Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

gkelly · May 4, 2010

Mathman said:
There is no proposal so far about trying to evaluate the difficulty of each combination (like 4T+3T+3Lo) and no proposal to eliminate the penalty for sequences (like 3A/half loop/3F )

Actually there might be.

Note the proposed change to Rule 510 in Proposal 266.

In a jump combination the landing foot of a jump is the take off foot of the next jump. . . . If the jumps are connected with a non-listed jump, the element is called as a jump sequence. However half-loop when used in combinations/sequences is considered as a listed jump with the Value of a Loop.

With half-loop considered a nonlisted jump, as has been the case to date, 3A/half loop/3F was considered a sequence, subject to the 0.8 multiplier.

If this proposal passes, it appears that half-loop will count as a single loop jump and 3A/half loop/3F will be considered a three-jump combination, 3A+1Lo+3F and earn full credit for all three of those jumps, or also be subject to the bonus 1.1 multiplier if proposal 183 also passes.

Other sequences, e.g., something like 3F/tap toe/2A, would still get the 0.8 penalty.

I believe that the reaosn the ISU is reluctant to reward combinations more is because a combo already carries a built-in bonus -- the skater can squeeze in an extra triple and use the extra jumping pass for something else. Plus, a combo allows you to repeat a jump and still stay ahead of the Zayak rules. So there are other benefits to combos than just the base values.

I assume that was their reasoning.

Still, I think it would be better to give full base value for sequences and a sizable bonus to the second (and third) jump in a combo.

I tend to agree.

gkelly · May 4, 2010

seniorita said:
I commented on 2002 because after the olympics depression i rewatched 2002 olys on youtube . . . moves in the field for men were far more original than the checking the pcs boxes now every 5 seconds.

One thing to keep in mind that for the last few years of the 6.0 system, including 2002, men were expected to do one step sequence and one field moves sequence in their long programs, comparable to the one step sequence and one spiral sequence for ladies.

Of course, there were no base marks or features or levels to these sequences, or even any detailed description of the minimum requirements to qualify as an acceptable sequence. So it just ended up being each guy doing a couple of field moves in a row without other elements in between them, whatever best fit his skills and his program theme.

seniorita · May 4, 2010

thanx gkelly

, thats what i felt, that probably they did the moves in the field that suited them and they totally were selling them, since there were no requirements.

Mathman said:
I am OK with GOE on the entire combo. My idea was that the bonus in base value should be all on the second jump. Say, 20% extra on the second jump and 0% extra on the first jump, instead of 10% extra on each.

Wait, I think I got it wrong. The proposal is to have the bonus on each jump of the combo (or second /third as you propose) plus the Goe for the entire combo?So you get bonus for each jump in the sequence no matter what the quality, entrance, flow out etc and then you might get -Goe for the quality? This is my last question, I swear. :eek:

I imagine, from base value, we would add the bonus, the Goe and the after half program bonus 10%, i already have a headache!

Yes I meant Amodio is far better dancer, he has much more rhythm and -while in the competitions this year it didnt show much- in KOI that I saw live he had lots of nerve, like 'I m that good, watch me'. I dare say he is far more musical than Brezina, at least he has more diversity in the styles he skates. I think KOI was a big lesson for him, Plushenko saw him in Paris show and while he was not scheduled for the rest he took him to the tour cause he liked him a lot, he skated with the big boys the 4 kings number in all Koi, including Stojko and Petrenko. For me at least he was the surprise of the tour. If he was more entertaining than sex bomb? :laugh:

oh, that's difficult test but yes he was!

For plushenko you should have asked me rather than wikipedia, i have spotted some mistakes :laugh:

I thought you were behind wikipedia, joe said it:think:

ImaginaryPogue · May 4, 2010

Fascinating thread.

1. I don't really see how the triple axel rule advances the sport. I just wonder how plausible it is for the sport to get four or five women doing triple axels consistently enough. If we do get the supergirl who can do a 3A, 3-3 and a triple out of steps, then yes - I think that should be rewarded. I just don't see that happening (and I'd like to see realistic advances made, not theoretical). I'm happy to be wrong, though.

2. Yes, it's hard not to see the rule that limits the risk of one skater while taking away the advantage of another (the 2A rule) and think they're trying to boost one over the other, especially since the 3A rule won't help anyone other than Mao. Especially when the way the rule introduction took place deviates from the norm.

