Why don't these jumps matter?

I've wondered this before and it came up again in the long "flutz" thread.

So why don't triple walleys and triple toe walleys happen - or count for something. It would seem they have the same relation to loops and toe loops as the lutz has to the flip. For a counterclockwise jumper you would take off on a right back inside edge (counter to direction off rotation), rotate three times and land on right back outside edge.

Or this version of a double axel - forward right inside edge, (instead of forward left outside edge), rotate 2.5x, land on right back outside edge.

Is it physics, tradition, the whims of the ISU?

As far as I know, no one has ever landed a 3 wally, which is probably why the ISU doesn't consider it as it's only done as a double at most. A single wally is a popular transition right now though. I know that the toe wally and toe loop are now counted as the same jump under the current rules, so most people opt for a toe loop because it's easier. A lot of the trick jumps, like one foot axels, inside axels, toeless lutz, one foot sals etc. aren't done because they count the same value as simpler listed jumps so it's not worth the effort or risk to learn or compete them anymore.

One foot single axels should be worth twice the base value as a regular single axel. That way there would be incentive to do them in combination with 3Sal or 3Flip.

Thanks for starting this thread!

I am sure someone will contribute an expert perspective, but as for toe walleys. they do count for something -- they count as a toe loop.

This is similar to the proposal that is floating about (I read about it first on George Rossano's site, reporting on recommendations by an international coaches organization) to combine the flip and Lutz into one jump. A skater could do two of either or one of each if they wanted to.

I think that the reason the ISU does it this way for the toe walley and toe loop is that no one can actually do a pure triple toe walley anyway -- they always slip back over onto the outside edge at the last moment, even though they are entering the jump as a proper toe walley.

As for the walley jump -- yeah, I think that's physics. You just can't get enough oomph off that awkward inside counter-rotating edge to do more than one rotation.

OK, what about this:

There are five categories of jumps. A skater must do one of each category and no more than two of the same category. Here are the categories (for counterclockwise jumpers.)

I Toe jumps

IA. Right foot take-off

IA1. BOE (toe loop)
IA2. BIE (toe walley)

IB. Left foot takeoff

IB1. BOE (Lutz)
IB2. BIE (flip)

II Edge jumps

IIA. Right foot takeoff

IIA1. BOE (loop)
IIA2. BIE (walley)

IIB. Left foot takeoff

IIB1. BOE (toeless Lutz)
IIB2. BIE (Salchow)

III Forward takeoff. (Axel, any type.)

The beauty of this plan is that it does away with the need for slo-motion replays and You Tube wars over inside and outside edges. The judges individually can give consideration to well-established counter-rotation as one of the bullets for positive GOE. (So for instance if Kevin Reynolds wants to scrap his 4S and go for a quad toeless Lutz instead, go Kevin!)

Edited to add Another simplifying idea. Each of the five jump categories carries the same number of points (count a 2A as a triple for this purpose.) Granted, this means a skater could get as many points for his second double Axel or triple toe as someone else would get for a second triple Lutz, but that wouldn't matter much because in any case five of the seven or eight jumps are specified. The second Lutz, etc., would gain extra points in PCSs if and only if it contributed to the choreography, intepretation, etc. In other words throwing in a spare triple Lutz after you already did your required one would niot be any big deal unless it actually meant something to the program.

At the slightly lower level, if you only have a triple Salchow and triple toe, then you would be required to fill those boxes with doubles or singles.

Mathman said:

As for the walley jump -- yeah, I think that's physics. You just can't get enough oomph off that awkward inside counter-rotating edge to do more than one rotation.

Click to expand...

Double walleys have been done, at least once. I can't remember who, but I know there was a male skater who did them at some point, several decades ago (when people still did that sort of thing).

No one does real toe walleys anymore. What is commonly referred to as a toe walley (the 3-turn, step back entrance to the toe loop) is really these days just a means of entering a regular toe loop. I've never seen someone do a toe walley in person except for kids struggling to learn a single toe, because real toe walleys are much, much harder.

It's all about making figure skating easier. Some of the standard old tricks do not get any base value. Some tricks have had their definitions revised, for example the toe walley is now a toe loop and a loop jump can land on any edge the skater wants it to, and a Lutz can toeoff any edge the skater wants it to. The minus GoEs start with the Lutz name. I am sure there will be more to come.

I believe the deterioration of the SPORT is to get more students interested in competing which brings in $$$ for so many involved in figure skating: coaches, choreograpers, costume makers, rink rentals, etc., and of course, competitions.

I do not understand why double Walleys do not have the base values that other jumps have. A skater is not compelled to do any jump he/she does not want to, but in CoP without a base value, why should they do a Double Walley or a Double Toe Walle? Of course, the argument is that they can do the Walleys but there will be no credit for them. Isn't that brilliant?

You can't blame other sports enthusiasts for saying Figure Skating is a little girl's sport. But at the same time, there is money to be made by the little girls same as the little girls in those child Pagaents.

Joe, what do you think of my idea in post 5 above. It does away with attaching the Lutz name to a flutz, and it allows a skater to get credit for every kind of jump in a systematic way.

Mathman said:

Joe, what do you think of my idea in post 5 above. It does away with attaching the Lutz name to a flutz, and it allows a skater to get credit for every kind of jump in a systematic way.

Click to expand...

excellent breakdown, but I would add:

a BOE toepic if the air rotations turn to the center of the ice, it is a Lutz and named as such. (counter rotation involved.) If it turns away from center of ice, it is a Toe Loop. normal rotation

a BIE toepic if the air rotations turn to the center of the ice it is a Walley and named as such. counter rotation involved) If it turns away from center of ice, it is a Flip. normal rotation.

as to competitive jumps: I think in musical interests only they make choreography more interesting. The CoP has killed the skater's chance to show off. Unfortunately, the same jump rotating to the left and right will not produce points because it is considered 2 jumps in the scheme of limiting the number of jumps per performance. I insist it is a technical feat.

kate said:

Double walleys have been done, at least once. I can't remember who, but I know there was a male skater who did them at some point, several decades ago (when people still did that sort of thing).

Click to expand...

Scott Hamilton, IIRC, did them.

Joesitz said:

a BIE toepic if the air rotations turn to the center of the ice it is a Walley and named as such. counter rotation involved) If it turns away from center of ice, it is a Flip. normal rotation.

Click to expand...

Inside edge, then picking with the non-landing foot would be a toe walley, but a (non-toe) walley is not a toe jump. It is similar to a loop that takes off of an inside edge in that it lands and takes off of the same foot and rotates one full turn, but it requires a completely different technique than a loop jump and feels very different.

Tonichelle, thanks! Now I'm going to try to find a video of double walleys. I don't think I was thinking of Scott Hamilton, but someone earlier than that (possibly someone not too well-known?) but great to have a name to start trying to find a video.

oh wait... I read 'toe wally' originally, he did toe wallys, but I don't think he did the ones you're looking for.

Joesitz said:

Unfortunately, the same jump rotating to the left and right will not produce points because it is considered 2 jumps in the scheme of limiting the number of jumps per performance. I insist it is a technical feat.

Click to expand...

I think it depends on what you do in between. If you could manage to go right back up into the second jump, with just a step in between, then I think it could count as a sequence and you would get credit for both jumps (at 70% of base value) but only fill one of your allowed jumping passes.(?)

I believe Sonja Henie could do a single Lutz in both directions.

ivy said:

So why don't triple walleys ... count for something. ...
Or this version of a double axel - forward right inside edge, (instead of forward left outside edge), rotate 2.5x, land on right back outside edge.

Is it physics, tradition, the whims of the ISU?

Click to expand...

For those jumps, walley and inside axel, I'd say it's primarily a combination of physics and tradition.

They can't be done as triple jumps. Only exceptional jumpers can do them as doubles.

By the 1970s (early for men, late for women), triple jumps were defacto required to win championships and then became required to compete in senior short programs at all.

So the best jumpers were trying to do all the triples, including triple axels, and quads. And triple-triple combinations. That became the way to show off one's jumping ability.

The pretty-good jumpers were just training to do all the triples. The so-so jumpers were just trying to be able to land some triples.

There wasn't a lot of incentive for the best jumpers to train an unusual double jump, or for the OK jumpers to spend training time and performance stamina on unusual singles. So even the singles from these takeoffs remained relatively rare, and doubles practically unheard of.

Then along came the IJS. Evidently it never occurred to the designers to include these jumps into the Scale of Values. Perhaps they didn't think they were even possible as doubles. And because fairness meant limiting the number of jump slots available in long programs, they didn't want junior and senior skaters to be penalized for doing singles from these takeoffs. So they left them as "nonlisted" jumps that count as transitions, gain no points, and don't waste jump slots.

That you could call the whim of the ISU officials who designed the new scoring system. But it wasn't a whim to eliminate something that skaters had already been doing. At worst it was a failure to imagine the possibility that some exceptional jumpers in the future could master double jumps from these takeoffs and to build in a reward for doing so.

Suppose we imagine it. How much do we think double walley or double inside axel should be worth? Maybe we should ask any elite skaters out there whether they've ever tried them and how they think the difficulty compares to the standard double and triple jumps.

I think both those jumps as doubles should be worth more than double axel, and probably more than triple salchow. But I"m sure there would be room for tinkering with the value once skaters start trying them.

Then if doubles eventually became . . . well, probably not common, but no longer incredibly rare, then it might be time to start thinking about

For single jumps, and that includes not only single walley and single inside axel, but also variants of other single jumps from normal takeoffs, such as back inside landings or split, tuck, hitch-kick air positions, what would be the best way to allow skaters to use these jumps as transitional moves without wasting jump slots on single jumps? Allow them to earn more points than the current +3 GOE for single jumps? Allow them not to use up jump slots if they're obviously intentional singles?

