Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 204

Thread: Proposed CoP Changes for Singles

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    OK, here are my responses to specific points. I'm a skater who has skated under COP and one of my coaches is a technical specialist. I'm going to do another post with my general thoughts.

    Also, I haven't really looked at the jump values in depth, so no comments on that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Jump combinations should be receiving a bonus; a 3A + 3T is harder than a 3A and 3T by themselves.
    They already receive a "bonus" because doing combinations allow you to do more jumps. This is the reason there's a cap on the number of a jumping passes in the program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Is it really much worse when someone falls as compared to someone who double-foots a jump, falls out of the landing, and puts both hands down onto the ice (ie. -3 GOE)?
    Yes, it takes significantly more skill to save a jump by two-footing or putting a hand down than splatting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    In a three jump combination, the third jump must be of a different type than the second jump and/or have a different arm position in the air. If this requirement is not met, the bonuses incurred by doing the third jump will be cut in half.
    Why? A Triple + 2T + 2Lo is actually the easiest 3 jump combination for most skaters to land, much easier than a 3+2L+2L.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If a jump combination uses a half-loop to connect jumps, the half-loop shall not count as one of the jumps in the combination in terms of determining if the jumping passing should be scored as a two-jump combination or a three-jump combination (and in terms of which combination slot it uses up)
    This is already a rule. Single rotation jumps are not jumps under COP.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    For all jumps, ONE-HALF turn of pre-rotation and ONE-QUARTER turn of underrotation is allowed before the jump is considered an Underrotated jump.
    The problem with this is that there is a big difference between a toe-axel (where the knee faces forward on the takeoff) and a properly executed toeloop (where the toepick still faces forward but the body doesn't). The toepick points forward before takeoff on every jump, but toe-axels and other truly pre-rotated and under-rotated jumps should be penalized. Of course, this is an issue with the existing COP language as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If there is no pre-rotation at all (as such is the case for some Lutz and Flip jumps)
    See my previous response.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If a skater does not perform a repeat Triple jump in combination, that jump will no longer be additionally penalized. The fact that the skater left out the combination, thereby using up one of their slots for a combination without getting the benefit of it, is enough of a penalty.
    This isn't a penalty, because they could use the combination slot on another jump. I would still like to see this penalty reduced though -- I think it's a little ridiculous, especially when it results in the jump being called a fourth combination and thus worth 0 points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If a skater performs too many jumps in combination, the extra jumps will simply be discounted (in whichever manner best benefits the skater’s score) instead of the entire jumping pass being discounted. There is no reason that a perfectly good jump should be worth 0 points just because a skater accidently added a double toeloop onto the end of it.
    This is a great idea.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Similarly, if a skater breaks the Zayak rule and performs the same Triple jump more than twice in their program, the extra Triple(s) shall be downgraded to a Double rather than completely discounted. A Double Axel being performed more than 3 times in a program shall also be downgraded to a Single Axel.
    I think this is a great idea, and would love to see a similar idea for "accidental" spin combinations, which then result in the actual spin combination receiving 0 points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    For jump combinations and sequences, judges should take both jumps into consideration. Falling on the second jump does not necessarily mean the combination should automatically receive -3 GOE.
    This is already the case. Maybe it's not as applied as it should be, but this is technically how it is taught under the rules.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Scratch Spins* - Currently the rules say that spinning for 8 revolutions in a scratch spin does not count as a feature for an extra level because a spin must be held in the same position for 8 revolutions for it to count. This should be changed. For scratch spins, rotation that is achieved while increasing speed (and while performing other variations that can count for a level increase, such as a difficult arm position or a headless position) should still count towards the 8 revolutions needed.
    Honestly, no. This is way too easy, and that's the reason it's not considered a legitimate feature for upright spins. I'd love to see another feature added to upright spins, because right now I think they're a little too hard (in comparison to sits), but this would be a little ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Footwork sequences at all levels should have a +1 GOE bonus.
    Skaters should have to earn GOE. Why make it automatic?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Additionally, doing a footwork sequence that is ALL toepick work or performed ENTIRELY on one foot should be able to replace the mandatory requirement of using a variety (complexity for Level 4) of different turns and steps.
    I'd like to see partial one-foot work be a feature like it is in dance (or at least used to be?), but it would be almost impossible to get any of the other features if you did the entire sequence on one foot, so no one would use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    A Charlotte position should count for a level when it is performed on the flat of the blade. All other difficult positions must still be performed on an inside or outside edge to receive credit.
    Good idea, but add that this position (on a flat) can only be used once.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    A 2 second hold is enough to create an impact and display command of the move. Holding longer than that can be reflected in the +GOE values.
    Yes on the 2 second hold, but please no on official recommendations to increase GOE for holding longer. It will result in everyone (including those with ugly spirals) holding them for as long as possible. If a beautiful spiral is held for the right length of time, GOE increase is natural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    No mandatory -3 GOE penalty for jump elements that are popped or for when there are no steps/movements preceding the solo Triple of the program.
    The purpose of the short is to do the required elements. This would simply turn it into a shorter version of the long program.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1.
    GOE rewards difficult spins that are preformed with ease. This is an unnecessary requirement and takes the difficulty out of skating. In addition, it rewards skaters that have trouble with one particular spin -- I can't do anything beyond a level 2 layback without it being exceedingly ugly and getting negative GOE (but have no trouble getting L4 on everything else), so this rule would work really well for me, but that'd be incredibly unfair to others who CAN for all level 4 spins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If the first three technical elements of a skater’s Short Program are all jumps, they shall be deducted half a point.
    This is getting into the territory of way too many rules. PCS should be lower when a program is incredibly unbalanced.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    6 jumping passes, 3 spins, and 1 footwork sequence or spiral sequence are required. After that, any two elements may be performed (a total of 3 spiral sequences or footwork sequences is not allowed, however. The skater may choose to perform 2 spiral sequences and 1 footwork sequence, or 2 footwork sequences and 1 spiral sequence).
    I love this idea (flexibility) but the problem is time -- jumps take far less time than spins/spirals/footwork, and less energy than everything but footwork, so if points are equal (at the senior level they will probably favor jumps anyway), skaters will add jumps so as to have more rest time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    For male skaters that complete at least one of each Triple jump with an adequate score (greater than the equivalent of -1 GOE, taking not only GOE but also Flutzes/Lips and underrotating into consideration) and have GOE better than -1 on ALL technical elements (and no falls in the performance), a 1 point bonus will be awarded to their score (Quads count as a Triple of the same type).
    You want to decrease the penalty for falling (GOE), but you're increasing it here, since anyone who falls once -- even if the rest of their jumps are +2 GOE, cannot get this bonus. I honestly don't see the big deal about falls -- it's part of skating, and if there weren't falls, the same person would win every time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Jumps executed in the final Quarter of the program shall receive a 20% bonus. The last jump element of a program, if placed in the final Tenth of the program, shall receive a 30% bonus if it includes a Triple (or Quad) jump and a 25% bonus if it does not include a Triple (or Quad) jump.
    A) this is way too complicated. Technical specialists already go crazy trying to call levels. B) Many skaters find they have more energy at the very end of their program, since this is when you get a second wind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Currently, a skater is allowed to do one 3-jump combination and two other 2-jump combinations in the Long Program. This is a bit overkill. We don’t need to see this many jumps in combination. Instead, skaters should be allowed to do one 3-jump combination and one 2-jump combination, or three 2-jump combinations.
    This would require a revision of the Zayak rule, or no one would do 3-jump combinations. Heck, no one would do 3-jump combos anyway, because they're actually a lot harder -- you do them to get that extra jump. I'd hate to see them go away. Combos also enable a skater without one triple (say, a triple lutz) to make up points.

