Why don't these jumps matter?

gkelly said:

So can you show me an example of a dancer doing quadruple or higher pirouettes in both directions? Double or higher tour en l'air in both directions?

Click to expand...

Dancers are more concerned about music and emoting than they are about tricks.

Do ballet audiences notice or care? Are there better examples from other ballets that show an emphasis on bilateralism?

Click to expand...

Like competitive skating lovers, they don't care what figure skating is up to. They are not competing with Figure Skating. They have a much wider audience. Personally, I like skaters who flow over the ice going left and going right. Just not overwhelmed with air turns although Rohene's double axel got me in both directions.

Curry might have saved it as an artistic endeavor, but we lost him at a far too young age.

Mathman: I knew there was well-known ballet solo that involve little jumps on pointe. It's the sugar plum fairy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQBFhaRFPIk&feature=related

Yikes. Here's another one where the dancer jumps on pointe in a back attitude! ouch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR3XYpB5w0U&feature=related

Maybe you were thinking of big jumps that land en pointe. That I can't imagine so much. Not without indeed breaking your toes. Course, I can't imagine how pairs ladies get thrown into the air, do multiple revolutions and then land on blade without breaking their ankes. So.

Joesitz said:

Figure Skating is not ballet, yes. It is closer to acrobatics. If one prefers to see big acrobatic tricks on ice, so be it. That is your taste in dance. No problem.

Dance, I believe is defined as body movement in a rhythmic way, with or without music, so Ballet and Figure Skating as well as Pantomine, Tap, Folk, Flamenco, and, of course, Acrobatics, etc., are regarded as dance forms and will be the subject of critics geared to knowing their differences.

With so many forms of dance, one can choose those which appeal to them. One should also acknowledge that competitive figure skating and professional show figure skating are two different styles of figure skating.

Personally, I like all the forms especially those Kelly, Astaire musicals which brought to the dance lover so many wonderul new and different moves. I like competitive figure skating, too, but it has become very restrictive, and the only new moves are extra air rotations. Sporty - yes. Artistic - bleh.

Click to expand...

Joe you have to remember everytime the rules are changed in figure skating, the skaters/coaches/judges/choreographers take a while to get used to it. Ice dance was full of dramatics without much substance a few years ago. Then they changed the rules so that skaters not only had to skate to the rhythm, but were required to do a certain number of lifts. What resulted was that some people (including TAT herself) thought the emotion was lost in dance. Sure, for a while. Then, the skaters found a way to bring art within the restrictions. It's kind of like having a 1000 word limit for a story-writing contest. Sure, it is limiting, but oftentimes, beauty and creativity thrive when such rules are imposed. The artists just have to get used to it.

Back to the original digression of the topic (ballet vs figure skating)-- the main difference nowadays is that ballet can be very unnatural. Yes, it is beautiful, but the movements are not natural. We do not walk en pointe, or with our hips turned out. Skating, on the other hand, has become more natural. More skaters are favouring modern dance over ballet since modern dance uses nature to its advantage. When I was first learning the spiral a while back, my coach actually told me not to use my ballet turnout, since it would make my body twisted when I actually performed the move.

blue dog said:

Joe you have to remember everytime the rules are changed in figure skating, the skaters/coaches/judges/choreographers take a while to get used to it. Ice dance was full of dramatics without much substance a few years ago. Then they changed the rules so that skaters not only had to skate to the rhythm, but were required to do a certain number of lifts. What resulted was that some people (including TAT herself) thought the emotion was lost in dance. Sure, for a while. Then, the skaters found a way to bring art within the restrictions. It's kind of like having a 1000 word limit for a story-writing contest. Sure, it is limiting, but oftentimes, beauty and creativity thrive when such rules are imposed. The artists just have to get used to it.

Back to the original digression of the topic (ballet vs figure skating)-- the main difference nowadays is that ballet can be very unnatural. Yes, it is beautiful, but the movements are not natural. We do not walk en pointe, or with our hips turned out. Skating, on the other hand, has become more natural. More skaters are favouring modern dance over ballet since modern dance uses nature to its advantage. When I was first learning the spiral a while back, my coach actually told me not to use my ballet turnout, since it would make my body twisted when I actually performed the move.

