Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 77

Thread: Triple-Triple penalty under CoP

  1. #61
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Could someone clarify for me the rules regarding sequences? I'm uncertain as to exactly when a sequence is counted as a 3-jump combo and when it is not.
    http://www.isu.org/vsite/vnavsite/pa...v-list,00.html

    Please see the ISU Technical Panel Handbook Single Skating

    I only listed legal jump combinations in my layouts, none of them is considered a sequence since that would result in a 20% point penalty.

  2. #62
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Very creative attempt, I am impressed! But you know me, I am never easy. I am going to hit you back with this:

    1) 3Lz+3Lo
    2) 3A+3T
    3) 3F
    4) 2A+1Lo*+3S
    5) 3A
    6) 3Lz
    7) 2A
    ARRRGGH, you got me!

    No...wait...

    The stipulation (see post number 1) was for a seven triple program.

    Ah, I see why you didn't get my intention. Because I don't believe the tiny little "GOE Potential" is real.
    I agree with that, especially in regard to some of the bizarre programs that we have been coming up with.

    But I think the basic idea -- as,for instance, detailed by Serious Business -- is this. Compare these two:

    (a) 3Lz+3T and solo 2A

    (b) 2A+3T and solo 3Lz.

    (a) is much harder. So much so that only a tiny handful of women in the world are capable if doing it at all. As for GOEs, the extra .2 in potential (if all jumps are worth +3 GOE in both cases) is not very important, but the possibility of getting negative GOEs for wonky landings, not to mention downgrades, is greater for (a) than for (b).

    I agree that it is possible that the judges will be so impressed with a satisfactory 3Lz+3T that they might give it higher GOE than it deserves, and I also beliebve that this judges' good will might be carried over into other parts of the scoring, like PCSs.

    Still, giving a really hard element a positive GOE when it deserves a 0, and giving extra points in Interpretation because the skater did a really hard element, is not the way the CoP is supposed to work.

  3. #63
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Mathman, I must admit the examples wallylutz gave are tricky--but notice how it's essential that there be a sequence involving a triple in the layout, and a curve ball double jump like a double lutz. I certainly never thought a skater would ever plan a non-axel double to occupy an entire jumping pass.
    All listed layouts contain only jump cobminations, no sequences. The inclusion of double Lutz is nothing new. When you have an extra jumping pass to spare, you can easily work that in, spice it up like hands over head, in the middle of your footwork or right out of a spin, or delayed rotation in the air, something like that to make sure it becomes an integral part of the choreography, which helps to earn higher component marks and no to mention, very good chance to earn +3 GOE since with such an easy jump, you can really be creative with it and leave judges no choice but giving you high GOE marks. It's worth about as much as a simple Level 3 spin when executed well.

  4. #64
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    ARRRGGH, you got me!

    No...wait...

    The stipulation (see post number 1) was for a seven triple program.
    No problem, take this:

    1) 3Lz+3Lo
    2) 3A+3T
    3) 2Lz
    4) 2A+1Lo*+3S
    5) 3A
    6) 3Lz
    7) 2A

    Now, it's really game over. 7 Triples in this layout, containing two 3/3 and two repeated Triples making it impossible to connect with each other.



    Thanks for playing, better luck next time.

  5. #65
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post

    Another reason that people mention for wanting to change the scoring of combos is that under the current rules a 2Lo+3Lo gets the same base value as a 3Lo+2Lo, even though the first one is harder.
    Well, this has been discussed before. The consensus is that judges will likely give 2Lo+3Lo a higher GOE to compensate because the Triple jump can be considered as being preceded by a creative or difficult entry. And if you do it like Midori Ito, it's hard not to give +3 GOE on that.

  6. #66
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    410
    I've been reading this whole discussion in both forums with fascination. Thanks to all for such an great exchange of ideas. Over all I'd say I don't think difficult combinations are given the bonus they deserve. I'm most partial with each combo being given a certain value, since I see the combo as one element.

    I'm not sure why the ISU waned to diminish the value of GoEs - maybe they worry it's too subjective. I would go the the other way and give skaters with exceptional elements even more points - be they jumps, spins or spiral/step sequences.

