Jenny Kirk's Blog: The Quad

[jennylovskt]

Nothing new in this blog. Many skating fans have already stated the same ideas long ago.

While I am wishing that my favorite skaters win no matter what way they take, I am not thrilled with the position of skating a clean program and not risking in the Olympic year.

It was so unfortunate to this sport that the last two year worlds have won without a quad. The quad cannot stand alone to win a competition, but it is an important measure to separate the ordinaries and the greats. It ought to be highly emphasized. Given the current quad skaters' general abilities on other elements, the jumps other than the quad, spins, footworks, etc, I have to say that if every one skates clean, the winner must be a quad skater. If a competition won by a non-quad skater, it means that those quad skaters must have faltered in some degrees, therefore, it must be a bad competition.

[enlight78]

I know, the unequal GOE thing makes no sense to me. If the system is going to punish bad execution more than for other jumps, it should reward good execution on the same scale. BTW, had that been the case, Yannick Ponsero would've medalled at Euros.

Now that we have found something to agree about, let's go argue about music choices .

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.

[Bennett]

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).

cute naming.

[Buttercup]

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.

I agree that negative quad GOEs should be worth more than 1, for the exact reason you pointed out. However, if a skater did well on what is a very difficult jump, the positive GOEs should likewise be higher. Since few skaters get very high GOEs on quads, I don't think it's going to throw anything out of whack.

GOEs for other elements are commensurate with the base value of that element, so why is it that +GOEs are the same for a 3T (base value 4), a 3A (base value 8.2) and a 4T (base value 9.8)? Meanwhile a level 4 spin, which is much closer in base value to the 3T (e.g. 3.2 for a flying camel, 3.0 for a flying sit spin), gets lower GOE units than the 3T, as do level 3 step sequences (base value 3.3).* It makes no sense!

Also, on most of the elements with a lower base value , the +GOEs are worth more than the -GOEs. As I read it, this basically gives an advantage to the skaters who play the numbers game over those who take risks, and that's not right, nor is it good for skating. I think the positive/negative GOEs should be equal regardless of the element.

At this point, there is too much risk and not enough reward for skaters to try quads - otherwise we would see more quad attempts, and eventually, more successful quads. But if skaters do not have incentive to put it in their programs, many won't give it their best shot.

Torino was not won or lost on quads; Plushy scored well on other elements as well, and while I have issues with his programs there, it cannot be argued that he was that one-dimensional. Buttle and Lambiel medalled not because they did quads (or quad-falls) but because everyone else was awful in one or both parts of the event.

* I used the link mathman provided. If the ISU has revised this again, I apoligize for any errors.

[antmanb]

Nothing new in this blog. Many skating fans have already stated the same ideas long ago.

While I am wishing that my favorite skaters win no matter what way they take, I am not thrilled with the position of skating a clean program and not risking in the Olympic year.

It was so unfortunate to this sport that the last two year worlds have won without a quad. The quad cannot stand alone to win a competition, but it is an important measure to separate the ordinaries and the greats. It ought to be highly emphasized. Given the current quad skaters' general abilities on other elements, the jumps other than the quad, spins, footworks, etc, I have to say that if every one skates clean, the winner must be a quad skater. If a competition won by a non-quad skater, it means that those quad skaters must have faltered in some degrees, therefore, it must be a bad competition.

I agree with everything you've written except the part in bold. I think the system right now does exactly what you said (and i actually completely agree with it). If everyone skates their planned content and skates it clean then you would see the top guys on the podium with a quad (or possibly two).

All that has happened for the past couple of years is that the guys with the quads have messed up something else in their programme. IMO landing the quad should not give a skater any kind of cushion to make mistakes over skaters with a full set of clean triples.

The part I disagree with is that if the quadsters falter then it must be a bad competition. Just because one or two skaters have a mistake on one or two elements it doesn't mean the competition was bad (unless those are you favourite skaters). As Joe has already stated - Joubert in Gothenburg didn't have a bad a competition - he made one (or was it two errors) but was otherwise great. That wasn't a abd competition at all - there was some COP kiggery pokery with combos etc but overall it was extremely entertaining and nail biting to the end.

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).

But that doesn't explain why the +GOE isn't bumped up by the same percentage that the -GOE has been made more severe. I agree that by increasing the value of the quad the -GOE levels had to increase to stop people getting even more points for a failed quad, but by the same token a very good quad worth +GOE would maybe go some way to addressing those that think the quad is not valued enough.

