Frankly, for someone who can do a triple axel, making them do a double axel is sort of unnecessary, because the skater already demonstrated that he or she can do an axel jump. This is just like in school when some people have demonstrated their skill in a particular subject that they are allowed to do harder stuff in an advanced class, while the others stay in the regular class. It's not unfair in principle because everyone is given the opportunity to enter the advanced class if they demonstrated the skills.
Yes, but the more fundamental question, raised by Janetfan and others, is: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* If the decision-making machinery of the ISU were more transparent as to process and motive, then changes wouldn't be viewed with quite so much reflexive suspicion (although they may still provoke disagreement). This has always been a slow cancer eating away at the sport, which they have not yet adequately addressed.
*who will guard the guardians [themselves]?
"At the 2006 Olympics Plushenko gave a commanding performance, but he did not demonstrate much artistry." Or
"Michal Brezina is an artistic skater, but an inconsistent performer."
but he lacked the artistry of this skater:
Did the judges get it right - and if so how did the "Crossover King" place ahead of the "Quad King?"
Last edited by janetfan; 05-03-2010 at 11:16 AM.
I believe the real thing this change implies is that 3A is now a kind of risk-free point getter. Probably the most serious risk in attempting 3A is the possibility to get downgraded to 2A. Now in SP you don't need to worry about it. Even if your success rate is low there is almost nothing to lose (except GOEs) by doing your incomplete 3A instead of 2A. If you are lucky you will get extra 8.2-3.5=4.7points compared with doing 2A. If you are unlucky, still no problem because you will just get the usual 3.5 points. This means there would be practically no punishment.
In this sense allowing 3A to replace 2A is totally different from the current rules. (Remember that in SP there will be no stamina issue either.) I bet that many female skaters, especially young skaters will try to learn 3A from now on. Otherwise they will simply lose the chance to collect that extra points without much risk. This will results in many injuries. I guess.
By the same reason, this change will help Mao a lot even if the point calculation does not look so at first sight. So far the success or failure of 3A in SP was like the difference of day and night because her 3A had to replace one of the triples. But after the rule changes, you will not lose much because downgraded 3A will be still counted as 2A with other triples untouched. Of course Mao would feel mentally much better and probably the success rate would increase as well, which is not bad.
It is a tremendous advantage for the only skater doing a 3A in her SP.
Perhaps it will lead to more than one Lady trying a 3A in her SP - but from what I have seen this past season the CoP is already challenging many skaters to the breaking point.
It was mentioned if this will help boost TV ratings. I would guess fans who love splats will enjoy seeing more ladies falling and risking injury. Skating purists maybe not so much.
In men's FS at Vancouver, there were actually one more 3A (including combo) landed and ratified than 3-3 (excluding 4T combo). So does this mean 3A-( ) is rather an easier jump compared to 3-3 combo?
I just want to say they are both difficult jumps, and you can't just argue which one is harder. It just depends on each skater.
Last edited by Basics; 05-03-2010 at 11:52 AM.
One thing is for sure... if these changes proposed by the ISU technical committee gets ratified as it seem they will, I think the records books should be reset. What I mean by that is that because the some of these changes are pretty radical, scores that are awarded under the new revised system is not directly comparable to the scores before these changes. So I say they should have a record for the scores before these changes and records under the revised system. Of course ISU has not shown this much sense before as the score from the early days of ISU are still included with the new one with higher points for 3A's and quads plus various changes in UR, edge calls, etc. Not that records matter that much anyway. All we know is that new scores cannot be compared directly to previous scores.
How can anyone deny that men's figure skating has gone down the toilet since the inception of CoP judging?
At the 2002 Olympics Tim Goebel did
Plushenko's first four jumping passes were
And that got them only second and third.
(Let's see now. What did the 2010 Olympic gold medalist do?)
As for Plushenko's "artistry" in that program, he was so artistic that he could afford to stop in the middle and do some comic dancing and posing.
Last edited by Mathman; 05-03-2010 at 12:30 PM.
Here are examples. The lutz is considered to be a difficult jump, but Michael Weiss appeared to find it easier than some other jumps. Timothy Goebel mastered quads, but had trouble coping with the triple axel. I remember that, in his prime, Chengjiang Li said that he found the lutz really hard to do, although Chengjiang did other jumps with great aplomb back then, including quads.
Generalizations for scoring purposes have to be made about the difficulty of various moves, but, in the end, what is extremely difficult for one person, may be much easier for another.
In the SP, assuming Mao Asada goes for the following layout:
Her total BV, including the 10% bonus on the combo, would be 25.75 for jumps
Yu-Na Kim's usual format:
Will only score 20 points, including the bonus on the jump combo.