  2. #32
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The layback is level 3, I think.
    Which features did you credit? The one I was unsure about was the sideways position at the beginning -- it happened so fast I'd need slow-motion replay to determine whether it was sufficiently sideways to count or held for at least 3 revolutions. But definitely there was acceleration, difficult variation, and 8+ revs in position.

    But, again, multiple level 4 elements is fine. The added difficulty will just have to be reflected in the +GOE. If the added move improved the quality of the spin, it should show in the scores.
    How about if difficulty was added but the quality stayed the same?

    How? Skaters who can do it all with more difficulty would still be rewarded under this system. There just wouldn't be a necessity to try and complicate every single element.
    Not every level 4 element has to look complicated. Especially if we add more features, and types of elements, that reward difficulty of simple moves. The 8 revs in position spin feature that was added a couple years ago is a good step in that direction.

    And not every level 1 element will look simple. Especially the ones that were trying to earn a higher level but failed. Or that are designed to fit a piece of music that is best expressed by complicated-looking moves even if the ones chosen are easy so that the skater can perform them well.

    I'd rather tweak the features than restrict the skaters further.

    I think it is a good thing to highlight level 1 elements, though. It's good for programs to have contrast. Classic Layback spins and Spirals shouldn't be lost from the sport. Nor should level 1 footwork sequences that blaze across the ice and look excellent.
    That's largely an aesthetic preference on your part, though. Many fans and judges might agree. But ultimately competitive skating is a sport and I don't like the idea of imposing limits on the technical content just to satisfy that preference.

    It's kind of like saying "Beautiful single jumps shouldn't be lost from the sport" and bemoaning the messiness of programs where skaters are trying all the hardest jumps they can ever hope to land even though they rarely manage all in the same program. And then trying to enforce that by ruling that a program must include at least one solo single jump and no more than one "level 4" jump pass (any quad, triple axel, or 3-3 combo). The skaters who can consistently execute multiple quads, 3As, and/or 3-3 combos would not thank you for restricting their jump content just because their competitors are falling over themselves trying to keep up.

    I'm all for rewriting the rules to give skaters incentives to include beautiful single jumps, or excellent level 1 elements. But I wouldn't require it.

    Also, especially at the lower levels, I think there should be some incentive to do elements with exactly one feature. Right now either zero or one feature earns the same base mark as level 1; to raise the base mark at all requires two features. I think it would be better to recognize the difference between "just meets the definition of the element" and "meets the definition of the element plus one area of added difficulty."

  3. #33
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    General thoughts: it's too complicated. We demand a lot of technical specialists. Seriously, trying counting steps in a footwork sequence. Adding on "shades" of how cheated a jump can be and extra bonuses for 10%, 30%, etc. before the end of the program, and limits on levels, and more, is just becoming too much. If anything the system is already too complicated. A lot of skaters don't understand it -- and most coaches need to get trained as technical specialists to feel competent telling their skaters what to do.

