Why don't these jumps matter?

kate said:

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.

Click to expand...

You can have unlimited number of listed jumps in the sequence, but you only get points for the two with the highest point value (times 0.8).

If they're all the same jump, then you'd just get credit for two of them.

As you say, what happens between the axels would matter. If there are steps or turns other than the step from back outside landing to forward outside takeoff, which is specifically allowed for axels at the end of sequences, then they'd be considered separate elements.

If you did axel-tap toe-axel-tap toe-axel, it should count as a sequence with points for two axels, times 0.8..

If you did single axel-tap toe-double axel-tap toe-triple axel, it should count as a sequence with points for the double and the triple, times 0.8. Waste of points -- if you can do a triple axel you'd be better off getting full credit for it.

However, it's not allowed to do more than two double axels in a program. So if you break that rule by doing a sequence of three double axels, and the whole sequence counts as one element, then the whole element won't count. Even bigger waste of points.

At lower levels, it may not be allowed to do more than two single axels, so the above would apply with singles.


There are lots of feats that can be done on the ice and that can be artistically exciting but that don't meet the demands of competition. This includes long sequences repeating the same element over and over again, it includes illegal moves like backflips and (for pairs) detroiters and headbanger spins. Those kinds of sequences or moves have always been saved for exhibitions/show skating.

Then there are other moves or ways of combining moves that were perfectly valid although generally unusual in 6.0 programs but that don't fit the current well-balanced program rules.

On the one hand, if skaters are going to earn points for elements there need to be some kind of guidelines on how many of each kind of element, and how many total elements, they're allowed to earn points for. Otherwise
Even under 6.0 since the mid-1990s the long program rules were modified to produce "well-balanced" programs that all had similar element content by encouraging or requiring minimums of certain kinds of elements and imposing maximums on other kinds.

On the other hand, the current rules are, IMO, unnecessarily specific about the limits on each kind of element and make it illegal or a waste of points to attempt certain skills or combinations of skills that could have been appropriately rewarded (or ignored -- we never knew what any judge thought about any of the specifics) when whole programs were judged instead of specific elements.

Still, as long as skating is a sport, we have to expect there to be some attempt at standardization so that everyone is competing on a level playing field. Not everything that works artistically can fit in the competitive format.

gkelly said:

However, it's not allowed to do more than two double axels in a program. So if you break that rule by doing a sequence of three double axels, and the whole sequence counts as one element, then the whole element won't count. Even bigger waste of points.

Click to expand...

! What if you did 3T. Then later 3T+3T. Would you get zero points for the 3T+3T?

Mathman said:

! What if you did 3T. Then later 3T+3T. Would you get zero points for the 3T+3T?

Click to expand...

That's my understanding.

At 2005 Worlds, Irina Slutskaya did, IIRC, solo 3Lo, 3Lz+3Lo combo, and finally 3Lo+2Lo combo. Because she'd already done two other triple loops, she got no credit for the third triple loop but she did get credit for the double loop. Then they changed the rules the following summer so that if there were too many jump repeats and the last one was part of a combination, the whole element would be invalidated.

gkelly said:

That's my understanding.

At 2005 Worlds, Irina Slutskaya did, IIRC, solo 3Lo, 3Lz+3Lo combo, and finally 3Lo+2Lo combo. Because she'd already done two other triple loops, she got no credit for the third triple loop but she did get credit for the double loop. Then they changed the rules the following summer so that if there were too many jump repeats and the last one was part of a combination, the whole element would be invalidated.

Click to expand...

Do you know the rationale for making this change? I think I like the old rule better. Especially if Slutskaya's 3Lo+2Lo filled a box.

I guess this is like Oda doing an extra combination.

It seems strange that you would get way more points for 3T, then 3T+2T, than if you did 3T, then 3T+3T.

Well, for the same reason it would seem strange that you would get way more points for, say 3A and then 3A+3A+SEQ than for 3A and then 3A+2T, but they don't want skaters racking up points by doing the same jump over and over again.

(Well, that example also brings the sequence penalty into effect as well.)


