in interviews afterwards i actually liked his skate and thin kboth skaters deserved the credit for what they put out there.

Ant

What?! You wrote a lot of negative things about Joubert in 2008? I wasn't in the debate at that time, but I was with Joubert. I agreed with him on a lot of things he said and felt bad for him that he didn't win despite the fact that I was a Buttle fan (well, not a total, ardent fan though) and he has won the game. So complicated some times.

[Joesitz]

What?! You wrote a lot of negative things about Joubert in 2008? I wasn't in the debate at that time, but I was with Joubert. I agreed with him on a lot of things he said and felt bad for him that he didn't win despite the fact that I was a Buttle fan (well, not a total, ardent fan though) and he has won the game. So complicated some times.

It is very difficult to read a post describing a skater's program who is an ardent fan of that skater. No way can that fan be honest about the other skaters, at least in my readings.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Thanks, jennylovskt, for explaining what you mean.

Two things from my perspective.

1. To me, a good competition has a deserving winner. While it's true that the reverse isn't always the case, if it's great skating followed by a mediocre/disappointing winner, then my interest plummets (what happened after Salt Lake City, for example). It's like an exciting rollercoaster ride, but as soon as you pull into the station, someone throws pig vomit on you. Did you enjoy the ride now?

While I said that the reverse isn't always the case, I do think that I have them so firmly wrapped up in each other that it almost makes it so.

2. If it's the choice between a great quad and great footwork, I'm gonna go with the latter, nine times out of ten. Ideally, both would be best (why Takahashi's my favourite of the current crop), but I'd rather see interesting footwork.

So the constant meme that using the quad as the barometer for technical progress and lack thereof bugs me. I'm an unrepentant Chan fan, though. I find it noteworthy that eight men landed quads at Worlds 09 in their long program (Lutai, Joubert, Verner, Mroz, Oda, Voronov, Van de Perren, Ponsero) but only one had a level four footwork sequence (Chan).

[Buttercup]

I find it noteworthy that eight men landed quads at Worlds 09 in their long program (Lutai, Joubert, Verner, Mroz, Oda, Voronov, Van de Perren, Ponsero) but only one had a level four footwork sequence (Chan).

How many men did quads in the SP, though? Doing them only in the LP is usually the mark of skaters not as secure about their quad. Anyway, the reason I signed in was to write a totally OT reponse to your comment re footwork . I'll make it clear, so that nobody accuses me of anti-Chan bias, that I felt the same seeing other level four step sequences:

My main issue with the requirements for high levels on step sequences is the emphasis on upper body movement. Level 3 requires moderate use of upper body movement (in reality, it's a lot more than moderate) while level 4 requires full use of upper body movement (see communication 1494, page 10).

Certainly some upper body movement is warranted, but to me what's required right now detracts from the appeal of the actual footwork, which is often relegated to a secondary role while skaters gather flowers, swat away bees, do their impression of a windmill, check out their reflection on the ice, and so on. I just don't see why the upper body movement should essentially be the difference between high and low levels - I don't think you can argue that when Chan or Takahashi (or the handful of other skaters to get a level 4) do a lower level sequence, the steps are any less complex.

I keep hoping that someone will rebel like Stephane did with the spins one season, but it's just too costly in terms of points, especially since the field is so deep right now.

Finally, I think the fact that we see so few level 4 step sequences indicates that something about the way they are judged is off, because at least on my TV, Plushy, Chan, Caro and Dai are not the only skaters who do well in this respect - and even they rarely get/got 4s. With spins and spirals, more skaters hit the highest levels on a fairly consistent basis; I'd like to see the same sort of distribution for step sequences.

So I'm not totally OT - I would prefer to have upper body movement rewarded as a choreography feature that fits the music rather than as part of the tech score; the quad, on the other hand, certainly belongs under tech.

[Joesitz]

Certainly some upper body movement is warranted, but to me what's required right now detracts from the appeal of the actual footwork, which is often relegated to a secondary role while skaters gather flowers, swat away bees, do their impression of a windmill, check out their reflection on the ice, and so on. I just don't see why the upper body movement should essentially be the difference between high and low levels - I don't think you can argue that when Chan or Takahashi (or the handful of other skaters to get a level 4) do a lower level sequence, the steps are any less complex.

Totally agree. Windmill arms don't get me unless there is a reason for them., but I do enjoy the sway of the body with the music.
Speed in the footwork is essential and if the layout is intricate, all the more points a skater should get, imo.

I keep hoping that someone will rebel like Stephane did with the spins one season, but it's just too costly in terms of points, especially since the field is so deep right now.

Spins as well as footwork are integrated in the whole program for Stephane. If judges are looking for some bullets to judge, they may not be there. His artistry comes first, so other skaters may win over him because they meet better the requirements of the CoP. I believe he is still the product of the old FREE SKATE and does not feel compelled to be part of the RESTRICTED CoP SKATE. If the moves in his skate fit the theme of his program, so be it. Plushy and Dai have or had Russian coaches who are brilliant in following the rules of the game. Not sure why this is not workig for Weir.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Four skaters did quads in the short program (Joubert, Verner, Ponsero, Voronov). In the top thirty anyway - I assumed none of the rest did. None did level four footwork (Chan has done level four footwork in the short, but it was rated level three here).

Finally, I think the fact that we see so few level 4 step sequences indicates that something about the way they are judged is off, because at least on my TV, Plushy, Chan, Caro and Dai are not the only skaters who do well in this respect - and even they rarely get/got 4s. With spins and spirals, more skaters hit the highest levels on a fairly consistent basis; I'd like to see the same sort of distribution for step sequences.

