Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

But that's not what you wrote. You specified that the axel must be at least double and that at least one jump in the combo must be at least triple.

Which are the current minimums for senior, but not for lower levels.

Juniors are allowed to do solo double jump and double-double combination. Novices and intermediates are allowed to do single axel. Intermediates are allowed to do double-single combination.

(Juveniles don't have short programs. BTW, I'm going by US rules -- other countries use other names and other rules for their middle and lower levels.)

So do you want minimums for seniors but no maximums?
And then lower minimums for each lower level, but still no maximums?

Or should seniors have no minimums either? If they're over 19, they can enter senior competition and skate a legal short program with single axel as the hardest jump?

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.

Click to expand...

Well, then we'd better get rid of all age limits too. Supergirl who can do quad-quad combos at 14 could probably easily keep up with senior jump content at 11. Not that the rest of her skating would likely keep up with the best seniors'.

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.

Click to expand...

Well, there has always been a gap between the easiest and hardest legal combinations, because only one of the jumps was specified. So when it was 2Lo, for example, the difficulty of legal combinations would range from 2Lo+2T to 3A+2Lo. That would have been legal in the mid-70s even before anyone had landed a solo 3A in competition, and by 1988 both those combinations would likely have been seen in the men's event at Worlds.

By specifying an axel, a combo, and a jump out of steps, you're still specifying elements -- you're not turning the short program into a complete free-for-all in terms of kinds of elements, only in terms of numbers of revolutions.

Historically, the upper and lower limits for each level and each sex have been based on realistic current standards in the field at the time.

Removing the upper and lower limits and specifying only kinds of elements is based on . . . what? What is the point of having a short program?

Oh, to assign factored placements and set hurdles for people to make up in the long program based on the number of other skaters who place between them and the leaders rather than based on the difference in difficulty and quality between them and the leaders.

In which case there don't need to be any rules for the first program at all. Or the second. Just let everyone do whatever they want and earn points accordingly?

Mathman said:

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.

Click to expand...

1. The change in the Axel requirement in the SP will benefit only Mao at this point in time. (the benefit is not just point difference but also risk assessment as explained by others already)
2. However, the UR change will benefit most of skaters out there. (Remember there is not only Yu-na but others skaters that Mao has to compete against and mostly likely Yu-na will retire anyway IMO)

If I were Mao and given a chance to choose only one, I would definitely choose the Axel change.

gkelly said:

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



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.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your thoughtful and well reasoned reply. I think I agree with you now.

Still, if the half loop takes up the spot of a listed jump, the downside is it will carry an opportunity cost of downgrading the 3 jump combo where all three jumps may be Triples and/or Doubles to now one with a compulsory Single jump. For example, a skater who does 3Lz+2T+2Lo and 3T+hLo+3S will now be forced to remove the the 2T or the 2Lo in the first combo into, say 3Lz+2T, losing the value of the 2Lo as the difference between 2Lo - 1Lo = 1.5 - 0.5 = 1.0 More precisely, 1.1 if we factor 1.0 by the 10% combo bonus, as it will amplify the difference. It's only about one point but still, the cost is there and we have seen many close competitions where the final difference between skaters are separated by decimals or more/less just 1 point apart. I wish that if they assign a value to Half Loop and grant it the status of a listed jump, then they shouldn't count it as a 3 jump combo so that someone who does 3A+hLo+3F doesn't have to give up say, 4T+3T+3Lo as a result.

RumbleFish said:

She might have said something opaque, like "I have achieved my goal 80%.", which may confuse public into believing that she had 80% chance to win.
IMO, she said it in a way just enough to confer the idea that she was close to winning, but not enough to be held accountable in a case of a defeat.
.

Click to expand...

Mao always has trouble to exppress herself even in Japanese. She seems to have very limited language ability(vocabulary,syntax). Even I (native Japanese) don't understand her intentions clearly. So she is frequently misunderstood. Given that she is really humble and shows respect of her competitors, I don't think she did mean it that way. She is a person of an artistic turn of mind. Historically, Artists are always misunderstood. Sorry for my poor English.

From the suggestions above, I do not see any change from what the requirements are presently.

Best way to handle this (if and only if you want a true Technical Competition) would be to require 5 jumps and 3 spins (including 1 combo) of the skaters own choice. Since all the elements have factor values, the total scoring would be very interesting. (said one competitor - I knew I should have done a 3x3 instead of a 3x2)

For the 'Artistry Fans', this could be done to music, but not judged as PCS. What a concept! Elements being judged for Technical purposes.

gkelly said:

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?

Click to expand...

If Jr. Supergirl could execute those jumps, she was probably going to win the event rather handily anyway; why pretend it's a tight competition until the LP?

gkelly said:

But that's not what you wrote. You specified that the axel must be at least double and that at least one jump in the combo must be at least triple.

Click to expand...

What I wrote was plan B, because I didn't think I would get anywhere proposing plan A.

Removing the upper and lower limits and specifying only kinds of elements is based on . . . what? What is the point of having a short program?

