Axel in SP | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Axel in SP

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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:

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
http://www.sponichi.co.jp/sports/flash/KFullFlash20100329088.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:

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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.

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.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
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
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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:

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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.
 

antmanb

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 5, 2004
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
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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.
 

key65man

Rinkside
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
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?
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
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.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
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.

Of course, skating is a sexist sport to some extent. Why can't men get credit for spiral sequence or have a choice to do spiral sequence in the SP? Why does pair and dance has to be a man and a woman? The list can go on and on and on. But the design of the LP, where men have 8 jumping passes and 13 elements vs. 7 jumping passes and 12 elements for women also makes logical sense. The rules say you can repeat two jumps of Triple rotation and higher. Since the vast majority of ladies, 99.99% of them only master up to 5 Triple jumps and do not do Quads, what are you going to make them do with 8 jumping passes? Double Flips? Why do other sports like tennis make men play up to 5 sets whereas women, only up to 3 sets? Even female Olympians aknowledge that the men's sport is far more demanding - it's not sexist, it's a statement of fact. When and if female skaters have consistently mastered 6 different Triple types, maybe there will be a case to extend the LP to include an 8th jumping pass and the duration, up to 4 minutes 30 seconds. Until then, the current rules make logical sense, therefore, in this regard, they are not discrminatory. If you are so keen on discrmination based on gender, there are much better causes to fight for but this ain't one of them.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
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.

[...]

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.

Very well said, you summarized the evolution of ISU rules in this regard extremely well and accurate. Thank you for taking us through the various milestones of the SP evolution for both men and women - I have almost forgot about the various dates...it almost seemed like yesterday when these changes happened.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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.

Okay. I was wrong to think that I got it wrong the first time around. My apologies. I'm really sorry antmanb.

Just to explain---I didn't check the article again when I responded to antmanb because in the overall scheme of things, I felt that this point was not important to what's being debated. I didn't care whether I got it wrong or the coach got it wrong. And so I just put blame on myself for being wrong because that seemed more diplomatic and far more likely. But I recognize that it is important to strive to be accurate.

Anyway, regarding the fact that the coach got it wrong, well if this JSF coach is thinking of Mao's interest only, it doesn't matter if this proposal passes or not; in fact, it's better if it doesn't get passed, as I have already argued. Its only importance from JSF's point of view would be the meaning it holds as a symbolic gesture, that they did the decent thing and submitted a proposal that might prevent figure skating from regressing. If ISU doesn't see that, then so be it, would be the attitude that JSF can adopt with free conscience.

I wouldn't even be surprised if JSF were not to submit this proposal when it comes down to it. Why should they, after all? They'd only be accused of being overly nationalistic or something like that.
 
Last edited:

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
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.

Funny you would raise the issue of gender discrimination considering Japan is by far the worst when it comes to rights of women among the developped countries. I just found it curious, it feels like fox attending the hen's funeral almost. I am all for gender equality but I don't buy baseless claims that are mere camouflage of purely self-serving motives hiding behind a bogus grandiose claim which serves no common good whatsoever.

If the proposal is accepted, which it won't, it may in fact make Mao even worse off. Instead of getting credit for a well executed Double Axel, her Triple Axel attempt may be downgraded and resulting in negative GOE instead of positive GOE. So instead of gaining an advantage, she could easily lose 3 points or more on the Double Axel due to GOE go from say +2 to -1.4

If the proposal is not accepted, Mao Asada still needs to demonstrate her Triple Axel is reliable and not UR. Right now, everytime she does a Triple Axel, it makes the judges worried. "Is it fully rotated or is it not?" If they are scared or unsure, she may or may not credit for it but the judges will be hesitant to award her positive GOE, which discounts the overall value of the element as somone else who does a good Triple Lutz could easily match the base value of a Triple Axel.