    Also, there's a major point you've missed, that I mentioned in my first post. Judges already take the whole jump into account when assigned GOE. I'd really like to see this encouraged more, since sometimes it seems to be forgotten that this is what they're supposed to be doing. But technically, if a skater preforms a beautiful 'tano triple lutz which would normally have a +2 GOE and falls, the GOE becomes -1. A fall can't have a non-negative GOE, but other than that the GOE is simply taken off of what it would otherwise have been.

    In general, I'm not in favor of removing any difficulty (aka, imposing caps on levels). This is a sport. Though it has an artistic side, it's still a sport and should be treated as such.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Figure skating judges should be able to tell the differentce between a well-porformed element and a very well-performed element without the ISU rule book holding their hands.
    Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized? That's why there are standards.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If a skater knows they can do a Level 1 Spiral and not lose any points for leaving out "difficult" (ugly) positions, they will do so. Especially since they probably don't want to be doing them anyway.
    Are you thinking about catch-foots? Because I hate to break it to you, but most skaters who aren't great at spirals (re: very flexible) would still do them. They often end up looking better than wimpy traditional spirals.

  4. #34
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    General thoughts: it's too complicated. We demand a lot of technical specialists. Seriously, trying counting steps in a footwork sequence. Adding on "shades" of how cheated a jump can be and extra bonuses for 10%, 30%, etc. before the end of the program, and limits on levels, and more, is just becoming too much. If anything the system is already too complicated. A lot of skaters don't understand it -- and most coaches need to get trained as technical specialists to feel competent telling their skaters what to do.

    Also, there's a major point you've missed, that I mentioned in my first post. Judges already take the whole jump into account when assigned GOE. I'd really like to see this encouraged more, since sometimes it seems to be forgotten that this is what they're supposed to be doing. But technically, if a skater preforms a beautiful 'tano triple lutz which would normally have a +2 GOE and falls, the GOE becomes -1. A fall can't have a non-negative GOE, but other than that the GOE is simply taken off of what it would otherwise have been.

    In general, I'm not in favor of removing any difficulty (aka, imposing caps on levels). This is a sport. Though it has an artistic side, it's still a sport and should be treated as such.



    Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized? That's why there are standards.



    Are you thinking about catch-foots? Because I hate to break it to you, but most skaters who aren't great at spirals (re: very flexible) would still do them. They often end up looking better fthan wimpy traditional spirals.
    I agree that plus GoEs are opinions, so how can they be quantified?

    I think spirals are overrated at the Senior level. A senior skater should be able to make a serpentine on the ice, or what is the skater doing in seniors? Pracice some school figures, pobrecita. The spiral sequence, for me, is so boring anyway, I wouldn't miss it if it were taken out of the LP.

    Contorted body positions can only be given to skaters who are born that way. -Not particularly pretty unless they are comparable to those in Cirque due Soleil.
    I prefer muscle power to lift legs - not hands unless the skater is improvising the CanCan.

    Jumps, for me, should be judged by their definition.

    The Take-off gives us the Name of the Jump. Failing the proper take-off does not give the jump a name.

    Losing the counter rotation makes the air rotations more comfortable and should be penalized severely.

    Likewise, the comfort is brought to the landings.

    If a skater can not do a proper jump, there are so many points in CoP to make up the difference by eliminating the jump. Nothing to be ashamed of.

  5. #35
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,635
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Yes, but different judges have differing opinions on what's worse -- say, touching a hand down vs. stepping out? How much should a wrap be penalized?
    Is this -- the fact that judges have different opinions on these matters -- a good thing or a bad?

  6. #36
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185

    oi

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Is this -- the fact that judges have different opinions on these matters -- a good thing or a bad?
    I believe the CoP was supposed to eliminate opinions and quantify the elements especially in the Tech. Obviously, the PC is opined by a choice guideline.

  7. #37
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Joesitz View Post
    I believe the CoP was supposed to eliminate opinions...
    To me, that is the whole ball of wax right there. No judging system can eliminate opinions. If it could, it wouldn't be judging. So the CoP is doomed before it begins.

  8. #38
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    To me, that is the whole ball of wax right there. No judging system can eliminate opinions. If it could, it wouldn't be judging. So the CoP is doomed before it begins.
    I don't think anyone ever though COP was going to be able to eliminate opinions completely, though. It was intended to give skaters an idea precisely how they were being evaluated, and to give judges an idea exactly how they should evaluate skaters, to make everything more numerical.

  9. #39
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,100
    Hurray, responses.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Jump combinations should be receiving a bonus; a 3A + 3T is harder than a 3A and 3T by themselves.
    They already receive a "bonus" because doing combinations allow you to do more jumps. This is the reason there's a cap on the number of a jumping passes in the program.
    There is a bonus in comparison to doing no 3-3 combination...there isn't a bonus in comparison to doing a less difficult 3-3.

    Currently, if one skater does a 3Axel-3Toe, plus a solo 3Toe as another jumping pass, the base value of those two jumping passes is the same as a skater who did a solo 3Axel and a 3Toe-3Toe combination.

    A 3Axel-3Toe is more difficult and should be rewarded for it.

    We don't see as many 3Axel-3Toe combinations these days because there currently isn't much of an incentive to go for it. Skaters can just do a 3Axel-2Toe combination and put the 3Toe on the end of a less difficult jump.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Yes, it takes significantly more skill to save a jump by two-footing or putting a hand down than splatting.
    Not or, both.

    If a skater two-foots a jump and falls out of the landing and puts both of their hands down on the ice and loses all speed after falling out of the landing...do you really think that is worth a whole point more than if they had fallen? The negative effect on the jump and the program is pretty much the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Why? A Triple + 2T + 2Lo is actually the easiest 3 jump combination for most skaters to land, much easier than a 3+2L+2L.
    Adding two double Toeloops or double Loops onto the end of a jump is repetitive and doesn't really show anything different. IMO, a 3-jump combination should display different jumps or display different arm positions in the air if the skater is doing to add the same jump twice in row.

    Two regular double toeloops is definitely more annoying than two regular double loops, though. It never looks better (often times worse) then if the skater had simply done one double toeloop.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    The problem with this is that there is a big difference between a toe-axel (where the knee faces forward on the takeoff) and a properly executed toeloop (where the toepick still faces forward but the body doesn't).
    There should still be wording than penalizes toe-axels, definitely. With a toe-axel it's not just the picking foot that is pre-rotating, it's the skating foot as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    If a skater does not perform a repeat Triple jump in combination, that jump will no longer be additionally penalized. The fact that the skater left out the combination, thereby using up one of their slots for a combination without getting the benefit of it, is enough of a penalty.
    This isn't a penalty, because they could use the combination slot on another jump.
    No, they wouldn't be able to use the combination slot on another jump. If a skater does two solo Triples, then they have used up a combination slot. If the skater tries to add an additional combination to the program (that goes past the amount allowed), the extra jump in combination will be discounted.

    Honestly, no. This is way too easy, and that's the reason it's not considered a legitimate feature for upright spins. I'd love to see another feature added to upright spins, because right now I think they're a little too hard (in comparison to sits), but this would be a little ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Footwork sequences at all levels should have a +1 GOE bonus.
    Skaters should have to earn GOE. Why make it automatic?
    I don't think you understand my wording. I didn't word that the best and should change it.

    The +GOE for footwork sequences of all levels should be +1 for each mark.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    I'd like to see partial one-foot work be a feature like it is in dance (or at least used to be?), but it would be almost impossible to get any of the other features if you did the entire sequence on one foot, so no one would use it.
    That's why a level 1 element should be "required". Skaters should be able to do add simplistic moves to their programs that interpret the music.

    Level 4 elements are not always going to be the best choice for interpreting a certain section of music.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Only one level 4 element is allowed and one element MUST be level 1.
    GOE rewards difficult spins that are preformed with ease. This is an unnecessary requirement and takes the difficulty out of skating. In addition, it rewards skaters that have trouble with one particular spin -- I can't do anything beyond a level 2 layback without it being exceedingly ugly and getting negative GOE (but have no trouble getting L4 on everything else), so this rule would work really well for me, but that'd be incredibly unfair to others who CAN for all level 4 spins.
    It wouldn't be unfair; skaters wouldn't have to do a level 1 spin. That is simply the base value that at least 1 element will receive. If a skater wants to do more and can make it look good (and, hopefully, do it because it fits the music better) then they should be rewarded for it in the GOE and/or Choreography and/or Interpretation marks (let's not forget that every movement a skater makes, includes jumps and spins, are choreography).

    If someone has a better Layback than you, they will score higher for it still.

    No skater can do everything perfectly. It simply isn't possible. Nobody is ever going to have the best jumps and the best spins and the best footwork and the best spirals and the best artistry.

    Skaters should be doing what they are good at, and try to do the best at elements and movements that are within their capabilities, and we should be judging based upon that.

    The current system of everyone feeling like they NEED to get maximum levels on everything hinders the skating and the programs.

    If skaters are able to get maximum levels and perform everything well with complexity, they certainly should. They will still get rewarded for it.

    But skaters who are bad in a certain area shouldn't be trying to do something they simply can't do.

    It would be akin to the 3Axel becoming a required element in the SP for Ladies. Sure, a couple Ladies might be able to do it well...but there's no reason that everyone should try to do the exact same thing.

    Everyone has strengths and should play to those strengths. We don't want to see programs with skaters performing the exact same elements, and whoever is most clean wins...we want to see different moves and decide which skater is the best based upon their own unique abilities.


    You want to decrease the penalty for falling (GOE), but you're increasing it here, since anyone who falls once -- even if the rest of their jumps are +2 GOE, cannot get this bonus. I honestly don't see the big deal about falls -- it's part of skating, and if there weren't falls, the same person would win every time.


    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    [regarding the proposed bonuses for combinations]

    this is way too complicated.
    No it's not. The computer would automatically calculate it. It doesn't take a computer any additional time.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    [regarding the idea of slightly limiting the amount of combo jumps a skater can do in the LP]
    This would require a revision of the Zayak rule, or no one would do 3-jump combinations. Heck, no one would do 3-jump combos anyway, because they're actually a lot harder -- you do them to get that extra jump. I'd hate to see them go away.[/QUOTE]

    It wouldn't require a Zayak rule revision. Not sure what you mean here.

