Ladies LP

[janetfan]

Couldn't agree more... and while we're at it - why oh why can't we adjust the point value for a fall on a jump? The way I look at it is simple: you fall - no points. Now THAT would be a change worth having and would up the ante on the importance of technically difficult, clean skating.

That's close enough for me - but remember, Speedy has promised us a new, more exciting and athletic style of skating under CoP.

He forgot to warn us that in the race for points skaters would be adding meaningless movements (umm, I apologize for plagiarizing Lambiel) and would be doing certain elements with little or no relationship to the music.

I wish they would have tweaked the system to address certain things such as bad jumps counting when they crashed and failed, and in general have a system with greater rewards for quality and originality and NOT only quantity.

6.0 = quality and the quest for a perfect program

CoP = quantity and the quest for racking up points.

Seems there could be a better/happy medium between the two.

[skate4ever]

I think what Blades of Passion is referring to is the current rule that says if you underrotate by 89 degress you get full credit for a triple, but if you underrotate by 91 degrees, then you only get credit for a double.

Even so, we've got to draw the line somewhere.
Plus, that's not what happens in practice (between 89 and 91 degree rotations).
Skaters get the benefit of the doubt and most jumps that receive downgrades look significantly under-rotated even to untrained eyes such as ours.

To me, the question is one of proportion among the three stages of the jump. The entry/take-off, the rotations in the air, and the landing. Messing up on any of the three should call for evenhanded penalties.

Agreed. And I think the ISU is trying to do that by amending their rules at the end of each season.
It might SEEM, however, that some aspects are penalized more heavily than others because skaters tend to make some mistakes with higher frequency and likelihood than others.

(Anyone can jump into the air. It's the coming down part that distinguishes good skating. )

Disagreed. You're placing too much emphasis on landing per se.
Anyone can land cleanly if there's nothing special to do in the air.

Most, if not all, skaters who frequently fall or mess up their landings after triple jumps can land cleanly after single or double jumps.

That's why you rarely hear anyone say "that skater has good landing skills."
It's not an isolated skill and what happens in the air makes the landing difficult or easy, successful or not.

Same with take-offs.
A common misconception is that wrong-edge takeoff is a bad "habit".
Actually, skaters are doing it for a practical reason. Taking off on a certain edge gives them more thrust and less loss of momentum.

Some skaters get more thrust when they take off on the inside edge so flutzing becomes a problem.

I'm sure Mao can do a beautiful single or double lutz by taking off on a perfect outside edge. It's just that she has/had problem doing a triple lutz.

In Yu-na's case, however, because she has focused on triple lutz since her junior years, she gets more thrust by taking off on the outside edge.
That's why she used a shallow outside edge to take off for her 3F-3T combo until last season.
Now that she's doing a less-demanding solo 3F jump, she has no problem using an inside edge, at least to this point in season.

[Mathman]

Even so, ...

**whole post**

I think I hold the world's record for the most number of posts on a figure skating board and never winning an argument.

About "landing skills," I guess the reason I am so impressed by a smooth landing with continuous flow into the next element is because it is a consequence of the skater's mastery of the whole jump.

Kurt Browning, commenting on the men's LP at the Rostelecom Cup, acciused Plushenko of "showing off" by holding his landong position so long on his jumps, just so everyone vould see how perfect they were.

[Blades of Passion]

Also, you're contradicting yourself.

So what you're saying is:

"An under-rotated triple loop is a move that's easier than a triple loop, and it can look pleasing to the eye.
However, a skater cannot TRY to do it becasue it will affect his/her landing.
It's a jump that can only be performed properly by accident."

Obviously, that doesn't even make sense to yourself, does it?

Let me clarify:

A skater can try to do an underrotated jump, but that would be pointless. Why try to do an underrotated 3Loop, for example? If you are not actually able to do the 3Loop, trying to do an underrotated 3Loop will not increase your score. Placing a Double Axel in this part of your program (which is what every skater uses as a jumping pass in place of a Triple they don't feel comfortable with) would be better.