Click to expand...

First of all thank you Blue Dog for writing a piece as discussion.

Indeed, Ice Dance has come a long way with the present day rules. Fans seem to be getting more interested now than before. Ice Dance is a medium which the rules of music are glued to it. Fans like that. I do not know the technical part of Ice Dance so I just like to enjoy the interpretation of the contestants. I believe the caretakers of Ice Dance want good dancing.

The solo branches of competitive figure skating seem to be more interested in experimenting with change without much reason to do so. That is there are so many curious new rules, and I can not figure out why it is that they emerge. The question which I see is the present day restrictive nature of the sport better than the Free Skate of yesteryear in producing exceptionally good programs? The present set-up for great programs seems to be only the 'clean' programs have any artistic value. In my view, skaters seem to forego the artistic side of competitive skating for the technical side and hence, lose that feeling for being one with the music.

Ballet v. Figure Skating: Very TRUE! Ballet is rather an unnatural form of dance, but so is putting skates on your feet. Despite this, balletomanes flock to the theatres and it is a viable form of entertainment. Skaters like to mimic their arms in ballet poses. Not necessar, imo, figure skating arms should flow with the skater's feel for the music. Kwan was not a ballerina on ice, but she moved in so many ways as the music took her, but then she was not concerned about points.

Modern Dance, I believe, is totally involved with the emotions of the music and the body responds to it. I think all skaters should take dance lessons seriously, especially Tap (for rhythm) and Jazz (for body movements). They will improve their Tschaikovsky programs.

Hopefully, you are correct and that the CoP rules will bring back extraordinary artistic skating.

RE: jumps in both directions...

I don't think it should be a required move in programs but what about giving a significant bonus to jump sequences that feature a jump in each direction? Then something like Rohene Ward's clockwise 2Axel + counterclockwise 2Axel sequence would be a big point earner and skaters would have incentive to try and learn opposite direction jumps.

Yes, incentives, not requirements.

What would be an appropriate incentive?

For jump combinations or sequences that rotate both directions, 1.0 bonus per revolution of the reverse-direction jump?

What about solo jumps in both directions? Not necessarily the same jump. They'll have to be closely linked to make sure the judges and tech panel catch the fact that one of them is in the opposite direction. There might be too many/wrong kind of steps in between to count as one jump sequence. But even if they fill two jump boxes, there should be a reward for doing one of them the other direction. Maybe still 1.0 per revolution bonus, and the penalty is using up another jump box.

For jump sequences, maybe allow one free change of edge or change of foot between jumps, in addition to unlimited hops.

For true jump combos, the second jump is going to be a counterrotated jump. But you could do a three-jump combo like
CW one-foot axel - CCW toe walley - CCW double toe loop
or
CCW triple toe - CW single lutz - CW double toe

gkelly said:

Yes, incentives, not requirements.

What would be an appropriate incentive?

For jump combinations or sequences that rotate both directions, 1.0 bonus per revolution of the reverse-direction jump?

Click to expand...

IMO this is perfect. I was going to suggest +2 bonus across the board. (I doubt if anyone will be doing triples in both directions. On the other =hand, even a single, say, Lutz in both directions as a combo would be an accomplishment.)

Along with that, they should eliminate the 20% penalty for sequences altogether. For instance, under the 80% rule a one-foot Axel + 3F sequence is worth less than the 3F by itself.

The rule could be full credit for two-jump sequence, but you can do only one per program. The other two would have to be actual combos.

With a two-point bonus you could get 6.2 points for a 2Lz + opposite 2Lz sequence, which I think is commensurate with its difficulty.

Mathman said:

The rule could be full credit for two-jump sequence, but you can do only one per program. The other two would have to be actual combos.

Click to expand...

