Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 115

Thread: Should the ISU have separate scoring systems for men and women?

  1. #31
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,089
    That is the beauty of the Newjump replacing the two old jumps.
    Well it certainly isn't beautiful for the girls who have put their time and effort into learning a true 3lutz and a true 3flip. Give me the edge rules!

  2. #32
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Why not just limit the number of 2A's, 2T's and 2Loops ?
    Combining the Lutz and Flip feels like we are losing a jump. Isn't that part of the point - to be rewarded for doing more jumps?

  3. #33
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by janetfan View Post
    Why not just limit the number of 2A's, 2T's and 2Loops ?
    Combining the Lutz and Flip feels like we are losing a jump. Isn't that part of the point - to be rewarded for doing more jumps?
    We would be losing a jump. They are two seperate jumps, the edge isn't the only thing that makes them a different jump.

  4. #34
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by bekalc View Post
    Well it certainly isn't beautiful for the girls who have put their time and effort into learning a true 3lutz and a true 3flip. Give me the edge rules!
    Not at all. They could do 3Newjump with clear unmistakable outside edge (+1 GOE) and get 6.5 points, then do a 3Newjump with inside edge and get 5.5 points, and impress the judges in skating skills.

    What they couldn't do is 2 triple Lutzes, 2 triple filps, no loop and no Salchow. The ladies that put in the time to learn edge jumps deserve credit, too.

  5. #35
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,089
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Not at all. They could do 3Newjump with clear unmistakable outside edge (+1 GOE) and get 6.5 points, then do a 3Newjump with inside edge and get 5.5 points, and impress the judges in skating skills.

    What they couldn't do is 2 triple Lutzes, 2 triple filps, no loop and no Salchow. The ladies that put in the time to learn edge jumps deserve credit, too.
    Mathman how many women do you see doing 2 3lutzs, 2 3flips and no 3loop or no 3sal. Yes, Yu-na leaves out the 3loop, but she normally attempts the 3sal.... Mao normally attempts the 3loop, even if she leaves out the 3sal. I would really like you to tell me the lady that has a 3lutz and a 3flip, but doesn't attempt the 3sal and the 3loop.

    Most of the women can do a 3sal and a 3loop, what most of the women cannot do is a real 3lutz and a real 3flip. Which tells me in actuality the 3lutz and the 3flip should be worth more.

    Ksensia Marakava has the 3lutz now in practice to the point that she's doing a 3lutz/3toe. I have a feeling that her 3lutz is a true 3lutz, which is probably why it took her so long to get it. But according to you that should just mean nothing. Maybe since the 3sal, and the 3loop are both edge jumps we should just let the women choose either or for that one too.

    And GOE is so subjective and people can get it for all kinds of different things. So someone with a beautiful 3flutz, can still get tons of credit, in your system. Your throwing away all the hard work people like Rochette, Flatt, Yu-na, Miki Ando all did to get true 3lutzs and a true 3flips. In general the success of Lepisto tells me the jumps should be worth more, raise the value for all of the triples. Also add bonus points for having all of them with no edge calls. That would add the value for having the edge jumps. In general though most of the women competiting have all the edge jumps. Most don't have a true 3lutz or a true 3flip.
    Last edited by bekalc; 04-17-2010 at 10:24 PM.

  6. #36
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,737
    Instead of merging two old jumps how about just a new Flutz? It would have a negative conotation though. "this jump arose from frequent mistakes on the lutz."

    There is just a major hesitation to make any jump such a point getter that one element could potentially win an event. The downside of that is there is no longer any incentive whatsoever for jump advancement.

  7. #37
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Wait, who does two triple flips and two triple lutzes?

  8. #38
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Is there any reason why there could not be different rules for men’s skating than for women’s? In gymnastics, for instance, women do not do the high bar or rings. These strength apparatuses are just more appropriate to men’s gymnastics than to women’s.
    In Gymnastics, women uniquely do the balance beam, uneven bars, and the thing on the floor with the ribbons/hula hoops...men uniquely do the pommel horse, parallel bars, and rings (maybe something else I'm forgetting). In Figure Skating, men generally do more technically difficult jumps and steps, where women uniquely get points under the ISJ for doing a spiral. I think these activities are indeed "more appropriate" for men and women to compete in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    1. Raise the base value for triple Axels.
    ...
    But then, in order to preserve the idea of a “balanced program,” we would have to raise the values of spins and footwork, and also give more weight to program components. Competitively, nothing would change except that everyone would get a few extra points across the board.
    No, there is a very basic but significant change you are proposing. This is the equivalent of keeping the current point system for the 3Axel and the spirals, steps, PCS, etc. intact, but making every other jump's base value worth ~0.5 points less. Is there any particular reason why you want to downgrade the relative worth of all the jumps (except the 3A)?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    2. Combine the flip and the Lutz into a new jump called the “left foot take-off toe-pick assisted” jump.

