Krislite, thank you for taking the ball and running with it... with numbers!
dorispulaski, thanks for calling attention to the same thing in ice dancing!
I do think overall the COP is a good idea and an improvement on 6.0. But these things are definitely wrong though completely fixable.
http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sho....Ladies/page22) with prettykeys who suggested that Yu-Na Kim could break up her Triple Lutz+Triple Toe combo and earn a higher "scoring potential". At the time, I understood her statement as meaning "increasing the Base Value" of her program since she didn't specify what she meant by "scoring potential". Then Krislite posted a reply, similar to this thread but adding a claim that BV could be higher by rearranging the jump layout without changing the content which Krislite has since taken out in this thread. This is smart, considering the "higher base value" claim is a matter of assuming which elements are executed with 2nd half bonus and therefore, should be rightfully disregard for the purpose of this discussion. Now, I understand your claim is focus on higher GOE earning potential. So let's talk about this and your proposed layout.
This is a very interesting proposition and I have examined it carefully and unfortunately, I am sorry to say that the proposition does not hold under review in the context of ladies skating using existing ISU rules. Your proposition is faulty because the assumptions used were unusually narrow such that the formula you created did not encompass all the possible combination of jumping layouts. You were also examining this claim with the limitations of Yu-Na Kim's jumping skills in mind. I maintain that one of the key advantage of doing 3/3 combos is the freeing up of jumping passes and I stand by that statement and of course, I am prepared to show you its significant advantage which your proposition fails to capture. I will conclude by examining some of the theoretical layouts you proposed such as those including eight Triples with two Triple Axels for a lady's free skate, which at this point, remain just a theoretical possibility, nothing more.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)
I am going to break up this reply into several installments in order to shorten post lengths.
I think the argument should be that a combination, whether it be double-triple or triple-triple, itself allows for more jumps in other passes.
Let's start with practical layouts that are actually realistic and make certain reasonable assumptions such as excluding the use of Triple Axel and ignore the 10% bonus for 2nd half. You posted in the other thread the following layouts and I quote:
We agree to ignore the 1/2 mark bonus so the "higher base value" claim is disregarded for the moment for reasons stated previously. Both jump layouts you provided above come up to a total Base Value of 41. In terms of GOE potential, layout 2 has, all things considered, only merely 0.2 higher GOE potential on paper than layout 1, out of 7 jumping passes. I will talk about why it is not advised to go for layout 2 in lieu of layout 1 if higher GOE potential is truly the goal later, since that discussion is more qualitative than pure math, hence am not surprised Yu-Na Kim would not be doing layout 2 that many of you have hoped.Originally Posted by Krislite
In your view and I quote:
Unfortunately, your methodology will not work with the following CoP-compliant seven-triple jump layout with two triple-triple combinations, one 3-jump combination and two double axels using no Triple Axels or Quads and realistically doable by an elite lady today:Originally Posted by Krislite
Total Base Value = 46.3
As you will note, the total base value is much higher than the one you provided, 46.3 - 41.0 = 5.3 = base value of an additional Triple Flip
Most importantly, you will not be able to achieve an equal or higher base value layouts using your stated methodology and I quote again:
<<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)>>
You may be able to rearrange it a little bit but you will always need at least one 3/3 combo on its own or part of a 3 jump combo in order to achieve equal or higher total base value. Let me re-arrange the layouts a little bit with risk minimization as the purpose in mind:
As you can see, you may be able to knock out one of the two 3/3 combos but it doesn't quite reduce the overall risk of the program since the re-arranged combos remain quite tricky and some would say trickier than keeping the 3Lz+3T combo, which is more straightforward. And if you insist on taking out the 3/3 combo, you will end up short of one jumping pass and the cost is 2.1 Base Value + possibly up to 0.9 in GOE for a total of up to 3.0 in value, which again validates my earlier statement that one of the key advantage of 3/3 combo is the freeing up of jumping passes.
