- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Yes, there definitely can be!
Ladies LP
- Thread starter Shaba22
- Start date
Yes, there definitely can be!
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
You're lost in your own reasoning and just proved yourself why your own argument is flawed.
Of course, what you're saying is absolutely true NOW because skaters will be penalized for underrotating their jumps, which is the way it should be.
But if the system legitimizes UR and awards points as you suggest, then skaters will earn more points by doing an UR triple than a clean double, so every skater not capable of doing clean triples will practice UR triples and do them in competition.
Placing ! for questionable cases of UR and giving out less negative GOE than obvious UR jumps is one thing. What you're suggesting is making a clearly identifiable UR jump into a legitimate element and giving an UR triple points between a clean triple and a clean double, which is completely different.
Skaters like Carolina, Miki, Yu-na and Mao have all won major senior events despite having their jumps downgraded. So it's not like a downgraded jump will ruin the whole competition for a skater.
************************
Assuming that you're a genuine fan of figure skating, I'm kind of surprised you don't understand that commitment to full rotation is one of the most important technical aspects of the sport.
If they change the point system according to your suggestion, there will be no more double, triple or quad jumps; there'll be just whole bunch of in-betweens.
It looks like that's what you're asking for.
Hey, you're free to want whatever you want to want, but it will just never happen.
Of course, what you're saying is absolutely true NOW because skaters will be penalized for underrotating their jumps, which is the way it should be.
But if the system legitimizes UR and awards points as you suggest, then skaters will earn more points by doing an UR triple than a clean double, so every skater not capable of doing clean triples will practice UR triples and do them in competition.
Therefore, everybody not capable of doing clean jumps would try to do it.
Placing ! for questionable cases of UR and giving out less negative GOE than obvious UR jumps is one thing. What you're suggesting is making a clearly identifiable UR jump into a legitimate element and giving an UR triple points between a clean triple and a clean double, which is completely different.
Skaters like Carolina, Miki, Yu-na and Mao have all won major senior events despite having their jumps downgraded. So it's not like a downgraded jump will ruin the whole competition for a skater.
************************
Assuming that you're a genuine fan of figure skating, I'm kind of surprised you don't understand that commitment to full rotation is one of the most important technical aspects of the sport.
If they change the point system according to your suggestion, there will be no more double, triple or quad jumps; there'll be just whole bunch of in-betweens.
It looks like that's what you're asking for.
Hey, you're free to want whatever you want to want, but it will just never happen.
I'm so happy for Ashley. She seems like such a sweet girl (and a hard worker to boot). Just by looking at the field at NHK (her next event), she has a very realistic shot at making the final which would be HUGE for her, just in terms of separating herself from the rest of the U.S. field. Ando, Nakano, and Leonova should be her top competition but even if she comes in 3rd, I'm pretty sure she can qualify (Especially with Mao's surprising results this season).
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Are you even listening? This is incorrect.
An UR Triple, even with a higher base value, wouldn't be as valuable as a Double Axel. It would not serve skaters to do such a thing.
Also, again, a clean UR Triple is more difficult and shows more skill than a clean Double. This is a fact and if you've skated at even a semi-serious level you would know this. Plenty of young skaters can land double jumps. If you ask them to try and add at least an extra 1/2 rotation (which would be the minimum required for it to be defined as an UR Triple), they will simply fall.
Someone who can attempt a Triple and maybe not get quite all the way around, but at least land cleanly, is on a much higher level of skating ability with regards to that element than someone who can only land a Double.
Sometimes it works out, other times it doesn't. Competitions have definitely been very marred because of the unfair UR penalty. Yukari Nakano was especially robbed at Worlds in 2008.
"Commitment to full rotation"...then why do you keep arguing that a clean UR Triple is not better than a Double jump? Doubling out on a jump shows a larger flaw in a jumping pass than going for the Triple but coming up a bit short.
Completely incorrect. Skaters will not win by trying to do a bunch of underrotated Triples. That will not give them enough points.