If we want more variety in long programs, there need to be more options in the rules to give incentives to use these jumps.

kate said:

Inside edge, then picking with the non-landing foot would be a toe walley, but a (non-toe) walley is not a toe jump. It is similar to a loop that takes off of an inside edge in that it lands and takes off of the same foot and rotates one full turn, but it requires a completely different technique than a loop jump and feels very different.

Tonichelle, thanks! Now I'm going to try to find a video of double walleys. I don't think I was thinking of Scott Hamilton, but someone earlier than that (possibly someone not too well-known?) but great to have a name to start trying to find a video.

Click to expand...

Kate - Glad to see someone also interested in the definitions of the technical elements. I was falling asleep when I wrote that bit about about the Toe Walley and The Flip. Sorry about that.

Also I meant to say consecutive jumps (instead of competitive jumps). 3 Axels in a row executed in a semi-circle at either end of the arena just look so balletic and wonderful, but the Tech score will be only for 1 axel, and I am sure the entire sequence is forgotten in the PC score.

Oh to bring back the FREE skate and John Curry and let's see some showy skating!!!

Double Walleys - I'm sure they have been done before. I've seen them on rollers and lugging those heavy skaters around in the air is not easy.

gkelly said:

If we want more variety in long programs, there need to be more options in the rules to give incentives to use these jumps.

Click to expand...

I don't think it is possible within the CoP structure to list every possible thing that a skater might do on the ice and assign the proper number of points, up to the tenths, reflecting its relative difficulty.

I believe that this is one of the insoluble problems in the sport-art dichotomy. In a sport there are usually only as few ways to score points. (You kick the ball in the goal.) In artistic endeavors, there are infinitely many ways for creative expression. Assigning "points" for originality and variety just isn't "sporting."

We would also have to deal with the unwanted consequence of requiring more and more and more nit-picky slo-motion reviews and edge call contoversies. Was that really a double toe walley or an inside Axel, or did he cheat overr to the wrong edge at the last moment?

I do think that cool stuff like single tuck jumps should be allowed as choreographic embellishments without filling a scoring box.

Mathman said:

I think it depends on what you do in between. If you could manage to go right back up into the second jump, with just a step in between, then I think it could count as a sequence and you would get credit for both jumps (at 70% of base value) but only fill one of your allowed jumping passes.(?)

I believe Sonja Henie could do a single Lutz in both directions.

Click to expand...

I don't see why one has to worry about sequencing. One jump one way; Same jump the other way. It's still the salchow (one jump). Klimkin would spin a beautiful forward camel one way and then spin another the other way. To me he showed skill in figure skating, and it certainly was sporting. However, skaters of today were not brought up under the 6.0 system when opposite directions were more popular. It's all in the scheme of making figure skating easier today.

btw a single lutz in both directions would be very difficult. If it were acknowledged, it should get 6 points.

Joesitz said:

btw a single lutz in both directions would be very difficult. If it were acknowledged, it should get 6 points.

Click to expand...

(?) It does get six points. If you do a Lutz in one direction, the call is "3Lz" and you get six points.

Then when you do the jump in the opposite direct, that call also is "3Lz" and you get six more points. So altogether you get 12 points for your two jumps.

-- almost. The Zayak rules say that you have to tack a 2T onto one of them to get full credit.

The protocols wouls say

3Lz+2T Base value 7.4
3Lz Base value 6.0

Then you would go on with the rest of your jumps.

What would be cool is if the ISU revised the rules so that you get an extra bonus for doing a jump in the opposite direction, after you did it in one direction first. Something like

3Lz 6.0
3Lz* 7.0 and no requirement of a combination

Joesitz said:

3 Axels in a row executed in a semi-circle at either end of the arena just look so balletic and wonderful, but the Tech score will be only for 1 axel, and I am sure the entire sequence is forgotten in the PC score.

Click to expand...

The skater would get credit for two of the three Axels. The sequence would earn 5.28 points (5.81 points if it was in the second half of the program). The sequence would fill one of the skater's 8 scoring blocks.

As for the PCS, it would be up to the judges individually to decide whether the sequence contributed to the choreographic theme, etc.

The reason you can't get full credit oin the tech side for all three is because of th4 Zayak rules. Toller Cranston once did (if I remember correctly) 14 double Axels in a row in an exhibition. This would give him 46.2 points.

Edited to correct arithmetic mistake.

Mathman said:

The skater would get credit for two of the three Axels. The sequence would earn 4.62 points (5.08 points if it was in the second half of the program). The sequence would fill one of the skater's 8 scoring blocks.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think technically (I can't think of a case where this has happened, though, so it would depend on the length of time between the axels, etc. whether they chose to call the third axel as a new jumping pass)...but if the 3 axels did get deemed a sequence, it would be an invalid element, since you can't have 3 listed jumps in a sequence. It would therefore take up a box and get 0 points.