Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

[Olympia]

About the spiral and step sequence changes, my interpretation is that the ISU wants steps, turns and moves in the field like spirals to become part of general skating, rather than specific scored elements.

I agree with this principle. When a skater comes to a complete stop at the end of the rink, takes a deep breath and announces to the world "now I am going to do my step sequence ... ... OK, now I am finished with my step sequencethat, let's go back to jum,ping" -- that just takes away the whole idea of an integrated, well-choreographed program.

Same with the spiral sequence. "Now I am going to do my spiral sequence. Three seconds forward, awkwardly grab foot, three seconds backward, three seconds dog-and-hydrant burlesque -- next up, my triple Salchow."

I'm with you on this, Mathman! I hate that "stopping for breath" moment when the footwork begins. It always makes me yearn for a good Kurt Browning pro program with wicked footwork all the way through, when it suits the music. (That's the other problem with those glaring footwork sequences--they're so often not at all connected to whatever music is playing at that moment. One can almost imagine an alarm clock going off that makes the skater say, "3:47 into the program. Whoops! Time to do footwork.") I don't know whether this rule change will bring about some greater ingenuity among choreographers, but one can only hope.

[ImaginaryPogue]

I'm with you on this, Mathman! I hate that "stopping for breath" moment when the footwork begins. It always makes me yearn for a good Kurt Browning pro program with wicked footwork all the way through, when it suits the music. (That's the other problem with those glaring footwork sequences--they're so often not at all connected to whatever music is playing at that moment. One can almost imagine an alarm clock going off that makes the skater say, "3:47 into the program. Whoops! Time to do footwork.") I don't know whether this rule change will bring about some greater ingenuity among choreographers, but one can only hope.

Eh, I doubt it. Given the high scores skaters get for programs devoid the transition elements, I can't imagine this will have much effect.

[Robeye]

Time to break out the thesarus

Alright, I yield the podium to the man with the limited vocabulary.

[Mathman]

My problem is that ISU did not make this change for the good of skating...

If we don't see atleast 4-5 Ladies trying 3A's in their SP next season then this statement will be proven to be an undisputable truth that this new axel rule was changed only for Mao.

I think there is a blurring here of intention with effect.

I think it is perfectly defensible to believe that the ISU technical committee feels that this change will, in the long run, be in the best interests of the development of the sport. And that's why they recommend passage of the new rule.

In the event, it may turn out that only one skater -- or none -- is ever able to take advantage of this rule. I do not see how that is indisputable evidence regarding the reason why the ISU committee took the action they did.

Time to break out the thesarus.

Alright,...

OK, I can't help myself. "Thesaurus." "All right."

[wonbinfan86]

If they're going to increase the base points of a 3Lz+3T combo to 11 why aren't they increasing the value of the triple axel (at least for the women)? Yuna is going to score 14 points now for that combo while Asada will still only be scoring 8-9ish even though the triple axel is a lot harder than the 3+3 combo... they should increase the triple axel value for women to at least 16-17 points.

[gkelly]

As long as the combination bonus is based on the value of both jumps, just do a 3A+1T combination and earn an extra 10% of the value of the 3A plus a few tenths more.

Of course that uses up a combo slot, so it would be better to do 3A+2T if possible.

[Joesitz]

I'm with you on this, Mathman! I hate that "stopping for breath" moment when the footwork begins. It always makes me yearn for a good Kurt Browning pro program with wicked footwork all the way through, when it suits the music. (That's the other problem with those glaring footwork sequences--they're so often not at all connected to whatever music is playing at that moment. One can almost imagine an alarm clock going off that makes the skater say, "3:47 into the program. Whoops! Time to do footwork.") I don't know whether this rule change will bring about some greater ingenuity among choreographers, but one can only hope.

I'm with you and Mathman on this. And besides choreographically foot work schould be shown throughout the program. It's not difficult to see who is able to move in a footwork style if it is part of the presentation rather than an element.

Sometimes, however, there is one or maybe two who show innovative musical footwork which is great to watch, sort of like tap dancers do. The rest of the 28 competitors do the standard footwork by the rules - just boring for me.

[Joesitz]

Sorry for the extremely long post, but I wanted to explain my point of view more carefully, as I realized that the brevity of my previous post may have given the impression that I was being peremptory in my reply, which wasn't my intention. Because the topic is quite meaningful to me, I would actually greatly appreciate a more detailed view on the opposite side of the issue.

Robeye - I understand your need to use the term "Artistry" which I do not. However, as a patron of the performing arts, I have never noticed the word Artistry mentioned. The Actors, Balerinos, and the Opera Singers and their fans are satisfied that their great performances received a huge reception, and are very much aware that, that may well be ephermeral(sp). No critic, not even PBS use the term to describe a performing star as having great artistry. In fact PBS calls one of their programs: Great Performances. It's only in Figure Skating does one read that a skater has great artistry or a skater lost because of a lack of artistry.

I am sure we will select the "best" skater in a competition and you will call it great artistry and I will call it a great presentation.