    People would certainly do them as well. With the way I have written the rules, doing a 3-jump combination gives the skater more of a bonus than 2 two-jump combinations.

    In other words (for example):

    If skater A does a 3Lutz-3Toeloop-2Loop as one jumping pass and a solo 3Toeloop as another jumping pass, they will receive more points for those jumping passes than a skater who did a 3Lutz-3Toeloop as one jumping pass and a 3Toeloop-2Loop as the other one.Cur

  10. #40
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Which features did you credit? The one I was unsure about was the sideways position at the beginning -- it happened so fast I'd need slow-motion replay to determine whether it was sufficiently sideways to count or held for at least 3 revolutions. But definitely there was acceleration, difficult variation, and 8+ revs in position.
    I counted the sideways position, I actually just forgot that the acceleration is a level too. So it was level 4.

    This is a great example, though.

    That Layback was level 4 without a Beillmann position and I would have given it a +3 GOE.

    What if someone had done it just as good with Beillmann position?

    CoP already limits the levels skaters can achieve in spins.

    If someone wanted to, they could do a change-of-foot Combination spin where they change edge and have a difficult variation in every single position. This kind of spin might deserve to be called "level 7" but it would still be called as level 4.

    ISU in fact limited doing a change-of-edge in spins so that it can only count once now for a level. (I was really happy about that change...I had been vocal about it for awhile)

    There always has to be a balance somewhere and restrictions in place. That's why we have the Zayak rule. Repetition is bad after a certain point, no matter how brilliant the element. It leads to predictability.

    My proposition is basically just a kind of Zayak limitation in terms of levels.

    It isn't really restrictive though because skaters CAN choose to continue doing whatever levels they please on every element they please.

    But, just as the skater who tries to do the "level 7" spins knows that it will only be called as level 4, under my proposed system skaters should also know that not all of their elements will be credited as level 4 even if they do all level 4 elements.

    If the added complexity of those elements adds to the program, then they will be rewarded for it in terms of the GOE and certain PCS marks.

    If the added complexity doesn't add to the program, then they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place (which is the point of the rule I propose).

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    That's largely an aesthetic preference on your part, though. Many fans and judges might agree. But ultimately competitive skating is a sport and I don't like the idea of imposing limits on the technical content just to satisfy that preference.

    It's kind of like saying "Beautiful single jumps shouldn't be lost from the sport" and bemoaning the messiness of programs where skaters are trying all the hardest jumps they can ever hope to land even though they rarely manage all in the same program. And then trying to enforce that by ruling that a program must include at least one solo single jump and no more than one "level 4" jump pass (any quad, triple axel, or 3-3 combo). The skaters who can consistently execute multiple quads, 3As, and/or 3-3 combos would not thank you for restricting their jump content just because their competitors are falling over themselves trying to keep up.
    This isn't a valid comparison, though.

    Single jumps are not difficult and they never benefit a program...except for perhaps a delayed single axel that highlights a couple beats of music perfectly.

    Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.

  11. #41
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    My proposition is basically just a kind of Zayak limitation in terms of levels.
    The equivalent of a Zayak limitation would be limiting the number of times the same feature can be used in the same program. Some such limitations already have been added.

    It isn't really restrictive though because skaters CAN choose to continue doing whatever levels they please on every element they please.
    Suppose we require a single jump in the long program and limit the number of triple axels and quads (men) or triple-triple combos (ladies) to maximum of one. If a skater does not perform a single jump, the last jump pass will be scored with the base mark of a single. If a male skater performs two triple axels or two quads or one of each, then the second such jump will be scored as a double axel or a triple of the same takeoff. If a female skater performs two triple-triple combinations or a triple axel and a triple-triple, then the axel or the last jump of the combination will be scored as a double even if it wasn't downgraded.

    By your same logic isn't really restrictive because skaters CAN choose to continue doing as many revolutions as they please on whatever jumps they please.

    If the added difficulty of extra revolutions adds to the program, then they will be rewarded for it in terms of the GOE and certain PCS marks.

    If the added revolutions don't add to the program, then they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.

    This isn't a valid comparison, though.

    Single jumps are not difficult and they never benefit a program...except for perhaps a delayed single axel that highlights a couple beats of music perfectly.
    They are difficult if performed with difficult air positions, such as a delayed axel. Other examples I had in mind were tuck axel, tuck loop, split-flip or split-lutz, etc. They could also be performed with arm variations, other leg or full-body variations in the air, more difficult entries and exits than we see for doubles and triples, etc. Certainly the skaters who take this element seriously can earn +3 on those jumps and use them to enhance the program.

    If we allowed single-single combinations or sequences to fill this requirement, we could also add a provision to give extra credit for jumping in both directions.

    However, if you think single jumps with these kinds of enhancements are still too easy for senior-level competitors, then how about changing the requirement to a solo double jump other than double axel?

    I'm not seriously proposing that we require this. (Instead, I'd like to offer the option of a "small-jump sequence" with levels 1-4 that would give credit for demonstrating several different skills using half, single, and 1.5 jumps. And to give a bonus for combos/sequences in both directions that might use double instead of single jumps.)