  7. #67
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    (I am not sure whether this discussion is about mathematical possibliites involving the weirdest stuff we can imagine, or whether it is about things that someone might actually do.)
    Clearly, it's both. You'll notice however I focus my discussion on what's actually doable or have been done by ladies before. I certainly wasn't the one who suggested ladies can do 3A+3Lo, that you have to ask Krislite in his fantasia post #1.

  8. #68
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Haha. Well, my original point, which got sidetracked a bit, was that for any difficult layout involving one or more triple-triple combos, it is possible to rearrange the jumps in that layout to make it much easier to execute without reducing the base value. In particular, I had in mind removing the triple-triple combinations. (Hence the Triple-triple "penalty")

    I believe my proposition still holds for layouts that don't have triple-triple sequences.
    No, you don't. Because there were no sequences in any of the presented layouts. In fact, some of the Mathman's counter-examples, in his futile attempt to defend his modified theorem actually ended up making it much harder to execute, like the 3Lz+Half Loop+3F combination. If my memory is correct, I have only seen it done a few times in the 6.0 era, roughly 10 years ago and that's in a men's competition, not ladies.

  9. #69
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Even ruling out that sort of thing I think there is still a problem in getting rid of both triple-triples by substituting in the two double Axels.

    3Lz+3T
    3Lz
    3F+3Lo
    3F
    2A+2T+2Lo
    2A
    3S
    Exactly, all it does at best, is knocking off the 2Lz, hardly the end of the world. But it's illogical not to use the half Loop option when it's now legal building bloc of jump combination.

  10. #70
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post

    But I think the basic idea -- as,for instance, detailed by Serious Business -- is this. Compare these two:

    (a) 3Lz+3T and solo 2A

    (b) 2A+3T and solo 3Lz.

    (a) is much harder. So much so that only a tiny handful of women in the world are capable if doing it at all. As for GOEs, the extra .2 in potential (if all jumps are worth +3 GOE in both cases) is not very important, but the possibility of getting negative GOEs for wonky landings, not to mention downgrades, is greater for (a) than for (b).

    I agree that it is possible that the judges will be so impressed with a satisfactory 3Lz+3T that they might give it higher GOE than it deserves, and I also beliebve that this judges' good will might be carried over into other parts of the scoring, like PCSs.

    Still, giving a really hard element a positive GOE when it deserves a 0, and giving extra points in Interpretation because the skater did a really hard element, is not the way the CoP is supposed to work.
    I don't think doing a really hard element would gather positive GOE when it deserves 0, you haven't seen how Asada's 3A has been scored by the judges. The element still needs to be really well executed in order to get positive GOE, regardless of the technical difficulty performed. A hard element that is less than perfect will still be scored as such. But to get to +2 and +3 in GOE, some emotional stimulus always help. Judges are humans too. When you see 15 3Lz+2T combos in the competition but one person did a 3Lz+3T and did it really well, it just stands out no matter what.

    PCS does have a tendency to go up slightly with reputation and clean skate despite the best intentions. However, that's just part of being human unless you want robots to score figure skating competitions.

  11. #71
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    Clearly, it's both. You'll notice however I focus my discussion on what's actually doable or have been done by ladies before. I certainly wasn't the one who suggested ladies can do 3A+3Lo, that you have to ask Krislite in his fantasia post #1.
    Let me make this clear: the fantastic example of two 3A+3L combos is meant to demonstrate not any realistic program doable by a male or female figure skater, but to show how UNJUST CoP is with respect to difficult combinations. I wanted to come up with the most absurdly difficult non-quad combinations in a ladies long program and show how it's hardly anywhere near the maximum technical score possible, and can be bested by easier layouts. You demonstrated this point yourself by constructing an easier layout but with MORE base value, namely

    1) 3Lz+3T
    2) 3A+3Lo
    3) 3F
    4) 3A
    5) 3Lz
    6) 2A+2Lo*+3S
    7) 2A

    Here you have only one 3A+3L instead of the 3A+3L, 3A+3L, and 3Lz+3T+2L combos all in one program. Yet you yourself calculated a much higher base value for your own example.

