Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70

Thread: Axel in SP

  1. #16
    On the Ice sarukou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    Well, if there ever came along a male skater who could do a quad-axel, the rule should be that he could do a quad-axel rather than a triple-axel or double-axel.

    In fact, I don't understand why they even specify the number of rotation of axel jumps in the first place. It should be whatever number of rotation that the skater wants to attempt.
    I agree, I don't get the restrictions placed on skaters particularly in the short program. These skaters are the best in the World! There shouldn't be so many restraints.
    As another example for the Men, they are allowed to do a quad-triple combo or a quad out of steps, but they are not allowed to do both. There is a rule in place against doing two quad in the SP, even if they are different takeoffs.
    If a skater has the talent to do that, (how many skaters in the world can?) there shouldn't be anything preventing them from doing it.

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,899
    I don't get the restrictions placed on skaters particularly in the short program. These skaters are the best in the World! There shouldn't be so many restraints.
    Short programs have always been about restrictions. The skaters have far more freedom about which elements to attempt in the short than they did 20+ years ago.

    And the rules for the senior short program are the same for the best in the world as well as for the lowest-ranked seniors. It's up to the best skaters to show off their best skills to best advantage within those restrictions in order to earn top placements.

    There is a rule in place against doing two quad in the SP, even if they are different takeoffs.
    That's true, but so far there have been even fewer men who have successfully landed two different kinds of quads in LPs than there have been women who have successfully landed triple axels.

    When there are at least five or six of them doing it in LPs each year, then they'll change the rule for the SPs.

    It will prevent a situation such as happened at Russia Cup, where Mao's 2-axel was discounted because her 3-axel was called on under-rotation.
    Asada's opening jump was called a double axel at Cup of Russia because she only rotated 2 1/2 times; it WAS a double axel:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcN1T3jVQ3E

    If a man did that on an intended triple axel combination, it would be called as a double as well, and he would get no credit for doing another 2A as the solo axel later in the SP.

    That did sometimes happen, especially up to 1998 when men were still required to do a solo 2A. If they were thinking on their feet, they would count the 2A that was meant to be 3A combo as the solo 2A and then put a triple combo later in the program where the 2A was planned. If they were daring, they'd try the 3A combo, but that was risky for mid-level senior men 2 minutes into the program. If less daring, they might substitute 3Lo-2T or 3S-2T.

    Asada evidently either didn't realize that she had only executed a double, or else she didn't have a backup plan and couldn't think of one on in the heat of the moment.

    The short program has always heavily penalized failure to meet its exact requirements. Repeating the double axel is a big nono. It was a costly mistake. Hopefully she learned from the experience and now has a backup plan in case it happens again.


    The short program rules are not going to be changed to benefit one exceptional skater. They'll be changed when a certain level of technical content becomes normal and expected from many skaters in long programs.

  3. #18
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    141
    Even if the 3A were ratified it would not significantly improve the base score of Mao's SP. Assuming the non-jump elements were the same as at Worlds the most likely jumps would be 3Lo, 3F+2Lo and 3A, remember Mao currently doesn't do 3Lz. If you took Mao's SP from Worlds and adjusted the base value to assume a clean 3A+2T rather than the underrotated combo (she did do it cleanly at the Olys after all). Then the base score for her worlds program would be 34.4. The base score using the jump layout above, which IMO is a realistic layout, would be 35.1 this is only a 0.7 point base increase. So the 3A as a solo jump wouldn't make a significant difference to the SP.

  4. #19
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by sk8rdad View Post
    Even if the 3A were ratified it would not significantly improve the base score of Mao's SP. Assuming the non-jump elements were the same as at Worlds the most likely jumps would be 3Lo, 3F+2Lo and 3A, remember Mao currently doesn't do 3Lz. If you took Mao's SP from Worlds and adjusted the base value to assume a clean 3A+2T rather than the underrotated combo (she did do it cleanly at the Olys after all). Then the base score for her worlds program would be 34.4. The base score using the jump layout above, which IMO is a realistic layout, would be 35.1 this is only a 0.7 point base increase. So the 3A as a solo jump wouldn't make a significant difference to the SP.
    No, it could potentially be alot more. She didn't have a 3-3 this season, but she has done 3 flip - 3 toe loop and 3 flip - 3 loop in the past and she has said that she will resume practicing 3-3's again. So the potential layout is triple-axel, triple-triple jump and a triple jump. Depending on which type of triple she jumps, the base score will change, but it will certainly be more than what you suggest.

