Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 76

Thread: THE LONG PROGRAM - why it needs variety and what CoP can do.

  1. #31
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    There is little to pick out that I have major issues with. I support the idea of a freer Free Skate. The increased technical flexibility should open up opportunities for superior artistic interpretations as well as higher appreciation for other skating elements besides jumps.

    However, I do wonder about this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    *Additional addendum to the Zayak rule: from this group of jumps -- Triple Axel / Triple Lutz / Triple Flip -- Females are only allowed to repeat one of them in a program. Why? Because we've seen too many female programs try and load up on these jumps under CoP at the cost of ignoring other Triple jumps. Well-rounded technique should be encouraged.
    I don't understand how a skater repeating two other jumps--say, doing two 3Salchows and two 3Toeloops in the FS--shows more well-roundedness than someone who, by contrast, does two 3Axels and two 3Flips.

    I can imagine why you might make that argument between a Lutz and a Flip (Mathman's Combined Edge Jump notion), but it just makes me why you made this extra Zayak restriction on these three jumps and not the other three (toe loop, loop, salchow.) Repeating a jump is repeating a jump.

    Also, in response to a freer Free Skate, do any of you think that the Short Program should go back to being a little more standardized and regulated, or no?

  2. #32
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,026
    Quote Originally Posted by silverlake22 View Post
    I don't even get why people are comparing Miki and Alissa? Isn't it clear that under the current system Miki is much better? Her international results are much more impressive.
    I don't get why you keep posting about completely unrelated topics? The point of the thread is to look at ways the sport can be improved. Miki and Alissa are skaters who would likely take totally opposite approaches to their technical layouts, if the rules allowed more flexibility. That's why I brought them up as examples and why people are talking about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys View Post
    I don't understand how a skater repeating two other jumps--say, doing two 3Salchows and two 3Toeloops in the FS--shows more well-roundedness than someone who, by contrast, does two 3Axels and two 3Flips.
    If a skater repeats both the Salchow and Toeloop, that means they are getting less points. It's not a problem. When a skater focuses on higher point gaining jumps and ignores other ones, though, it becomes comparatively easier to gain points with those jumps because they can just focus on that technique and not worry about the technique of the other type of jump(s) they are leaving out.

    Quote Originally Posted by gmyers View Post
    The most important thing would be to make the "free skate" unified again. No more splitting it in half as current rules do creating two free skates. Just one 4 minute free skate for ladies and 4 and a half minute free skate for men and pairs. Dance has one free dance. No splitting of the free dance in half.
    I've been thinking about this a lot. On the one hand, skaters being too aware of the bonuses received by putting jumps in later means they will think too much about choreographing the program for technical points rather than pure creativity. On the other hand, difficult jumps late in the program DO deserve extra credit.

    For now I propose the time frame should be moved back more. Instead of giving a bonus starting at 50% of the way through the program, it should be at 60% of the way through. Especially difficult jumping passes (3-3's, Triple Axels, Quads) should get a higher bonus as well, not the same flat rate as everything else. The last jump of the program, if placed 90%+ of the way through the program (ie - the very end), should also get an additional bonus (with the same preferential treatment to truly difficult jumps). That way more skaters would save a hard jump for the end, rather than the same old -- Spin + Footwork Sequence + Spin -- which seems to have become the most common way to end a program.

    There could also be a new bullet point for GOE scores, with judges being mindful of the jumps that are placed very deep into the program and not just right at the start of the "bonus" section.

    By the way, at 2010 Olympics, Takahashi, Kozuka, and Weir all placed a difficult jump element (Triple Axel or 3-3 combination) within that later benchmark of 60% of the way through their program, rather than only 50% of the way through. The two top podium finishers in the eyes of the judges/system both frontloaded all of their most difficult elements, although one of them got more credit for his frontloading (Lysacek) than the other.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 10-21-2010 at 01:46 AM.

  3. #33
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I don't get why you keep posting about completely [...]
    If a skater repeats both the Salchow and Toeloop, that means they are getting less points. It's not a problem. When a skater focuses on higher point gaining jumps and ignores other ones, though, it becomes comparatively easier to gain points with those jumps because they can just focus on that technique and not worry about the technique of the other type of jump(s) they are leaving out.
    [...]
    Whenever you have elements of higher and lower values, there is always the incentive to prefer or repeat the one with higher value. This is true for jumps and spins and all elements of disparate values. This additional restriction to the Zayak rule you add is I think excessive and to the detriment of technical difficulty with no benefit towards artistry or creativity. Why is it more any more creative or artistic to repeat a salchow or toe loop as opposed to a lutz?

    If you're worried about skaters omitting or ignoring lower-valued jumps, why not just add a bonus for a complete set of triples or conversely a penalty for not doing at least one of each kind of jump? This to me allows more creative freedom in the long program since it gives skaters the option to present a complete or incomplete set of jumps and take the given bonus/cost of such options.

    I think that in general utilizing bonus/penalty system rather than outright bans or restrictions would be far more productive of creativity and artistry. It would, in fact, allow for an even greater variability in the structure of programs.

    My initial proposal for a modified Zayak rule is the following: If a skater omits ONE of the following jumps--3T, 3S, 3L, 3F or 3Lz---in her program, then she may repeat a maximum of ONE triple of any kind. If she omits two kinds of triples, she is allowed NO repetition. If she attempts a complete set of triple jumps, she may repeat a maximum of TWO triples of any kind. As before, no triple jump can be done twice as solo jumps, and this modified Zayak rule only applies to the attempted jumps (downgrades notwithstanding).
    Last edited by Krislite; 10-21-2010 at 03:25 AM.

  4. #34
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    4,026
    Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.

    Only one of those jumps would be repeated and then other repeat would always be a Toeloop or a Salchow or a Loop. The Toeloop/Salchow/Loop can be repeated more naturally within programs because they can be done on the back end of a combination (well, the Triple Flip theoretically could as well, but it's extraordinarily difficult and barely even possible for the best male jumpers) or they can be incorporated into the choreography more smoothly.

    How often do we ever see a split jump into a Triple Toeloop under CoP? Never. I would rather see that kind of movement than repeating another Lutz or Flip - jumps which take long setup times and become repetitive.

    Mao Asada's layout of repeating the 3Axel + 3Flip is perhaps not as bad as repeating the Lutz + Flip, because the Axel has a more separate look, but it's still a jump that needs to be stalked. Instead of repeating a jump yet again that has a long setup time, I think the skaters should have to focus on doing an "easier" Triple as part of a difficult jump combination, or make it more difficult by incorporating it into the program by itself with an interesting, unexpected setup.

    I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    My initial proposal for a modified Zayak rule is the following: If a skater omits ONE of the following jumps--3T, 3S, 3L, 3F or 3Lz---in her program, then she may repeat a maximum of ONE triple of any kind. If she omits two kinds of triples, she is allowed NO repetition.
    This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons:

    1. Some skaters don't have all of the difficult jumps to begin with. It's not fair to deny them being able to repeat 2 of the easier jumps just because they can't do one of the harder jumpers.

    2. There's no way to account for jumps being doubled. If a skater plans one 3Lutz, one 3Flip, one 3Loop, two 3Salchows, and two 3Toeloops, for example, and then doubles their 3Lutz in the performance, it's not fair to say "okay now you can only repeat one of the Salchow or Toeloop."

    3. If the skater attempts all of the different jumps and, regardless of the amount of rotation they eventually end up getting, you use that as a way to say - "okay, you attempted the Triple, so you can repeat any two Triple jumps" - it doesn't stop the problem of skaters repeating the 3Lutz + 3Flip and not even training the 3Loop. The skater can just plan to do a 2Loop in combination and say "see, I tried the 3Loop, but I just ended up doubling it, so that means I'm allowed to repeat the Lutz and Flip now."
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 10-21-2010 at 04:07 AM.

  5. #35
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,551
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.

    Only one of those jumps would be repeated and then other repeat would always be a Toeloop or a Salchow or a Loop. The Toeloop/Salchow/Loop can be repeated more naturally within programs because they can be done on the back end of a combination (well, the Triple Flip theoretically could as well, but it's extraordinarily difficult and barely even possible for the best male jumpers) or they can be incorporated into the choreography more smoothly.

