Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 70

Thread: Axel in SP

  1. #46
    Custom Title Phoenix347's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    661
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

    and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

    Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

    Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

    In the case of the axel rule I believe it will change when more ladies are including it.
    Mao tried three in Torino and had one ratified. Did any other Ladies try a 3A ?
    Actually, I enjoy watching compulsory figures. It give me a sense of tranquility. Not only that but Trixi Schuba had incredible edge control while doing the figures. I could watch that ... just not 50 (some which would not be as good as Schuba for sure.) Maybe 30.

  2. #47
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post

    Originally singles skaters did compulsory figures and freestyle programs.

    Meanwhile, there was a movement afoot to increase the importance of freestyle skating and decrease the importance of figures for singles skaters.

    In 1972-73, a short program was introduced for singles. It was only worth 20% of the total score at first, but short plus long program together added up to more than the figures.

    .
    Thanks for the post gkelly.

    I am curious - before the introdution of the SP what were the values for compulsary figures and freeskating?
    I used to think it was 50% for each part - but were the figures worth more than 50% of the skater's score? Maybe closer to 60-40?

    Also after the introduction in 1973 of the SP (technical program) what was the breakdown?

    20% was the value of the SP - but how much were the figures worth and the LP (freeskating)?

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    517
    Thanks for posting. This is the first time I ever see a vedio of figure competition. Thank goodness the figure is dumped. It's so boring, eek.

    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

    and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

    Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

    Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

    In the case of the axel rule I believe it will change when more ladies are including it.
    Mao tried three in Torino and had one ratified. Did any other Ladies try a 3A ?

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    I am curious - before the introdution of the SP what were the values for compulsary figures and freeskating?
    I used to think it was 50% for each part - but were the figures worth more than 50% of the skater's score? Maybe closer to 60-40?
    It changed. Originally 60-40, but then during the last few years (1969-72 maybe?) it was 50-50.
    However, the way the two parts of the competitions were scored, it was easier to build up a big lead in figures that would be close to impossible for anyone to overcome than for a skater who was much better at freestyle to catch up from behind.

    Also after the introduction in 1973 of the SP (technical program) what was the breakdown?

    20% was the value of the SP - but how much were the figures worth and the LP (freeskating)?
    IIRC at first it was 40-20-40, then 30-20-50, and finally in the last two years 20-30-50.

    The number of figures also decreased from six to three to two.

  5. #50
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Isn't it funny we still call this sport "Figure Skating" even though figures are long gone? I think "Free Skating" would have been the more appropriate term today but then, with all these restrictions in place in IJS, some may object to the term "Free".

  6. #51
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by antmanb View Post
    As to the mid-way BV for an under-rotated jump. I agree that something needs to be done about the fact that UR jumps are penalised more than anything else, however, the mid-way point value looks very "slippery slope" to me. Skaters who are starting to rotate harder jumps and manage to stand up on them may be encouraged to stand up on jumps they have never fully rotated in order to get more points. Male skaters going for 3.5 toe-loops or salchows, or given the vast points those who can rotate quad salchows stand a fairly good chance of doing 4 revs on an axel take-off. Do we really want to encourage sloppy attempts at greater rotation? I don't know how to fix the system to make it "work" but the mid-way BV seems like a good fix until you look at what it might encourage.
    Look at my suggested values for underrotated jumps:

    4Lutz - 7.6 (-1.5, +1 for GOE)
    4Flip - 7.2 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Loop - 6.8 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
    4Sal - 6.0 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
    4Toe - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)

    3Axel - 4.8 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
    3Lutz - 3.3 (-.9, -.9, -.8, +.9 for GOE)
    3Flip - 3.1 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    3Loop - 2.9 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
    3Sal - 2.4 (-.7, +.7 for GOE)
    3Toe - 2.2 (-.6, +.7 for GOE)

    If someone underrotates a Quad and has a sloppy landing, they will be punished highly on the -GOE. Takahashi's Quad Flip attempt at Worlds that was double-footed and underrotated would be worth 4.4 points (not much more than what he got with the current rules).