The problem with this rule is that sometimes flawed combo attempts turn into sequences and are scored as such, which is an addition penalty along with the -GOE. (If we gave a bonus multiplier for combos and no penalty multiplier for sequences, it would still be a loss of points.)

Say a skater does a triple axel-shaky landing that turns into a hop-double toe and gets credit for 3A+2T+SEQ. Later he does a beautiful intentional two-jump sequence of some kind, and a spread eagle-3A-spread eagle (hence the need to tack a second jump on the first flawed 3A even though the planned 3A+3T didn't work out).

Are you saying he should sacrifice some or all of the points in either of those later elements because of the hop in first element, in addition to the lower base mark and -GOE for planned combination because you don't like multiple sequences?

Or did you mean that skaters can only get the reverse-direction bonus once per program, regardless of whether it's in a combo or sequence?

With a two-point bonus you could get 6.2 points for a 2Lz + opposite 2Lz sequence, which I think is commensurate with its difficulty.

Click to expand...

With lutz as the second jump, it can actually be a true combo and not a sequence.

gkelly said:

Say a skater does a triple axel-shaky landing that turns into a hop-double toe and gets credit for 3A+2T+SEQ. Later he does a beautiful intentional two-jump sequence of some kind, and a spread eagle-3A-spread eagle (hence the need to tack a second jump on the first flawed 3A even though the planned 3A+3T didn't work out).

Click to expand...

That skater should have just done 3A (forget muscling up a wonky 2T). Then later do your spread eagle-3A-spread eagle and take the phantom +seq" penalty. He would lose only (I think) 1.29 points on the two Axels together compared to what he actually did.

In fact. a skater hardly loses anything by blowing off the "repeated jump must be in combination" rule anyway. Alissa Czisny, for instance, plans a 3L+2T at the beginning and a 3Lz at the end. If she misses the second jump of the combo, even so it's "plan your skate, skate your plan" and take the small 20% hit on the second Lutz. Better than to start improvising, panicking, falling, etc.

Are you saying he should sacrifice some or all of the points in either of those later elements because of the hop in first element, in addition to the lower base mark and -GOE for planned combination because you don't like multiple sequences?

Click to expand...

I haven't worked that part oit yet. It is easy to come up with a scoring system if everyone skates perfectly. But what to do with those darn mistakes

It's not I who doesn't like sequences so much as the ISU. Why do they have that 20% penalty in the first place? Do they think that combos are harder and they don't want skaters to wimp out with mere sequences?

Maybe a compromise would be something like, you are allowed one sequence at full value but the 80% rule applies to all others.

A double or even a single loop jump in each direction could be a highlight with the music, as well as given bonus points.

Nothing, however, will change until the rules loosen up, and let competitors decide what to do beyond the accepted requirements. I imagine the authors of the restrictive measures were seeking ways to make competitions less advantageous to the few. I really do not know why suddenly so much restriction came about .

Mathman said:

It's not I who doesn't like sequences so much as the ISU. Why do they have that 20% penalty in the first place? Do they think that combos are harder and they don't want skaters to wimp out with mere sequences?

Click to expand...

Yes, they think combos are harder.

This year they changed their mind half loops between multirevolution jumps and decided that those should count as combos and get full value after all.

So ignoring the half-loop case, sequences happen in three situations:

1) The skater needs to connect the two main jumps with hops or one allowed step because the nature of the second jump is such that it doesn't take off from landing of the preceding jump.

2) The skater chooses to connect the two main jumps with hops in between because s/he is incapable of doing the second jump directly from the landing of the first jump.

3) The skater intended to do a true combination but a mistake on the landing of the first jump caused the way the jumps ended up getting connected to meet the sequence definition and not the combination definition.

3) is obviously not what the skater intended, but it does happen. You can see why the ISU would believe that that should be worth less than a true combination, GOE reductions aside.

1) and 2) are choices that the skater makes to maximize the number of triple jumps (and double axels) without having to do a triple jump directly from the landing of the preceding jump. Because, for the most part, they're easier than true combinations.