    The LFTOTPA (or RFTOTPA for clockwise jumpers ) could go off either the inside edge or the outside edge, skater’s preference. A clear, deep outside edge is a feature for +1 GOE.

    Pro: This would eliminate all these judgment calls about “e” and “!” and whether judges must follow the tech specialist's call or score by their own real-time eyes, etc. It would also prevent (via the Zayak rules) skaters from omitting the edge jumps (loop and Salchow).

    Con: This is a cop-out. If you can’t do a proper Lutz and a proper flip, go home and work on them until you can.
    It sounds kinda crappy (explained below), but it's not a horrendous idea. Sure, as you said, they already did it for the 3ToeLoop. However, sometimes the way people do 3Loops and 3Salchows look similar to me, too. So if we're going to do that, might as well apply the same principle to the 3Loop/Salchow.

    Now most women's programs will have:
    3Toe (your pick of ToeLoop or Walley)
    3SalLoop (your pick of Salchow or Loop, Loop +1 GoE)
    3Flutz (your pick of Flip or Lutz, Lutz +1 GoE)
    2A

    Cool...3 different types of triples. Sounds like a backwards step to me.

    I think it's "crappy" because if we want skaters to train demonstrate different skills (in this case, edge control in jumping), we should maintain the difference between a 3F and a 3Lz. I've heard half the reason the flutzing and the lipping became so common is because judges started to not be so picky about identifying and penalizing this type of cheating.

    A better option mentioned elsewhere in this thread is something like a +5 point bonus for doing five different triple jumps--that's pretty nice, it's like getting credit for doing an extra imagined triple jump.

    That, on its own, would also add further incentive to possibly doing a 3Axel without needing to raise its base value--a girl could substitute it for any other triple jump she may have trouble with (e.g. 3Lz), and in the process, she is doing a jump that is worth more. I do not think a higher base value at this time is merited or justified. You never see a 2.2 difference of base value for any other half-rotation's difference. 2Lz to 2A is 1.6 difference. 3A to 4T is 1.6 difference. The difference between a hypothetical 4Lz and a 4A is 1.5 LOL!

    In general, I don't like the idea of different base values between men and women. A couple reasons include consistency/simplicity of the judging system; and also for the implication that women are physically inferior in terms of athleticism. I realize that the reality does point in that direction, but if a woman can do a 3Axel, she should be given credit for it along the same lines as a male's 3Axel, no "female bonus".

    I don't even like the principle of different PCS factors between the men and women (1.0 vs. 0.8 in the SP, 2.0 vs.1.6 for the LP) because although I understand the reasoning behind it, I think it would have been better to make it factored against the actual TES a skater gets. Something like (TES x 0.5) + (raw PCS x 0.5) = Total Score. That way, the factoring correlates automatically to the TES instead of the fixed/absolute/embedded factoring.

    I think GoE's also need to be factored to the element they are referring to...but related to this topic are the standards to which they are applied. e.g. "good height & speed" for a woman doing a jump may be different for "good height & speed" for a man. Should we make it absolute, or relative to the respective sexes?
    Last edited by prettykeys; 04-17-2010 at 11:37 PM.

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    747
    Quote Originally Posted by Lilith11 View Post
    2). And I fail to understand your blindness to it.
    I too fail to see your "blindness". LOL
    I don't think that the 3A value should be increased because it already is quite substantial; it's already, as Mathman stated, 2.2 points higher than the triple lutz.
    I don't necessarily advocate for higher base value for the 3a.
    Furthermore, like I stated BEFORE, these are competitors who want to win. And for a competitor, that desire to win can easily translate into over-extention. You're placing too much faith in human reason and logic; people oftentimes don't know their own limits. And even if they do, considering how our media goes on about how "limits are made to be pushed/broken," and their competitve streak, I have a feeling that they would continue practicing, in which they run the risk of incurring a serious injury that could possibly end their skating careers. I mean, Yu-na for example; back in 2006, she was overtraining herself, doing jump after jump even if she fell multiple times. Was she pushing the limit? Yes. Was it healthy? Helluva no.
    Then we have to agree to disagree, b/c injury and pushing limits IMO is the nature of sports. Lysacek has 2 broken toes and Dice had knee surgery last yr. If some skaters overtrain and get injured, they take full responsibility of their decision. I do support more research into the equipment e.g. their skates to prevent injuries. The sports should not be held back b/c of that. Actually you also advocate not raising the base value until a female skater has consistently land the jump in competition. Have I misunderstood you. If I haven't then I think it is very unfair to the first female skater who is willing ot take risk and be a pioneer.