  7. #52
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,208
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

    and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

    Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

    Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.
    Whoa! I know Trixie is given quite a bit of grief for not being a stunning a freeskater as the dazzling Janet, but the difference between Trixie's and Janet's figures in those clips clearly shows exactly how and why Trixie was able to rack up those huge leads in figures. The edge control, the speed, the confidence, the clearly-defined tracings she displays...simply amazing. Also, I love the judges' expressions in 2:39-2:42--you can practically hear them think "Damnit Janet! We want you to have a chance to win, but those figures....!"


    On a more shallow note, Janet had amazing hair.

  8. #53
    Custom Title prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,803
    Well, I had a big post written up yesterday night but my stupid router died on me as I was posting it so it never went through.

    Just wanted to say a big thank-you to gkelly for explaining the SP and its evolution throughout the years. There's a lot to think about. I like the way that the SP and LP are set up right now, but I believe I might prefer a more standards-based program + a more freer free program. The things that I'm mulling over in my head are:

    -if the main purpose of the 2A requirement is to demonstrate forward-entry into a jump, then it would make sense to allow 3A as an optional substitute
    -however, would this allow too few skaters to rack up excessive points going into the LP?
    -but YuNa frequently already does the above, to the cheering of many of her fans, and to the dismay of some other skating fans
    -so, would it be more appropriate to allow the 3A to replace the 2A requirement and have the SP remain open to the abilities of all exceptional skaters, or to curb the opportunities for skaters to run-away with the lead in the SP (e.g. YuNa style) and also maintain the 2A requirement/restriction?

    -if there were a standards-program, what should it include? As it stands now, there are many ladies omitting certain triple jumps. JoeSitz in another thread, mentioned he would want a technical-elements only (i.e. no show, no music, etc.) portion of a figure skating competition. Would it be appropriate to include the 5 standard triples + 2A (or 3A?) + spiral + spin + steps? (for example, having Groups like we have now, but allowing skaters to just skate around in turns on the ice and demonstrating 4-5 skills at a time, two turns per Group.) I would definitely watch this...but now it's more like a LP than a SP since there are so many things to do
    -then the Free Skate can include anything a skater wants, and can highlight any outstanding skills they have (e.g. 3-3), but also they could have more freedom to do whatever they want, and it would be graded more heavily with emphasis on the compositional/interpretive/performance abilities. Yes/No to this idea?

    On a separate note, I also found the clip of the Figures to be really interesting. I don't think I'd want to see it as part of a figure skating competition, but it was neat to see. Janet is beautiful.

  9. #54
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    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.
    Actually, the change of the rule benefits specific skaters only -- at least for a short term or a few yrs -- as it takes time to learn and execute a difficult jump with any level of consistency. (It gets increasingly difficult and time consuming to master a new jump as a skate gets mature physically.) Therefore, the possible change could be unfair to other skaters depending on how it is to be implemented.

    For instance, under-rotation, wrong jump edges, etc., were subject to deduction under the 6.0 system. Only the degree of enforcement has changed upon them. Still, it took a few yrs to get really strict -- though not strict enough yet, I think -- about it in order to allow enough time for the skaters to make adjustments.

    The option of Triple Axel is rather a structural change, and it ultimately changes significantly the weight of one skill in overall score. Therefore, skaters who have not trained for triple axel are unfairly affected by the change (as it has been a tradition to be able to win without it for ladies, and they have trained accordingly). If allowed, it should be implemented in a way that skaters have enough time to adjust to it as it requires time to learn the technique. Therefore, they may have to set a time table properly if the change is to happen at all.

    If you ask me, I'll say "give it to them" for my own selfish reason. I would love to see UR (along with edges) applied strictly and consistently. But, the application of it has been subject to politics. With bigger score potential for one skill, they will have to be more strict about UR. Without a strict and consistent application of UR, the good intention of good/correct technique may not fly high.

    Now, U.S. may have a shot at the gold for the ladies single in Sochi. So does Russia. Japan will have to work it out with them for whatever changes she desires. Give and take in politics. I hope there will be a concession on fluency in triple jumps if triple axel gets all the proposed benefits. Of course, the implementation of the fluency should be gradual and on a long term basis to accommodate older skaters without the skills.

    I am sure ISU cares about what I have to say here. Ha...
    Last edited by key65man; 03-31-2010 at 11:12 AM.

  10. #55
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,640
    Quote Originally Posted by key65man View Post
    I am sure ISU cares about what I have to say here. Ha...


