- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
I presume you are saying that an UR can only be measured objectively by a downgrade. Yes? and that a wrong-edge-take off from lutz to flip with its easier rotations and landings should not change the name of the jump that didn't happen. Apparently you believe there are flaws in the definitions of the elements. Yes? and although Landings of a jump are program disruptive, the Fall of the element should remain program attempted, and the air rotations should be considered as a teaching tool with points. Yes?Because the whole point of IJS was to DEFINE figure skating elements so that they could be MEASURED objectively. Just think. . . If you don't downgrade a jump that is just over 1/4 turn underrotated, then at what point will you downgrade it? 1/3 turn? 1/2 turn? Will you score an overrotated double as an underrotated triple? Will there be a fixed % decrease in the value of each jump depending on exactly what degree it was underrotated? Let's say they did that. . . How would you like seeing a whole slew of 3-1/2 revolution "quads" (and what would they call them anyway?) and 3 revolution triple axels (would they call them two-and-a-half-axels?). The point is that when you want to DEFINE something, you must draw the line somewhere. It's just like law.
Now as Scott Hamilton says: All jumps turn the same way in the air (even counter rotation jumps) and land the same way. Only the Take-Off is different and that's what gives the jump a name. in It's obvious to me, but you can clarify it with Scott, if you like.
My major concern is to give the big Three Errors equal penalties. To me, one error is as bad as another. Why give partial credit to an error.We are talking about Senior Skaters
Failing that, we will just relax and enjoy wrong definitions. No need to send in the clowns. They are already here. (sorry, not emoticons on this page.)