    But to me, the logic is the same. Competitive skating is a sport, and the athletes are going to strategize their athletic content to maximize points. Some will choose to max out the points on jumps, some on spins, some on PCS, depending on their strengths. You want to take away point-earning opportunities from the best spinners/average jumpers who are in fact capable of level 4 spins that are both difficult athletic feats and beautiful enhancements to the program. But you don't want to take away any jump point opportunities from the best jumpers/average spinners who enhance the program with their beautiful jumps or encourage the weaker jumpers to plan at least one simpler jump that they should be able to execute attractively, in time with the music, and woven into the choreography.

    Why do you want to treat jumps differently than spins? Is it because you think of jumps primarily as athletic feats and spins primarily as aesthetic elements?

    Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.
    Yes, but how many skaters performed them brilliantly under the old system? For the most part, most of these elements were pleasant and unoffensive at best. The brilliant ones were the exceptions, regardless of difficulty level.


    You've obviously put a lot of thought into your proposals. I have also thought through some systematic changes that I would like to see; some are the same as or compatible with yours, and some are opposed. I probably have more areas of agreement with your goals than with the unstated but inferrable goals of the current well-balanced program rules, for example.

    I've talked to some coaches who have their own ideas of what rule changes they'd like to see. Other posters here also have some interesting suggestions.

    We're not all going to agree on every solution. If an overhaul of the judging system is in order, it would be best accomplished by soliciting input from a variety of knowledgeable stakeholders, coaches probably most of all, and conceptualized in such a way as to apply fairly to all levels of competitors, not just those who get on TV.

    That's why I think it's important to determine first what goals we want to accomplish with new rules and then brainstorm possible solutions. If there isn't agreement on the goals, then the solutions will be at cross purposes.
    Last edited by gkelly; 12-07-2009 at 01:49 AM.

  12. #42
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    412
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    We don't see as many 3Axel-3Toe combinations these days because there currently isn't much of an incentive to go for it.
    Yes there is. Skaters can then do another solo triple axel and another solo triple toe, or use a triple toe in combo. Doing a 3T+3T takes up both of their triple toes. It may not be an obvious, mathematical incentive, but it's there.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    If a skater two-foots a jump and falls out of the landing and puts both of their hands down on the ice and loses all speed after falling out of the landing
    First, very rarely do all of these things happen simultaneously. Second, usually if they do, most judges would give that -2 or -3 GOE. And yes, a fall is still worse. It's still easier to fall.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Two regular double toeloops is definitely more annoying than two regular double loops, though. It never looks better (often times worse) then if the skater had simply done one double toeloop.
    But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The +GOE for footwork sequences of all levels should be +1 for each mark.
    I still don't understand your wording. Are you capping GOE at +1?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    It wouldn't be unfair; skaters wouldn't have to do a level 1 spin.
    No one is going to do a L4 spin if it's going to be discounted to a L1. It's riskier and takes significantly more energy. You really need to try doing a junior program (especially before they took out the spirals!) -- senior isn't quite as packed -- and then see how you feel about skaters choosing to do L4 spins when they wouldn't get any extra points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    The current system of everyone feeling like they NEED to get maximum levels on everything hinders the skating and the programs.
    Honestly, I don't think it does. I think it encourages skaters to work harder in areas they're not naturally good at, it allows non-natural jumpers to succeed in other areas, and it gives skating a great -- comepetitive -- metric for evaluation. Skating is a sport, and mandatory caps on levels take that away.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    But skaters who are bad in a certain area shouldn't be trying to do something they simply can't do.
    Watch some of the lower levels. Not everyone tries L4 spins, because the GOE loss isn't worth it. At the senior international level the competitors are able to preform them well enough. Skaters and coaches do make decision about what they should and shouldn't try. It is in fact very strategic, and many don't try things they'll do poorly, even if you don't see that. The triple axel analogy doesn't hold up at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    No it's not. The computer would automatically calculate it. It doesn't take a computer any additional time.
    It wouldn't calculate your new allowed cheats (which would be much harder to determine)

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    That Layback was level 4 without a Beillmann position and I would have given it a +3 GOE.
    That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    ISU in fact limited doing a change-of-edge in spins so that it can only count once now for a level.
    This isn't true. On combo spins it can count twice, but it needs to be on different feet and in different positions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.
    Honestly, a L1 spin is not difficult for most senior level skaters that have had a coach that teaches them good basics. You don't see it on tv because they're trying to do other things in those spins, but their basics spins are good. Footwork maybe isn't the same case, because freestyle don't work on it, but footwork's difficulty really is held in how hard the steps are -- just like jumps, so I think the comparison does hold true there too. And spirals, for a large part, are a reflection of how naturally flexible a skater is.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    I'm not seriously proposing that we require this. (Instead, I'd like to offer the option of a "small-jump sequence" with levels 1-4 that would give credit for demonstrating several different skills using half, single, and 1.5 jumps.
    I'm not sure how this would work, but this would be incredibly fun!

  13. #43
    Custom Title Joesitz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    20,185
    Strategize or not, the skating programs by and large have the same content with rules that jeopardize the flow of the program. The skaters have substituted careful preparations when executing an element to avoid minus GoEs? Has that not hindered the beauty of the program? Can that be called 'artistry'?

    The main ingredient in figure skating is it's remarkable flow over the icy dance floor.

    It needs to bring back, the Free Skate with music for its 'artistry' , and take a more sporting approach for testing the 'tricks' to a revitalized SP.

    As boring as school figures were, they did indeed test the basics. That's sport!

  14. #44
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.
    Exactly.
    Great posts, kate. Thanks for sharing your experience actually doing this stuff.

    I still don't understand your wording. Are you capping GOE at +1?
    I think the intended meaning is that even for level 1 elements, the numerical value of each GOE + would be 1.0 rather than 0.5. Is that correct, BoP?

    That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.
    Oh, I think it would have gotten some +3s from some judges. Surely no less than +2.

    I'm not sure how this would work, but this would be incredibly fun!
    Here's the proposal for a Small Jumps Sequence element that I posted in an earlier thread. I'm editing it just slightly here:

    A sequence of jumps of no more than 1.5 revolutions connected by no more than two steps or turns between each jump, covering at least half the length of the rink or at least half of a rink-width circle. 1.5 jumps may be axel-type jumps landed on back inside or back outside edge, or any backward-takeoff jumps landed facing forward with a toe assist and push to a forward edge.

    Features
    -split, stag, or double stag jump (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) with both legs at least parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
    -split, stag, and/or double stag jumps (flip, lutz, or loop/falling leaf takeoff, half revolution) performed in both directions
    -ring jump (flip or lutz takeoff, half or no rotation) in which one or both legs is bent up behind the body to foot above waist height and the head is arched backward
    -full- or 1.5-revolution jump (any takeoff) with legs split at least 90 degrees at the top of the jump
    -tuck/stag position in a single jump, including axel, with one leg extended parallel to the ice at the top of the jump
    -1- and/or 1.5-revolution jumps rotating in both directions
    -forward-takeoff jump with one revolution landed on the same edge as the takeoff with no toe assist and a controlled forward-edge exit
    -at least three edge jumps (salchow, 1-foot salchow, loop, half-loop, walley, half-walley, toeless lutz, one-foot axel, inside axel) performed in immediate succession with no steps or turns in between

    Base values for Small Jump Sequence:
    Level 1 1.6
    Level 2 2.8
    Level 3 3.4
    Level 4 4.0
    Now, the last feature as currently written is one that I can easily fulfill as a preliminary/adult bronze-level skater, with something like salchow (or loop)-half loop-salchow sequence. I just wouldn't cover enough ice for that to count as the whole element. So that shouldn't really be worth a feature.

    Maybe to require a bit more difficulty and show more skill, I should reword it as "at least three edge jumps (salchow, 1-foot salchow, loop, half-loop, walley, half-walley, toeless lutz, one-foot axel, inside axel) from at least three different takeoff edges performed in immediate succession with no steps or turns in between"

    That would require that at least one of the jumps has to be harder than a single loop or single salchow (landing on either foot), or would have to rotate in the other direction.

  15. #45
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,100
    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Yes there is. Skaters can then do another solo triple axel and another solo triple toe, or use a triple toe in combo. Doing a 3T+3T takes up both of their triple toes. It may not be an obvious, mathematical incentive, but it's there.
    Even regardless of that possibility, the 3Axel-3Toe itself should be worth more. It shouldn't matter what happens in the remainder of the program. If one skater does a 3Axel-3Toe and a solo 3Toe, but then pops the remainder of their jumps in their program, it should be worth more than a skater who does a solo 3Axel and a 3Toe-3Toe combination (and then fails to execute any other jumps properly as well).

    That is not the best example, however. Here's the real problem - in the current judging system there is really no incentive to do a 3Axel-3Toe instead of a 3Axel-2Toe.

    For example, look at this jump layout (used by Jeffrey Buttle in 2008):

    3Axel-2Toe
    3Flip-3Toe
    3Axel
    ------
    3Lutz-2Toe-2Loop
    3Loop
    3Sal
    2Axel
    3Lutz

    If he had done a 3Axel-3Toe instead of the 3Axel-2Toe, and then done a 3Flip-2Toe instead of a 3Flip-3Toe, he wouldn't have received any extra points.

    The former is more difficult but CoP currently does not reward it.

    Here is another example - Daisuke Takahashi's jump layout in 2008:

    4Toe-2Toe
    4Toe
    3Axel
    --------
    3Axel-2Toe-2Loop
    3Flip-3Toe
    3Loop
    3Sal
    3Lutz

    If Takahashi had done his Triple Toe in combination with a Quad or a 3Axel, it wouldn't have been worth any more points.

    Think of the cases where skaters only plan one Quad as well. What's the point of doing it in combination? You can just add the Triple Toeloop onto an easier jump and get the same amount of points.

    There is definitely something wrong with that. Quad-Triple and 3Axel-Triple combinations have become a staple of Men's skating, but under CoP they are often not worth anything extra.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    And yes, a fall is still worse.
    How much worse do you really think it is, though? If a skater has an absolutely horrible landing (steps out of the landing awkwardly, puts both hands down on the ice, grinds to a halt...Sasha Cohen's 3Flip at Olympics is the perfect example) but doesn't actually fall, the negative impact on the program and that technical element is pretty much the same.