3. bekalc's supposition about the quad is one I've heard repeated (and I think even stated myself) and that's rather sad. The "I don't like the rules so I'll apply my own" way to judge shouldn't be validated. That said, I'm more intrigued now by the "moves in the field" sequence.

TtonyV7 · May 4, 2010

gkelly said:
Actually there might be.

With half-loop considered a nonlisted jump, as has been the case to date, 3A/half loop/3F was considered a sequence, subject to the 0.8 multiplier.

If this proposal passes, it appears that half-loop will count as a single loop jump and 3A/half loop/3F will be considered a three-jump combination, 3A+1Lo+3F and earn full credit for all three of those jumps, or also be subject to the bonus 1.1 multiplier if proposal 183 also passes.

Other sequences, e.g., something like 3F/tap toe/2A, would still get the 0.8 penalty.

This is awesome that the half-loop wont be penalized, and be consider as a single loop.

Doing a half-loop versus a hop or step is so much more difficult. It requires good speed and control or the sequence will fail.

Look at Surya Bonaly's T.Toe - h/lp - T.Salchow Sequences in the past for example. Though not the most difficult, it is a very tricky combo to pull off. A combo that Butryskaya and Cohen struggle with at times in their career. I think by giving more credit for this versus the "easier" tap / step is correct.

The only downside is that it will count towards as your only 3-combo jump.

Now I wonder about the Half-Axles......

yunasashafan · May 4, 2010

FlattFan said:
this person has no concept of context at all.
I remember talking about the difference between a 3F-3T and 4T-3T and said something about 4 points difference and he went on and on about how I didn't know that 4T is worth so and so and not 4 points. It's funny it's happening AGAIN. Good grief.

not sure what you mean here. I was replying wallylutz's response to bekalc

bekalc said:
I also think that the new rules for combinations are MUCH needed. The current system with combinations was unfair. Plushenko could have done a single 4toe and a double axel/3toe in his free program at the Olympics, and got the same base value. That's just ridiculous.

wallylutz said:
Well, first, you need to get the math right. 4T does not equal 2A+3T And keep in mind, the number of jumping passes is restricted as does the number of combination allowed. Please remember to factor in such opportunity cost and strategic consideration in your analysis before over-using the word "ridiculous". Under the new rule, the 2A+3T will in fact get a bonus for simply being a jump combo whereas 4T as a solo jump, will not. Are you going to complain about that as well?

I was simply pointing out to wallylutz that, from what I understood from bekalc's post, he/she thought the old rules where unfair because doing 4T+3T and 2A will get you the same sum of points as doing 4T and 2A+3T. While the two options use the same jumps and have one combo and one solo jump, the first one is a lot more difficult and therefore it made no sense that they both get rewarded the same. With the new system, the first option will get more points, which makes more sense. bekalc was in favor of the change and I was merely clarifying his/her point. In fact, he/she later posted a reply that was based on the same reasoning as mine.

bekalc said:
That is not what I said. I said the way combinations are currently judged, the only are the points of the two jumps together. So, ie someone can do the harder jump as a single jump, and do an easier combination, and as long as they have a 4toe, a double axel, and a 3toe, their base value will be the same.
For example Plushenko
4toe/3toe-13.8
double axel-3.5
Total base value-17.3
Or what I was saying

4toe-9.8
double axel/3toe-7.5
Total Base value=17.3?

I do not recall our debate about the 3F-3T and 4T-3T, but I do not see how that conversation would fit the context of this thread and I do not understand why you'd mention it other than bringing on an unnecessary personal attack. :think: Sorry if I wasn't very clear in my post, but a simple question from you would have prompted me to provide any needed clarification (in any case I have edited my post accordingly). Besides, you should probably think before making asssumptions about me because I am not a "he."

Mathman · May 4, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
1. I don't really see how the triple axel rule advances the sport. I just wonder how plausible it is for the sport to get four or five women doing triple axels consistently enough...

I don't see anything wrong with trying to get the rules right for anything that might happen in the future. Rather than waiting for the future to come along and find us unprepared again.

Why not just make a blanket change to all short program jump requirements, for both men and women, like this:

1. An Axel jump of two or more revolutions.

2. A two-jump combination of which one jump must be three or more revolutions and the other two or more.

3. A jump of three or more revolutions out of footwork.

Especially when the way the rule introduction took place deviates from the norm.