    However, what her base value would be is rather pointless to the discussion at hand. The whole point is that since men are allowed to do it, it should be allowed for women; this should have been the rule all along. The rule doesn't make the triple-axel compulsory for women. It makes it a choice for them. If women are not going to be allowed the choice, then the rule should be changed so that men should not be allowed the choice.

    I get that this rule has not such a great chance of being passed. However, if it doesn't pass, I think it will only be fodder for general society to talk about lack of gender awareness in ISU thinking---they must live in the Victorian era---and how they themselves don't seem to think that figure skating is actually a sport.
    Last edited by hurrah; 03-29-2010 at 08:58 PM.

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    haha, the answer is NO, absolutely not. This idea is being floated by no other than JSF for purely self-serving reasons with no regards to how this may affect the future of ladies skating. Like someone else said elsewhere, if you count the number of skaters who have had knee surgeries, groin injuries and their hips replaced, I want to be able to see skaters walk normally when they hit 40. Triple Axel is clearly not a standard jump yet for ladies. At this time, only one female skater has any resemblance of consistency on this jump in competition. Even her, she missed it more often than not. In other words, the intention of JSF is to get lucky. They are hoping the change would allow the tiny chance that the said skater would get "lucky" once in a while, the latest batting average is 1/3 by the way. Doesn't sound like a very promising stats to back up for such a major change. Besides, rule change should never be made to accommodate just one individual skater. As for the gender bias claim, people who suggest that, could you please quit already? Did we ask men to do spiral sequence and layback spin as well or can you claim gender bias in that as well? What's next? Asking that the factored PCS for ladies to be identical to men's as well? :sheesh:

    Between this and the so called mid-point value for the UR jumps, I think JSF is asking for a lot and may end up getting nada at all. Both of these topics are such Pandora-box topics that I hope they are sealed for a very long time. Thankfully, my sense is neither of the two proposals would have any viable chance of becoming reality, much less the Triple Axel for ladies in the SP replacing the Double Axel.

  6. #21
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    haha, the answer is NO, absolutely not. This idea is being floated by no other than JSF for purely self-serving reasons with no regards to how this may affect the future of ladies skating. Like someone else said elsewhere, if you count the number of skaters who have had knee surgeries, groin injuries and their hips replaced, I want to be able to see skaters walk normally when they hit 40. Triple Axel is clearly not a standard jump yet for ladies. At this time, only one female skater has any resemblance of consistency on this jump in competition. Even her, she missed it more often than not. In other words, the intention of JSF is to get lucky. They are hoping the change would allow the tiny chance that the said skater would get "lucky" once in a while, the latest batting average is 1/3 by the way. Doesn't sound like a very promising stats to back up for such a major change. Besides, rule change should never be made to accommodate just one individual skater. As for the gender bias claim, people who suggest that, could you please quit already? Did we ask men to do spiral sequence and layback spin as well or can you claim gender bias in that as well? What's next? Asking that the factored PCS for ladies to be identical to men's as well? :sheesh:

    Between this and the so called mid-point value for the UR jumps, I think JSF is asking for a lot and may end up getting nada at all. Both of these topics are such Pandora-box topics that I hope they are sealed for a very long time. Thankfully, my sense is neither of the two proposals would have any viable chance of becoming reality, much less the Triple Axel for ladies in the SP replacing the Double Axel.
    Hey, is it JSF that's asking for mid-point value for UR jumps?? I really don't know. I'm just asking.

    As for men doing spiral sequence and layback spins, well, there's not a rule that says they can't include a spiral sequence and layback spins, so your analogy is off. If there was a rule that said men can't do spiral sequence and layback spins, I think this would be gender discrimination as well.