    Interesting points. But I have to say that I am generally not very sympathetic to complaints that a certain rule or rule change might favor or disfavor "the skater who."

    If "the skater who" faces a competitive disadvantage, don't be "the skater who." (The skater who often under-rotates her jumps is at a disadvantage if the tech specialist calls under-rotations strictly. The skater who flutzes is at a disadvantage if the rules get tough on wrong edge take-offs. The skater who falls down all the time is out of luck if they increase the penalty for falling.)

    I can see the point about working in the changes gradually. But at the same time, as long as the rules apply equally to all skaters, I do not see anything "unfair" (or even worthy of political maneuvering) about them.

    Although...major league baseball teams do bring in the fences in the home stadium if they have strong hitters, then next year, if they have strong pitching, they move them back out. If they have strong left-hand hitting they make the right-field line shorter, etc.

  11. #56
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post


    Interesting points. But I have to say that I am generally not very sympathetic to complaints that a certain rule or rule change might favor or disfavor "the skater who."

    If "the skater who" faces a competitive disadvantage, don't be "the skater who." (The skater who often under-rotates her jumps is at a disadvantage if the tech specialist calls under-rotations strictly. The skater who flutzes is at a disadvantage if the rules get tough on wrong edge take-offs. The skater who falls down all the time is out of luck if they increase the penalty for falling.)

    I can see the point about working in the changes gradually. But at the same time, as long as the rules apply equally to all skaters, I do not see anything "unfair" (or even worthy of political maneuvering) about them.

    Although...major league baseball teams do bring in the fences in the home stadium if they have strong hitters, then next year, if they have strong pitching, they move them back out. If they have strong left-hand hitting they make the right-field line shorter, etc.
    I guess we may have to disagree on how the implementation is to be done. But, it may be worthy of a political maneuver as it will affect the results in Sochi. If only I am to have a seat at the meeting for it.

    Congrats if you are a Spartan. I am not. But, you can say I am a closet Izzo admirer.

  12. #57
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Japan/UK
    Posts
    13
    I think it is not a very wise timing to make this proposal as only one female skater is doing 3A right now. There were a few who landed 3A in competitions a few years ago and a few may be around in the near future. But on principle, I am in favour of this proposal.

    I would like to thank gkelly for explaining the history of SP and how SP rules have changed in the past. But to me, one thing we really need to take seriously is that the scoring system has undergone a drastic change: from 6.0 system to COP system. They are based on completely different principles. So there is no reason that we should stick to the way they changed the SP rules under 6.0 system.

    What matters under COP system is how many points you can collect by executing elements. In Sp, female skaters are required to execute three jump elements, (1) combination jump, (2) step jump and (3) axel jump. Now, is there any justification not allowing skaters to do triple axel while allowing skaters to do triple for the second jump in combo and collect more points? Now that only few ladies are doing 3-3 or 3A, why do we want to allow skaters to take a huge advantage over others with 3-3 and not with 3A?

    Another way of presenting this case is to compare three possible set of rules.
    (A): 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A
    (B): either 3-2 or 3-3 combo, step 3, either 2A or 3A (or better, no restriction on a number of rotations)
    (C): either 3-3 or 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A.
    Under (B), skaters are allowed to choose a number of rotations and are rewarded accordingly. It is simple as that. In the case of (A), in a top tier competition, all serious contenders for the gold would be placed in the level playing field in terms of base value (except for those who cannot do both Lz and F). One with higher quality jumps will collect more points and takes the lead (insofar as jump elements are concerned). I can see the logic in (A) and (B). But what is the logic of (C)? I don't see any.

    Things look worse because men are allowed to do either double or triple axel. 3A is more difficult for ladies than for men. However, this jump has less worse in ladies’ competition than men’s because of the SP rule. This is not a matter of gender equality (It was rather unfortunate that hurrah brought this up). The point of comparison with SP rule for men is that it really highlights how badly 3A is treated in ladies’ competition for no apparent reason.

  13. #58
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    206
    I've been watching this thread for a bit and decided to give my two cents worth as a coach. It is far too easy for arm-chair athletes, and has-beens (um, retired skaters), and ISU/federation members who can't /didn't really skate, plus judges/officials (many whom never skated)......to decide that the skaters of today and tomorrow should be pushing to do more difficult elements.