  12. #72
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,908
    Quote Originally Posted by wallylutz View Post
    No problem, take this:

    1) 3Lz+3Lo
    2) 3A+3T
    3) 2Lz
    4) 2A+1Lo*+3S
    5) 3A
    6) 3Lz
    7) 2A

  13. #73
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Let me make this clear: the fantastic example of two 3A+3L combos is meant to demonstrate not any realistic program doable by a male or female figure skater, but to show how UNJUST CoP is with respect to difficult combinations. I wanted to come up with the most absurdly difficult non-quad combinations in a ladies long program and show how it's hardly anywhere near the maximum technical score possible, and can be bested by easier layouts. You demonstrated this point yourself by constructing an easier layout but with MORE base value, namely

    1) 3Lz+3T
    2) 3A+3Lo
    3) 3F
    4) 3A
    5) 3Lz
    6) 2A+2Lo*+3S
    7) 2A

    Here you have only one 3A+3L instead of the 3A+3L, 3A+3L, and 3Lz+3T+2L combos all in one program. Yet you yourself calculated a much higher base value for your own example.
    That was a direct response to your "ultimate ladies FS layout" example. If you haven't gone that route, I would not have replied in kind in order to make a point re: the secondary benefit of 3/3 combos aside from freeing up jumping passes. Although in my example, I have to say that if I switch the 3Lo to be with 3Lz and give the 3T to 3A, then women have been shown to be able to do all the listed jumps in the past.

  14. #74
    Skating is art, if you let it be. Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Hollywood, CA
    Posts
    3,964
    Quote Originally Posted by SkateFiguring View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    IMHO Blade of Passion’s idea is the right one. Each combination separately should be evaluated as to difficulty and given a base value as a unit. In execution, this would not make the scoring system more complicated for technical specialists and judges (although fans would have to memorize a longer scale of values ), because the arithmetic is all done in the computer anyway.
    It is too complicated, requiring a revamping of the entire scoring system plus change of requirements. Jumps still commend much higher points than other elements so the 3 proposed elective elements would be elected to be jumping passes.
    It's not too complicated at all (Mathman provided some illumination earlier) and you've also not done the math correctly. There wouldn't be incentive for all of the elective elements to be extra jumping passes and extra jumps in combination unless the skater is a truly phenomenal jumper. For example, let's look at the technical layout of Evan Lysacek's Olympic program:

    3Lutz+3Toe
    3Axel
    3Sal
    CSSp
    CiSt
    3Axel+2Toe
    3Loop
    3Flip+2Toe+2Loop
    3Lutz
    2Axel
    FSSp
    SlSt
    CCoSp

    This is the maximum amount of elements allowed under the current rules. Under the revised rules, this would be too many jumps performed. In order to include both footwork sequences, he would have to take out either the 2Axel or the 2Loop in combination. A 2Axel would be worth 2.5 points and a 2Loop done on the end of a relatively easy 3Flip+2Toe combination would be worth less than 2.5 points. Why would he choose to include one of those jumps instead of a Footwork sequence that would score him 4+ points?

    In fact, he would likely take out two jump elements and include an extra spin (or even a 3rd footwork sequence) in the program, because those would also score higher than simply throwing that 2Toe onto the end of the 3Flip. His program would instead be more like this:

    3Lutz+3Toe+2Loop (a 3-jump combination would mainly only be worthwhile if it was more difficult; we wouldn't be seeing superfluous Triple-Double-Double or 2Axel-Double-Double combinations)
    3Axel+3Toe (more points for doing the 3Toe on the end of the Triple Axel; this difficult combination would become standard again in Men's skating)
    CSSp
    3Sal
    CiSt
    FCCoSp
    3Axel
    3Loop
    FSSp
    2Axel
    SlSt
    3Flip (there would also be an incentive for placing a jumping pass very late in the program, especially a jump more difficult than a 2Axel, so he would likely save this until later given how his stamina was a strength)
    CCoSp

    A program like this would be FAR more exciting/satisfying and that's what the revised rules would promote - jumping passes with a higher degree of difficulty and jumps spread out more throughout the program, as well as less jumps in total, rather than just cramming a bunch of jumping passes and relatively easy combination jumps directly after the 50% mark of the program.
    Last edited by Blades of Passion; 03-11-2011 at 10:43 PM.

  15. #75
    Custom Title antmanb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    UK - Manchester
    Posts
    4,913
    Just on the 3A/3Lp question - did Eric Millot ever do that combination in the mid 90s? I seem to recall a 3Lp/3Lp from him and think he was attempting 3A/3Lp i'm just not sure he ever attempted or landed on competition.

    Ant

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •