Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

[wallylutz]

Wally all of the triples are dangerous for girls, not just the triple axel. And to be quite frank Mao has the triple axel and has had less major injuries than Yu-na. Its about how the training is done.

Its not like a triple axel is going to be absolutely necessary to win, and a smart coach isnt' going to push a girl to have it. But if a girl can do it-a girl can do it.

By all means, do it in the LP. It is allowed there. The said super girl can do Quad and Quints till her heart content and rack up all the points there.

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.

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?

[yunasashafan]

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 believe bekalc meant that doing a 4T+3T and then a 2A will get you the same points as 4T and then 2A+3T (under the current rules).

I am still digesting the new rules but, in principle I agree with the combination bonus and allowing the 3A in the SP. Enforcing the 2A did not prevent mao from putting a 3A in her SP, and in combinatio no less, despite her low success rate with it.

[Mathman]

First, great thread, Wallylutz. Thanks for starting it.

Because that's not the purpose of a short program. Long story short, and gkelly does a much better job in summarizing the essence of skating history than I do - SP has always had restrictions so that the focus is on the precision aspect of the skating. When Midori Ito was landing Triple Axel in competitions, she was still required to do Doubles in her SP.

I do not understand the logic of all these appeals to history. Just because the rules were a certain way in the past is not by itself a reason for not changing them now.

Quite the contrary. Changing the rules means -- well, changing them.

t doesn't make sense if no skater can actually do it.

The question, to me, is not whether any current skater can do this but rather whether it should be against the rules to try.

How many lives of little girls are you willing to risk and destroy before such imaginary Midori Ito #2 appears in say, another 20 years?

I think little girls will try to do triple Axels regardless of whether or not there is a rule requiring them to do a double Axel in the short program.

Tara Lipinski's career was cut short from over training the loop jump. I feel bad about that, but I don't think the answer is to forbid loops in the short program.

The majority of Quads landed by men over the years has been overwhelmingly Quad toe and only Quad toe. But men have evolved to a point where loosening the restriction on Quads in SP makes sense because several men at the world level have demonstrated capability of landing them. The same cannot be said about ladies and Triple Axel however.

Again, I do not see the harm in allowing the possibility of a lady doing a triple Axel. If in fact no one ever does one, OK. If in the future a new Midori Ito does come along -- that's OK, too.

I am still struggling with the logic that says, "we didn't allow men to do two different quads in the past, therefore we will not allow women to do a triple Axel in the future." To me that sounds a lot like, "this is how we have always done it, so this must be the right way."

[bekalc]

Well, first, you need to get the math right. 4T does not equal 2A+3T And keep in mind

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

Most guys only do one 3toe, and the smart ones were all choosing to do easier combinations in the long because they would get the same base value either way. I have no problem with a double axel/3toe getting a bonus. Because I know that someone who did the harder combination is going to get a way bigger bonus. So more guys will consider doing the harder jump.

Another Example look at Yu-na Kim. We know she can do 3flip/3toe and 3lutz/3toe. But under the current rules its stupid for her to do so: Why?

3lutz/3toe-10.
3flip/3toe-9.5
Double axel-3.5
Total-23.

3lutz/3toe-10
double axel/3toe-7.5
3flip-5.5
Total-23.

The whole point of the combinations bonus is since everyone is doing combinations. Eventually the harder combinations will get rewarded over those doing easier combinations. This long needed to be addressed because it was unfair to those who could do the harder combinations.

For example, Chan normally does the 3lutz/3toe and a 3axel/2toe and a 3axel. Given his issues with the 3axel, he's probably not going to be doing a 3axel/3toe for awhile. That's a really difficult combination.

What was unfair, is that Chan with this layout was getting the same base value as someone like Nobunari Oda who normally does a 3axel/3toe and a 3lutz/2toe. Nobody's saying that Oda deserves to win no matter what because of the 3axel/3toe. But Oda absolutely deserves a higher jumping base value than Chan. To not give that to Oda, was an injustice.

[R.D.]

Now that I had time to think it over, if passed this is a step forward. The scoring has been waaaay too weird the past few years.

[wallylutz]

I have mixed feelings on the cap idea on the World Championships. I do think 55 entries (for the ladies) for 2010 without any qualifying round was WAY too many. But on the other hand, it would hurt poorer federations or less politically influential federations because how would their skaters build up the points internationally to compete at Worlds? For many of those skaters Worlds is the only chance they get.

The ISU gave a fairly reasonable justification as to why they need to institute a cap. The reason is primarily financial and the cost for the hosting Member (of the World Championship) is out of control as a result. Besides, the rule change called for an eligible international competition in the last 24 months. Most of these lower rank skaters at least go to the Europeans or the Four Continents, even if they don't do anything else. Besides, the total minimum score required is set at a very low bar. I believe it is 30 in the SP and 50 in the LP for Ladies. The bar is set so low that a lady would have to pretty much score PCS in the 3s and falling on doubles in order to flank this minimum bar. Plus, from a marketing standpoint, it just doesn't make sense to put the TV audience ZZZZZZZZZZZ through some two dozen skaters who can barely stand on one foot. It really is a rating killer and the amount of cost incurred by hosting member to house and feed them is quite high. I suggest you read the justification written by the ISU, it is quite well reasoned.