The ISU's thinking seems to be that the benefit of doing either combinations or sequences is the opportunity to fit a higher total number of jumps into the 7 or 8 allowed jump slots and that there shouldn't be yet another reward for doing combos; since sequences are easier than combos, they should be worth less.

Personally, I disagree and think that combinations should get a bonus, at least to the second jump, and sequences should get full value.

But I don't think the ISU had any intention of minimizing the number of jump sequences because they don't like them and want skaters to plan true combos instead. The rules have allowed a maximum of three combos or sequences since the mid-1990s and require repeated jumps to be performed in combination or sequence since the mid-1980s. Those rules didn't change with the new judging system.

What they have done is spell out the definition of a jump sequence much more specifically than the loose understanding that applied in the past, so a lot of what used to be considered jump sequences would now count as two separate jump elements.

Maybe a compromise would be something like, you are allowed one sequence at full value but the 80% rule applies to all others.

Click to expand...

If sequences get full value, then combos should get bonuses.

At least that would be something for the tech panel and computer program to figure out and the skater wouldn't need to worry "does that count as a combo or does it use up my allowed sequence? should I change my plan on the planned sequence later?"

I've heard of these unusual jumps; walleys and toe walleys. Every once in a while, you hear of something called a "waxel".

PolymerBob said:

I've heard of these unusual jumps; walleys and toe walleys. Every once in a while, you hear of something called a "waxel".

Click to expand...

Isn't a waxel a failed axel attempt, simply when a skater slips off the forward takeoff edge?

evangeline said:

Isn't a waxel a failed axel attempt, simply when a skater slips off the forward takeoff edge?

Click to expand...

yes that's a waxel. I learned the word from Kurt Browning's autobiography.

^^^
It's definitely a Wrong Edge Takeoff, but it is not treated as such. WETs are reserved for Lutzes and Flips only.

Well, not necessarily. It's usually a skid on the forward outside edge (which most triple axels have anyway to a smaller degree) but not a change to a different edge.

dorispulaski said:

Math, I agree with that. And blasphemy though it may be, I prefer figure skating to ballet. For that matter, I prefer Fred Astaire and Gene Kelly to any of the ballet performers. I don't see at all why everything in ballet would be the pattern for figure skating. Ballet, for one thing, is not a sport. And it isn't really an entertainment either :slinkaway: it's an art. And like any art, it's the viewers' privilege to like it or not. In sport, it doesn't matter what you like, it's what the rules are, and what the judges say.

Click to expand...

THIS^^^^^^

Ant

If an internationally recognized ballet company was preforming here on the same night as a grand prix skating event, you can be sure that I'd be at the skating.

At the same time though it seems silly to disregard ballet's influence on the aesthetics of skating. General back position, arm position, toe point and hip turn-out in moves like layback spins and spirals are part of the sport, and come from a dialogue with ballet. It may be that ballet's influence is lessening, but I think that is to skating's impoverishment.

^ OT, but that post was so well-written it was a delight to read, whatever one's opinion might be about the subject.

ivy said:

At the same time though it seems silly to disregard ballet's influence on the aesthetics of skating. General back position, arm position, toe point and hip turn-out in moves like layback spins and spirals are part of the sport, and come from a dialogue with ballet. It may be that ballet's influence is lessening, but I think that is to skating's impoverishment.

Click to expand...

Good position, Ivy, and nothing wrong with your selection of the Arts.

Ballet should never have been a part of Figure Skating in the first place. The early skaters did not show much in the form of dance. It was strictly sport in those days. Figure skating has its own style. Ballet has influenced figure skating somewhat since, I believe Tenley Albright did perform her Free Skate with the aforementioned aesthetics. If you watch Henie's amateur competitions, she never had much of a stretch in her legs, but with Hollywood transforming her, it was pure body positioning dance on film.

Hopefully ballet's influence is lessening. For me, I prefer modern ballet to the classics. I'd just like to see figure skaters grace the ice with all the flow, showing their interpretation with the music. While that is not asking too much, it doesn't show up with many skaters.