The net difference, 25.72 - 20.00 = 5.75 of advantage for Mao Asada, which is very significant. With the loss of Spiral Sequence in the SP, it also means the proportional weight of jumps go up as a whole vs. previous years. In other words, the 5.75 difference in the upcoming season worths more than the same amount of points in past seasons because the total TES would start off at a lower level than before as there are now fewer non-jump elements for anyone, including Kim, to try to overcome Asada's advantage in jumps. Assuming Kim's normal TES in the SP is about 43 points and she gets about 5.4 points form the Spiral (3.4 + 2), the new total TES without the Spiral is about 37.6 Divided 5.75 by 37.6/43 = 6.58 The actual advantage of Asada in the SP due to the Triple Axel being allowed is actually 6.58 points under today's value in order to compare the points on a 1 to 1 basis. Given that Asada, in the seasons past, have chosen the 3F+3Lo and 3Lz as her other jumping elements in the SP, it is illogical to assume an ambitious young woman like her would simply go for 3F+2T and 3Lo. The latter and simpler layout has NEVER been used by Asada in her senior competition so it's even further pointless that she would revert back to something as simple as those.
If skater A does 3F+3Lo, 3A, 3Lz and skater B does 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A, then skater B has done very well but skater A has hit a home run. She deserves to be way out in front heading into the LP.
Actually, I feel sorry for the poor ISU technical committee. If no one except Mao Asada ever does a triple Axel, then the committee will be accused of cheating on behalf of one skater at the expense of her rival.
But if in the future lots of girls are inspired to attempt the triple Axel, then the committee is guilty of jeopardizing the well-being of children.
On the third hand, if they withdraw the new rule then they are old sticks-in-the-mud holding back progress.
They can't win.
I doubt that any sort of tinkering with the scoring system will affect the popularity of the sport one way of the other. JMO.Originally Posted by Joesitz
The biggest beneficiaries were Krisztina Czako and Lenka Kulovana, who medaled at 1997 Europeans largely on the strength of their short program placements, achieved with 3T-3T combinations.
Amber Corwin, Surya Bonaly, and occasionally Laetitia Hubert also took advantage of doing 3T-3T in short programs.
Michelle Kwan had been doing 3T+3T and Irina Slutskaya and Tara Lipinski had been doing 3S+3Lo (Lipinski switched to 3Lo+3Lo in 1997) in their long programs but didn't plan triple-triples in the short, perhaps in the belief that judges wanted to see lutz combinations, or in the belief that they would be more consistent at landing a telegraphed lutz combo plus 3T, 3Lo, or 3F from preceding steps than doing the a 3-3 combo and 3Lz from steps. With today's explicit point values, the latter option would seem more attractive -- or 3F from steps if the skater consistently got edge calls on the lutz.
Elena Ivanova, the 1996 World Junior champion, had been doing 3Lz+3T and/or 3F+3T in her long programs, but she mostly stayed in junior competition internationally for the 1997 and 98 seasons, where 3-3 combo was not allowed in the short, so I don't know if she ever tried one in a senior short program the few times she competed as a senior before retiring ca. 1999.
Others who had landed 3-3 combinations in long programs in the past but were either retired or no longer up to that standard as of 1997 included Midori Ito, Debi Thomas, Nancy Kerrigan, Tonya Harding, Kristi Yamaguchi, Lu Chen, probably a couple others I'm forgetting or not aware of. Ito and Yamaguchi had landed more difficult 3-3s such as 3Lz+3T at least once.
Anyway, the point is that by the time 3-3 combo was allowed in the ladies' SP, there were plenty more ladies doing some sort of 3-3 combos than have done 3A in the past 2O+ years.
So how would you write that rule and how would you keep track across both programs? Although I'm sure everyone who planned 3Lo in only one program or the other would choose to do it in the LP.Actually how about change the rules to require a triple loop at least one in both programs, since most ladies can do it, and it is not even the most difficult jump, it is just a middle of the difficult jumps.
How would you penalize skaters who don't attempt it? Would there be the same penalty if a skater just didn't plan a 3Lo at all in either program or if they obviously planned one with a long telegraphed entry in the LP but ended up doubling it or worse? How about if it's severely underrotated and not landed on one foot -- give full credit for trying and just penalize the errors the same as if they happened on any other triple?
If the idea is just to show variety of takeoffs, why forget the requirement but give an explicit incentive for including all takeoffs, including double jumps.
If the idea is to reward the loop specifically in the belief that the BO edge takeoff is equally important to show mastery of as the FO axel required takeoff, how requiring either double or triple loop?
Or give more incentive to 3Lo by raising the base value to equal that of 3F -- if more skaters are leaving out 3Lo and including 3F than vice versa, that implies that either the 3F is not really more difficult for almost all skaters or else that skaters are choosing to conserve time by training only one or the other and for obvious reasons choosing the one with the higher point value.