There is no doubt that Takahashi's artistry and skating skills were visible at the Olympic free skate but his jumps were underroated and wrong edged and he fell once. It's like after he fell he couldn't do a jump right. So Bronze was decided really on spins and steps and just barely beat Lambiel.
Forgot to add: Who addressed to you?It was a general observation I had, it is rather idiotic to address personally and make me a lecture also about behavior here.
Last edited by seniorita; 05-25-2010 at 02:19 PM.
Poor sportsmanship never goes over well in USA unless it is accompanied by a formal apology.
As a very poor sport myself I know this very well.
Here is an interesting blog comment for your persusal:
yes I did, but unfortunately people quote you all the time, so there was no use. Sorry jntfan, I m not playing the game. Have fun.
But you have no idea that single, double, and triple Walleys were not listed, which is what I was trying to find out. I really don't need your guesswork.walley is not included in the scale of values because it's only done as a single jump. I'm sure that the reason it is explicitly considered a "nonlisted jump" is so that skaters can do single rotations from this takeoff without wasting jump slots. They're free to
You seem to be bending on this issue of CoP Listings. A partial listing of an element, is your opinion and not standard ISU writings. I want the whole single, double, triple and yes, the quad listed. Skaters do not have to use them in their programs.[/QUOTE]Now personally I think it would be a good idea to include double walley in the scale of values, with a value greater than that of double axel and maybe greater than the easier triples, even though it's less rotation, to give an incentive for skaters to try to learn it. If there were points for it, we'd be more likely to see it
Opinons are fine.Including triple walley in the scale of values[ would be a purely theoretical. I don't think we will see it in competition before we see quadruple axel.
Maybe of you took the trouble of the dicussion before you came into the picture.Again, I have no idea what you're trying to convey with this sentence. Maybe if you could choose your words more precisely we could actually communicate with each other.
Kristi Yamaguchi and others had them in their programs. You didn't notice?First things first. Let's see a first double walley in international competition before we start looking for triples.
And quads were all over the place in 1916. Yeah.If they weren't difficult, we would have seen them before there was a scale of values. The fact that maybe two skaters in the whole history of the sport ever attempted double walley in the last few decades of the 20th century and no one ever attempted triple walley, long after triple axelbecame commonplace, tells me that double walley is probably more difficult than triple axel.
Yes, but to make up interpretatiions with regard to the intent of the drafters of the SoVs, in reply to simple questions, can be misleading.The above is my understanding. No, I haven't seen an official explicit explanation from the people who wrote the scale of values.
But note that their absence from the SoV does not mean that they are considered "illegitimate" or that they are "banned." When you throw around words like that, you confuse the issue.
They are absent from the scale of values. That's it. Why? So that skaters can use the single jumps as transitions without wasting jump slots. And because no one ever used to do the doubles or triples under the old system, so there was no expectation that anyone would or could do them now.
Last edited by Joesitz; 05-25-2010 at 05:07 PM.
It is hard to find the documentation. Especially when it's misspelled.
"Jumps that are not listed in the SOV (e.g., Valley's...) will not count as a jump element, but might be used as a special entrance to the jump to be considered in the mark for Transition.
A Toe-Valley, however, will be called and count as a Toe-loop."
When did Kristi Yamaguchi or anyone other than the two men I listed in the earlier post ever do double (or triple) walleys?Kristi Yamaguchi and others had them in their programs. You didn't notice?
Got any video evidence?
Are you still confusing walleys and toe walleys?
If you're thinking about single walleys, yes, skaters in Yamaguchi's era did them, and skaters still do them today under IJS with no penalty, no point value, and reward under the Transitions component. Need some examples?
I know for sure that walleys (as opposed to toe walleys) are not listed in the scale of values. They are officially considered nonlisted jumps, as in the quote above.But you have no idea that single, double, and triple Walleys were not listed, which is what I was trying to find out. I really don't need your guesswork.
The only guesswork is regarding the rationale (i.e., why).
Last edited by gkelly; 05-25-2010 at 05:31 PM.
Of course you would post something where someone compelely ignores the existence of one skater doing a quad triple and the other not doing it and how maybe that is what made that persons program cleaner. Clean programs over really difficult one is not a virtue. This person obviously just thinks all jumps are the same and of course the person who had the most in the second half had the harder program. So dumb.
Last edited by Jaana; 05-26-2010 at 02:37 AM.
My only thought anymore about Olys is that for some reason people have analysed to death the Lps but forget there was an Sp night as well. Where the 4-3 is more crucial to include it. And either you do that to score high or have a program like Takahashi's.
Last edited by seniorita; 05-26-2010 at 07:20 AM.
It would be so simple, if you could just say that you do not know why they left them out rather than defending the omissions with all sorts of non rationale talk. Giving an 'imo' would help. It would not be a surprise that you must defend the CoP when fans make suggestions. it's more than just the Walleys.
It is obvious to me that the Walleys (note plural) are not listed in the SoVs. I think they should be.
I cannot change the rules of the ISU, but I think fans have a right to object to them. What would be wrong with that?
This is a a very interesting discussion about the Walley and toe Walley jumps. If everyone promises not to jump down my throat for posting about it, let me make sure that I understand the current ISU rules.
If you do a single toe Walley, you get base value of 0.4, the same as for a single toe loop.
If you do a double toe Walley, the base value is 1.4.
Base value for triple toe Walley and quad toe Walley are 4.1 and 10.3, under the new proposed ISU Scale of Values that are expected to take effect in the 2010-2011 season.
So far so good. All of this is not mentioned in the actual listings of the SoV, so you have to dig a little deeper into the ISU Communications and Rules to find it out, as gkelly was kind enough to do for us.
Now here is where ISU-speak comes in. The ISU uses the term “listed jump” to mean any jump that receives a base value, whether the “listed jump” is actually “listed” in the list of listed jumps or not. For instance, the half-loop or Euler jump does not appear in the list of listed jumps. Still it is a “listed jump,” when done in combination or sequence, with base value 0.5, even though they forgot to include this listed jump in the list. Here is the exact language (page 14, #2 of the new Scale of Values.)
Why does the ISU use the word “listed” in this way? Dunno.In jump combinations/sequences the half-loop (or Euler) (landing backwards) will be a listed jump.