And for step sequences can anyone disern the good from the poor except in those skaters who are going to podium anyway and mostly because of the jumps and spins. Let's see those school figure turns thoughout the program. Nothing like a grand Rocker into a triple lutz. or a grand counter into a quad toe loop. Where is the 'artistry' in circling the arena with crossovers for that super quad toe, and that carefully planned 3A? Why bother with music?
I see no reason to give spirals at the senior level more weight, but yes at the juvenile level. Transitions are fine if they connect with whatever their aiming to connect with - no pausing. I reiterate, Step Sequences should be shown throughout the program, albeit in a musical fewer steps form.
Some of the differences will be based on what draws each fan to the sport.
Some will be most excited by the jumps -- they can see the differences between doubles, triples, and quads more easily than the differences between different takeoffs, or between everything else that happens on the ice as opposed to in the air, and the higher risk of splatting and the greater glory of succeeding with the hardest jumps. Anything that encourages and rewards more jump risks would be their preference.
Others may have been drawn in by the "artistry." Maybe their first favorite skater was a competitor who was especially gifted in musical interpretation or body line, or maybe they were first attracted by exhibition or professional skating and later expanded their interest to competition. These fans will probably prefer rules that discourage splats and encourage more interesting aesthetic use of the whole body.
Probably no casual fans are excited by the difference between, say, a three turn and a bracket. But skaters know the difference and want them rewarded commensurately. And fans who go beyond casual viewing and become interested in the details of the sport and its technique can learn to recognize and, yes, get excited by details that eluded them when they first started watching.
First of all, it confuses the use of the word "ordinal" in the 6.0 system to use it like that.You could still have scoring that takes into account intricacies that casual fans are not aware of (like the differences between different jumps), but keep the ordinal one-third/two-thirds idea to determine the overall winner.
Ordinals were the rankings given by each judge to all the skaters in one phase of the event. It was rare for any judge's ordinals for the field to match the overall result, especially in large events.
The one-third/two-thirds split in value between short and long program was referred to as factored placements.
And of course the split might not be one-third/two-thirds when there were additional phases of competition. It was different when there were figures plus short program plus long program. It was different when qualifying rounds counted toward the overall results. It was different in the experimental Grand Prix Finals a decade ago that required skaters to perform two long programs.
And for ice dance it was different when compulsory dances were part of the event.
So fans who remember Elaine Zayak's come from behind to win 1982 Worlds from 7th place after the SP, for example, might have a different idea of "exciting" than fans who sweated over whether their favorites could pull up from 4th.
Fans who started watching in the last 5 or 6 years were never excited by the intricacies of ordinals or factored placements in the first place and learned from the beginning of their fandom to be more interested in point spreads.
Some fans who started following short programs in the 1970s or 80s may have enjoyed the apples-to-apples comparisons of every skater doing the same solo jump, the same required double jump in the combination, the same flying spin, the same shape of step sequence, etc. They may want to go back to those kinds of requirements.
Some, likely newer fans and/or fans who only watch the top elite skaters, may want to require specific triple jumps, ignoring the fact that not everyone who can do some triples and can compete credibly at the senior level is capable of executing every kind of triple.
Other longtime fans may not miss those requirements and be happy with the current balance of requirements and options.
Some fans may want to get rid of all specific requirements in the short program and replace them with the equivalent, much looser, long-program requirements. E.g., an axel jump, a solo jump, a jump combination, a flying spin, a spin in one position, a combination spin, a step sequence.
You were arguing in favor of the latter. Which would be a brand new approach to the short program structure, not a return to the way it ever used to be in real life. That may have been what you thought short programs were about when you didn't know the rules, but you were wrong.
We were discussing whether to change the short program requirements to make them even looser than they ever have been, more like long programs.I am not saying that this is the only way to do it. But the knife cuts both ways. If you have a format that is thrilling to spectators, it seems like you ought to have a good reason before abandoning it."I like it the way it is" may not be a good reason for change, but it is a good reason to keep it the way it is.
The short program requirements did not change with the introduction of the new scoring system, by the way.
But then you started arguing that they should be changed to something they never were before because you liked the way things were before.
To which I say, huh?
How did we go from discussing whether women should be able to do triple axels to fulfill the solo axel required element to whether we should go back to factored placements, and specifically the one-third/two-third split that used for most competitions in the 1990s and early 2000s?