And they don't want skaters attempting their hardest jumps over and over until they get them right, at the expense of showing other jump skills and a full range of non-jump skills, or the good jumpers racking up so many points with triple jumps augmented by extra points for doubles and singles that they can win even with subpar everything else. Hence the limits on total jump elements allowed.

I understand the idea of not wanting a skater to get points by doing the same jump over and over. But it seems like all they have to do is just not give any further credit for extra repetitions.

If you did 3A then 3A+3A+2T it seems like you could get credit for the solo 3A and then for the 3A+2T (seq -- with a HUGE break between the two jumps ) -- or at least for the first 3A of the sequence.

If you do solo 3A then another solo 3A, that second 3A is an illegal element, too, but the penalty is only 20% on the second 3A.

I guess if we really wanted to push the point we could say, if a triple jump violates a Zayak principle, then you only get credit for the first two revolutions (with negative GOE for over-rotation. ). It just seems like overkill to lose the whole element, AND for that big goose-egg to fill a box so that you can't do anything else, either.

Hey - thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Anything past a waltz jump is purely theoretical to me - though I do spend time jumping around in my socks, trying to understand the mechanics. I can see how the entrance edge for triple walleys and toe walleys would be really tough to hold with out flipping over. It seems to me though that an inside axel (FIE to BOE, same foot) is really nothing like a regular axel (FOE to BOE, different foot) - at least as different as a toe loop and a flip. It's surprising to me that no one along the way has championed it - maybe again, it's just to hard to get the FIE secure enough for 2.5 rotations.

And count me as some one who would like to see skaters rotate jumps (and spins) in both directions. If I were inventing skating now, I'd be tempted to say skaters had to be able to rotate both directions and couldn't show a jump until they had it both ways - ie to have a ccw rotating triple toe in a program, you also would have to include a cw rotating triple toe. I guess it's my fondness for balance and symmetry. That's never going to happen though, so 'nuff said.

ivy said:

Hey - thanks for the thoughtful discussion. Anything past a waltz jump is purely theoretical to me - though I do spend time jumping around in my socks, trying to understand the mechanics. I can see how the entrance edge for triple walleys and toe walleys would be really tough to hold with out flipping over. It seems to me though that an inside axel (FIE to BOE, same foot) is really nothing like a regular axel (FOE to BOE, different foot) - at least as different as a toe loop and a flip. It's surprising to me that no one along the way has championed it - maybe again, it's just to hard to get the FIE secure enough for 2.5 rotations.

And count me as some one who would like to see skaters rotate jumps (and spins) in both directions. If I were inventing skating now, I'd be tempted to say skaters had to be able to rotate both directions and couldn't show a jump until they had it both ways - ie to have a ccw rotating triple toe in a program, you also would have to include a cw rotating triple toe. I guess it's my fondness for balance and symmetry. That's never going to happen though, so 'nuff said.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of people who could rotate their jumps in both directions. Janet Lynn was forced by her coach, Mrs. Button, to land all of her jumps in both directions. Other skaters who could land most or all of their jumps in both directions were Rohene Ward, John Curry, and Philip Dulebohn (Philip Dulebohn is a clockwise skater, but Tiffany Scott, his partner, was counterclockwise; he re-trained his jumps and spins to match hers).

ivy said:

inside axel (FIE to BOE, same foot) is really nothing like a regular axel (FOE to BOE, different foot) - at least as different as a toe loop and a flip. It's surprising to me that no one along the way has championed it - maybe again, it's just to hard to get the FIE secure enough for 2.5 rotations.

Click to expand...

Yes, that's all true.

I posted two examples of double inside axels in the Flutzing thread: Julie Lynn Holmes in 1969 and Elvis Stojko in 1993. Those are the only examples I've ever seen of that jump from 40+ years worth of skating. And Stojko's wasn't a clean takeoff.

I.e., the mechanics are such that it is unreasonable to expect most skaters to do those jumps.