In this theoretical example, your layout 1 is illogically difficult. Notwithstanding the fact that no women have attempted or will attempt such layout anytime soon, I also note that your example still includes a 3/3 combo, which defeats the claim partially that Triple-Triple combo can be replaced. In any event, the supposed higher GOE potential is theoretically possible but in practice, repeating 2A+3Lo twice is not a good mental game plan that would be well regarded. Similarly, as I mentioned earlier, doing a 3Lz+2T in lieu of 3Lz+3T, while the former is easier and the spread of Triples across all jumping passes increase theoretical GOE potential by a mere 0.2 but you can see why Yu-Na Kim is reluctant to embark on such venture because doing 3Lz+2T is unlikely going to score higher GOE from judges than 3Lz+3T. Why? 3Lz+3T has become such a trademark for her and very few ladies do it in the senior circle. It sets her apart and make it more likely that judges will award her higher GOE on that element than 3Lz+2T which gazillion number of other women do as well. So it is doubtful whether following your proposition would necessarily lead to higher GOE overall in practice. If I have to an educated guess, I'd say no since the 2A+3T combo, while easier in theory, rarely ever impresses the judges to a point where the performer - whether it's Mirai Nagasu or Miki Ando, gather anything more than +1 with rarely some +2. Kim also gets more speed out of her Triple Lutz than her Double Axel such that it is likely easier for her to put the Triple Toe behind the 3Lz over the 2A. Bottom line, I think it would be unwise for Kim to follow her fans' advice and change the layout of her jumps to exclude the only 3/3 in her FS since the supposed higher GOE potential is only a theoretical possibility, too small and doesn't take into account other important qualitative consideration in the construction of a program.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?
Last but not least, I have come up with my own theoretical jump layout using your 7 jumping passes and 2 Triple Axels example, that provide a higher base value to make a final important point that I want to emphasize. Please look at this:
*: Denotes a Double Loop landed on opposite foot, allowing a combination to flow into a Salchow or Flip type of jump
Base Value = 56.1 > 55.2, which has a higher Base Value than the "Ultimate layout for ladies free skate" you provided. The reason why you did not optimize the maximum theoretical value and I see that in the rest of your analysis is that you did not fully grasp the fact jump combination in free skate has yet another important purpose - allowing repetition of high value Triple or Quad jumps. The reason why a Triple is often added behind a very hard Triple or Quad is because it allows the first jump to be repeated later. If you are a female skater who doesn't have Quad - your goal is to be able to repeat Triple Lutz twice or if you have a Triple Axel, repeat that twice since those are the two most difficult Triple jumps with highest BV. By adding Triples behind Double Axels mindlessly, the layouts you created bear an opportunity cost that do not allow one or both of the more difficult Triple jumps to be repeated. This is another advantage secondary to freeing up jumping passes of a 3/3 combo. In Ladies skating, this is not a major concern because most women have only 5 Triples to work with and in the case of Yu-Na, only 4 Triples. In Men's skating however, the elite men are very sensitive to this rule to a point some are resorting to unusual jump combo in order to meet the goals of freeing up jumping passes and allowing repetition of difficult jumps.
After this discussion, you will need to revise your proposition since it has been shown that it no longer holds. I am impressed by your effort however, I thought what you did is commendable regardless even though your theory is not yet applicable in practice. As someone who is in favor of giving jump combo a 10% bonus as proposed last year, I am hoping that the continuous discussion on this subject will persuade others to agree to such change.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.
Even 2A+3T was always rare before the current rules. I'm not sure that it's any easier than 3T+3T, but it's a better allocation of resources for a skater who wants to do 7 triples in 7 jump passes and also to repeat her two hardest triples and meet the "axel-type jump" requirement in today's free skate rules. Even so, it's not uncommon for the 3T after the 2A to be called as underrotated.
Similarly, I think 3S+3Lo might be easier than 2A+3Lo.
My opinion is based on what elite skaters have actually done, which admittedly is influenced by what they think the judges will reward more highly (under 6.0) or what they know will allow a higher base mark or predict they can earn higher GOEs for (under IJS), and also my own experience doing single jumps, which admittedly have very different physics, especially waltz jumps vs. any kind of axels.