    Plus, you fail to address the fact that harder does not always necessarily equate better. Look at the Men's Long at the Olympics; so many splats from men who were doing things they couldn't handle, such as quads. Plus, we do not need people to start taking on the attitude that 3A= winner.
    LOL harder does not necessarily always equate better but sometimes it may. No one is taking the attitude that 3a=winner. But FS is a sport and skaters should be advancing the sports and in terms of jumps for the ladies the next jump advancement is the 3a. Back in the days of Dorothy they were only doing 2z. EVen if the ladies are not advancing to more 3a in their programs, they certainly should have a full set of triples like in Tara and MK's time.
    Last edited by rtureck; 04-18-2010 at 01:20 AM.

  10. #40
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    Now most women's programs will have:

    3Toe (your pick of ToeLoop or Walley)
    3SalLoop (your pick of Salchow or Loop, Loop +1 GoE)
    3Flutz (your pick of Flip or Lutz, Lutz +1 GoE)
    2A

    Cool...3 different types of triples. Sounds like a backwards step to me.
    But the loop and the Salchow are very different jumps, never mind edges. As I understand it, the Salchow takes off from the opposite leg from the landing leg, and the loop takes off from the same leg as the landing leg (both from back inside edges.)

    I guess the idea behind this proposal is that there are four main types of jump, besides Axels and setting aside edges for the moment. (By the way, even though the jump definitions say you are supposed to land on the right outside edge, there is no penalty under the IJS for landing on the inside edge, for any jump.) For a counterclockwise skater (corrected as per gkelly's post below) I think it goes something like this:

    Toe-loop/Wally: Right foot take-off, toepick assisted

    Loop: Right foot take-off, no toe pick.

    Flip/Lutz: Left foot take-off, toe pick assisted

    Salchow/toeless Lutz: Left foot take-off, no toe pick (extra GOE for a toeless triple Lutz, which I don't think anyone can do.)

    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    don't even like the principle of different PCS factors between the men and women (1.0 vs. 0.8 in the SP, 2.0 vs.1.6 for the LP) because although I understand the reasoning behind it, I think it would have been better to make it factored against the actual TES a skater gets. Something like (TES x 0.5) + (raw PCS x 0.5) = Total Score. That way, the factoring correlates automatically to the TES instead of the fixed/absolute/embedded factoring.
    I think your suggestion does the opposite oif its intention. A male champion typically might get 85 TES and 80 PCS (8's across the board.)

    A ladies' champion might get 65 TES and 80 PCS (8's across the board.)

    By your suggested method the man's total score is 82.5, weighted 52%/48% in favor of TES. The lady's total scpre is 72.5, weighted 45%/55%.) This would codify the principle, ladies are pretty, men are athletic.

    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    I do not think a higher base value at this time is merited or justified. You never see a 2.2 difference of base value for any other half-rotation's difference. 2Lz to 2A is 1.6 difference. 3A to 4T is 1.6 difference. The difference between a hypothetical 4Lz and a 4A is 1.5 LOL!
    I look at it this way. According to the ISU scale of values, the 2A is grouped with the triple jumps as a baby triple, rather than a super single. Likewise, the 3A is grouped with the quads, not the triples.

    The gap between the highest double rotation jump (2Lz = 1.9) and the "baby triple" (2A = 3.5) is a whopping 84%.

    In contrast, there is only a 37% increase between the triple Lutz and the triple Axel. If the 84% rule were applied consistently, the proper value for the 3A would be 11.0 points. (Just saying...)
    Last edited by Mathman; 04-18-2010 at 09:46 AM.

  11. #41
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers
    Instead of merging two old jumps how about just a new Flutz? It would have a negative conotation though. "this jump arose from frequent mistakes on the lutz."
    Yeah, they would have to choose a name that did not have a built-in negative connotation. They could call it the Cinquanta.