Oh, to assign factored placements and set hurdles for people to make up in the long program based on the number of other skaters who place between them and the leaders rather than based on the difference in difficulty and quality between them and the leaders.

Click to expand...

Here is my best shot. The purpose of the short program would be to seed the championship round. It could stand alone if someone wanted to organize just a short program contest as a little mini-event. If would be more tightly constrained than a typical free program, but only in the sense of "one Axel jump, one combination, and one jump out of footwork, no jump repeated" (and also some stuff about other elements like spins.) This would be like a ceiling (you can't do four jumping passes), and also a floor (everyone would be expected to fulfill the three requirements.)

If you did weak content, like only a double-double when others are doing triple-triples, then of course you have put yourself at a competitive disadvantage. Good skaters would have a better chance of winning than bad skaters.

The winner of the short program gets a big trophy and the title of "NHK Trophy Technical Program Champion! Ta-da!" Or "Pacific Coast Regional Juvenile Technical Program Champion. Ta-da!" Like the small medals, only we would try to make a bigger deal out of it, especially for children.

Now the scores are converted to ordinals. Only ordinals are carried forward. This has the desirable effect that a skater can no longer be so far ahead after the SP that he can just blow off the LP and back into the championship. :disagree: It has the somewhat undesirable effect that a skater cannot charge back from a poor SP and win, without help from others.

The three top seeds have earned the "pole positions" for the race for the roses. They control their own destiny (as they used to say.) The skaters who have not earned the top ordinals in the SP have a harder row to hoe and need a bit of luck to win overall, although they could still move up to satisfying placements. What can I say? To the SP victors go the spoils -- a better seed in the final round. So, yes, if you get beat in the short you have some "hurdles" to face.

Maybe this scheme would not work out so well at the lower levels. Maybe it would be better to say, in Novices you must do a triple jump in the short program and if you can't, then you have no business skating in competition at this level. I am not sure how the testing and qualification procedures work for being certified to compete at different levels, and how this ought to relate to the SP requirements.

Rumblefish said:

She might have said something opaque, like "I have achieved my goal 80%."...

Click to expand...

I cannot read Japanese, but I do not see anything even slightly opaque about that sentence. "At this time I am skating at 80% of the level that I need to be at to win the gold medal."

Mathman said:

What I wrote was plan B, because I didn't think I would get anywhere proposing plan A.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Here is my best shot. The purpose of the short program would be to seed the championship round.

Click to expand...

Not very valuable in itself then.

Maybe this scheme would not work out so well at the lower levels. Maybe it would be better to say, in Novices you must do a triple jump in the short program and if you can't, then you have no business skating in competition at this level.

Click to expand...

Double. Not even juniors require triple jumps. Novices, both boys and girls, don't even need double axels.
Of course the best juniors do difficult triples and combinations, and the very best novice jumpers do triple lutz.

I am not sure how the testing and qualification procedures work for being certified to compete at different levels, and how this ought to relate to the SP requirements.

Click to expand...

ISU doesn't require tests for international competition. It's up to individual federations to design and require tests if they think it helps develop their skaters or sort out their hundreds or thousands of members into appropriate competitive groupings.

ISU competitions divide competition levels by age, with some overlaps. And then for each level they set short program rules with specific required elements with minimum and maximum numbers of revolutions in the jump based on skills they believe everyone at that level should be able to demonstrate at the lower end and skills that the top competitors are already performing in long programs at the upper end.

Long programs have no requirements regarding numbers of revolutions.

brianjyw said:

1. The change in the Axel requirement in the SP will benefit only Mao at this point in time. (the benefit is not just point difference but also risk assessment as explained by others already)
2. However, the UR change will benefit most of skaters out there. (Remember there is not only Yu-na but others skaters that Mao has to compete against and mostly likely Yu-na will retire anyway IMO)

If I were Mao and given a chance to choose only one, I would definitely choose the Axel change.

Click to expand...

In addition, the rule could likely be the result of compromise. It doesn't necessarily mean that the federation didn't request a UR change or increase in base value for the 3a. This could be just the best could do under the circumstances meaning that either their original requests were negotiated down or maybe they thought that members would launch less opposition. The axel rule also is not a substantive change as the other ideas because it keeps its original form: skaters can still do the 2a

Figure88 said:

In addition, the rule could likely be the result of compromise. It doesn't necessarily mean that the federation didn't request a UR change or increase in base value for the 3a. This could be just the best could do under the circumstances meaning that either their original requests were negotiated down or maybe they thought that members would launch less opposition. The axel rule also is not a substantive change as the other ideas because it keeps its original form: skaters can still do the 2a

Click to expand...

Interesting observation/speculation! You may be right.
Anyways, I don't know these changes are the most needed and urgent for the development of figure skating. Think that more consistent and fair UR/edge calls and PCSs in judging are much more needed than revision of rules. Even though this time's changes seem to favor one skater, maybe some federation's argument that the current rule is unfair for at least one skater now and supposedly a few more skaters in the near future to maximize their ability has been more persuasive than so called middle point for URs or increase of already high base value of 3A.

gkelly said:

Not very valuable in itself then.