And count me as some one who would like to see skaters rotate jumps (and spins) in both directions. If I were inventing skating now, I'd be tempted to say skaters had to be able to rotate both directions and couldn't show a jump until they had it both ways - ie to have a ccw rotating triple toe in a program, you also would have to include a cw rotating triple toe. I guess it's my fondness for balance and symmetry. That's never going to happen though, so 'nuff said.

Click to expand...

Right. It's not going to happen because almost no one can do it.

I do think that there should be rewards for spinning and jumping in both directions.

It is currently a feature for IJS spins, but as of this year only in camel and sit positions, and only as part of a spin that rotates both ways in the same element.

There isn't any reward built into the system to reward jumps in both directions, and it's really really hard to do double jumps in the "wrong" direction, almost impossible to do triples. For all practical purposes, you have to consider it a fluke for an occasional skater to be able to do a triple jumps in the opposite direction. For 90+% of skaters who can do triples at all, it would be impossible no matter how hard they try.

(Not to mention that ever doing any triple is probably impossible for 90+% of all skaters who ever learn any single jumps.)


The sport can ask what skills are reasonable to expect of all skaters at a certain level and require those. It can also ask what skills are reasonable to expect of many skaters at that level and make them options but not requirements and reward them appropriately.

For something that only a fluke skater can achieve, should it be built into the reward system or should it be ignored?

Single jumps both ways, especially the easier single jumps, should be possible for most skaters who can do any doubles. Axels or at least one double jump both ways may be possible for many elite skaters who can do triples. If there's no reward, there's no incentive for practicing it.

So should some sort of reward be built into the system? What kind?

It needs to take into account the fact that most skaters won't be able to take advantage of it or will choose not to if they can earn more points by including more triple jumps instead.

Changes in emphasis in the rules will change the emphasis in what skaters train and what they put out on the ice for audiences to watch. But rule changes can't change basic biology or physics.

Human beings are not balanced in their ability to rotate both directions at high rotational speed. Skating has known that for at least 70 or 80 years by now. So if the rules are going to reward rotation, they need to take into account what the average well-trained human body on blades on ice can actually be expected to do.

blue dog said:

(Philip Dulebohn is a clockwise skater, but Tiffany Scott, his partner, was counterclockwise; he re-trained his jumps and spins to match hers).

Click to expand...

Tiffany Scott was also clockwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-XljG19828

I've seen videos of Dulebohn competing solo and with a previous partner and I'm pretty sure he always jumped clockwise. It's possible he can also do some counterclockwise jumps. Or you may be thinking of someone/something else.

gkelly said:

Tiffany Scott was also clockwise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-XljG19828

I've seen videos of Dulebohn competing solo and with a previous partner and I'm pretty sure he always jumped clockwise. It's possible he can also do some counterclockwise jumps. Or you may be thinking of someone/something else.

Click to expand...

No. I'm not. At one of the worlds they attended, Peter Carruthers mentioned that he skated the opposite as his partner, but had retrained himself. I think what happened is I misspoke, in that he was a counterclockwise skater, and he had always found partners who skated clockwise.

Unlike, of course, Kristi Yamaguchi, who preferred to do mirror jumps with Rudy Galindo.

While we humans are decidedly 'sided' - prefering on side or the other, but I would think that if being balanced, centered and symetrical was emphasised at the beginning of skating I think we'd be suprised how many kids could grow to rotate both directions. We've only had triples for about 50 years, and only recently were skaters expected to land 6 or more triples in a competive program - who knows what they'll be doing in 50 more years. In the sport I grew up in, dressage, all the "tricks" had to be competed both directions and you were penalized if they were not the same. Horses, like us, are 'sided' - but no ice or skates involved!

kate said:

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.

Click to expand...

My use of the comparison to ballet, is that during a bravura performance, a dancer will do several saute de basques (which are similar to axels) in a circle around the stage alternating singles and doubles and end with a triple to a lunge pose. Very thrilling especially with the music. I know something like that would be against the CoP but the CoP was not geared to versatility and Free Skating. Everyone has the same tricks, and restrictions run amok. JMO.

ivy said:

While we humans are decidedly 'sided' - prefering on side or the other, but I would think that if being balanced, centered and symetrical was emphasised at the beginning of skating

Click to expand...