    How often do we ever see a split jump into a Triple Toeloop under CoP? Never. I would rather see that kind of movement than repeating another Lutz or Flip - jumps which take long setup times and become repetitive.

    Mao Asada's layout of repeating the 3Axel + 3Flip is perhaps not as bad as repeating the Lutz + Flip, because the Axel has a more separate look, but it's still a jump that needs to be stalked. Instead of repeating a jump yet again that has a long setup time, I think the skaters should have to focus on doing an "easier" Triple as part of a difficult jump combination, or make it more difficult by incorporating it into the program by itself with an interesting, unexpected setup.

    I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.



    This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons:

    1. Some skaters don't have all of the difficult jumps to begin with. It's not fair to deny them being able to repeat 2 of the easier jumps just because they can't do one of the harder jumpers.

    2. There's no way to account for jumps being doubled. If a skater plans one 3Lutz, one 3Flip, one 3Loop, two 3Salchows, and two 3Toeloops, for example, and then doubles their 3Lutz in the performance, it's not fair to say "okay now you can only repeat one of the Salchow or Toeloop."

    3. If the skater attempts all of the different jumps and, regardless of the amount of rotation they eventually end up getting, you use that as a way to say - "okay, you attempted the Triple, so you can repeat any two Triple jumps" - it doesn't stop the problem of skaters repeating the 3Lutz + 3Flip and not even training the 3Loop. The skater can just plan to do a 2Loop in combination and say "see, I tried the 3Loop, and I just ended up doubling it, so that means I'm allowed to repeat the Lutz and Flip now."
    I think you're misunderstanding my meaning of "attempt". Purposefully doubling a jump does NOT constitute attempting a triple. Attempting a triple is actually doing three revolutions in a jump, even though the third revolution may be underrotated.

    There's three distinctions actually: 1) PLANNING a triple 2) ATTEMPTING a triple and 3) EXECUTING a triple. Before a skater even takes the ice she already has a program with a jump layout planned, and even as she's PREPARING for the jump it's still only planned. At the moment the skater takes off for a jump, what is happening is an attempt at that kind of jump. If she does one revolution (regardless whether underrotated in the air), she has attempted a single jump. If she does two revolutions (regardless whether the second is underrotated in the air), she has attempted a double jump. And if she does three revolutions (regardless whether the third is underrotated in the air), she has attempted a triple jump. The attempt is successful if the last revolution is fully rotated.

    As for repeating both the lutz and the flip in the same program, i don't see that as inherently problematic or excessive repetition, and even then it's pretty rare among the ladies. The only time I've seen it attempted in recent memory is in Rachel Flatt's 09-10 program. (Maybe that's why you find it so distasteful? ) Perhaps I haven't seen as many programs as you have but again it seems so rare I don't see the need to add a stringent restriction for it, considering there may be cases in which such repetition might actually be done well (such as the 3jump+half loop+3Flip example you gave).

  6. #36
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Whenever you have elements of higher and lower values, there is always the incentive to prefer or repeat the one with higher value. This is true for jumps and spins and all elements of disparate values.
    True.

    This discussion is now focusing on micromanaging the jump content, which I'm much less interested in.

    But it started out as looking at ways to give more options to the skaters in how many of each kind of elements they choose to do.

    Suppose a skater completes a full complement of all the triples she can do, plus a double axel, within six jumping passes. That might be because she does two triple-triple combinations or it might be because she never had all the different triples to begin with -- i.e., the exceptional jumpers and the below-world class-average jumpers.

    She's also completed her three required spins and step sequence and (choreo) spiral sequence.

    There's one more element slot left.

    Should she be required to fill it with another jump, most likely another double axel (or double of whatever takeoff she doesn't have a triple of)? Or should she have the option of using the slot for another type of element

    Double axel and level 4 spin or step sequence all have approximately the same base value. So the incentive would be for the skater to use the slot for what she can do best among those kinds of elements. I'd like to see more possible kinds of elements also available, with similar base mark potential, and again let the skater choose how to allocate her elements to earn the best points she personally is capable of, after she's already filled the basic requirements as best she can.

    The points for 2A and level 4 (or other and lower level elements) are comparable, so the incentive to do a jump vs. a spin or sequence there is not built in to the point structure -- flexibility is built in and we'd see more variety of program layouts.

    For skaters who need all the jump slots to fit in all their triples including the allowed repeats, then using the jump slot for another triple would be preferable. Unless they're really good at one of the other types of elements and likely to get +GOE, and inconsistent enough on the triples that there's more chance of losing points (falling on downgraded jumps) than gaining many with another attempt.

    Basic requirements CANNOT BE five different triples, because so many of the middle- and lower-level senior ladies are not capable of attempting all the different kinds. Even the top ladies often have one takeoff that's a problem for them and that they rarely if ever complete successfully. Plus, anyone can make a mistake on any jump, even her usually most reliable one, in any given performance. If it happens to be a pop of a triple that wasn't planned to be repeated, that may prevent three rotations from that takeoff being executed in that performance. The skater has already lost points for missing that jump. If there were some kind of reward built in for attempting all takeoffs, depending on the nature of the error she may lose that reward. But there doesn't seem to be a good reason to also penalize her for the other jumps that she does successfully.

    If you're worried about skaters omitting or ignoring lower-valued jumps, why not just add a bonus for a complete set of triples or conversely a penalty for not doing at least one of each kind of jump? This to me allows more creative freedom in the long program since it gives skaters the option to present a complete or incomplete set of jumps and take the given bonus/cost of such options.
    That makes more sense to me, but I would include double jumps in a lesser version of the bonus, both to cover unintentional doublings and to encourage skaters who don't have all the triples to include the full variety of jump takeoffs nevertheless rather than ignoring the takeoffs they can't do triples from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.
    You know when you post an absolute statement like that you're begging for a counterexample.
    Will this do?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkypCyLCj8

    I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.
    So you're taking away options, based on your preferences of what has worked well for you in the past and what hasn't. I thought the idea was to give skaters more options?

  7. #37
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    5,609
    Simple stuff first.

    The additional rule is only for female programs
    All right. Let’s tackle the femmes, using the Olympic Free Skate as our guideline (presumption that all solo jumps are intended to be triples – except axels, of course, but that’ll be noted)

    Number of Skaters that Repeated two triple jumps: 22 - (Kim, Asada, Rochette, Nagasu, Ando, Lepisto, Flatt, Suzuki, Leonova, Makarova, Phaneuf, Kwak, Gedevanishvili, Meier, Sebestyn, Hecken, Liu, Lee, Glebova, Lafuente, Gimazetdinova, Karademir)
    Number of Skaters that repeated one triple jump: 2 - (Korpi, Kostner)
    Number of Skaters that repeated no triple jumps

    Number of Skaters that repeated both jumps from the BOP group: 2 - (Asada, Flatt)

    So really, I don’t see how this rule encourages a complete set of triples. A bonus definitely would and I support that, but limiting the types of jumps one can repeat doesn’t seem like it would change much. The majority of skaters who don’t have a complete set of triples aren’t specifically skilled enough or don’t feel confident enough to repeat their two most difficult jumps

    How does the current system better reward excellence in all areas of skating? It forces skaters to do a bunch of jumps
    Good question. The COP men’s champions: Lambiel, Plushenko, Joubert, Buttle, Lysacek and Takahashi. I feel comfortable in labelling Lambiel, Buttle and Takahashi complete skaters in that on the night in question, they delivered good jumps, strong spins and footwork, good choreography and presentation skills. The COP women’s champions: Slutskaya, Arakawa, Meissner, Ando, Asada, Kim. Okay, less confident here. Asada and Kim are clearly the crème-de-la-creme. But I think all around skating excellence is rewarded, and when it isn’t (Ando/Joubert) it’s justified within the competition

    Skaters who do Level 4 footwork well would still be rewarded for it. The thing that should change is ALL footwork should receive the same +1 point per GOE mark, not just Level 4 footwork. Look at the Footwork sequences of Takahashi and Chan that get called as Level 4 vs. their Footwork sequences that get called as Level 3. There isn't much of a difference (the Level 3 footwork is actually sometimes more appealing...compare Chan's "Level 3" footwork to his "Level 4 footwork"). Why should one be worth far more points than the other?
    The same reason was a GOE of +1 on a triple loop is greater than on a double loop. Though I do think the difference in points should be handled a little better. It’s wierd that the GOE for a level 1/2/3 is the exact same but doubles upon level four.

