Base Value on jumps

Does anybody know where I can find a complete base values for all the jumps (double, triple, and under rotated jumps too)? Thanks

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-185235-202457-nav-list,00.html

Click on ISU Communication 1611.

SkateFiguring said:

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/page/directory/0,10853,4844-185235-202457-nav-list,00.html

Click on ISU Communication 1611.

Click to expand...

Thank you but I think this was last years point system, The 3A and quads got more point I think and it doesn't have the value for underrotated jumps

Did you look carefully at the Scale of Values in Communication 1611? That is the latest version.

I am pretty sure 1611 is the current version. Triple Axels went up from 8.2 to the current 8.5. Quads went up a little in base value, too, but the biggest change was that the negative GOEs for quad went down from last year, so their is less of a penalty for trying an quad unsuccessfully.

The base values for under-rotated jumps (70%) are given in the column just to the right of the standard base value.

(If you have this bookmarked, it may go to a previous version. You might have to clear your cookies or something?)

I have another question. If I recall correctly there was supposed to be some sort of bonus given to all jumps done in combination this year. But I don't see that in the protocols. Did that proposal of the ISU technical committee fail in the general congress?

I verified with some protocols. 3A adn 4T are indeed worth 8.5 and 10.3 base value respectively.

The calculations for underrotated and downgraded jumps are explained at the begining, above the SOV charts.

eta. The proposal for combo bonus didn't pass. Some posters were mistaken that 4T+3T by Oda was worth more than 4T and then 3F+3T by Chan. It didn't matter where the 3T was attatched as far as the jump value was concerned. Of course, other considerations apply.

etaa: Looking through the base values of quad jumps and their < values as well as GOE points, I understand how smart it is for Daisuke to attempt the 4F. He usually underrotates it, but the <4F is worth 8.6 compared to 7.2 for <4T while the GOE values are the same. i.e. -1, -2 and -3 have the same point values for 4F as they are for 4T. So if one is to underrotate or even fall, 4F is disproportionately more rewarding than 4T. A successful attempt means 2 whole points more and even an uderrotated one is 1.4 points higher. Yet penalty deductions are identical to those for 4T. Daisuke has problems with 4T anyway due to his knee so 4F is very smart for him to do with similar chances of non-success.

Does anyone know the background of how the base values were arrived at?

Joesitz said:

Does anyone know the background of how the base values were arrived at?

Click to expand...

The ruminations of the committee that came up with the original scale of values (headed by David Dore, I believe) were never made public. As far as I can tell they just picked an arbitrary number, 4.0 points, for a triple toe loop and went up by half-point increments from there: 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0.

The latest revision made an attempt at adjusting these values to reflect the actual relative difficulties of these jumps. For instance, 3S and 3T are both about the same difficulty, and some skaters find the 3S easier. On the other hand, the 3Lz is much more difficult than the 3F, so there should be a bigger gap between these jumps.

2A = 3.3
3T = 4.1
3S = 4.2
3Lo = 5.1
3F = 5.3
3Lz = 6.0.

When we add revolutions it goes like this:

Toe loop: single = 0.4
double = 1.4
triple = 4.1
quad = 10.3

Axel: single = 1.1
double = 3.3
triple = 8.5

People who have studied this from a mathematical viewpoint usually argue like this. As the number of revolutions goes up the difficulty of the element increases exponentially.

So for instance if a single Axel is worth 1.1 and a double Axel is worth 3.3, that's three times as much. So it would be fair for a triple Axel to be worth three times a double. In other words, 9.9.

Toe loops should go like this: single = 0.4
double = 1.2
triple = 3.6
quad = 10.8

Each one is three times as much as the previous one. Or you could start with 0.5 for a single and go 0.5, 1.5, 4.5, and 13.5 for a quad.

The International Coaches' Committee that Dr. George Rossano is associated with came up with a scoring system based on this principle (scroll down to the bottom):

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/coach proposals for 2010.htm

Some day someone would make history with the first quad flutz.

Takahashi may be first to do a quad Lip!

So, what would it be worth? It's up to the judges to decide on the GOE for edge calls.

^ Actually, that is a good point and a serious flaw in the scoring system. If there is any possible way that you can manage to rotate 4 times in the air off a back inside edge, but fool the technical specialist into calling it a "Lutz e", you can have a wrong edge take-off, a crazy air position, and a fall on the landing and still get 9.6 points. (The most they can take off in GOE is 3 points, plus the fall deduction, no matter what.)

Takahashi has already said that he will probably go for the quad filp at Japanese Nationals, knowing that he will fall, because his quad toe is shaky at this point, too. An under-rotated, wrong edge, crash-landed quad flip will still get him 4.6 points.

(The GOEs should be a percentage of the base value, rather than a fixed amount. Throughout, the ISU needs to think "multiply" instead of "add." )

Well, that was my point in my previous post: that penalties for 4F are proportionately more lenient than for 4T, and Takahashi is taking advantage of it.

Takahashi tends to underrotate and two foot his 4F though, instead of doing wrong edge or fall.

I agree with GOE being percentages rather than fixed values. I had assumed that before looking them up in the table.

Mathman said:

The ruminations of the committee that came up with the original scale of values (headed by David Dore, I believe) were never made public. As far as I can tell they just picked an arbitrary number, 4.0 points, for a triple toe loop and went up by half-point increments from there: 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0.

Click to expand...

It figures. Just keep it secret with no input by skaters.

The latest revision made an attempt at adjusting these values to reflect the actual relative difficulties of these jumps. For instance, 3S and 3T are both about the same difficulty, and some skaters find the 3S easier. On the other hand, the 3Lz is much more difficult than the 3F, so there should be a bigger gap between these jumps.

Click to expand...

When skaters opinions are not taken into account, they have to meet the standards of the non-skating Officials rather than the Officials understanding the difficulties from first hand skaters.

For the most part, the Lutz is the most difficult jump. Without the toe-off, it is near impossible at multi rotations.

The difficulty as I see it, is the abnormal way of rotating in the air. One has to counter rotate his body, then begin to unwind it while still in the air to become a normal rotation before landing. Not easy! With a Flutz one never really enters the counter rotation phase of the jump and the resulting air rotation is just as it is with any other jump. In effect, there was no Lutz jump.

Some skaters, for whatever reasons, are more secure on a back outside edge than on a back inside edge. Without counter rotations, the ease of the loop jump and the salchow are with the favored edge of the skater. Difficult to give them separate base values.

People who have studied this from a mathematical viewpoint usually argue like this. As the number of revolutions goes up the difficulty of the element increases exponentially.

Click to expand...

How can one not agree? The air rotations replaced barrel jumping with its sport-like adding barrels.

The International Coaches' Committee that Dr. George Rossano is associated with came up with a scoring system based on this principle (scroll down to the bottom):

http://www.iceskatingintnl.com/current/content/coach proposals for 2010.htm

Click to expand...

Fascinating read!! Some well thought out points; some not. Are any competitive skaters on that Committee? I'm all for current and former competitive skaters running their destiny in Sports.