Ant

[enlight78]

But that doesn't explain why the +GOE isn't bumped up by the same percentage that the -GOE has been made more severe. I agree that by increasing the value of the quad the -GOE levels had to increase to stop people getting even more points for a failed quad, but by the same token a very good quad worth +GOE would maybe go some way to addressing those that think the quad is not valued enough.

Ant

I don't know, it would put a better emphasis on doing it cleanly to have
+goe and -goe equal. I think Goe's should be weighted on the points an element is worth. But they're not look at the spins a ftwrk vs jumps. Since their not so far it is quite balance. If they fix the quad +GOE they need to fix the non-jump elements to keep the balance.

I think a lot of men leave out the quad for the same reason ladies don't do 3/3 or 3A. A lot can't do them. Others have no consistancy. Nothing about risk and reward. A success rate of 5/10 is a risk. A success rate of 2/10 is either hope or stupidity. Skaters don't even do 10 competitions in a season. (I so happy when Kozuka finally got credit for rotating.)There was a lot of quad attepts last season(Ponsero, Alban , Brian, Armodio, Kevin, Kozuka ,Oda, Tomas, Evan, Johnny, Bradon, Ryan, russian guys I cant spell. ) I've only name 12 are sure there was some more. There will be lot more this season. If its not worth the risk how come so many skaters even bother to train it and try it.

[Joesitz]

In order to win the old skating sport trophy, one had to jump over the last barrel placed in the row. Not easy - there was blood. However when there was a winner it could be proclaimed, the best skating jumper and they were immediately swept up into shows

The Quad, like barrel jumping is amazing for the spectator, and it would be special if a skater could do more than just a quad in his program. For me, that is essential. No sadness if we don't see a quad but we see something special in figure skating.

[jennylovskt]

The part I disagree with is that if the quadsters falter then it must be a bad competition.

Take 2008 worlds as an example, Lambiel faltered. Takahashi faltered. Buttle skated brilliantly. Joubert's choreography in his LP wasn't impressive compare to Buttle's. A good day Lambiel or a good day Takahashi would have beaten Buttle's skate of his lifetime. (keep in mind that I am not a Takahashi fan.) So in that sense, 2008 worlds was a bad competition.

[ImaginaryPogue]

So Joubert faltered by having a poorly choreographed LP?

This is what I don't get about the "all things being equal" argument. Since when are all things equal? Isn't that what competition is about - separating the wheat from the chaff?

[jennylovskt]

I also said that quad alone cannot win a competition. Joubert's choreography wasn't up to his potential (like all his competition choreographies). Joubert didn't falter but he didn't skate his skate of the life time. Plus some of the top quad skaters with more all around skills totally meltdown. Takahashi was the predicted winner in all the analysis before the worlds. Ask Buttle if he has ever thought that he could win that worlds before it began? No. He took the opportunity that some quad skaters were not up to the game and skated the way he could possibily skate. He was the rightful winner and it was a dream moment for him but it was still a sad note for men's skating. Needless to say that 2009 worlds was even more sad.

[ImaginaryPogue]

Ehh, I don't think I get what you're saying, so I'm gonna try

1. In terms of all around skills, Buttle wouldn't be a top three contender (at 08 worlds). (I agree)

2. Several of the skaters who are generally considered better than him had poor skates, or at least, poorer than what we're used to from them (from Lambiel and Takahashi) or what we think they can achieve (Verner, Joubert, though I'm not arguing from a minute that those two skates are in any way equal). (I agree, except with Joubert. I don't know what he's capable of. He seems to win medals - most honoured skater under COP and all that without ever skating to his "full potential")

3. As a result, it was a sad note in figure skating because many of the stronger skaters didn't perform up to par. Disagree. I guess my comment comes from the fact that the deserving skater won - which means that the skating was judged, and not reputation etc. Secondly, a number of second tier skaters had solid skates that showcased future potential - I'm thinking of Chan, Kozuka, and Voronov. We got a gutsy skate from van de Perren. Sure, while I'd like to have all the top candidates skate lights out, I don't think it's a noteworthy sad moment for them not to have done so.

4. I don't know why 09 was even more sad.

[jennylovskt]

except with Joubert. I don't know what he's capable of. He seems to win medals - most honoured skater under COP and all that without ever skating to his "full potential".

How he gets his medals was not part of my arguement. I do think that he has potential that he has never shown in the competition. Johnny Weir is probably by far the most mentioned name when talking about not skating up to his potential. How do people know that? Because people saw how he did at the practices, and how he performed at non-competition shows. Same as Joubert. He was a lot more artistic than he has shown in the competitions. What if he used all his artistic skills, along with his superior jumping abilities in the competition? He must have won a lot more medals than he has.

I guess my comment comes from the fact that the deserving skater won - which means that the skating was judged, and not reputation etc. Secondly, a number of second tier skaters had solid skates that showcased future potential - I'm thinking of Chan, Kozuka, and Voronov. We got a gutsy skate from van de Perren. Sure, while I'd like to have all the top candidates skate lights out, I don't think it's a noteworthy sad moment for them not to have done so.

I just want to say this: "The deserving skater won" was not necessarily related to whether the competition was a good competition or not.

I don't know why 09 was even more sad.

Do you really have to have me open this new can of worms?

[Buttercup]

Take 2008 worlds as an example, Lambiel faltered. Takahashi faltered. Buttle skated brilliantly. Joubert's choreography in his LP wasn't impressive compare to Buttle's. A good day Lambiel or a good day Takahashi would have beaten Buttle's skate of his lifetime. (keep in mind that I am not a Takahashi fan.) So in that sense, 2008 worlds was a bad competition.

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.

I guess my comment comes from the fact that the deserving skater won - which means that the skating was judged, and not reputation etc. Secondly, a number of second tier skaters had solid skates that showcased future potential - I'm thinking of Chan, Kozuka, and Voronov. We got a gutsy skate from van de Perren.

I felt at the time, and still do, that Buttle was the deserving winner, but that he was a bit overmarked with the GOEs on some elements. Some argue that Joubert was overscored because he finished slightly ahead on PCS; I disagree. It was a great performance, and was marked as such, but not a great skate for CoP purposes because of the base value.

Van der Perren was wonderful in Gotheburg! And I remember thinking Kozuka was adorable, didn't he wear what looked like a bowling shirt in one of the programs?

I can guess why Jenny found 2009 even more sad, but that's for her to say. Personally, even though I'm a fan of Brian, I was happy with the 2008 results. Jeffrey earned his win and skated beautifully, and he seems to be a good guy. Brian came back strong after being sick for much of the season. Johnny finally medalled, even if with a so-so skate. It seemed like a good podium to me.

[antmanb]

Take 2008 worlds as an example, Lambiel faltered. Takahashi faltered. Buttle skated brilliantly. Joubert's choreography in his LP wasn't impressive compare to Buttle's. A good day Lambiel or a good day Takahashi would have beaten Buttle's skate of his lifetime. (keep in mind that I am not a Takahashi fan.) So in that sense, 2008 worlds was a bad competition.

I don't think Lambiel faltered in 2008 - he had a bad season all season (wasn't he injured for most of it) and there was little chance he'd have a good skate given the state of his body and frankly, his state of mind. Regardelss of the errors the programme was wonderfully constructed and was still great.

I can't remember exactly the errors that Takahashi made but the only one i seemt o recall hurting him was the extra combo. I don't call that faltering - it was a COP misnomer without which he'd have won the bronze - not so bad considering the skates that won Gold and Silver.

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.

2008 Mens worlds LP was not a bad competition to me at all.

Ant

[Buttercup]

I can't remember exactly the errors that Takahashi made but the only one i seemt o recall hurting him was the extra combo. I don't call that faltering - it was a COP misnomer without which he'd have won the bronze - not so bad considering the skates that won Gold and Silver.

The protocols have the answers! Dai screwed up on his 3A in the SP, and had a UR on his second quad attempt in the LP. He fell once - I think on the UR 4T attempt - and his second 3A was not clean so he couldn't do the planned combination (the two "sequences" are what led to him getting Zayaked).

So that's not just a CoP thing; Dai made mistakes, and while he could have scored higher without the Zayak error, it wasn't a great performance. Of course, with Stephane skating badly, Johnny only so-so, KvdP having too much ground to make up from the SP and Tomas doing his Hidden Czech routine, it could have been enough for a bronze.