Oh, it is. Skaters are required to learn all the on-ice turns -- now including twizzles -- and turning steps in both directions, not to mention edges and curving stroking like crossovers. And they're rewarded for rotating both directions in their step sequences and (now explicitly) spins.

I think we'd be suprised how many kids could grow to rotate both directions.

Click to expand...

As I said, most could learn to do single jumps in both directions. If you gave an explicit reward for that, comparable to doing a double jump in only one direction, I'm sure you'd see lots more skaters putting reverse jumps in their programs.

ISI at the higher levels require axels and a double jump in the opposite direction. That's one reason hardly anyone reaches the highest level in ISI testing/competition.

If you required multiple double jumps in both directions, you'd weed out the majority of skaters who don't have the ability to learn doubles in their bad direction.

Already the ISU/Olympic track elite requirements for triple jumps weed out most skaters, since most people don't have the ability to rotate three times in the air in their good direction.

The numbers might be similar, but if, say, double lutz or double axel in both directions were required to compete, you might end up with triple lutz and triple axel being about as rare as reverse doubles are today.

So if you required skaters to do, say, both five different triples the good way and five different doubles the bad way to become elite figure skaters, you'd weed out the majority of even talented jumpers and the competitions would be very tiny and most countries would not be able to field a team of even one skater in most years.

If you required all triples in both directions, you might as well give a medal to everyone who could meet the requirements each year, and you'd probably have some medals left over. Even 50 years from now. Unless the rewards for being able to do all triples in both directions were so great, much higher incentive than Olympic medals, that there would be an active talent scouting program to find the few freakish kids capable of learning those jumps and training them to do so.

In the sport I grew up in, dressage, all the "tricks" had to be competed both directions and you were penalized if they were not the same. Horses, like us, are 'sided' - but no ice or skates involved!

Click to expand...

Yes, and they didn't have to rotate 3 or more revolutions per second.

Skaters absolutely are expected to do slow rotations in both directions. Multirevolution jumps are a different story.

I have some background in ballet, but I'm not an expert. Dancers certainly do train triple pirouettes in both directions. What about higher-order pirouettes? Multiple fouette turns? Double or triple tours en l'air, or sauts de basques as Joesitz mentions? How many dancers do those moves in both directions? How much ballet choreography requires dancers to rotate quickly in both directions? Or do most dancers just show off their bravura feats in the direction that's most comfortable for them?

How about in diving or gymnastics or freestyle skiing, etc.? How many athletes in those sports execute in-air twists in both directions? Is it rewarded?

Does anyone here know?

I read once about Lori Nichol (I am probably not remembering the details exactly right), when she was skating professionally with John Curry's company, that the choreography required two lines of skaters, with one line peeling off and doing an Axel jump one way, and the other line the other way. Lori was in the wrong line, so she had to do a quick switch with another skater.

Maybe the ISU could do it like this. Of your seven or eight jumping passes, one must be in the "opposite direction." Skater's choice. If you can't do a double, do a single.

RE: Going over the Zayak limit and doing too many combinations, with CoP scoring...

I feel the system should always discount the lowest value jump if too many combinations are attempted and that the whole jump element should not be discounted, only the extraneous jump done in combination. How does it negatively effect the performance when someone forgets they used up a combination slot earlier in the program even though they didn't actually do a combination (such as when someone falls on say, a Triple Axel, and then does another Triple Axel later in the program but doesn't put it in combination)? It doesn't. An entire jumping pass later in the program should not be worth 0 points just because someone added a 2T or 3T onto it by accident. We need skaters to think about PERFORMING while they are on the ice, not about math. Give them credit for what they have done, always.