An underrotated jump is a penalty akin to double-footing a jump. By your reasoning, since a double-footed jumps gain points, we should be seeing every skater try and land jumps on two feet.
That's not what actually happens, though. Skaters don't want to land on two feet and they don't want to underrotate. These are simply mistakes that happen and they need to the judged accordingly. The penalty for underrotations is too severe and does not accurately measure a skater's ability on that element.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2009
1. What would the judges then be grading, if it was considered a different element? Is it feasible that one judge might grade it according to the standards of a triple jump and some would as the Over-rotated double, thus causing GOE confusion?
2. Would an under-rotated triple jump be eligible for a positive GOE under your system, Blades? You've mentioned that they can still be pleasing to the eye, so I assume so. Why define an element if it's not?
3. If not, wouldn't it just be preferable to have a mandatory deduction for underrotation that ISN'T demoting the jump. If so, how much? A fraction of the value (which means the riskier the element, the more points loss) or a straight value (so under-rotating a triple axel wouldn't be as bad as under-rotating a triple toe). If it isn't preferable to have a mandaotry deduction, why is defining it as an element better?
2. Would an under-rotated triple jump be eligible for a positive GOE under your system, Blades? You've mentioned that they can still be pleasing to the eye, so I assume so. Why define an element if it's not?
3. If not, wouldn't it just be preferable to have a mandatory deduction for underrotation that ISN'T demoting the jump. If so, how much? A fraction of the value (which means the riskier the element, the more points loss) or a straight value (so under-rotating a triple axel wouldn't be as bad as under-rotating a triple toe). If it isn't preferable to have a mandaotry deduction, why is defining it as an element better?
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
They should be grading it as an underrotated jump. The judge should expect to see a landing that doesn't land completely backwards in comparison to where the jump started. If there were problems on the landing (hand down, double-footed, fall, etc) then it should come out of the GOE, but the jump itself landing short (in comparison to a fully rotated version of the element) would not be cause for -GOE. The deduction in the base value of the jump is already the penalty for the mistake the skater made.
Yes, positive GOE would be possible.
For example, if someone attempts a Triple Lutz out of a difficult entrance, executes the jump in the Tano position, has good height, and lands cleanly (but barely missed the 1/4 turn mark in terms of total rotation), then it would deserve +GOE.
Reading this series of posts, I just had a flashback to Beatrix Schuba. Not that I want to squelch this discussion, but if this is what skating is turning into, I fear very much that we will never inspire any new fans.
In the 1972 Olympics, Beatrix Schuba amassed such a lead doing off-camera school figures (which at that time counted for 50% of the overall score) that she could not be caught during the free program. Viewers at home couldn't understand why Janet Lynn (even though she fell, she skated beautifully) and Canada's Karen Magnussen got the bronze and silver, while Trixi Schuba won the gold after a lackluster free skate. Even if the school figures had been broadcast, viewers wouldn't have understood the results. I think we're getting a bit of that now. Why is a lyrical, emotional program with huge jumps (I'm talking about a theoretical program, not anyone's specific skate) marked down? What on earth is an edge call or a UR?
I understand that the CoP has advantages, in that elements are quantified and a judge's score can thus be explained and justified. But I've been watching skating for more than twenty years, and my eyes glaze over when people start arguing about an 89-degree rotation versus a 91-degree rotation. How am I going to "sell" this sport I love so much to friends who love music and dance but don't see how skating could possibly interest them? Or should I only be trying to recruit people who collect baseball statistics or who work in the insurance business?
In the 1972 Olympics, Beatrix Schuba amassed such a lead doing off-camera school figures (which at that time counted for 50% of the overall score) that she could not be caught during the free program. Viewers at home couldn't understand why Janet Lynn (even though she fell, she skated beautifully) and Canada's Karen Magnussen got the bronze and silver, while Trixi Schuba won the gold after a lackluster free skate. Even if the school figures had been broadcast, viewers wouldn't have understood the results. I think we're getting a bit of that now. Why is a lyrical, emotional program with huge jumps (I'm talking about a theoretical program, not anyone's specific skate) marked down? What on earth is an edge call or a UR?