[gkelly]

I do not understand the logic of all these appeals to history. Just because the rules were a certain way in the past is not by itself a reason for not changing them now.

Quite the contrary. Changing the rules means -- well, changing them.

The question, to me, is not whether any current skater can do this but rather whether it should be against the rules to try.

We're talking about the short program. There are many skills allowed in the LP that are not allowed in the SP.

The short program has always had required elements. The trend at the senior level over the decades, especially with the changes between 1988 and 89, has been to make the requirements less restrictive and to gradually increase the upper limits of what' jump content is allowed to match the upper limits of what a number of skaters have already been doing in long programs.

Do we also want the SP to allow spin combinations with multiple changes of foot, or flying combination spins, does it make sense to save those options for long programs? Certainly many skaters could and would do them in the SP if they were allowed and could earn them more points -- it's not even a question of pushing the envelope. But there is a structure to the requirements that defines and limits what's expected of a combination spin and a flying spin in the SP and allows more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

There are lots of changes that could be made to the SP required elements. But if the changes are to remove all limits, then what would be the difference between the two programs besides the time limit and the number of jump slots?

[wallylutz]

First, great thread, Wallylutz. Thanks for starting it.

I do not understand the logic of all these appeals to history. Just because the rules were a certain way in the past is not by itself a reason for not changing them now.

Quite the contrary. Changing the rules means -- well, changing them.

It is the motive and the timing that is raising eyebrows here. ISU is generally a fairly predictable animal when it comes to rule changes, in fact, I'd say they tend to take their time. They waited till ladies were doing all 6 Triples all over the place for years before they allowed a second Triple to be added in the SP. Similarly, men spent years landing Quads in competitions before it is finally allowed in the SP, like a whole decade of waiting time. By the time the 2nd Triple jump was permitted in Ladies SP, most top women have 6 or 7 Triple Jumps in their LP for at least two Olympic Winter Games. ISU is by no means an avant-garde organization, it's in their nature to act so passively and cautiously.

Therefore, this change re: 3A being allowed in Ladies SP is akin to your 90 year old grand-mother who rushed to get herself an IPad. You do have to wonder about the rush and her motive.

The question, to me, is not whether any current skater can do this but rather whether it should be against the rules to try.

That's a good point and one for which I can't really argue against. I wish however that the motive behind the change is as noble as your intent.

I think little girls will try to do triple Axels regardless of whether or not there is a rule requiring them to do a double Axel in the short program.

Tara Lipinski's career was cut short from over training the loop jump. I feel bad about that, but I don't think the answer is to forbid loops in the short program.

Well, there are not that many young girls who can actually try Triple Axels. Landing Double Axel would already rule out about 98% of them, so Triple Axel, we are talking about maybe 1/1000 of odds. Being able to do Axel jump well also requires talent. Most skaters have certain preference in jumps. I, for one, for the life of me can't do either Lutz or Flip. But this is not rare. What's rare is a skater who has a natural affinity for all 6 types of jumps. So effectively, such rule will be as useful as a pie in the sky for the vast majority of them. But because it is allowed, there will be surreal pressure put on them by either parents, sponsors and their entourage to try something that is unsuitable if not dangerous, against their will. That's the part I am worried about. As an athlete, you tend to know your own limits and you don't do something you know your body can't handle. When something is being pushed down their throat against their will, and trust me, there are adults who would do that with complete disregard of the well-being of the children concerned, that is dangerous and unacceptable.

Again, I do not see the harm in allowing the possibility of a lady doing a triple Axel. If in fact no one ever does one, OK. If in the future a new Midori Ito does come along -- that's OK, too.

Then let's wait till such time is right. Why the rush? If something is not practical today, then why do it? I suppose you can argue Mao Asada has a need. But I am concerned that by accommodating her, it will have unintended consequences on others. Maybe I worry too much, maybe you are absolutely right but I haven't yet heard from a single skating coach who thinks this proposal actually makes sense. I guess time will tell, I just hope it won't end with some spectacular disasters on TV in the same way of the Luge accident in Vancouver.

[wallylutz]

There are lots of changes that could be made to the SP required elements. But if the changes are to remove all limits, then what would be the difference between the two programs besides the time limit and the number of jump slots?

That's right. The SP has been intended as an assessment of apples against apples, not apples against oranges. The restrictions are in place so that the skating skills of the skaters can be assessed in a more or less objective and comparable fashion, almost like the function of the Compulsory Dance in Ice Dance where it is the purest form of comparison and the most objective way of comparing skating skills between skaters.

That's why even though the bars have been raised over the years, the general idea of apples against apples has not changed. The 2nd Triple jump is added in Ladies' SP because almost all of them were going to take advantage of it anyway so it still ended up being more or less apples to apples. The addition of a Triple Axel made no sense in that regard because it won't allow for such apples to apples comparison that is the intent everywhere in the construction of the SP. Flying spin combo isn't allowed not because it is a bad idea but because we want skaters to show off their precision and quality of skating without all the whistles and bells.