[bekalc]

I think there is a blurring here of intention with effect.

I think it is perfectly defensible to believe that the ISU technical committee feels that this change will, in the long run, be in the best interests of the development of the sport. And that's why they recommend passage of the new rule.

In the event, it may turn out that only one skater -- or none -- is ever able to take advantage of this rule. I do not see how that is indisputable evidence regarding the reason why the ISU committee took the action they did.

I think their reasoning was the feelings by many that Mao didn't get rewarded enough for her triple axel in the short program. And they want to encourage things like that not discourage. I think the feelings were that seeing Mao still lose the short program that much, might discourage girls from even trying to get the 3axel. And I actually agree with them. I think the same goes for the 2 quads thing. They want to encourage more guys to try to get the quads, if they can.

And honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the report is true about Mishin starting to be successful with teaching the girls the 3axel, if the Russians aren't also pushing for this rule to change too. IF reports about Elizaveta having the 3axel are true, it might not be just Mao next year who takes advantage of the rule.

[Mathman]

I think their reasoning was the feelings by many that Mao didn't get rewarded enough for her triple axel in the short program. And they want to encourage things like that not discourage. I think the feelings were that seeing Mao still lose the short program that much, might discourage girls from even trying to get the 3axel. And I actually agree with them. I think the same goes for the 2 quads thing. They want to encourage more guys to try to get the quads, if they can.

If they think that triple Axels and quads are undervalued, they could raise the values (as many skaters and observers are urging.)

But in any case, the point I was making was that I have no reason to doubt that the committee felt that making this change was in the interests of figure skating a whole. Rather than just cheating to help Mao win something next year and get more money from Japanese television.

[Mrs. P]

If they're going to increase the base points of a 3Lz+3T combo to 11 why aren't they increasing the value of the triple axel (at least for the women)? Yuna is going to score 14 points now for that combo while Asada will still only be scoring 8-9ish even though the triple axel is a lot harder than the 3+3 combo... they should increase the triple axel value for women to at least 16-17 points.

16 points?! You're telling me you want the Triple Axel to be worth nearly the same amount of base points that Kevin VDP got for his 4-3-3 at Worlds? (Though by your formula that would be worth something like 30 points...perhaps).

The triple axel is very difficult, yes, but don't be fooled into thinking a 3-3 is easier. If it was, then why aren't more women doing it? I can count on my two hands the number of women that did a 3-3 at Worlds and on one hand who did a tougher one than the 3T-3T.

It is not easy to keep your speed and flow to rotate that second triple. If you don't have enough speed or your first jump isn't precise you are at risk of UR (or doubling) the second jump.

Besides the Triple Axel as single jump is already 37 percent higher in base value than the triple lutz, the next most difficult jump. (The difference between a lutz from a flip and so forth is only about 9 percent).

[bekalc]

If they think that triple Axels and quads are undervalued, they could raise the values (as many skaters and observers are urging.)

But in any case, the point I was making was that I have no reason to doubt that the committee felt that making this change was in the interests of figure skating a whole. Rather than just cheating to help Mao win something next year and get more money from Japanese television.

But I don't think they necessarily want the base value of the triple axel to be higher. Just that a woman can get rewarded by being able to do a triple axel in the short by getting to do it an easier way than Mao did hers.

[sjwh08]

I'm all for increasing the value of 3A ONLY IF judges are willing to count the rotation, penalize under/pre rotations, and watch out the backward take-offs as much as they do with other triple jumps.

[bekalc]

I'm all for increasing the value of 3A ONLY IF judges are willing to count the rotation, penalize under/pre rotations, and watch out the backward take-offs as much as they do with other triple jumps.

Actually I think some of the reason they are doing this under the current rules, Mao was insanely punished if she got her 3axel downgraded, while Yu-na not nearly if a 3toe was downgraded. Now I actually think the callers might feel more comfortable downgrading Mao's 3axel. Because getting a downgraded triple axel will only put her at the level of others.

[Robeye]

OK, I can't help myself. "Thesaurus." "All right."

Uh, does this mean you're rescinding the prize?

OT (but since the comment itself was OT...), while some grammatical purists insist that "alright" is not all right, others are of the view that it has reached the level of widespread usage that justifies acceptance, particularly where an informal tone is appropriate. May I point out that not only is it synonymous with "OK", but has traveled a similar evolutionary path toward respectability, first among the great unwashed (I guess that would be me), and now increasingly among grammarians?

On the other hand, 100yen, I must admit (but only with the greatest reluctance) that "thesarus" is either a misspelling or a typo (that's typographical error to you, Mathman). If you're feeling up to a fight, though, I'd suggest arguing that it's a faithful transcription of a regional pronunciation. Man, guys like us have got to watch our backs here and start using spellcheck (although it's kind of amusing to see hawks swooping down to catch nits (that's very tiny insects to you, Mathman, as well as a colloquial term referring to inconsequential errors (cf. "nitpicking"). I mean, how hungry do you have to be to do that?)