    Remember - the champions of yesterday were really lucky if they could do a double axel in the men's division, and double jumps for women were normal not so long ago.....take a look at the 1988 Calgary Olympics women's programs. Not as well done as some of the middle of the pack women at the Olympics this year.

    As a coach, it is frustrating for non-skaters to demand that my athletes accomplish skills far beyond their ability - at least for now. The reality of skating is that barely one percent - 1% - of skaters EVER get the double axel. Far less than that percentage ever get a triple jump, let alone all five triple jumps. And the triple axel.......how many men actually can do it consistently now??? The quad - reserved for a few men - all built very similarily and in total numbers....maybe a dozen in the world?

    So to push women to the point where a triple axel is allowed in the short program, means that women skaters will have to break their bodies at a far earlier age in order to achieve this jump. Take a look at the body type of Mao Asada......At 19 years of age, she does not look like a young adult. Her body has not matured. Same with YuNa Kim. Take a look at the teens you know who are athletic but average. Chances are that puberty has caught up with them and they have curves, etc. and body builds that are not like that of a pre-teen. Now take a look at the young women on the international skating scene and see just how many of them have the same body type as Mao....

    Making the sport even more elite is not the way to go. We are already seeing viewership down and registration at all levels for the sport diminishing. The high cost of achieving even national success is astronomical......and the select few at the top that have sponsorships etc. are spending a small fortune just to keep training at that level.

    I would much rather see a short technical program that requires every one to do the same elements - and let the best man/women win that event. A fair playing field for skaters of all shapes, sizes, nationalities, and give every skater at the top a run for their money. Fans love that sort of thing. The underdog can have a chance.

    Face it - if the 3A becomes the thing to do at World's etc.....we will have the same boring competition over and over and over. And, for me - I can only watch YuNa or Mao etc. do their programs a couple of times a season -

    I want the sport to reward an athlete that is the best overall skater in the event - not the best jumper or best spinner or best artistic --- That's called an all-round athlete, and isn't that what the sport should be all about????


    BTW - If the Japanese Federation wants the 3A in the short because just one women - theirs - can do it....then perhaps some of the other federations whose skaters finished at the bottom should petition that the SINGLE axel be made the mandatory jump for the short... I mean, fair is fair..
    Last edited by redhotcoach; 04-01-2010 at 01:59 PM.

  14. #59
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,928
    Another way of presenting this case is to compare three possible set of rules.
    (A): 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A
    (B): either 3-2 or 3-3 combo, step 3, either 2A or 3A (or better, no restriction on a number of rotations)
    (C): either 3-3 or 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A.
    Under (B), skaters are allowed to choose a number of rotations and are rewarded accordingly. It is simple as that. In the case of (A), in a top tier competition, all serious contenders for the gold would be placed in the level playing field in terms of base value (except for those who cannot do both Lz and F). One with higher quality jumps will collect more points and takes the lead (insofar as jump elements are concerned). I can see the logic in (A) and (B). But what is the logic of (C)? I don't see any.
    C is what the rules were for senior men from the 1989 through 1998 seasons, and for junior men from whenever they were allowed to do triple-triple combo (I don't know the year offhand) until 2008-09 . . . well into the new judging system.

    There are more junior men than senior ladies doing triple axels.

    Those who can do triple axels do them in the combination. Those who can do triple axel with plenty of speed coming out do triple axel-triple toe.

    Mao already has that option and has been using it this year.

    If and when a lady could do 3A+3T combo and 3Lz in the short, she'd have a big advantage over all the rest. It wasn't until all the medal contenders were doing that in the men's event that more options were opened up.

    It doesn't pay off when the 3A is downgraded, but the same is true for 3-3 combos. They're both iffy propositions for most women who can do them at all.

    Personally, I don't care whether the solo 3A option is offered in the ladies' SP before more than one skater is in a position to take advantage of it. But based on the history of SP changes in the past, I don't expect that rule to change until after several women are consistently landing 3A in the LP and some of them doing 3A in the SP combination or solo jump from steps.
    Last edited by gkelly; 04-01-2010 at 02:03 PM.

  15. #60
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,819
    Quote Originally Posted by I-witness View Post
    I think it is not a very wise timing to make this proposal as only one female skater is doing 3A right now. There were a few who landed 3A in competitions a few years ago and a few may be around in the near future. But on principle, I am in favour of this proposal.