    Quote Originally Posted by Janetfan
    Why not just limit the number of 2A's, 2T's and 2Loops ?
    Combining the Lutz and Flip feels like we are losing a jump. Isn't that part of the point - to be rewarded for doing more jumps?
    I think limiting the number of double Axels would help. But a skater could still do two triple flips, two triple Lutzes, two double Axels and a triple toe, and leave out both the loop and the Salchow.

    However, if we just counted a double Axel as a triple jump period, for Zayak purposes, that would do the trick because then you could not even do two double Axels if in addition you repeated two different triples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Imaginary Pogue
    Wait, who does two triple flips and two triple lutzes?
    I would.

    Looking at the current rules, I would do four flatzes (absorbing a couple of "!" calls if necessary) and win every competition.
    Last edited by Mathman; 04-18-2010 at 09:37 AM.

  12. #42
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by rtureck View Post
    LOL harder does not necessarily always equate better but sometimes it may. No one is taking the attitude that 3a=winner. But FS is a sport and skaters should be advancing the sports and in terms of jumps for the ladies the next jump advancement is the 3a. Back in the days of Dorothy they were only doing 2z. EVen if the ladies are not advancing to more 3a in their programs, they certainly should have a full set of triples like in Tara and MK's time.
    What is the intention about what kinds of jump content should be encouraged?

    Should an automatic advantage be built in for whoever does the hardest jump or the most rotations in one jump (e.g., 3.5 vs. 3), or the most rotations in a single combination, or in the program as a whole?

    Should a reward be built in for showing the best variety of jump takeoffs? I.e., should there be an incentive for a skater who can't do, e.g., triple lutz or triple loop to include double lutz or double loop even if that means leaving out a repeat other triple or double axel?

    Should difficulty always trump quality?

    Are there different ways to push the limits of jump content besides just adding revolutions in the air?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    The loop and the Salchow are very differernt jumps. As I understand it, the Salchow takes off from the opposite leg from the landing leg, and the loop takes off from the same leg as the landing leg
    Yes.

    (both from back inside edges.)
    No. The loop takes off from a back outside edge -- from the exact same edge that jumps typically land on.

    I guess the idea behind this proposal is that there are four main types of jump, besides Axels and setting aside edges for the moment. (By the way, even though the jump definitions say you are supposed to land on the right outside edge, there is no penalty under the IJS for landing on the inside edge, for any jump.)
    Just to clarify, there is no penalty for landing on the inside edge of the opposite foot.
    Take the one-foot axel, since that would be the most common example of a jump intentionally landed on the back inside edge of the usual non-landing foot.

    A normal axel by a counterclockwise jumper takes off from the left forward outside (LFO) and lands on the right back outside (RBO).
    A one-foot axel would also take off from the LFO edge, but it would land on the same foot on the inside edge, LBI, instead of RBO, still traveling counterclockwise. If the skater does this on purpose and with good control and flow, it's now possible to execute a salchow (single, double, triple, quad) or less likely a flip directly from that landing edge if so desired, and that would be a true combination, not a jump sequence.
    The same could be done with, say, a double jump from any other takeoff. I've never seen it done with a double axel or triple as the first jump, in theory it would be possible and would be another potential area for pushing the limits of the sport.
    There current rules do not penalize this -- the jump or jump combo would just be rewarded on the merits of its quality.

    On the other hand, sometimes skaters land their triple jumps briefly on the inside edge of the regular landing foot (RBI for a counterclockwise jumper) and then, if they have any speed coming out, manage to rock over onto the expected outside edge (RBO). This would manifest as a wobble on the landing. Or the skater may land on the RBI with no speed, balance there just long enough to establish a one-foot landing, and then put the left foot down to skate away from the jump and continue the program.

    That kind of inside edge landing is an error and there is a penalty; see the "wrong edge" part of the "Weak landing (bad pos./wrong edge/scratching etc)" in the list of GOE reductions.

    Also, the reason that kind of inside edge landing happens in the first place is usually because of underrotation. If the underrotation is significant enough, the jump will also be downgraded.

    For a clockwise skater I think it goes something like this:

    Toe-loop/Wally: Right foot take-off, toepick assisted

    Loop: Right foot take-off, no toe pick.

    Flip/Lutz: Left foot take-off, toe pick assisted

    Salchow/toeless Lutz: Left foot take-off, no toe pick (extra GOE for a toeless triple Lutz, which I don't think anyone can do.)
    All these examples would be for a counterclockwise jumpers, which is the more common direction.

    All lefts and rights above would be reversed for clockwise jumpers.