Aside from that, what I said about messing up the landings is also true. If you are trying to land in a position where the blade isn't flowing backwards, it isn't very beneficial. Underrotations happen because a skater is going for a certain jump and doesn't attain the exact speed/takeoff/air position that is needed. A skater could try to perfect the technique of landing on the blade to accommodate an underrotation but, again, this wouldn't help their score.

Therefore, nobody would try to do it.

Again, you're wrong.
A jump is downgraded when a skater under-rotates by 90 degrees or more.
I'm sure you agree that 90 out of 360 (25%) is not "a few degrees".

It looks like MM cleared it up but, again:

A ratified Triple jump might be 90 degrees short on rotation.

An underrotated Triple jump might be 91 degrees short on rotation.

Basically no difference, except the second jump receives a massive penalty in regards to the scoring.

But suggesting that judges should give an UR triple jump points between a double and a triple is simply outrageous.

It's not outrageous at all, for the reasons I already pointed out:

1.) An underrotated Triple is not a Double. It is much more than a Double and should be scored as such.

2.) There is too much mathematical deviation in the scoring when it comes to downgrades.

Skaters get the benefit of the doubt and most jumps that receive downgrades look significantly under-rotated even to untrained eyes such as ours.

This isn't true. Or at least, it isn't true consistently.

Even so, we've got to draw the line somewhere.

Ah, that's just the thing, though. It isn't BLACK and WHITE.

For example, when a person kills someone the description of that act can vary. It might be Manslaughter, it might be First Degree Murder, it might be Second Degree Murder, etc. The penalty and definition of that killing depends on the situation. We don't just throw everyone in the death chair.

In terms of skating, look what happened with the wrong-edge deductions. "e" was being handed out inconsistently. If a skater was attempting a Lutz and had a very slight roll over to the inside edge, sometimes it wouldn't get marked at all with a deduction and sometimes it would get an "e" and a massive penalty would be imposed upon a tiny flaw in the jump.

ISU decided to introduce "!" to fix this problem. They expanded the definition of the Lutz from 2 categorizations to 3. The result is that wrong-edge calls are now being made far more fairly.

The exact same thing should happen when it comes to how jump rotations are defined.

[Tonichelle]

Kurt Browning, commenting on the men's LP at the Rostelecom Cup, acciused Plushenko of "showing off" by holding his landong position so long on his jumps, just so everyone vould see how perfect they were.

he would know, he's done that a few times himself

[Blades of Passion]

Seems there could be a better/happy medium between the two.

Yes, there definitely can be!

[skate4ever]

You're lost in your own reasoning and just proved yourself why your own argument is flawed.

A skater can try to do an underrotated jump, but that would be pointless. Why try to do an underrotated 3Loop, for example? If you are not actually able to do the 3Loop, trying to do an underrotated 3Loop will not increase your score. Placing a Double Axel in this part of your program (which is what every skater uses as a jumping pass in place of a Triple they don't feel comfortable with) would be better.

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, nobody would try to do it.

Therefore, everybody not capable of doing clean jumps would try to do it.

In terms of skating, look what happened with the wrong-edge deductions. "e" was being handed out inconsistently. If a skater was attempting a Lutz and had a very slight roll over to the inside edge, sometimes it wouldn't get marked at all with a deduction and sometimes it would get an "e" and a massive penalty would be imposed upon a tiny flaw in the jump.

ISU decided to introduce "!" to fix this problem. They expanded the definition of the Lutz from 2 categorizations to 3. The result is that wrong-edge calls are now being made far more fairly.

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.

For example, when a person kills someone the description of that act can vary. It might be Manslaughter, it might be First Degree Murder, it might be Second Degree Murder, etc. The penalty and definition of that killing depends on the situation. We don't just throw everyone in the death chair.

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.

[mad6ame2]

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).

[Blades of Passion]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

[ImaginaryPogue]

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?

[Blades of Passion]

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?

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.

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?

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.

[Olympia]

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?

[R.D.]

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.

[prettykeys]

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?

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.

[i love to skate]

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?

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.

overall hurts skaters who have more aesthetically appealing performances (with clean underrotated jumps) over messier, unappealing ones (that may have fully rotated).

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.