[tarotx]

If your going to require an axel jump what's the point of limiting it. The short program requires a layback/sideways spin but it doesn't require a level 2 layback (though in some ways I wish it did). The girls who can attempt a level 4 layback do it. GOE and PCS will tell quality and there is still the downgrade issue that will grain -goe.

[wallylutz]

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

Most guys only do one 3toe, and the smart ones were all choosing to do easier combinations in the long because they would get the same base value either way. I have no problem with a double axel/3toe getting a bonus. Because I know that someone who did the harder combination is going to get a way bigger bonus. So more guys will consider doing the harder jump.

O.K., I get what you are saying now, thanks for the clarification. Your argument has one critical flaw however. You are completely ignoring the strategic positioning of jump repetition in the overall construction of a LP. 2A+3T will automatically cross out a combo box and a wasted opportunity to repeat a more difficult jump in the program. I have explained these many times before so I will just have to refer you to how I answered these questions previously:

http://www.icenetworkincrowd.com/sre...s-lacking.html

http://www.icenetworkincrowd.com/sre...s-lacking.html

http://www.icenetworkincrowd.com/sre...s-lacking.html

http://www.icenetworkincrowd.com/sre...s-lacking.html

The bottom line is the opportunity cost for a guy of wasting a Triple toe behind a Double Axel due to the limit on the number of jump combos (3) is already quite costly. That's why no men in their sound mind actually does a 2A+3T in their LP. The kind of problem you describe is not a practical concern as no men in the Top 10 even bother with such combo just as someone else who claimed 2A + 3 in GOE would outscore a 3Lz except it has never actually happened in an ISU competition for all these years.

In all likelihood, if a man didn't do a Quad in combo, it's probably because he doesn't intend to repeat that jump so it's pointless to make into a combo. Is there really such a big difference between a 4T+2T vs. say a 3Lz+2T or 3A+2T? Not really, the said combo would already be awarded for the higher base value of the Quad, there is no need to compensate the difficulty of the first jump twice.

Triple Toe is a problematic jump from the standpoint of an elite male skater because there are so many harder jumps that you wish you can repeat and would give you more points than the lowly 3T. But working with the 8 jumping pass limit + no more than 3 jump combo allowed + can't repeat two Triple and/or Quad more than twice is quite problematic. Therefore, ideally, you only want to do your Triple Toe once, and in combination with something you want to repeat, let it be say a Triple Axel (almost always a candidate for repeat jump) or a Quad if you are planning more than one Quad in your program. Mathematically, the opportunity cost created by wasting the 3T on a 2A for an elite male skater is tremendous, any coach in their sound mind who actually made their guys do that should be fired on the spot.

Try to think of the program as a whole not individual parts in isolation.

I think the 10% bonus for jump combo is an adequate incentive but the current system which doesn't give bonus is not flawed either.

[Tinymavy15]

I really don't think they will pass the triple axel for ladies. Since Mao is the only lady trying it right now or really even threatening to try it, such a rule would clearly favor her. I do think they should pass it, but I just don't see it happening.

Not sure how I feel about no more spiral sequence for ladies. I think this will hurt Yu-na and Mirai who could rack up big GOEs on their level 4 spirals very easily. It would be nice if they did an eithier / or but we all know that in that case everybody would elect to do a spiral sequence which is so much easier to get high levels on.

I do like the 10% bonus for combos. For sure.

The two quad rule is good, but I don't honestly think we will see anybody risking that unless another Tim Goebel comes along.

[wallylutz]

I really don't think they will pass the triple axel for ladies. Since Mao is the only lady trying it right now or really even threatening to try it, such a rule would clearly favor her. I do think they should pass it, but I just don't see it happening.

Not sure how I feel about no more spiral sequence for ladies. I think this will hurt Yu-na and Mirai who could rack up big GOEs on their level 4 spirals very easily. It would be nice if they did an eithier / or but we all know that in that case everybody would elect to do a spiral sequence which is so much easier to get high levels on.

I do like the 10% bonus for combos. For sure.

The two quad rule is good, but I don't honestly think we will see anybody risking that unless another Tim Goebel comes along.

The 3A ins SP will become the rule unless some country can manage a full campaign to stop it, which is highly unlikely at this point.

Mirai Nagasu actually struggled to get Level 4 in Spiral at both the Olympic Games and World Championship. This element had actually been holding her back rather than helping her.

There is at least one man who is consistently doing two different Quads in competition. With this rule change, I expect a lot more men will be trying to do that this year so no, this change will definitely be used by men, the guys are very ambitious.

[hurrah]

Yey! to ISU for demonstrating common sense!

But no new rules regarding underrotation? And more reasonable factoring of GoEs? Will these aspects be addressed elsewhere?

[cosmos]

Well, it is the responsibility of the technical panel and the judges to decided how to score Asada's performances. As I see this proposed rules change, it is not about what Mao Asada can or can't do but about the triple Axel. If supergirl of the future comes along, why should she be held back by short-sighted rules just because Mao Asada only landed 50% of her attempts way back in 2010?

If that future girl is really super, she wouldn't need this rule change to win.