    But, yeah, you could leave out just the men's versus ladies' factoring, with the result that men would almost always have a somewhat higher TES than PCS, and women the opposite.
    This would be fine with me, actually.
    Give the women the same amount of time and number of total elements to work with in the long program, and the TES gap would be narrower there than it is now with one less element.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I think limiting the number of double Axels would help. But a skater could still do two triple flips, two triple Lutzes, two double Axels and a triple toe, and leave out both the loop and the Salchow.

    I would.

    Looking at the surrent rules, I would do four flatzes (absorbing a couple of "!" calls if necessary) and win every competition.
    You wouldn't win every competition unless you were overall better than all your competitors at the majority of relevant skills, including landing those jumps consistently and well.

    The reason why not everyone chooses the same jump content is that they want to maximize not only the base marks but also the probability and magnitude of positive GOEs. Some skaters might be equally consistent at all the triples and equally competent at executing positive qualities and avoiding negative ones with all takeoffs, in which case they can expect to get more points for a triple flutz than a triple salchow. Some might be more consistent at toe jumps, in which case it's in their interests to include the jumps they're more likely to land. But a skater who is capable of a +GOE 3S or 3Lo is better off including that jump than another -GOE 3Lz with edge call.

    Skaters who can do triple-triple combos with 3T or 3Lo are often better off repeating that jump rather than the flip or lutz, because that opens up additional jumping slots for them. With the current ladies' rules, including triple-triples are the best way to fit 7 triples into a program.

    "two triple flips, two triple Lutzes, two double Axels and a triple toe, ... leav[ing] out both the loop and the Salchow" is not the maximal base mark for a ladies' long program under the current rules.

    3F 5.5
    3Lz 6.0
    3Lz+2Lo 6.0+1.5 = 7.5
    3F+2T+2Lo 5.5 +1.3 + 1.5 = 8.3
    3T 4.0
    2A+2A+SEQ = (3.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 5.6
    2A 3.5
    Total base mark = 40.4

    Put in a triple-triple using the toe loop, and that will open a slot for triple loop or triple salchow.
    3F 5.5
    3Lz 6.0
    3Lz+3T 6.0+4.0 = 10.0
    3F+2T+2Lo 5.5 +1.3 + 1.5 = 8.3
    3S 4.5
    2A+2A+SEQ = (3.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 5.6
    2A 3.5

    That gives you and extra 3.0 of base mark, total 43.4.
    Loop instead of sal gives 44.4.

    Doing two 3-3s (repeating the toe loop or loop) would open two more jump slots and eliminate the need to do a sequence and incur that penalty.

    3Lz+3T 6.0 + 4.0 = 10.0
    3F+3T 5.5 + 4.0 = 9.5
    3Lz 6.0
    2A+2Lo+2Lo 3.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 7.5
    3Lo 5.0
    3S 4.5
    2A 3.5
    Total base mark 46.0

    Repeating the loop instead of toe loop would give you an additional point.

    Other possibilities: Put the triple toe, triple sal, or triple loop in combination or in sequence with a double axel, instead of the 2A+2A sequence. That will give you a minimum of an extra 0.5 for that slot, plus open the current 3T slot for a more valuable 3S or 3Lo.
    Also, of course, it's easy enough to fill the solo 2A slot with a solo 3S or 3Lo.

    The only advantage to doing three 2A instead of replacing one or two of them with one of the easier triples is if one can't consistently do the triples. That might be an insurmountable obstacle -- some skaters will just never get some of the triples, no matter how hard they try -- or it might be a strategic choice to devote training time to perfecting fewer different jumps or to nonjump skills. But it's not because doing only three different triples and double axels maximizes the base mark -- it clearly does not. For a skater who can only consistently rotate and land three different triples, it maximizes the mark for that skater relative to other layouts possible with her own jump skills, not to other layouts that skaters with more varied jump skills might achieve.

    Personally, I'd like to see the long program rules tweaked to better allow skaters to be rewarded for what they do best as well as to reward variety of skills, but not to de facto require every skater to attempt the exact same content to maximize base value.

    One suggestion I'd propose would be to give the women an additional 15-30 seconds and an additional element slot, so they'd have the option to include an 8th jumping pass, or a 4th spin or 2nd step sequence or a new kind of element.

    Remember that many of the ladies from the 1990s and early 2000s who executed programs with seven triples and a double axel or two in the 6.0 system did it in 8 or 9 jump passes, especially if they couldn't do triple-triples. One reason we're seeing skaters now leave out one of the takeoffs is that they're limited in the number of times they're allowed to jump.

