Six Point Zero
Triple-Triple penalty under CoP
I know what you're going to say--I'm preaching to the choir. But what prompted me to think about this is wallylutz's claim (in the 2011 Worlds forum) that a triple-triple's advantage is that it frees up jumping passes that a skater can fill with even more valuable jumps. But this proposition shows that there is no such advantage, and may even carry a disadvantage.
By the way, I credit this idea to Mathman and Serious Business.
Proposition: For any CoP-compliant seven-triple jump layout with two triple-triple combinations, one 3-jump combination and two double axels, there is another layout consisting of exactly the same jumps but with both triple-triples removed such that:
1. The base value of the jump layout is at least the same.
2. The GOE potential is higher.
(We disregard the 1/2 mark bonus of 10% without loss of generality)
The Proof is rather trivial. Substitute a double axel as the first jump in both triple-triple combinations. If the same type of jump is used as the first jump in both triple-triples, then substitute that triple jump into the 3-2-2 combo to comply with the Zayak rule. Now you have a seven-triple layout with no triple-triple combination at all, but exactly the same base value and higher GOE potential since every jumping pass has a triple.
One can even extend this idea to the ultimate layout for a ladies free skate (with no quad). Consider this 8-triple jump layout with two triple-triples and one triple-triple-double (!).
Now rearrange it like this:
Exact same jumps, exact same base value, and higher GOE potential. But it's much easier in comparison, since I don't think that we've ever seen a 3A+3L combo even from the men's competition.
Isn't it a travesty that first jump layout is not higher in base value than the second, and can earn less GOE points in total?
By the way, once can generalize the proposition to the following statement:
For any n-triple jump layout where n=7 or n<7 consisting of one 3-jump combination, two double axels and at least one triple-triple combination, there exists another layout such that:
1. It contains exactly the same jumps (hence identical base value).
2. It contains no triple-triple combination (hence easier).
3. It has greater GOE potential (hence a disincentive to perform the triple-triple).
I'm not going to bother to prove the case where n < 7 since it's even more trivial than the above.
Serious Business deserves all the credit for noticing the GOE potential thing
Originally Posted by Krislite
I am hard at work trying to find a counterexample...What about a skater with a triple Axel...no...what about a 2A+2A sequernce...no...
This analysis should be brought to the attention of the PTB (powers that be) to change the rules. Great work to all who figured this out! The rules body should hire you guys (with a generous stipend!) to go over their proposals before they get ratified.
Skating is not yet the truly analytical "sport" some of you believe it to be.
The IJS is still as political as anything seen in the past. The CoP is perhaps more inconsitent than the 6.0.
Can you say Patrick Chan and Skate Canada?
Yuna landing a big, clean 3x3 assures her of more points elsewhere. Can you spell spiral sequence?
What about Plushy or Joubert landing a quad. Suddenly non-existent TR scores big points.
All for fun folks but skating is still stuck somewhere between sport, politics and a little bit of art.
To think otherwise is silliness.
Don't take it so seriously and it becomes more enjoyable. I love skating but trust the scoring system to determine the best skater about as far as I can spit into the wind. A strong wind at that
Last edited by janetfan; 03-10-2011 at 02:29 PM.
I am pretty sure MIki Ando designed her whole program around these facts
Wicked Yankee Girl
A similar problem occurred in ice dance, resulting in most skaters picking 4 small lifts this year rather than 2 small lifts and one long/combo lift/reversing lift. The base values are the same, but the GOE potential is lower for the 3 lift lift program. This is why D&W changed from a 3 lift to a 4 lift program in mid season (they said so explicitly in an interview). It appears that arithmetical checking is not a strength of the ISU. Yes, they DEFINITELY should employ SeriousBusiness and Mathman! That is if they don't employ Igor & Marina, who seem to check fairly closely.
Can't argue with the points about the base values and GOEs. I think you're saying that the potential GOE is higher without triple-triples because the value of the positive GOEs is higher for triple jumps than for doubles including double axels.