I think it went something like this. Many posters referred to historical precedent to argue for or against the change in the Axel requirement -- in my opinion, to the neglect of the question of whether or not the new rule was a good one or not. (Others got sidetracked into whether or not the rule would benefit one particular skater.)How did we go from discussing whether women should be able to do triple axels to fulfill the solo axel required element to whether we should go back to factored placements,...
So..let's see... When I began that paragraph I thought it was headed somewhere... Something about factored placements of ordinal rankings is good, never mind history (?)
Last edited by Figure88; 05-03-2010 at 07:24 PM.
The other question is whether any of these women even have a triple axel that they can rotate and stand up on at least, say, half the time they try.
If they did, don't you think they'd be trying them in their long programs already, where the risk is lower?
Allowing the solo 3A in the short program might also have benefitted Yukari Nakano if it had been introduced a couple years ago. But she's retired now, so that's not a consideration.
If this change passes this year, I don't expect to suddenly see any ladies besides Asada attempting 3A in the SP this fall.
What might be increased is the number of juniors or young seniors working on the jump in practice and maybe a few more attempting it in LPs in 2010-2011. Which would hasten the time when some of them might feel ready to take the greater risk of attempting it in SPs. While also likely increasing the number of 3A-related injuries, as others have suggested. Either way one would hope that these skaters will train smart and not take inappropriate risks in practice long before they're at the point of risking the jump in competition.
If it will be several years before skaters other than Asada will benefit from the option to do solo 3A in the SP, is there any up side now for anyone besides Asada to change the rule this year?
Hi Wallylutz I am just curious about your speculation that Mao will try 3f/3l as combo jump and 3z as the solo jump in her sp. Just citing her attempt of 3f/3l, in one competition and 3z in another and tht she is a :Japanese” does not exactly have me convinced.
BTW Wally, a while back you have suggested 2 jump layouts for Mao’s lp (considering her strength and weakness) i
1) Triple Flip + Triple Toe
2) Triple Lutz
3) Triple Loop + Double Loop + Double Loop
4) Triple Axel (Second Half)
5) Triple Flip (Second Half)
6) Double Axel + Double Axel (Second Half)
7) Triple Loop (Second Half)
The second layout
Keeping in mind that these are lp jump layouts (and skaters usually are more willing to take some risk in the lp) no where in your suggestion do I see 3f/3l. Do you seriously think Mao can pull off 3f/3l without the 3l downgrade? Do you seriously think she can fix her flutz and get a real lutz? If her chance of pulling off 3f/3l AND 3z in a sp (required elements) is not big, then the theoretical >6 points BV advantage you have calculated for Mao is not realistic. I actually think Mathman’s 3f/3t and 3l plan for Mao is much more realistic. That gives her less than 2 point BV advantage
About poor Yuna needs to retire, come on, are you underestimating Yuna’s potential? Didn’t Orser say 3a is in their plan?
For those who think ISU is sacrificing Yuna for Mao? WHY? I would think for the sake of TV ratings and the sports they want Yuna to stay 4 more yrs. OTOH Mao will stay for 4 yrs. None of you (who are advocating this ISU conspiracy) have answered that question yet.
Oh well, since this is off season and I love some conspiracy theories. Didn't the Korean article mentioned that the new proposed rules will solidify Yuna's record of winning olys with the largest margin? Maybe Yuna has already told ISU tht she will retire, and the tech guys are changing the rules for her, so that her record of winning by the large margin will stand in history and no one will ever exceed that. Now tht I think about it, I think the ISU change the age rule for Tara, yeah she will forever be the youngest OGM
Last but not least, and I am not accusing you of being racist, b/c I seriously don’t think you are, what is it about being “Japanese” in your opinion that makes Mao take a seemingly “unwise” path of going for the riskiest elements even though in most ppl’s opinion that risks OUTSWEIGHS the potential rewards.
BTW, Do you think in 2006 olys Arakawa took huge risks also?
Oh well, I am really ready to switch subject and talk about Patrick Chan and the quads
Last edited by rtureck; 05-03-2010 at 07:52 PM.
oh god, 18 pages and they havent decided yet? And I had just finished reading the notes of last season..
Kevin Reynods also.
and theoretically Amodio and Brezina have 4s, i dont know if they have 4toe.
Last edited by Hanaka; 05-03-2010 at 08:56 PM.
I never understood why Mao should have to do a double axel if she has already done a triple. All other ladies can still do a double if they want to.
I can’t remember where, but I remember a proposal to reduce the penalty on an underrotation. So an underrotated triple will be worth more than a good double. With all the complaints about Laura’s bronze at Worlds, you would think this would be a welcome change.