Click to expand...

It is valuable in the same way that winning your semi-final match to advance to the finals is valuable in tennis.

The placement in the short program would be very important. The margin of victory would not

I just can't break away from the feeling that competitive figure skating is an ordinal affair at heart. At the end of the day, you get gold, silver or bronze. Under 6.0 judging, all the scores were reduced to ordinals after both the short program and the long separately. Under the CoP this conversion is done only once, at the end. I think the former method is truer to the spirit of the sport.

Mathman said:

It is valuable in the same way that winning your semi-final match to advance to the finals is valuable in tennis.

The placement in the short program would be very important. The margin of victory would not

I just can't break away from the feeling that competitive figure skating is an ordinal affair at heart. At the end of the day, you get gold, silver or bronze. Under 6.0 judging, all the scores were reduced to ordinals after both the short program and the long separately. Under the CoP this conversion is done only once, at the end. I think the former method is truer to the spirit of the sport.

Click to expand...

It's not difficult to sit and watch a skater'a program and decide personally which skater did the best Technical elements with a minimum of minus goes. That is if you know the technique of the element. In the Senior Division, the top skaters generally all have the ability to execute the technical with clean elements, but will they at the time of a competition? That's what is intended for half the Sport.

And how many fans swoon over the PC portion and lose focus on the difficulty of the elements? We have to admit in Figure Skating that the presentation used in a Technical competition is a distraction away from the purpose of a technical competition. It's only rationale is to give the fans their love for the entertainment of an artsy presentation. Except for financial reasons, there is no real need for an SP presentation when judging the technical portion. However, included in the element scoring there is a form of artistic technique with the addition of the plus GoEs.However many fans are rapt up in 'artistry' and that takes away from the focus of the technical which I believe would be the purpose of a Technical Competition. The LP, imo, should come on strong for the PC scores. That's where the 'artistic' side of FS comes into play. It is the time for the competitors to show off those elements in a musical program with all those basics and MIFs we've been talking about.

Unfortunaately, it takes money to run these comps and there could be a deflation if the artistic portion of the competition would take a back seat in the SP. Most fans do not want to see a lady competitor execute a 2A without music. I'm losing this battle to make FS a real sport but the entertainment (sic) lovers (a vast majority) won't have it. The Entertainment needs money to keep it going at the box office and the TV ratings. But will it ever be acknowledged as a true Sport like Golf, Tennis, Diving, etc. again?

Have you ever watched a compulsory event? That is basically what you are suggesting for the SP. It's like watching paint dry. If the SP became in essence a compulsory event, it would go the way of figures/CD.

Joesitz said:

From the suggestions above, I do not see any change from what the requirements are presently.

Click to expand...

I agree. Axel, schmaxel, someone might get an extra tenth of a point next year.

Joesitz said:

It's not difficult to sit and watch a skater'a program and decide personally which skater did the best Technical elements with a minimum of minus goes. That is if you know the technique of the element. In the Senior Division, the top skaters generally all have the ability to execute the technical with clean elements, but will they at the time of a competition? That's what is intended for half the Sport.

Click to expand...

Actually, I would be OK with just one program, do or die, winner take all.

Would it really be necessary to have a separate technical program where the skaters do their jumps and spins without music and then turn around the next day and have another program where they do the same jumps and spins with music playing?

As you say, the judges can easily evaluate a skater's technique in either case. This would save money, satisfy the fans of artistry and of technical mastery at the same time, and fit the whole event into a nice TV slot. (Just a thought.)

Mrs. P said:

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).

Click to expand...

By the same argument why isn't Yuna putting two triple axels in her free program instead of doing the 3 double axels?

wonbinfan86 said:

By the same argument why isn't Yuna putting two triple axels in her free program instead of doing the 3 double axels?

Click to expand...

Because it's hard and injury-risking, and perhaps she's thinking she doesn't even need them to win. hwell:

16 points for triple axel? come on~ It worths almost 5 times a double axel.

GoPC2018 said:

Because it's hard and injury-risking, and perhaps she's thinking she doesn't even need them to win. hwell:

16 points for triple axel? come on~ It worths almost 5 times a double axel.

Click to expand...

Or simply, because she can not do it!

PROKOFIEV said:

Or simply, because she can not do it!

Click to expand...

Actually she can: http://yunaforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1409

And Orser is the right coach to teach her to get even better, who is known for his triple axles.

brownfox said:

Actually she can: http://yunaforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1409

And Orser is the right coach to teach her to get even better, who is known for his triple axles.

Click to expand...

WOOW! I could not download the video, but it will be great if she starts landing them. Can you imagine what is going to happen to her score with her amazing 3-3 and 3As? I would not be surprised if she start putting them in her program this season. Then it means 3A rule changes are good for Yuna, too.