I understand that the CoP has advantages, in that elements are quantified and a judge's score can thus be explained and justified. But I've been watching skating for more than twenty years, and my eyes glaze over when people start arguing about an 89-degree rotation versus a 91-degree rotation. How am I going to "sell" this sport I love so much to friends who love music and dance but don't see how skating could possibly interest them? Or should I only be trying to recruit people who collect baseball statistics or who work in the insurance business?
You said it.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
I completely agree. I want rules that promote this sport as a whole, not with exacting technical measurements that polarize a 3-5 degree difference into either big rewards, or big punishments.
From my understanding, part of the justification for some of the rules under CoP was that they didn't want to punish skaters who took risks (i.e. go for the more difficult triple jump, and even if you fall, you'll get credit for it) but now the underrotation issue pretty much nulls that motivation and overall hurts skaters who have more aesthetically appealing performances (with clean underrotated jumps) over messier, unappealing ones (that may have fully rotated).
There are ways to reward fully rotated, beautiful jumps, and I believe they should be incentive enough for all figure skaters to strive for them. The argument, "Hey if you can't do it, don't do it" should apply equally to "underrotaters" and "fallers"; why punish the former so much more over the latter? I find underrotation to be far less disruptive.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
If your friends already love music and dance and have no interest in skating then I would say they will never be interested in it . Skating is the perfect combination of the those two worlds and if they can't see that it won't matter what you say or how you "sell it". COP or not.
An underrotated jump is not clean though. I think that is a major part of the problem when discussions about underrotations surface. I am in the camp that thinks triple jumps which are underrotated should be considered a double. Usually the skaters who receive underrotation calls have gotten them repeatedly in competitions and often show little improvement in getting them ratified.
I'd be perfectly fine with that- IF jumps that resulted in a fall resulted in no points at all.
hwell:- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
I'd be perfectly fine with that- IF jumps that resulted in a fall resulted in no points at all.
Why no points at all?
Why no points at all?
To me (YMMV!), a fall on a jump is a failed jump. Therefore, I feel it deserves no credit at all. It's the one glaring error in a routine that clearly disrupts the flow of a program. Underrotated jumps (IMO!), not so much.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
Interesting.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
This is a non-argument. The discussion is that CoP is hindering the art of skating, while also completely confusing fans when it comes to scoring.
If people only see boring performances then they will probably never become fans.
They certainly can be clean. If a Triple jump comes up short of rotation but the blade exits with an out-flowing edge, then it is a clean underrotated jump.
The skater deserves a moderate deduction (not a massive deduction, which is what we currently see) in base value of the jump for the mistake they made.
Doing a Triple Lutz (for example) with an underrotation, but a clean landing, shows more skill than doing a double Lutz. This point is not debateable; it is a fact.
There is not a skater in existence who can land an underrotated Triple Lutz, but not land a Double Lutz.
There IS, however, an ocean of skaters who can only land a Double Lutz.
In competition, skaters are graded on the skill of what they do. An underrotated Triple Lutz displays greater skill than a Double Lutz and deserves to be worth more.
Why? Tell me in detail why you think it is only as valuable as a double. Why do you think it is impossible for a jump to have an amount of rotation that is between 2 and 3 rotations? Do you not believe in Double Axels?
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
It may look clean but it is not. Underrotation is an error. Just like a fall, a step out, a two footed landing, an overration, and a hand down. They are all mistakes which deserve a deduction or a downgrade. It doesn't matter how pretty it looks - I find an underrotation even more annoying than a fall because I can see when the blade finished the rotation on the ice.
Maybe it is the fact that I coach and judge but I despise seeing poor technique on jumps. The skaters that get called have been underrotating for years. They show little signs of fixing the jumps and continue to do it over and over again in competition.