    Most definitely, though, footwork sequences should not travel all over the place. They should move continuously in the direction of the pattern. Minor deviations from that pattern for a flourish is okay, but significantly backtracking or going askew is not good
    Can you give me an example of level four footwork that has too much major deviations for you?

    Pogue did not mention Evan's level four steps but I assume he loves them as well since he loves Cop level four steps.
    Lysacek is the exception that proves the rule.

    --==--

    That said, a closer reading of the suggestions w/ the scoring makes me a little more optimistic that a Bladed-COP could be intriguing.

  8. #38
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Basic requirements CANNOT BE five different triples, because so many of the middle- and lower-level senior ladies are not capable of attempting all the different kinds...

    (A bonus for doing all five different jumps) makes more sense to me, but I would include double jumps in a lesser version of the bonus, both to cover unintentional doublings and to encourage skaters who don't have all the triples to include the full variety of jump takeoffs nevertheless rather than ignoring the takeoffs they can't do triples from.
    This would be an intriguing possibility. To reward a demonstration of a complete range of skating skills, as opposed to repetitions the hardest elements only. A skater could decide whether to do a second triple Lutz (big points) or show a double loop (big bonus), if that happened to be her nemesis element.

    Another idea -- this is something that Joesitz has argued vigorously for -- is to restructure the Short Program to require a demonstration of all the different jumps, plus all the basic spin positions, steps and turns in footwork, etc. De-emphasize choreography and presentation.

    Then -- having gotten that out of the way -- the free program could be truly free.

    Just an aside, but how do you find these examples? Every question that comes up, you can find a video from the 1973 Eastern sectionals that settles the matter.

    Or did you just search on You-tube under "two Lutzes and two flips?"

    Ann patrice was an exceptional talent. A shame that she lost interest in the sport. (Stuff happens, I guess.)

  9. #39
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,900
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Another idea -- this is something that Joesitz has argued vigorously for -- is to restructure the Short Program to require a demonstration of all the different jumps, plus all the basic spin positions, steps and turns in footwork, etc.
    Still, it wouldn't be very short if it had to include six different jumps.

    Then -- having gotten that out of the way -- the free program could be truly free.
    No well-balanced rules/guidelines at all? Do we want to make sure we're at least comparing apples and oranges, not apples and bicycles?

    Just an aside, but how do you find these examples? Every question that comes up, you can find a video from the 1973 Eastern sectionals that settles the matter.

    Or did you just search on You-tube under "two Lutzes and two flips?"
    Heh. I thought about skaters from the 1990s and early 2000s who I remembered as being good at lutzes and flips, not so good at one or more easier triples and not attempting both 3F+3T and 3Lz+3T (in which case they'd be repeating the toe loop), and then searched a few of them until I found a relevant example.

  10. #40
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Still, it wouldn't be very short if it had to include six different jumps.
    We could change the name from the "short program" to the "technical program" and make it longer (and more technical).

    I think Joe's idea went so far as to throw out music and choreography altogether and just do a list of jumps and spins, earning points under a system like that used in diving. The judges would give a "quality mark" muliplied by a "difficulty factor" for each "dive."

    No well-balanced rules/guidelines at all? Do we want to make sure we're at least comparing apples and oranges, not apples and bicycles?
    I haven't really thought about this. The proposal would be that (somehow) musical interpretation and the construction and presentation of the program would be critically judged. You would get better marks for doing a beautiful triple loop that is timed to a musical highlight and supports the choreographic theme, than for a telegraphed triple Lutz that has no rhyme or reason and may actually detract from the program.

    Many quad attempts by men are like this. I guess the idea is that if they already showed that they can do a quad in the technical program, then they could show their softer side in the free and do a gorgeous triple Axel instead.

  11. #41
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I don't get why you keep posting about completely unrelated topics? The point of the thread is to look at ways the sport can be improved. Miki and Alissa are skaters who would likely take totally opposite approaches to their technical layouts, if the rules allowed more flexibility. That's why I brought them up as examples and why people are talking about it.