Does it? Doesn't the ISU Technical Committee make recommendations to the full Congress every year, just like this?

(As I understand it, besides these internal proposals by ISU standing committees -- which are almost always passed without opposition -- individual members may also propose changes directly to the Congress. These are seldom passed and are more like Federations staking out positions of principle than a serious attempt at changing the rules, I believe. In other words, this is what you do if you can't get the ISU brass to listen to your ideas, but you still want to put them out there.)

ImaginaryPogue · May 4, 2010

I don't see anything wrong with trying to get the rules right for anything that might happen in the future. Rather than waiting for the future to come along and find us unprepared again.

In the future skates may have little hovercraft features that allow a fraction of a second more hang time. Don't see the point in legislating their use now especially when you can argue that there are more legitimate changes to be made that could help advance the sport's popularity and/or technical strength (see the oft mentioned UR rule).

As for the second point, wallylutz is convinced of the case and I think his presentation of the facts is persuasive.

Mathman · May 4, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
In the future skates may have little hovercraft features that allow a fraction of a second more hang time. Don't see the point in legislating their use now...

I do not think writing rules about hovercraft would be a good idea.

I do think it would be a good idea to change the rules to "an Axel jump of two or more revolutions," etc.

... especially when you can argue that there are more legitimate changes to be made that could help advance the sport's popularity and/or technical strength (see the oft mentioned UR rule).

I do not see what one has to do with the other. The ISU could both change the 3A rule and address the other changes that you favor (URs, etc.)

As for the second point, wallylutz is convinced of the case and I think his presentation of the facts is persuasive.

Wallylutz describes the two procedures at length in post 16 on this thread. In post 18 he expresses shock that he Japanese Federation chose to go through the technical committee (the obviously smart move) rather than to submit the proposal directly for a vote of the Congress as an individually sponsored bill.

I guess I am not so easily shocked as Wally is. This sounds like business as usual to me. If you want to get something done, you go to the committee that has the power to do it.

ImaginaryPogue · May 4, 2010

The fact that that they do one but not the other is the point, though. They're doing something that I don't see having any real effect on the body of the sport instead of making a substantive change that could do so. They're doing so in a manner that doesn't strike me as completely normal (though I might be wrong, and that would negate some of my unease). When you add on the fact that the skater who this helps is coincidentally from the country that has the most money to throw at the issue (skating being incredibly popular and lucrative in Japan).... If it proves to be a great thing for the sport, I'll be happy to have been wrong.

Mathman · May 5, 2010

gkelly said:
If this proposal passes, it appears that half-loop will count as a single loop jump and 3A/half loop/3F will be considered a three-jump combination, 3A+1Lo+3F and earn full credit for all three of those jumps, or also be subject to the bonus 1.1 multiplier if proposal 183 also passes.

TtonyV7 said:
he only downside is that it will count towards as your only 3-combo jump.

Still...3A+half-loop+3F = 14.2 + 10% = 15.62

Compared to 4T+3T = 13.8 + 10% = 15.12

Seniorita said:
Wait, I think I got it wrong. The proposal is to have the bonus on each jump of the combo (or second /third as you propose) plus the Goe for the entire combo?So you get bonus for each jump in the sequence no matter what the quality, entrance, flow out etc and then you might get -Goe for the quality? This is my last question, I swear. I imagine, from base value, we would add the bonus, the Goe and the after half program bonus 10%, i already have a headache!

I think it goes like this (as always, I reserve the right to be wrong.

)

3A< + 2T. Base value 3.5+1.3 = 4.8.

Now put on ten per cent if it is in the second half of the program. 4.8+.48 = 5.28.

Now put on the 10% combo bonus on the whole thing. 5.28 + .53 = 5.81

This is your base value.

Now put on plus or minus GOE on the whole element. Probably -1 for the under-rotation (but other factors, plus and minus, could play a role.)

Total score for this element: 5.81 base value + (-1.00) GOE = 4.81.

Something like that.

Mathman · May 5, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
The fact that that they do one but not the other is the point, though. They're doing something that I don't see having any real effect on the body of the sport instead of making a substantive change that could do so.

That is a very interesting point. If the Japanese federation wanted to do something that would benefit Mao Asada vis-vis Yu-na Kim they should have pushed for relaxing the under-rotation rules and left the short program alone.

The change in the Axel requirement in the SP will not translate into any big point grab by Mao. But if under-rotated jumps received a less draconian penalty, that would greatly help Mao in both the short and long programs. All of her triple Axels are borderline, whereas Kim rarely under-rotates anything.

wallylutz · May 5, 2010

gkelly said:
Actually there might be.

Note the proposed change to Rule 510 in Proposal 266.

With half-loop considered a nonlisted jump, as has been the case to date, 3A/half loop/3F was considered a sequence, subject to the 0.8 multiplier.

If this proposal passes, it appears that half-loop will count as a single loop jump and 3A/half loop/3F will be considered a three-jump combination, 3A+1Lo+3F and earn full credit for all three of those jumps, or also be subject to the bonus 1.1 multiplier if proposal 183 also passes.

I am unsure that your interpretation is correct. Note the language of the sentence uses half loop as a part of the jump combo or sequence. What I think this proposal means that half loop, as a non-listed jump, shall be awarded the value of a 1Lo. For the sake of argument, even if hLo is noted as 1Lo, a listed jump, the connection between 1Lo and 3F in a 3A+1Lo+3F would still break between 1Lo and 3F as the landing foot on the loop does not equal the take off foot of the 3F.

Jump Combination said:
In a jump combination the landing foot of the first jump is the take off foot of the second

To go from a Loop to a Flip, there will necessarily be a change of landing foot / take off foot, therefore, making a jump combo impossible as per the definition of the jump combo. The whole thing will be ruled as a Sequence, albeit, the half Loop will now add the value of 1Lo into the sequence prior to the 0.8 factoring.

wallylutz · May 5, 2010

Mathman said:
Still...3A+half-loop+3F = 14.2 + 10% = 15.62

Compared to 4T+3T = 13.8 + 10% = 15.

Sorry, I am fairly certain the 3A+hLo+3F will not count as a combo, the change of foot that is required between the Loop and the Flip will not fit the definition of jump combo.

gkelly · May 5, 2010

Mathman said:
Why not just make a blanket change to all short program jump requirements, for both men and women, like this:

1. An Axel jump of two or more revolutions.

2. A two-jump combination of which one jump must be three or more revolutions and the other two or more.

3. A jump of three or more revolutions out of footwork.

So these are the rules for seniors. What about juniors? Should they be

1. An Axel jump of two or more revolutions.

2. A two-jump combination of which each jump must have at least two revolutions.

3. A jump of two or more revolutions out of footwork from the specified takeoff.

In other words, 3A, 4T+4T, and 4Lz would be a legal junior ladies' SP?

If Supergirl comes along and executes that SP content one day, she might be so far ahead after the short that she could medal without doing any triples at all in the long. Where's the excitement there?

How about novice?

Mathman · May 5, 2010

^ I don't get that at all from the wording.

However half-loop when used in combinations/sequences is considered as a listed jump with the Value of a Loop.

It does not say, we will pretend that this jump was a loop. It says we will treat it as a listed jump (in its own right) and assign it the same base value as a single loop.

The half-loop (unlike the single loop) lands on the outside back edge of the opposite foot, so you can go right up to a Salchow or flip without changing edges, isn't that right?

I do not see why they would bother to make a change if it were not specifically to allow this kind of maneuver to count as a full combo.

wallylutz said:
Sorry, I am fairly certain the 3A+hLo+3F will not count as a combo, the change of foot that is required between the Loop and the Flip will not fit the definition of jump combo.

OK. you have me at a disadvantage here. I am not an expert on edges. But doesn't a half-loop (not a 1Lo) land on exactly the edge you want to be on for a flip take-off?

wallylutz · May 5, 2010

Mathman said:
OK. you have me at a disadvantage here. I am not an expert on edges. But doesn't a half-loop (not a 1Lo) land on exactly the edge you want to be on for a flip take-off?

Yes, that part is correct, backward inside edge of opposite foot, which is = the take off for Salchow or Flip, but not so if the jump were a 1Lo (I was thinking along the line of hLo = 1Lo but that's not correct) I need to give this some thoughts, I am now unsure myself.