It's also easier to get positive GOE, and to get full value for the jumps without underrotation penalties/downgrades, if the jump combos are easier.
The only advantage might be if the skater is likely to get basemark with 0 GOE on the 3-3 combos, she could use another jump pass to enhance an easier jump in ways that could earn +2 or better, which she couldn't do if she were doing that jump in a combination.
But if the 3-3s are most likely to be downgraded, they're not worth attempting at all.
Here's one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqxQ6lzb-4I
Originally Posted by Krislite
Jayson Denommee was doing that combo about the same time -- I think he succeeded at least once at Canadian Nationals or a fall competition.
Dan Hollander had also been trying them in practice a few years earlier and I saw reports he executed it at Midwesterns one year, but I never saw the actual combination in competition.
Like all triple loop combinations, they probably would have been at risk of downgrades.
Skating is art, if you let it be.
I've been saying for the longest time that bonuses need to be given to combinations, in order to reflect the actual difficulty of those jumping passes. A skater attempting a 4Toe+3Toe and solo 3Lutz is more difficult than a skater attempting a solo 4Toe and 3Lutz+3Toe. But CoP scores them exactly the same. That's why there are so many 2Axel+3Toe combinations being attempted in Long Programs now, instead of Triple-Triple combinations: because there is no extra value (other than a choreographic one) to attempt difficult combinations.
Combinations should be given extra value as such (note that something like 3Flip-half loop-3Sal would be credited as a 2 jump combination):
*First Jump (for less than a Triple Axel) - receives no bonus if the second jump is a single, 5% bonus if it’s a Double, 10% bonus if it’s a Triple, 15% bonus if it’s a Quad.
*First Jump (for a Triple Axel or Quad) - receives no bonus if the second jump is a single, 10% bonus if it’s a Double, 20% bonus if it’s a Triple, 25% bonus if it’s a Quad.
*Second Jump (if it is a Toeloop or Salchow) - receives a 5% bonus if the first jump was less than a Triple, 10% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Toeloop or Triple Salchow, 15% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Loop, Triple Flip, or Triple Lutz, 25% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Axel or Quad. If the second jump is a Quad, it receives an additional 15% bonus.
*Second Jump (if it is a Loop or Flip) - receives a 15% bonus if the first jump was less than a Triple, 20% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Toeloop or Triple Salchow, 25% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Loop, Triple Flip, or Triple Lutz, 35% bonus if the first jump was a Triple Axel or Quad. If the second jump is a Quad, it receives an additional 15% bonus.
*Third Jump (MUST be a loop jump) - The jump itself automatically receives a 40% bonus. If it is a Double the entire combination receives an additional 10% bonus. If it is a Triple the entire combination receives an additional 15% bonus.
This change would of course need to be concurrent with other changes to CoP or else jumps would be worth too much. Those changes would be A.) Changing the scale of value for jumps so that they are worth less individually and B.) Requiring only a minimum of 2 two-jump combinations in the LP. Anything more than that would take up a "free slot" and if the skater is spending all of those slots on jumps, then that means they have less slots for spins/footwork.