    If a skater repeats both the Salchow and Toeloop, that means they are getting less points. It's not a problem. When a skater focuses on higher point gaining jumps and ignores other ones, though, it becomes comparatively easier to gain points with those jumps because they can just focus on that technique and not worry about the technique of the other type of jump(s) they are leaving out.



    I've been thinking about this a lot. On the one hand, skaters being too aware of the bonuses received by putting jumps in later means they will think too much about choreographing the program for technical points rather than pure creativity. On the other hand, difficult jumps late in the program DO deserve extra credit.

    For now I propose the time frame should be moved back more. Instead of giving a bonus starting at 50% of the way through the program, it should be at 60% of the way through. Especially difficult jumping passes (3-3's, Triple Axels, Quads) should get a higher bonus as well, not the same flat rate as everything else. The last jump of the program, if placed 90%+ of the way through the program (ie - the very end), should also get an additional bonus (with the same preferential treatment to truly difficult jumps). That way more skaters would save a hard jump for the end, rather than the same old -- Spin + Footwork Sequence + Spin -- which seems to have become the most common way to end a program.

    There could also be a new bullet point for GOE scores, with judges being mindful of the jumps that are placed very deep into the program and not just right at the start of the "bonus" section.

    By the way, at 2010 Olympics, Takahashi, Kozuka, and Weir all placed a difficult jump element (Triple Axel or 3-3 combination) within that later benchmark of 60% of the way through their program, rather than only 50% of the way through. The two top podium finishers in the eyes of the judges/system both frontloaded all of their most difficult elements, although one of them got more credit for his frontloading (Lysacek) than the other.
    I think you're method of giving bonuses if there have to be bonuses is much better than what is going on right now in free skates. I don't think the authors of COP realised just how much the focus would be on that halfway mark. It is not just a bonus period. It is a higher level of free skate. It is a free skate worth much more than the other free skate. Free skate from zero to two minutes or zero to two and a half minutes is like a second short program rather than being a part of the free skate. I know for a while there were two free skates. At the 2003 grand prix final the second free skate was worth 50% of the total. Now they have taken that and brought it under one free skate which I don't think makes any sense.

  12. #42
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,426
    ^ Although, in a way it has always been like that. The free program used to be three programs in one, each completely separate and often performed to completely different and unrelated music.

    The skater started out with a bang and did as many jumps as possible till she ran out of steam. Then there was the slow part (imaginatively called the "slow part" ), where she rested. posed, waved her arms languidly, and maybe did a spin or two.

    Then after she had caught her breath she went for the final flurry and big big ta-da finish.
    Last edited by Mathman; 10-21-2010 at 02:34 PM.

  13. #43
    can't come down to Earth prettykeys's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,801
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    How often do we ever see a split jump into a Triple Toeloop under CoP? Never. I would rather see that kind of movement than repeating another Lutz or Flip - jumps which take long setup times and become repetitive.

    Mao Asada's layout of repeating the 3Axel + 3Flip is perhaps not as bad as repeating the Lutz + Flip, because the Axel has a more separate look, but it's still a jump that needs to be stalked. Instead of repeating a jump yet again that has a long setup time, I think the skaters should have to focus on doing an "easier" Triple as part of a difficult jump combination, or make it more difficult by incorporating it into the program by itself with an interesting, unexpected setup.
    But I thought the whole point of it was to give skaters more options to showcase a wider range of talents, in a way that befits whatever piece of music or theme they've chosen. If they don't do it optimally, then isn't it better for it to be up to the judges to mark down Choreography or Interpretation or GoE of the element itself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.
    So the only way for Mao to be able to do her two 3Axels and two 3Flips is if she has Plushenko-like ability to do a 3Axel-halfloop-3Flip? Mean! Especially considering you're letting skaters like Laura Lepisto get away with doing two 3Loops + two 3Toeloops and no 3Flip or 3Salchow. (See below for reply to ImaginaryPogue.)

    I like the idea of a complete-set bonus much better than the implementation of this Zayak addendum. And if you really want, maybe every repeated jump has a 4.0 base value, regardless of the type?

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    This discussion is now focusing on micromanaging the jump content, which I'm much less interested in.