    I would like to thank gkelly for explaining the history of SP and how SP rules have changed in the past. But to me, one thing we really need to take seriously is that the scoring system has undergone a drastic change: from 6.0 system to COP system. They are based on completely different principles. So there is no reason that we should stick to the way they changed the SP rules under 6.0 system.

    What matters under COP system is how many points you can collect by executing elements. In Sp, female skaters are required to execute three jump elements, (1) combination jump, (2) step jump and (3) axel jump. Now, is there any justification not allowing skaters to do triple axel while allowing skaters to do triple for the second jump in combo and collect more points? Now that only few ladies are doing 3-3 or 3A, why do we want to allow skaters to take a huge advantage over others with 3-3 and not with 3A?

    Another way of presenting this case is to compare three possible set of rules.
    (A): 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A
    (B): either 3-2 or 3-3 combo, step 3, either 2A or 3A (or better, no restriction on a number of rotations)
    (C): either 3-3 or 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A.
    Under (B), skaters are allowed to choose a number of rotations and are rewarded accordingly. It is simple as that. In the case of (A), in a top tier competition, all serious contenders for the gold would be placed in the level playing field in terms of base value (except for those who cannot do both Lz and F). One with higher quality jumps will collect more points and takes the lead (insofar as jump elements are concerned). I can see the logic in (A) and (B). But what is the logic of (C)? I don't see any.

    Things look worse because men are allowed to do either double or triple axel. 3A is more difficult for ladies than for men. However, this jump has less worse in ladies’ competition than men’s because of the SP rule. This is not a matter of gender equality (It was rather unfortunate that hurrah brought this up). The point of comparison with SP rule for men is that it really highlights how badly 3A is treated in ladies’ competition for no apparent reason.
    Well, we don't allow men to do two Quads in the SP even though there are more men who can take advantage of such change vs. the number of women who can actually do Triple Axels. Conversely, Quad is not allowed for women in the SP, not even as a part of the jump combo. The bottom line is the intent of the SP has historically being treated as a general assessment of the skater's technical skills - their precision, if you will. This is similar in idea compared to Ice Dance's compulsory dance where you are supposed to be judging apple against apple. Though Single skating has definitely deviated from that principle in the last two decades, the intent is to create a more restrictive program vs. free program so that skaters can be compared on more equal footing. Or else, short program just becomes a mini free skate then.

    On the subject of 3A for women, I had the chance to look up some clips of Yukari Nakano's 3A and I am sorry to say most of them appeared to be under-rotated. Same goes for her 3S+3Lp combo, badly UR. Even the 4S that Miki Ando got credit for years ago, prior to IJS, would never get ratified today. Then we have Mao Asada's rather low batting average on her 3A. Even in the days of Harding and Ito, Tonya Harding's 3A were barely fully rotated and she was very inconsistent. The only female skater ever to truly rotate this jump is only Midori Ito. Mao Asada's 3A gives judges and officials doubts everytime she does it and that's not a good thing. If people had to use a microscope sort to speak everytime they watch Mao Asada's 3A, then it says to me her 3A is still not well mastered yet. In this sense, you could say there is really not a woman who can consistently land this jump today, so why are we discussing a theoretical issue then? What's the urge?

    In addition, the 3A is in fact a very valuable weapon for a woman, if used correctly and if the jump is fully rotated. I can't agree with your perception that 3A is under-valued in ladies' skating because that just isn't true. One of the biggest advantage of having a 3A for a lady is to allow her to include up to 8 triples in her 7 jumping passes because you only repeat two jumps of triple rotation and higher in a free skate. Recently, I took part in a discussion and we constructed a theoretical LP layout for Mao Asada using only one Triple Axel and account for her strengths and weaknesses and obtain total program base value that is some 10+ points higher than Yu-Na Kim's Olympic LP. The value of the 3A is not just its higher base value, it also opens door to other possibilities for a lady especially considering her competitors can't do a Triple Axel. The advantage could be immense. Unfortunately, Mao's inability to execute a Triple Lutz or Salchow severely neglected that advantage but that has nothing to do with Triple Axel being undervalued at all.

Page 4 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
  •