I did once post an example of a very rare double walley (no toe assist). The edge wasn't totally clear there either.
On flips, yes. Not on salchows.What a Tech Panelist should be looking for is a defined back inside take off of the salchow and flip. If you look closesly many skaters take off on the Flat of the blade.
Depending on the nature of the problem, of course a bad takeoff can be considered an error. Some kinds of takeoff errors are strictly scrutinized by the technical panel for determining the name of the jump in the first place, whether it was sufficiently rotated or needs to be downgraded, or whether it deserves an "edge call" (flip vs. lutz).But then again, any which way take offs have never been considered an error. Technique is only considered for the air rotations and the landings on all Jumps.
Other kinds of takeoff errors are up to the individual judges to evaluate. Some judges will be more vigilant than others, and the of viewing can affect what they see as well.
No person is stopping a skater from executing triple walley. Nor are any rules (although as you note it would earn no points if identified as such).No one is stopping a skater from executing a Tripple Walley.
What's stopping skaters from executing triple or even double walleys is Physics. It's too difficult even for good jumpers to accomplish at all.
It can be and it often is.The single Walley could be used for the PC scores, I would imagine.
What would be the point of declaring that a triple unicorn is worth 25 points if no one has ever seen a triple unicorn in real life and even the reports of double unicorns are rare and dubious?
Last edited by gmyers; 05-24-2010 at 12:49 PM.
Tim Goebel landed triple jumps and a third quad in the second half of his LP back in 2002 so we have seen it done.
Of course it is more difficult to do so many triples in the second half of an LP and that is why CoP awards them bonus points. It is in the rules and every skater and coach is aware of this. Some can do them - and some probably would struggle.
Last edited by janetfan; 05-24-2010 at 03:02 PM.
Yeah, gmyers, you're making a fundamental omission and that is the guys were still doing quads when the back end bonus was first applied. I agree with anamac - that a number of factors came together that exist outside the system that cause the quad to decline. The ISU is making an effort to rectify that, clearly, but I didn't think this three year trend signals something for the future of the sport. Essentially what Lysacek and Buttle did is skate their hearts out and earn their medal, but relied on Joubert/Plushenko to make mistakes to actually win.
I can't think of any skaters who do a quad and then do as many jumps after the halfway point as skaters who don't. Obviouslhy that is for a reason. At the recent world championships the top three skaters in the free skate had no quads and all had five pluus jumps after the halfway point Joubert was the only one -to do two quads and he came in 4th place in the free skate-he also fell once but did do 2 quads. So you had all the clean triple people beat the ones with with quads. I am getting the feeling that you think quad skaters are lazy or have no stamina.
You saw what happened to Goebel's career under COP so how can you compare 6.0 successes to COP skaters?
I do know that Plushy said he had to skip Worlds this year because the the quads were killing his knee. Dai also blew out a knee and I would hate for some of these skaters to cut their careers short just for one jump. Dai is such a wonderful all around skater I would feel bad if he gets hurt again by putting such stress on his body.
Last edited by janetfan; 05-24-2010 at 02:59 PM.
If I remember correctly the reason for giving the 10% bonus fro jumps in the second half had to do with the "balanced program" idea that underlies the whole concept of the CoP. I think it is not so much about stamina as about choreography.
Skaters were loading up their programs with as many quads and triple Axels as they could do in the first two minutes, with very little "program." But the music may call for technical highlights in the second half, too.
Could it have been that the ISU saw a need for more balanced and better looking programs and used the bonus as a way to encourage this?
Last edited by gmyers; 05-24-2010 at 04:09 PM.
Edited to add: I don't think the ISU's plan (to encourage balanced programs) always works out, though. Now we are seeing programs where the skater does a few huge tricks in the first thirty seconds, then skates aimlessly around looking at his watch until the stroke of the the second half, then does his second flurry of big tricks, picking up the bonus.
Last edited by Mathman; 05-24-2010 at 03:58 PM.
When the CoP was developed they were careful not to give the quad enough points so that Goebel would beat Yags or Plush.
Then after Torino there was a degree of mumbling about how Plushy's LP was lacking.....in good choreo and transitions. In the following years we saw jumps become more closely scrutinized.
ISU actually made a training tape for judges using Plushy's Torino LP as an example of a skater with a lack of transitions and flowing IN.
We saw the last two World Championships and the OGM going to skaters without a quad.
Now ISU is reacting and adjusting to complaints that skaters like Evan and Patrick are scoring too many points for TR, CH, or PE......
So the quad has been raised along with other adjustments that may favor the big jumpers.
Question: should the rules follow the skaters - or should the skaters follow the rules?
Fine tuning is one thing - but some of the changes we are seeing appear to be for a few select skaters and not necessarily for for the good of the sport. The rules will no doubt be adjusted for quite a while ......... and it feels at times like ISU has no clear vision to follow other than the money trail.
Last edited by janetfan; 05-24-2010 at 04:50 PM.