    But it started out as looking at ways to give more options to the skaters in how many of each kind of elements they choose to do.
    Yeah, I'm sorry this is one of the more boring topics to be discussing, but it's just the most immediate problem that popped out at me.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    That makes more sense to me, but I would include double jumps in a lesser version of the bonus, both to cover unintentional doublings and to encourage skaters who don't have all the triples to include the full variety of jump takeoffs nevertheless rather than ignoring the takeoffs they can't do triples from.
    I like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    You know when you post an absolute statement like that you're begging for a counterexample.
    Will this do?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkypCyLCj8
    That's a nice program! I really like it from 1:39-1:52. It's too bad her face isn't a little more expressive...and she doesn't seem very happy in the K&C.

    Quote Originally Posted by ImaginaryPogue View Post
    Simple stuff first.

    All right. Let’s tackle the femmes, using the Olympic Free Skate as our guideline (presumption that all solo jumps are intended to be triples – except axels, of course, but that’ll be noted)

    Number of Skaters that Repeated two triple jumps: 22 - (Kim, Asada, Rochette, Nagasu, Ando, Lepisto, Flatt, Suzuki, Leonova, Makarova, Phaneuf, Kwak, Gedevanishvili, Meier, Sebestyn, Hecken, Liu, Lee, Glebova, Lafuente, Gimazetdinova, Karademir)
    Number of Skaters that repeated one triple jump: 2 - (Korpi, Kostner)
    Number of Skaters that repeated no triple jumps

    Number of Skaters that repeated both jumps from the BOP group: 2 - (Asada, Flatt)

    So really, I don’t see how this rule encourages a complete set of triples. A bonus definitely would and I support that, but limiting the types of jumps one can repeat doesn’t seem like it would change much. The majority of skaters who don’t have a complete set of triples aren’t specifically skilled enough or don’t feel confident enough to repeat their two most difficult jumps
    I did this too and conversely, Rachel Flatt actually does do a complete set of triples. Someone who fulfills BoP's restrictions on repeated triples, Lepisto (as I said above), is only doing three types of triples. So, I don't see how the proposed Zayak addition would encourage greater roundedness in jumps, nor do I see a strict need for it based on the fact that Flatt who "violates" it actually does show well-rounded jumping ability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Another idea -- this is something that Joesitz has argued vigorously for -- is to restructure the Short Program to require a demonstration of all the different jumps, plus all the basic spin positions, steps and turns in footwork, etc. De-emphasize choreography and presentation.

    Then -- having gotten that out of the way -- the free program could be truly free.
    I kinda like that idea, too. Although I recall Joesitz calling for no music, no choreo, nothing...just a straight skills demonstration. I think you can compromise a little here. The only problem I see with this suggestion is that if a quad is still more valued over a triple, there is still some (technical score) incentive to do it in the FS.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Many quad attempts by men are like this. I guess the idea is that if they already showed that they can do a quad in the technical program, then they could show their softer side in the free and do a gorgeous triple Axel instead.
    I think some skaters aren't interested in showing a "softer side."
    Last edited by prettykeys; 10-21-2010 at 10:16 PM.

  14. #44
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,426
    Quote Originally Posted by prettykeys
    That's a nice program! I really like it from 1:39-1:52. It's too bad her face isn't a little more expressive...and she doesn't seem very happy in the K&C.
    AP never looked happy. The scuttlebutt on this rising star was that she never wanted to be a figure skater at all, but her mother made her.

    As soon as she was old enough to defy her mom and quit, she did. At last report (a couple of years ago now) she was living it up as a devil-may-care young bachelorette in New York.

  15. #45
    Banned janetfan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,889
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    AP never looked happy. The scuttlebutt on this rising star was that she never wanted to be a figure skater at all, but her mother made her.

    As soon as she was old enough to defy her mom and quit, she did. At last report (a couple of years ago now) she was living it up as a devil-may-care young bachelorette in New York.
    Here is a link to an article about Ann. She was a very talented skater but it seemed like it was her mom's dream and not hers..

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m...g=content;col1

    Back to the topic (regarding more interesting programs) - what about the second half jump bonus? Fans of the frontloaders hate this rule but wasn't it created to try make programs more interesting?

    Is this rule being abused and making programs dull? Dai takes advantage of the rule and his program was my favorite last season.

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •