And I kind of think it would be too bad if the 3a started showing up more among the ladies to the detriment of a the 3-3, which is what happened with Mao's skating. It's great that she can do a 3a (most of the time.) But somehow, it's more satisfying that Yuna can do such an amazing, huge and technical PERFECT 3 lutz-3 toe.
The 3 lutz-3 toe is NOT an element that most women skaters have mastered. Not at all. It's still a reach, especially to pull it off with no flutz and with ease.
Mao made history by pulling of two 3 axles in an Olympic LP, so good for her and I happen to be great fan. But Mao cannot do a 3 lutz-3 toe the way Yuna can. Not even close. So who is to say which of them shows the greatest technical ability?
Yuna is certainly pushing the technical boundaries of her sport.
There is something to be said about quality and the quality of Yuna's jumps are breathtaking.
I mostly agree with you. And, I am not even a fan of Mao's Triple Axel.
I think it is about as difficult to do an exceptional 3Lz (GoE of 2 to 3 or, say, 2.5 on average) as a poor 3A with heavy prerotation, borderline under-rotation, and little aesthetic merit (say, GoE of 0.5 for the sake of argument). With everything else being equal (e.g., time bonus), the poor 3A would receive 8.7 on average while the exceptional Lutz 8.5. In that sense, I think the current score potential including base value and GoE for 3A is enough as far as fairness is concerned about Mao and Yuna. In other words, if you limit the issue down to Mao and Yuna, I absolutely agree that Mao fans and Japan have no real argument about it.
However, there is another issue regarding incentive and being at the frontier technique-wise as there is no denying that a great 3A is more difficult than a great 3Lz, and 3A assumes higher risk. That is to be accounted for.
The trick, in my opinion, is to "gradually" get to the point where the system gives enough incentives, yet keeps its integrity by not giving so much as to be exploited by skaters with "poor" 3A (e.g., the score potential for poor 3A "far" exceeding that of great 3Lz) -- I consider Mao's triple Axel poor. In that sense, if at all, a possible change in 3A would be small.
As far as Mao is concerned, the change would be about 1 or 1.5 point when she lands both 3A's including the combination. That would not motivate other skaters not equipped with proper technique and natural talent to stick with 3A. However, that adds a bit for skaters who have potential to do great 3A.
I expect a mid-point to have a bit bigger impact as an equalizer. If implemented wrongly, this will produce an army of skaters with poor technique. The change, if at all, should be very modest unless politics truly prevails upon it. Many countries other than Japan get benefits out of it. If they are short-sighted enough, they will make it happen in a manner that there is no proper way to reward "good" skaters. And, the mid-point will blur the line of good and bad techniques. Such a change cannot be defended, and I don't think it will happen that way.
If you really think about it, a mid-point for Mao is not very consequential for all practicality once you take politics into consideration (what a wonderful world of figure skating!). In Vancouver, the tech panel was very lenient on some top skaters (with an exception of Rachael) on under-rotation and other technical issues. Who is to say the phenomenon will not recur at a bigger stage like worlds and another Olympics (or even GPF)? For Mao, it is more about sticking it or not rather than 1/4 under-rotation.
I agree that any change about 3A will hurt triples if not properly devised and implemented. There is only country who benefits from a radical change about it right now. Once Mao retires -- 4 more years of non-sense on 3A, that is -- there will be far less pressure about it, as well. I think adding a bit more on 3A will not change the current trend of figure skating.