Mathman · May 5, 2010

gkelly said:
So these are the rules for seniors. What about juniors? Should they be

1. An Axel jump of two or more revolutions.

2. A two-jump combination of which each jump must have at least two revolutions.

3. A jump of two or more revolutions out of footwork from the specified takeoff.

In other words, 3A, 4T+4T, and 4Lz would be a legal junior ladies' SP?

If Supergirl comes along and executes that SP content one day, she might be so far ahead after the short that she could medal without doing any triples at all in the long. Where's the excitement there?

How about novice?

When I wrote that post my first instinct was to have a one size fits all set of rules that would work for juveniles on up.

1. An Axel jump.
2. A combination
3. A jump out of footwork.

If all you have is singles up to the Axel, then that's what you do. If you are in competition with supergirl who can do triple Axels and quads, then you lose. Presumably supergirl's coach wuld not keep her hanging around beating up on babies, but would move her up the ranks as fast as possible.

As far as someone doing so many quads in the SP that the competition is over, that where factored placements of ordinals come in. (But in any case, if a skater is doing quadruple Lutzes, etc., there will not be much suspense in the contest anyway.)

What this plan does not do, I realize, is honor the history of the short program as a test of basic skills with everyone doing pretty much the same thing and being judged on their mastery of pre-selected elements. But I think that model has been pretty much abandoned anyway, what with some senior skaters doing 3T+2T and others doing 3Lz+3T, etc.

gkelly · May 5, 2010

wallylutz said:
I am unsure that your interpretation is correct. Note the language of the sentence uses half loop as a part of the jump combo or sequence. What I think this proposal means that half loop, as a non-listed jump, shall be awarded the value of a 1Lo. For the sake of argument, even if hLo is noted as 1Lo, a listed jump, the connection between 1Lo and 3F in a 3A+1Lo+3F would still break between 1Lo and 3F as the landing foot on the loop does not equal the take off foot of the 3F.

I'll wait for official clarification of the intention behind this rule change and exactly how it's to be implemented. But this interpretation makes sense to me.

Keep in mind that the technical panel handbook already specifies that

All jumps may be landed on either foot. The call goes for the jump, independent of the landing foot. Judges will evaluate the quality in their GOE.

Thus a one-foot axel counts as an axel, or a one-foot double salchow counts as a double salchow.

1A+2S or 2S+2S are valid combinations (not sequences) if the first jump is landed on the back inside edge of the "wrong" foot and the second jump takes off directly from that landing edge.

The single half-loop is singled out as an exception to that rule to make it a "nonlisted jump" so that it can be used as a transitional move without taking up a jump box, or as a transitional hop in a jump sequence.

What this proposed change seems to be aimed at is to remove the exception so that half loop is considered a single loop jump landed on the opposite foot in the same way as the above examples.

Right now, for example, footwork into half-loop into triple salchow just counts as a solo triple salchow with a nonlisted jump as a preceding transition.

If this proposal passes and means what I think it means, i.e., that half-loop is now considered a variant of the listed jump single loop, then footwork into half-loop into triple salchow would be a two-jump combination, 1Lo+3S, and would fill a jump combination slot.

brianjyw · May 5, 2010

Mathman said:
I do not think writing rules about hovercraft would be a good idea.

I do think it would be a good idea to change the rules to "an Axel jump of two or more revolutions," etc.

I do not see what one has to do with the other. The ISU could both change the 3A rule and address the other changes that you favor (URs, etc.)

Wallylutz describes the two procedures at length in post 16 on this thread. In post 18 he expresses shock that he Japanese Federation chose to go through the technical committee (the obviously smart move) rather than to submit the proposal directly for a vote of the Congress as an individually sponsored bill.

I guess I am not so easily shocked as Wally is. This sounds like business as usual to me. If you want to get something done, you go to the committee that has the power to do it.

Thank you Mathman for finally admitting the obvious.

No matter what the motivation was or how much politics were involved, I tend to agree that the changes might be good for the sport in the long run.

Life is seemingly unfair but a true hero will rise to the occasion despite all the odds and obstacles.

Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

gkelly

gkelly

seniorita

ImaginaryPogue

TtonyV7

yunasashafan

Mathman

ImaginaryPogue

Mathman

ImaginaryPogue

Mathman

Mathman

wallylutz

wallylutz

gkelly

Mathman

wallylutz

Mathman

gkelly

brianjyw

Similar threads

Connect with us