    Also, there's no proposal to replace the double axel with a triple axel for women. The proposal is to give a choice of doing either a double or triple, just as is allowed for men.
    Last edited by hurrah; 03-30-2010 at 01:31 AM.

  7. #22
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    http://www.sponichi.co.jp/sports/fla...100329088.html

    Says that Japanese Fed will appeal to ISU for a rule change to allow a choice of 3-axel instead of 2-axel in the SP.

    Yoshioka Director (?) of JSF says that they want to make the rule the same as men's and that 'as long as there is a skater who can do it, the rule should be changed'.... It will prevent a situation such as happened at Russia Cup, where Mao's 2-axel was discounted because her 3-axel was called on under-rotation.
    He might want to get his fact's right before he makes that argument since Mao actually popped the triple axel in the SP - so the element was called a double which IIRC she fell on. There was no under-rotation there was simply no attempt at the 3A. She then repeated the double axel and it wasn't counted. I'd certainly be looking to present correct facts if i'd hope to change the rules.

    I also do not buy the "sexist" or descrimination angle on the SP at all. If you want to argue that angle I would suggest a far more important change would be to suggest that the Ladies skate the same length LP as the men and are given another jumping pass - that would seem a far more logical "sexist" angle than simlpy saying one woman in the world can land a jumpand if she were a man she'd be able to do it as the axel requirement in the SP.

    Ant
    Last edited by antmanb; 03-30-2010 at 05:46 AM.

  8. #23
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    He might want to get his fact's right before he makes that argument since Mao actually popped the triple axel in the SP - so the element was called a double which IIRC she fell on. There was no under-rotation there was simply no attempt at the 3A. She then repeated the double axel and it wasn't counted. I'd certainly be looking to present correct facts if i'd hope to change the rules.
    Actually, don't blame him. The article actually didn't specify the reason why her second double-axel was discounted. So I got it wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    I also do not buy the "sexist" or descrimination angle on the SP at all. If you want to argue that angle I would suggest a far more important change would be to suggest that the Ladies skate the same length LP as the men and are given another jumping pass - that would seem a far more logical "sexist" angle than simlpy saying one woman in the world can land a jumpand if she were a man she'd be able to do it as the axel requirement in the SP.
    You may not buy it, but can you really find a way to legitimately argue against it? Presenting another way in which the present rule is sexist/gender discriminatory doesn't really respond directly to the charge.

  9. #24
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    You may not buy it, but can you really find a way to legitimately argue against it? Presenting another way in which the present rule is sexist/gender discriminatory doesn't really respond directly to the charge.
    That's an easy one - skating is sexist and it is discriminatory and doesn't claim to be anything other than that.

    When Madge Syers won the silver at the world championships, there was outrage that she beat men in doing so and from then on the sport was split into men and women.

    If you want equality then the women should compete with the men - that would be the most fair, or least discriminatory way to do it. It isn't done that way because most people agree that they should be separated, most sports are they are not mixed.

    Claiming one single rule is "sexist" doesn't carry any gravitas to it not least when (yet again) the proponants only want an advatage for one person rather than genuinely arguing inequality.

    Others have pointed out that the men cannot perform layback spins or sprial sequences in the SPs either - those are also discriminatory rules, as is the difference in length and difference in requirements (ie jumping passes) for ladies and men in the LP.

    All of these things are presented to show that yes the rules do discriminate between men and women that is the very purpose of some of the rules.

    Ant

  10. #25
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,899
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    As for men doing spiral sequence and layback spins, well, there's not a rule that says they can't include a spiral sequence and layback spins, so your analogy is off.
    We're talking about the short program here.

    Men could do a spiral sequence in the short program as transitions, but it wouldn't count as an element and they would get no points for it. Women could do a second step sequence in the short program as transitions, but it wouldn't count as an element and they would get no points for it.

    Men would be penalized if they did a solo layback spin in the short program the way ladies must. Men are required to do a flying spin, a combo spin, and a change-foot camel or change-foot sit spin. They can include a layback position in the combo spin (Takahashi does the best outside-edge layback I've seen!). In theory they could do a flying layback as the flying spin, but that's very difficult and no ladies do it either (would not be advisable in the SP anyway since then they'd be doing two layback spins, one flying and one not).

    But if a man did a solo layback in place of the change-foot sit or camel, he would get no points for the solo spin and get points for only seven elements. Same as if a woman did change sit or change camel instead of the layback. It would be a stupid choice in the short program to do a non-required element and leave out a required element.

    In the LONG program, the requirement is simply a spin in one position, with or without change of foot. So men would be free to fill that requirement with a solo layback and women would be free to fill it with a change sit or change camel. There are also other options available for that LP requirement.

    Similarly with the triple axel. Women can do it solo and/or in combination in the long program. They are free to use it in the short program as the combination jump, or as the solo jump out of steps. But they're still required to do a solo double axel.

    That was also true for men up to 1998. At that point the powers-that-be decided that enough senior men could do triple axel (including some who had trouble doing it combination) that they would allow it to fulfill the solo axel requirement. Only a couple of years ago, when you could no longer count on one hand the number of junior men doing triple axels in long programs, did they extend that option to junior men.

    When there are enough senior ladies landing triple axels in long programs that it becomes a common ladies' element, then they'll change the rules. Not before.

    The short program rules evolve to follow the standard of what's expected in the field as a whole.

    It was only in 1994-95 that women were first allowed to do a triple jump as the solo jump preceded by footwork. So the "gender discrimination" in the early 90s when you had Midori Ito and Tonya Harding capable of six different triples only allowed to include ONE triple total in the SP was a lot more severe than the current situation. And they did sometimes try triple axel in the combination.

    Triple-triple combination has been allowed in the senior men's SP since 1988-89 (before that, one of the jumps in the combination was a specified double, usually loop or toe loop). Triple-triple combination has been allowed in the senior ladies' SP since 1996-97. So then for two years the jump requirements were the same for both sexes. In 1998-99, for men they added the option of 3A as the solo axel and a quad as the solo jump out of steps -- it wasn't allowed in the combo until a couple years later. Which is what most quad guys then chose to do, since it was hard to actually do steps right before a quad.

    It was just about that time (1999 or 2001 season) that women were no longer allowed to do a solo double out of steps.

    Look at the whole history of the short program requirements and how they have changed over time. Look at what the whole field is capable of doing at the time, not just the medal contenders. That will give a better picture of the reasons for the limits. Sometimes the ISU is a little slow to catch up with the field, but in this case we're not talking about more than one or two skaters. I think the biggest lag or gender discrimination was not allowing ladies to do a triple as the solo jump starting in 1989 or at least 1991; two different triples was a pretty normal repertoire for lower-mid-ranked senior ladies by then.
    Last edited by gkelly; 03-30-2010 at 08:30 AM.

  11. #26
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Actually, I don’t even know why a staunch Mao fan that I am would even care about the outcome of this proposal. For Mao, whether this rule goes through or not, it doesn’t matter. The moment the proposal is made, it’s a win-win situation for her.

    If the proposal is accepted, she will potentially increase her base point by about six points, so she will profit in the short term.

    Nevertheless, the six points is still not enough to guarantee what she really wants. Mao’s desire is to top Yuna’s Olympic score, and in order to do so, she’ll still need triple-triples, and she’ll need to increase her GoEs. And she actually doesn’t need the 6 base points because she’s able to do two triple-triples. So whether or not she can do the triple-axel instead of double-axel, it actually doesn’t change what Mao will have to do in the coming years.

    If the proposal is not accepted, it will be even a greater win for her, particularly in the long run. Given the lack of incentive there is to master the triple-axel, Mao will remain the only woman to continue putting in the triple-axel in competition, thus guaranteeing that she will be the only female skater to have the possibility of garnering triple-axel base points of 8.2. Furthermore, it is likely that if the rule does not change, she will be the last woman in figure skating history to put in triple-axels, and once she retires, no woman will do a triple-axel for how long? Maybe a decade? Mao will surely become a skating legend. Her name will be in the Guinness Book of World Records as being the only woman to have three triple-axels ratified.

    What will ISU do then? There will be no woman doing the triple-axel, and yet they will have to change the rules so as to encourage women to master the triple-axel!

    Ten years from now, people will ask, why wasn’t the SP rule changed after Vancouver Olympics, when the proposal was made, when there actually was a woman doing a triple-axel? With hindsight, it will be that people will recognize ISU’s shortsightedness.

    End of the story.

    So you see, as a Mao fan, I should just shut up and quietly watch what ISU does. But I also believe in encouraging advancements in the sports, and raising my voice against gender discrimination. And I think Mao deserves to be treated with some fairness.

  12. #27
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    So you see, as a Mao fan, I should just shut up and quietly watch what ISU does. But I also believe in encouraging advancements in the sports, and raising my voice against gender discrimination. And I think Mao deserves to be treated with some fairness.
    And yet your special powers do not extend to reading mine or gkelly's posts above about the history of the SP or explaining how the rules are neither discriminatory or unfair. You keep your fingers firmly in your ears and sing la-la-la-la-la-la if it helps

    Ant

  13. #28
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    And yet your special powers do not extend to reading mine or gkelly's posts above about the history of the SP or explaining how the rules are neither discriminatory or unfair. You keep your fingers firmly in your ears and sing la-la-la-la-la-la if it helps

    Ant
    Well, I think gkelly explained it well.

  14. #29
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    58
    Mao is not just Mao. She is a product of an old system. The system was partially validated at this worlds. Once Yuna retires, Mao will win a few more world titles and possibly an OGM, which will crown her as the greatest figure skater ever lived -- artistry shall not be discussed as art is in the eyes of the beholder -- and the system will regain its old status in the world of figure skating.

    But, for now, I guess it really needs people to see its product being better than the counterpart. Who would have known that the world record this and that for figure skating based on subjective scoring, a marketing ploy, could have become a passion?

    Mao was taught under a system that has promoted a certain way of doing things. She has done her best with her talent and work ethics. But, I truly cringe at the idea that some kids somewhere try to imitate Mao's jumps. The legend may live on, it seems.

    It will be pretty interesting to see the development in Sochi if Russia has someone with a legitimate shot at the gold.

    Who would believe Figure skating should be about demonstration of athleticism and artistic persuasion?

  15. #30
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by hurrah View Post
    Actually, don't blame him. The article actually didn't specify the reason why her second double-axel was discounted. So I got it wrong.
    Is that so? <<また、3回転半に失敗して2回転半となり、後に跳んだ2回転半が規定違反で0点になった、昨年10月の ロシア杯のような事態も回避できる。 >> He specifically claimed and referred to the Cup of Russia incident last October and suggested that the voiding of her Double Axel to a zero point element could have been avoided if such rule change were permitted. Maybe you need to do a more honest job at communicating what was actually said? The fact is antmanb is correct. Asada popped her Triple Axel attempt into a Double, then later on she repeated it again as part of the required Double Axel jump. The whole incident could have been avoided if in lieu of doing the required Double Axel, she installed a 3/3 or 3/2 or 2/3 jump combination of anykind, not involving a Double Axel. Her first element would have count as Double Axel and no element would have been voided. Mr. Yoshioka should have got the facts right, Asada's jump being voided had absolutely nothing to do with Triple Axel not allowed in the SP as part of the Double Axel requirement. This is no different say a male skater who choose to do say a Triple Axel-Triple Toe combo and plan only a Double Axel for the stand alone Axel jump as this was the most popular arrangement prior to Triple Axel being allowed stand-alone for men in years past. Even today, some men still do that but let's say he popped the Triple Axel into a Double. Even though Triple Axel is allowed as a standalone Axel jump in Men's SP today, this guy went to do another required Double Axel because that's what he has planned and he made a mental error and forgot that he already did a Double Axel from the pop, he too will have his Double Axel voided as a zero point element.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 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
  •