    Negative GOE marks should be higher than they are now. Yes the fall is still worse, that's why there would still be an extra half point deduction, but other big mistakes should be penalized appropriately.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    But this isn't what matters. This is a sport, and should be treated as such. Though artistry has a component, is the TES, difficulty is what should be considered, and how well that difficulty is executed.
    This isn't necessarily the case. That is why the Zayak rule was invented.

    Sure, it would be incredibly difficult if a skater performed 8 Quadruple Toeloops in their program...but that is too repetitive. There has to be a limit.

    This is also why there is a limit to the number of jumps that can be done in combination. A Triple jump followed by 10 (fully rotated) Double Loops done in combination would be difficult, but that's not what we want to see in the Sport. That's not what we want to judge.

    Imagine a sport where the goal was to eat as many hot dogs as possible while hanging upside down from one leg, while balancing a 50 pound weight with your free leg and holding a 100 pound weight with your free arm. It would be incredibly difficult to do such a thing...but who would ever want to?

    Difficulty for the sake of difficulty is not always rewarding.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    No one is going to do a L4 spin if it's going to be discounted to a L1. It's riskier and takes significantly more energy.
    The skater would received higher GOE (which is significant, since GOE for spins should be double what it is now) and possibly higher marks on some PCS. If the skater can do it well, then it is certainly worth it.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    That layback would not have gotten +3GOE, so this would be non-issue. +3GOE on spins is incredibly rare.
    It certainly would have (perhaps not from every single judge, although it would deserve +3 across the board). That layback from Natalie Krieg is one of the best ever performed.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    This isn't true. On combo spins it can count twice, but it needs to be on different feet and in different positions.
    No, look at the most recent rules:

    http://isu.sportcentric.net/db//files/serve.php?id=1427

    Page 5.

    Changing edge only counts once as a feature, no matter how many times in a spin the skater does it.

    This is exactly how it should be. We don't need to see such a thing in a spin more than once. Sometimes once is even too much...changing edge in a sit spin rarely looks better than simply holding the sit spin position.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Honestly, I don't think it does. I think it encourages skaters to work harder in areas they're not naturally good at, it allows non-natural jumpers to succeed in other areas, and it gives skating a great -- comepetitive -- metric for evaluation. Skating is a sport, and mandatory caps on levels take that away.
    Spins and other non-jump elements would be more rewarded under the rules I propose, not less.

    There are already mandatory caps on Levels. Level 4 is the cap. You need four features in an element for it to be level 4. If you include more than four features, the spin is still level 4.

    Again, as I said in an earlier post....if a skater did a change of foot combination spin with a change-of-edge and difficult variation in every position, it would still only be called as level 4....even though it would have about ten "features" (six more than are required to obtain level 4).

    Should we be mad that such a spin doesn't get enough credit?

    No, I don't think so. What would be the point of including all of those difficulties into the spin?

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Watch some of the lower levels.
    The judging system should not cater to the lower levels at. What I propose here is for skating at the Olympic level...the skating that people actually want to see and pay to see.

    If there are some changes that might need to be put in place for better competition at the Novice level and such, then the system could have modifications set in place for those competitions.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    It wouldn't calculate your new allowed cheats (which would be much harder to determine)
    I'm not sure what this means. Do you mean downgraded jumps? As soon as the tech specialist calls the element, it would go in the computer and the value would be calculated.

    Quote Originally Posted by kate View Post
    Honestly, a L1 spin is not difficult for most senior level skaters that have had a coach that teaches them good basics.
    The spin itself is not difficult, but doing it brilliantly is.

    How many Ladies are capable of doing a classic Layback spin (the free leg held perfectly parallel to the ice) with excellent speed and centering?

    Very few. It's a level 1 element but doing it well is difficult and should be rewarded.

    ____________________________________________


    As a point of reference for what I've been talking about in regards to Levels on elements, please pick any program under CoP from a lady (and link it via Youtube) that had all Level 4 spins and a Level 4 Spiral.

    I maintain the stance that having maximum levels on all of these elements has never best benefited a program.

    I'll actually provide some examples of my own...here are the top 2 finishers in the Ladies SP at 2006 Olympics:

    Sasha Cohen - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELFerA2QZX8

    The change of edge in her Flying Sit spin slowed the spin down. Would have been better without it.

    The catch-foot in the final Spiral position was absolutely useless; a waste of time.

    The Beillmann position in the Layback caused the spin to slightly travel (and wasn't an amazing position for her anyway).

    Irina Slutskaya - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSlFufwQRjc

    The change-of-edge in the Spiral was completely wobbly (which was always the case for Irina in this element). Her final position, doing an unsupported change of the free leg position to gain an extra level, slowed down the Spiral and was simply ugly.

    This section of the program would have looked better if she had done a simpler Spiral...3 clean spiral positions (one of the positions being a catch-foot to add some flair would be fine) with speed and no jerky change of edge would have looked better (and interpreted the pulse-pounding throb of the music better as well).

    SASHA and IRINA, two of the most talented ladies ever when it comes it these elements, and even still a program with all Level 4 elements does not benefit them.

    SHIZUKA ARAKAWA from this competition doesn't fare any better. Several of her spin positions hampered the overall effect rather than adding to it.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 12-07-2009 at 04:14 PM.

Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •