Well, rules changes for the future cannot affect Mao Asada's placement at the 2010 Olympics. But I don't see anything wrong with considering now the possibility that in the future other skaters will come along who can do a triple Axel.
Suppose the ladies short program rule is changed to allow a double or triple Axel for the Axel requirement. In order to take advantage of this rule change a lady would have to do both a triple Axel and a triple-triple. If she did one but not the other, she would not be much ahead of a skater who did the other but not the first.
Example: 3A, 3F+2T, 3Lo = 20.0 base points.
Versus: 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A = 19.0 base points.
In order to take a commanding lead, Axel Girl would have to do something like 3A, 3Lz+3Lo, 3F = 24.7 base points. She would deserve every bit of her jumping-passes advantage if she could do all of that!
Last edited by Mathman; 03-04-2010 at 10:17 PM.
Also, you said judges should just be stricter about pre-rotation/under-rotation. Would you even trust them to do that? If you haven't noticed in the past season, the tech panel has been extremely inconsistent with their calls. In addition to the power that the tech panel already have now, you want to give them more?
Last edited by Figure88; 03-04-2010 at 10:39 PM.
I guess I do not see the urgency of discussing the quad/triple Axel question yet again this year. It comes up before the ISU Technical Committee every year, and every year the same arguments pro and con are brought forth. The last time was when Buttle beat Joubert for the 2008 World championship. The ISU decided, hey, that's not right, let's raise the value of quads and triple Axels for 2009, which they did.
Now here we are again. No matter how high we raise the base values of these elements there will always be someone who finishes second but might have won if the quad were a few points higher.
Thanks for confirming our difference. I know where this may lead to. So, I will leave with one more thing. You are right that the tech panel has been inconsistent on pre-rotation and under-rotation, which is a problem. But, I don't see why enforcing it more strictly would make it more inconsistent or is same as giving the tech panel more power.
Because any changes to the rules that are knee jerk reactions to one situation, to me, are never going to be particularly sound. (like COP being knee jerk reaction to SLC pairs ) I think the COP is getting right now. One element should not be the be all and end all - we saw it with Joubert/Buttle in 2008 (the correct result) and again in Vancouver IMO the correct result, Evgeni was slightly off - his jump went up all wonky, it's testament to the incredible skater he is that he landed those jumps on one foot. So what did the system do? Well there were two programmes that were pretty evenly matched technically, one did have a harder element in it which would tip the scales in that favour, but for the fact the overall quality of the other programme was better - so the sacles tipped back (only by a small margin) to give the win to the "cleaner" programme.
I can only speak for myself but that is what I have always wanted from the scoring system.
But Yuna does not need a boost to beat the programs Mao showed in Vancouver. With a 20 point cushion Yuna is untouchable by Mao at the moment.
And of course this is a CoP thing. The OGM is won by scoring the most points and not by one element.
Are you still confused about that?
The reason I say ALL is, as an example: The Spiral in the Ladies Division. Which is more important - the skating edge or the free leg in verticle position? Probably both but I would demand Line as most important. At the Senior Level, Spirals are not difficult but a skater must strive to get a good line to show it off.