    I would also reduce/eliminate the 0.8 multiplier for jump sequences and/or add a bonus for the second jump in combinations or sequences, and some sort of bonus for jumps in both directions. That would encourage skaters to plan sequences or combos ending with salchows or flips, and also more incentive to do double loops instead of double toes at the ends of combos, to do double-triple combos, and eventually (I'd expect it would take at least a decade after the incentive is introduced for skaters to develop the skill) to do double lutz the other way at t

    Some of these other ways of pushing the jump difficulty would lead to injuries. We saw a lot of girls getting hurt around 10 years ago attempting triple loop combos, trying to keep up with Lipinski, Slutskaya, and Hughes. In fact, Lipinski ended her own career with that kind of injury, although she was lucky enough to win the big prize along the way.

    But I think the key is to reward any particular kind of difficulty for those who can do it without significant danger to themselves, and to provide other places to increase difficulty for those whose talents lie in other directions.

  13. #43
    Dreaming and dancing Bennett's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Watching the sunset
    Posts
    2,793
    Hey Mathman, why did you come up with the second proposal? That sounds pretty strange to me! I am pretty sure that that would be the last thing that ISU would want to incorporate!

  14. #44
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,427
    Quote Originally Posted by Bennett View Post
    Hey Mathman, why did you come up with the second proposal? That sounds pretty strange to me! I am pretty sure that that would be the last thing that ISU would want to incorporate!
    Both of these proposals (for both woman and men) were put forward by an independent group of international coaches two years ago. A sweeping revision plan for the IJS was submitted to the ISU technical committee for inclusion on the agenda for the spring congress, but the recommendations never made it that far.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly
    ]"two triple flips, two triple Lutzes, two double Axels and a triple toe, ... leav[ing] out both the loop and the Salchow" is not the maximal base mark for a ladies' long program under the current rules.
    3F 5.5
    3Lz 6.0
    3Lz+2Lo 6.0+1.5 = 7.5
    3F+2T+2Lo 5.5 +1.3 + 1.5 = 8.3
    3T 4.0
    2A+2A+SEQ = (3.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 5.6
    2A 3.5
    Total base mark = 40.4

    Put in a triple-triple using the toe loop, and that will open a slot for triple loop or triple salchow.

    3F 5.5
    3Lz 6.0
    3Lz+3T 6.0+4.0 = 10.0
    3F+2T+2Lo 5.5 +1.3 + 1.5 = 8.3
    3S 4.5
    2A+2A+SEQ = (3.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 5.6
    2A 3.5

    That gives you and extra 3.0 of base mark, total 43.4.
    Loop instead of sal gives 44.4.

    Doing two 3-3s (repeating the toe loop or loop) would open two more jump slots and eliminate the need to do a sequence and incur that penalty.

    3Lz+3T 6.0 + 4.0 = 10.0
    3F+3T 5.5 + 4.0 = 9.5
    3Lz 6.0
    2A+2Lo+2Lo 3.5 + 1.5 + 1.5 = 7.5
    3Lo 5.0
    3S 4.5
    2A 3.5
    Total base mark 46.0

    Repeating the loop instead of toe loop would give you an additional point.
    Actually, I think these examples make my point. I never bothered to learn a Salchow or a loop, and all I can do is flutz. But I just won the bronze medal, losing only to a skater who also did a four flutz program but had a triple-triple (silver) and an imaginary skater who has both a 3Lz+3T and a 3F+3T (imaginary gold.)

    Note that the silver medalist likewise omitted the loop, and the gold medalist would have won anyway if she omitted the loop and replaced it with a double Axel.

    I think the thrust of the proposal is to prevent skaters from loading up on high scoring toe pick jumps to the extent that edge jumps become irrelevant.

  15. #45
    Custom Title bekalc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,089
    Mathman last I checked Mao did two triple axels, and triple axels are edge jumps. Second, Lepisto, Miki, and Cynthia all left out the triple flip. If the Triple fip and the triple lutz were really the same jump, than it should be easy for the girls to be able to do both jumps correctly.

    One of the thing that makes the triple lutz different is that its the only jump (the wally but that no longer is important) that has counterrotation.

    And to be frank its not like Yu-na didn't attempt the 3sal. I would like to see a 5 point bonus for having all the triples or something like that and all the jumps worth more. But I don't really see a case of girls getting buy because they have 2 3lutzs and 2 3flips.

Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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
  •