How so? And who's Caro (Zhang or Kostner. Or is it a male skater I don't know?). I read somewhere else that a fan said that the rules are a bit vague in terms of how these are constructed, but I also know that two different performances of the same constructed step sequence could yield two different levels.

For reference sake, there were no level four footwork sequences at worlds 08 in the long program (8/9 quads, depending on how you count Weir's). It does seem weird, actually reading the facts, doesn't it?

[Buttercup]

who's Caro (Zhang or Kostner. Or is it a male skater I don't know?).

Caro is Carolina Kostner, who was given a level 4 at one of her 2007-8 GPs - NHK, I think. I'm not aware of any other lady receiving a level 4 at an international event. Zhang is usually referred to as Caroline.

I read somewhere else that a fan said that the rules are a bit vague in terms of how these are constructed, but I also know that two different performances of the same constructed step sequence could yield two different levels.

For reference sake, there were no level four footwork sequences at worlds 08 in the long program (8/9 quads, depending on how you count Weir's). It does seem weird, actually reading the facts, doesn't it?

What facts? That 8-9 skaters tried quads? I can read protocols, you know . I figured it was around that much, but the numbers have dropped in recent years, especially in SPs, which indicates to me that this element has been de-valued. And few skaters attempt two quads in an LP these days, even those who can do them fairly consistently. Now, some would say that's as it should be - but I disagree. As to quads and level 4 footwork, the difference, of course, is that it's very clear what a skater needs to do for a quad; it's not nearly as clear, as you noted as well, what a level 4 step sequence really calls for.

I would like to see the actual footwork emphasized and the rules clarified so that more of the top skaters can put the effort towards earning level 4s. Right now, the requirements are too vague, unlike spins and spirals where it's pretty clear - hold so many positions for so long, change edges at certain points, specific things that can be done as features, etc. Skaters who were considered weak to mediocre spinners have put in the work to make their spins better - because they knew what they had to do. It's ridiculous that so few skaters have been able to achieve level 4 step sequences, as compared to other called elements such as steps, spins, and lifts.

On top of that, I still think some of the requirements are not contributing to appealing footwork. Innovation is not being rewarded enough. Intricacy and flow are not being rewarded enough. Speed isn't being rewarded enough (I don't care if it counts towards calling the level or giving GOEs; it should count for more than it does now). And even if you play the game and do all that ugly upper body movement, high kick like there's no tomorrow and change directions so much the viewers' heads spin, it still might not be enough to get more than 3.3 base value and a half-point GOE.

Did any skater get a level 4 at 2008 Worlds, in either program? In any of the non-dance disciplines? I think nobody did. Not Jeffrey Buttle, who had lovely footwork. Not Dai, who has received level 4s before. Not Caro, who had done so earlier that season. And there were other skaters in Gotheburg who did excellent step sequences. Come to think of it, the few level 4s I've seen did not look more difficult or more innovative to me than many level 3s, whether by the same skaters who have gotten level 4, or by other skaters. So what made them so special? Was the technical caller in a good mood? Was it the 4CC happy hour? A going-away present for Plushy? the latter I can write only because seniorita is on vacation and won't see my post.

I'm not one of the anti CoP people, but I really think that after the Olympics, the ISU will need to take a serious look at the scoring and make some significant changes.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Less the "eight/nine quads" fact and more the complete lack of level four footwork (though five guys landed quads in the short at Worlds 08).

I thought Chan was special because he was able to get level four this season, but I also assumed that skaters like Takahasi, Buttle (Lambiel?) would've gotten them in 07/08, but they didn't at Worlds. To me, that follows through on your comment that there's something off about the grading/assigning of levels in terms of the footwork. Again, like you said, it is clear what a quad is and despite the arguments about under-rotations etc, it's definitely clearer than the rules about footwork.

So my statement wasn't criticizing you or your comments (which I find lucid and informative) but my own assumptions (aka, it's not so much that Chan's special but that the rules and level calling are not entirely clear. Well, Chan's still special). Sorry that wasn't clear.

I like the COP - I like the fact that artistry is driven by the athleticism now - I won't deny, but I agree that changes need to be made.

[Buttercup]

I thought Chan was special because he was able to get level four this season, but I also assumed that skaters like Takahasi, Buttle (Lambiel?) would've gotten them in 07/08, but they didn't at Worlds. To me, that follows through on your comment that there's something off about the grading/assigning of levels in terms of the footwork. Again, like you said, it is clear what a quad is and despite the arguments about under-rotations etc, it's definitely clearer than the rules about footwork.

So my statement wasn't criticizing you or your comments (which I find lucid and informative) but my own assumptions (aka, it's not so much that Chan's special but that the rules and level calling are not entirely clear. Well, Chan's still special). Sorry that wasn't clear.

Thanks for posting, it's always difficult with online communication to be sure what someone means, even with well-written posts . I have to give credit where it's due - Chan is certainly one of the best active skaters when it comes to footwork. That a level 4 is rare even for the very best indicates that the system needs further work in this area.

[Mathman]

CoP-wise, the difference between a quad toe and a triple toe is 5.8 points.

The difference between a level four step sequence and a level three is 0.6 points (3.9 versus 3.3).

Both are exhausing, in terms of the amount of energy required. How hard will a skater be willing to work for an extra six tenths of a point?