If you lessen the point deduction the skaters are going to be less motivated to fix their technique than they already are. It is much harder to do three full rotations and fall - that takes much more effort. The Axel debate does not contribute to this discussion because it has an entirely different take off - it has nothing to do with underrotations.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
By the definition of what an underrotated jump is, the landing is clean if there are no bobbles.
Turning a Triple jump into a Double is also an error (a larger error). That doesn't mean the jump can't have a clean landing.
It doesn't matter what point a jump lands at...the landing can still be clean if the blade is flowing outward.
Obviously it is easier to have a great landing if you are landing backwards in relation to where the thrust of the jump started, though.
You also seem to be confused between jumps that are slightly underrotated short of the 1/4 turn mark and a whole 1/2 turn underrotated. If a jump is THAT underrotated then the landing is probably not going to have a good outflowing edge (although it is possible)...which would be cause for -GOE to the jump in addition to the underrotation penalty.
Actually, it is certainly part of this debate. A jump can take off at any given point. From wherever a jump takes off, it is going to rotate a certain amount of degrees in a circle.
Whatever point it starts at and whatever point it stops doesn't matter (it terms of geometry). If you draw a line from the top of a circle all the way around, you've traced 360 degrees. If you draw a line from the bottom of a circle all the way around, you've still traced 360 degrees.
Triples that are underrotated are still achieving a specific amount of rotation.
Untrue. You continue to ignore exact examples I've used and only argue within your own realm of theory.
So, I'll say it again...double-footed jumps give you points. Why is it then that we don't see skaters purposefully trying to double-foot jumps and thus give themselves more insurance on the landing?
Because you lose points in relation to what you could have gotten if you do such a thing. Which means you probably won't win. If skaters try to do underrotated jumps, they are simply going to keep losing to the skaters who fully rotate them.
In addition to that, if a skater doesn't have some ability to do the actual Triple, they aren't going to be able to try and underrotate a Triple but still land cleanly all the time. Other problems on the landing are likely to occur.
Only a skater who has a decent level of control over a Triple can actually land an underrotated version of that jump cleanly on a consistent basis. Which is what we see happen with top skaters when it comes to underrotating jumps - Miki Ando's 3Lutz-3Loop combination, for example. She doesn't try to underrotate the 3Loop. She is capable of doing the jump but sometimes her momentum isn't exactly correct, and thus the landing comes up a little short but the jump still exits cleanly on the landing.
If someone who has never landed a 3Lutz-3Loop in their life goes out there every competition and tries to do a 3Lutz into an underrotated 3Loop, they are likely going to have problems on their landings. Which means they are losing more points. Which means it is pointless to try and do a 3Lutz/ underrotated 3Loop combination and nobody would attempt it.
Also, it is uncomfortable to make mistakes. Skaters want to skate the best they can. They don't want to try and double-foot jumps or try and underrotate jumps (in competition at least...doing such a thing to practice and get a feel for the Triple is different). They want to land perfect Triple jumps.
That is incorrect. Skaters can get rotation if that is the only objective. It's not that hard to rotate a Triple (once you are at a certain level) if you don't have to think about the landing at all...you can just throw yourself into the rotation.
Coming up slightly short of rotation but completely controlling the landing shows a greater degree of skill.
----
Well, yes, because it shows that the skater is learning how to feel the jump and get a sense of the rotation.
Those skaters who are constantly falling on Triples would not be able to consistently land a clean, slightly underrotated version of the Triple, though.
Actually, they can do underrotated versions of the jumps they are attempting. The point is that they would actually like to be able to do the jump correctly with full rotation. For some skaters, doing UR triple jumps is actually very easy. It's getting that extra 1/2-1/3 of a rotation that is the most difficult.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Not consistently clean, I am betting.
If a skater needs an extra 1/2 of a rotation for their attempt at a Triple to be ratified, then it's not even an underrotated Triple. It is just an overrotated Double.
An underrotated Triple = missing 1/4 of rotation at most from what is considered to be a ratifiable Triple.
Similar threads