VALUES FOR JUMPS: (-GOE values are listed in order of the -1, -2, -3 intervals if more than one value is listed in that section)
4Lutz - 12.7 (-2.6, +1.0 for GOE)
4Flip - 12.2 (-2.5, +1.0 for GOE)
4Loop - 11.8 (-2.4, +1.0 for GOE)
4Sal - 10.2 (-2.1, +1.0 for GOE)
4Toe - 9.8 (-2.0, +1.0 for GOE)
3Axel - 8.0 (-1.7, +1.0 for GOE)
3Lutz - 5.5 (-1.3, +.7 for GOE)
3Flip - 5.0 (-1.2, +.7 for GOE)
3Loop - 4.6 (-1.1, +.7 for GOE)
3Sal - 3.6 (-1, -1, -.9, +.6 for GOE)
3Toe - 3.4 (-1, -.9, -.9, +.6 for GOE)
2Axel - 2.5 (-.7, -.7, -.6, +.5 for GOE)
2Lutz - 1.5 (-.5, -.4, -.4, +.4 for GOE)
2Flip - 1.3 (-.4, +.4 for GOE)
2Loop - 1.3 (-.4, -.4, -.3 +.4 for GOE)
2Sal - 1.0 (.-3, -.3, -.2, +.3 for GOE)
2Toe - 1.0 (-.3, -.3, -.2, +.3 for GOE)
1Axel - .8 (-.2, +.3 for GOE)
1Lutz - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Flip - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Loop - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Sal - .2 (-.1, +.1 for GOE)
1Toe - .2 (-.1, +.1 for GOE)
LONG PROGRAM CHANGES:
The required elements for the Long Program shall be modified to allow for the following:
*6 jumping passes, with 2 of them being a two-jump combination (7 jumping passes for male programs)
*1 footwork sequence or (for a female program) spiral sequence
From there, skaters would have 3 optional slots available. They can use these flexible slots to add anything they want to the program - spins, footwork sequences, spiral sequences (males included), jumping passes, or extra jumps done in combination (doing a 3-jump combination instead of a 2-jump combination would count as a slot and a 3-jump combination would be a maximum a skater can attempt in a single combination).
The limitations would be as follows:
*No more than 3 footwork sequences in a program (skaters may not repeat the same type of footwork pattern and could do 1 circular, 1 straightline, and 1 serpentine at most).
*No more than 2 spiral sequences in a program and a footwork sequence must also be included in the program if the skater has 2 scoring spiral sequences.
*A maximum of 2 slots can be used to add additional combination jumps to the program (and only 1 three-jump combination may be attempted).
*A maximum of 2 slots can be used to add additional jumping passes to the program. If 2 slots ARE used for extra jumping passes, then the lowest scoring jumping pass will receive a penalty of 40% (adding this many extra jumping passes can make it too easy to gain points, so there has to be a balance).
These changes would allow for more variety within the Long Programs, letting skaters set themselves apart from each other a little more and have greater control over what elements they can include in their programs to best interpret the music. I firmly believe individual programs would look better, competitions would be more exciting, and entire seasons would be more dynamic if these rules were in place. We need to be left guessing what a skater will do next. We need to see different skaters doing different technical layouts. We need to see programs change more throughout the season, as skaters experiment with different elements and ideas. CoP currently does not allow people to make as many choices as they should be able to. Choices are interesting.
Couldn't agree more!!
Originally Posted by gmyers
The 2A 3T combination is the biggest cop out there is and your right, there is no way that it should score the same as a proper triple triple combination
Originally Posted by Blades of Passion
Competing is not how well you skate but how well you play the game of CoP.
The return of a unifying score for technical merit would be great
In the SP, doing a solo 4T would require steps preceding it, correct?
In that case 4T & 3Lz-3T is harder than 4T-3T and 3Lz. Most men who can do triple triples can add 3T to anything as long as the first jump is clean, it seems.
Six Point Zero
We're mostly talking about the LP, not SP. The short program is a different beast altogether, and I'm not sure how I would want to tackle it.
Originally Posted by FlattFan
I like the idea of having the short program being focused on testing a skater's skill in specific areas and having mandatory elements. The LP, on the other hand, should not be so similarly encumbered with restrictions and the technical score should simply reflect the quality and difficulty of the technical elements that are executed.
I personally don't want the SP to be simply a shorter version of the long program. Otherwise it would be pretty much redundant.
There was already an explanation of why that is a silly way to regard scoring under CoP in the Worlds 2011 thread, where Mathman also proposed that idea. Are you sure you are not just parroting him?
Originally Posted by Hernando
Also, you remind me of someone who used to post on these forums named janetfan. He might be your soulmate or doppelganger...or something.