As for Zayak limits, if too many of a certain Triple or Quad (or Double Axel) is attempted, the jump should just be downgraded to the next lower jump of that type. It's stupid that the scoring system completely screws over skaters when this scenario happens: A planned Quad Toe is turned into a Triple Toe, and then the skater performs two Triple Toes in combination later on and doesn't get credit for an entire Triple-Triple jumping pass! The current rule means that if a skater turns a planned Quad Toe into a Double Toe or a Single Toe, they receive more points for that mistake than turning it into a Triple. :sheesh:

Let me pose the following questions and see what kinds of answers we come up with:

I'm going to ask about senior level specifically. Remember that includes not only the medal contenders that get shown on TV, but also the skaters who attend senior B competitions and hope to make the cut at Euros/4Cs/Worlds, or who try but don't necessarily succeed to qualify for national championships in countries with large fields.

*What kinds of jumping skills do you think should be required of all skaters who compete at the senior level?
-Assuming that the short program+long program format is retained, what should the requirements be in each program?
-Would a different competition format work better?

*What kinds of jumping skills do you think should be allowed and rewarded in each progarm?

*How should variety of jumping skills be encouraged or enforced?

*What limits should be imposed on number of jumps or jump elements attempted in each program, numbers of jumps in a combination or sequence, repetitions of the same jump or jump skill in the same program, etc.?

*In what situations should skaters be able to make up for missed jump attempts by changing their planned content? Which mistakes should be penalized and which should be ignored?

*How should the program rules balance the number of jumps in each program with non-jump skills?

*To what degree should competitive success correlate with jump difficulty attempted? jump difficulty successfully executed? Jump quality and "cleanness" of the program as a whole?

If we can agree on what goals the rules should be trying to achieve, then we can figure out what the rules should be to achieve them.

OMG, drool. This is a thread that epitomizes why I keep coming back here.

*What kinds of jumping skills do you think should be required of all skaters who compete at the senior level?

Click to expand...

Can you help me out by saying what the requirements are now?

You are talking about what should be required to allow someone to participate in the contest at all, right?

As for requirements in the competition itself, I can't see that there are any. The rules say that you are required to do an Axel jump. But that is obviously a misnomer, because I could say, phooey on the Axel, I'll do seven quads and skip my last jumping pass altogether. I incur no penalty for doing so (except loss of opportunity) and I still win the World Championship.

Mathman said:

Can you help me out by saying what the requirements are now?

Click to expand...

Senior Men's Short Program:
*double or triple axel
*triple or quad jump immediately preceded by steps or other skating movements
*combination of two jumps, one of which must be either triple or quad and the other either double or triple (no turns or steps between the jumps)
The same jump may not be included in more than one jump element.

Senior Ladies' Short Program:
*double or triple axel
*triple jump immediately preceded by steps or other skating movements
*combination of two jumps, one of which must triple and the other either double or triple (no turns or steps between the jumps)
The same jump may not be included in more than one jump element.

Long Programs
Maximum of 8 (men) or 7 (ladies) jumping passes
Must include an axel-type jump
Maximum of three jump combinations or sequences (two jumps per combination except one combo can have three jumps; number of jumps in a sequence is not limited but only the two highest-valued jumps count and the total is factored times 0.8)
Only two triple or quad jumps may be repeated; if repeated at least one of them must be in combination; each repeated triple or quad may be performed no more than twice
Maximum of two double axels

You are talking about what should be required to allow someone to participate in the contest at all, right?

Click to expand...

Well, each country's federation has its own rules for deciding who's allowed to compete in their domestic events and who they're willing to send to international events.

But if the rules require certain elements, then there must be some penalty for not including it. What that penalty might be is up for discussion. Could be negligible (skater loses one element's worth of opportunity to earn points); could be severe (immediate disqualification). Or anywhere in between.

As for requirements in the competition itself, I can't see that there are any. The rules say that you are required to do an Axel jump. But that is obviously a misnomer, because I could say, phooey on the Axel, I'll do seven quads and skip my last jumping pass altogether. I incur no penalty for doing so (except loss of opportunity) and I still win the World Championship.

Click to expand...

Easier said than done, though. And if your opponent can do seven quads and triple axel, you lose.