Let's face it, the reason why Asada won the 2010 Worlds with only one ratified Triple Axel out of three attempts is because pretty much because the entire field bombed. Kim missed her layback spin = 0, Spiral downgraded to 1, UR Triple Flip, fell on Triple Salchow and poped a Double Axel. Lepisto popped three Triples and stepped out on a Double Axel. Miki Ando fell on a Triple Lutz combo in SP and etc. Oh and Rochette was absent. If any of those girls skated up to their potential, last year's outcome may repeat itself again, which is Asada left off the World podium.

You don't dominate this sport because of one jump, to beleive so is to completely fail to understand how this sport works, especially when that said jump is not even very well mastered.
 

hongligl

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Personally I think Mao's strategy of focussing on 3A was not wise. She should work on other jumps and jump combinations to be a well-rounded skater. That does not mean that I'm happy with judges' approaches to scrutinize specific skaters just because they decided to go for a harder jump, and I think double punishment (< + negative GOE) is way too harsh and unfair. I'm against half-way jump marks though; Underrotation should be reflected in GOE only IMO. Of course there should be a range, say within a quarter or half a quarter under rotation, to be ratified. The final score of a underrotated but otherwise well executed jump, quad or 3A, should get a little bit higher mark than a well executed tripe or 2A. If it has a underrotation more than the allowed range, down grade it. This way, only skaters with reasonablly confidence about the jump would try it; risk taking is still encouraged, but not abused.
 

Phoenix347

Final Flight
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Funny you would raise the issue of gender discrimination considering Japan is by far the worst when it comes to rights of women among the developped countries. I just found it curious, it feels like fox attending the hen's funeral almost. I am all for gender equality but I don't buy baseless claims that are mere camouflage of purely self-serving motives hiding behind a bogus grandiose claim which serves no common good whatsoever.

If the proposal is accepted, which it won't, it may in fact make Mao even worse off. Instead of getting credit for a well executed Double Axel, her Triple Axel attempt may be downgraded and resulting in negative GOE instead of positive GOE. So instead of gaining an advantage, she could easily lose 3 points or more on the Double Axel due to GOE go from say +2 to -1.4

If the proposal is not accepted, Mao Asada still needs to demonstrate her Triple Axel is reliable and not UR. Right now, everytime she does a Triple Axel, it makes the judges worried. "Is it fully rotated or is it not?" If they are scared or unsure, she may or may not credit for it but the judges will be hesitant to award her positive GOE, which discounts the overall value of the element as somone else who does a good Triple Lutz could easily match the base value of a Triple Axel.

Let's face it, the reason why Asada won the 2010 Worlds with only one ratified Triple Axel out of three attempts is because pretty much because the entire field bombed. Kim missed her layback spin = 0, Spiral downgraded to 1, UR Triple Flip, fell on Triple Salchow and poped a Double Axel. Lepisto popped three Triples and stepped out on a Double Axel. Miki Ando fell on a Triple Lutz combo in SP and etc. Oh and Rochette was absent. If any of those girls skated up to their potential, last year's outcome may repeat itself again, which is Asada left off the World podium.

You don't dominate this sport because of one jump, to believe so is to completely fail to understand how this sport works, especially when that said jump is not even very well mastered.

Thank you for your interesting post. The phrase I put in bold is important because I think ISU ought to think about at least moving the world championship to a later date in Olympic years. I think if they want to see well skated World Championship after the Olympic games, they should move it to perhaps mid April to give skaters more of a chance to recover from the Olympics. One month is not enough.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I don't think the proposed rule change would help or hurt any specific skater. Every skater would face the same choice. Should I work on my triple Axel and a triple-triple to try to get more points, or should I back off to jumps I know I can do and not take a chance on under-rotating, etc?

If a skater says, hey, no fair -- Mao has a triple Axel and I don't -- well, go work on your triple Axel for next season.

If Mao says, hey this new rule is hurting me because i keep falling on my triple Axel -- well, practice more or leave it out.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
I am curious, on a conceptual level, what the SP is supposed to serve as its purpose, and why there are certain requirements and restrictions in it (e.g. the required solo double Axel.)
 
Top