Should Gracie or Caroline or Agnes or Mirai replace Alissa for Worlds?

Haven't visited the forum for a few days. The thread title interested me, so I dropped in, read the last few posts and met the big name "Patrick Chan". I blinked my eyes in confusion, the same confusion as one who just entered the washroom of the opposite sex by mistake. I double-checked the title. It is indeed a thread supposedly about the ladies.
Should Gracie Gold or Caroline Zhang replace the omnipresent Chan? Yes, by all means.
Should Gracie Gold or Caroline Zhang replace Alissa CZISNY for the upcoming worlds? No.

Skater Boy said:

If Alyssa could rotate a quad it would be worth it with her jumps even with a fall lol. here's hoping she is ready to go to worlds

Click to expand...

Indeed. She should practice 2 different quads, with her spinning ability she can probably spin them and then take ugly splats, but she will gain more points than mere landed triples. She would probably fall on many of her triple attempts anyway right now, so the point gain will be even more. If she can take the pain then it is worth it. The scoring system for singles skaters is so laughable in too many ways to list.

For those of you supporting sending Gold, does she even have a senior ladies program ready????? just saying.

^

she can land her jumps already, so that's a huge plus against Alissa
but her overall skating need polishing

sky_fly20 said:

^

she can land her jumps already, so that's a huge plus against Alissa
but her overall skating need polishing

Click to expand...

I think the other point regarding senior program is that they are longer than junior programs.

ImaginaryPogue said:

Wait - so you don't use blade skills to jump into a quad because someone can do that off the ice in stocking feet but the fact that one can interpret music in stocking feet off the ice doesn't negate that blade skills can be used to interpret music/choreography?

Click to expand...

Well, i guess you have a good point.

What I am trying to convey is that I think there is too much praise for completing the rotations and not enough for staying upright (with good outflow) on the landing.

Jumping into the air, rotating four times, then falling down -- IMHO that is not something that we should encourage by manipulations of the code of points.

Putting exceptional blade and edge skills to the service of interpretation and choreography -- that is something we want to encourage.

The goal of a quad jump is to do the rotations and land the jump. In sports, it is quite rare and, in my opinion, somewhat suspect, to give big points for attempting to do something, but falling short of the goal.

Plus -- darn it -- don't fall down if you want someone to say, "That was a fine performance -- here is your medal."

Mathman said:

Jumping into the air, rotating four times, then falling down -- IMHO that is not something that we should encourage by manipulations of the code of points.

The goal of a quad jump is to do the rotations and land the jump. In sports, it is quite rare and, in my opinion, somewhat suspect, to give big points for attempting to do something, but falling short of the goal.

Click to expand...

In any case, more credit should be given for an attempt than for no attempt.

PolymerBob said:

In any case, more credit should be given for an attempt than for no attempt.

Click to expand...

That is Cinquanta's view and the view of the majority of Golden Skate posters.

All I can say is, it is quite rare in sports that anyone is awarded points for "attempting" to do something.

Mathman said:

What I am trying to convey is that I think there is too much praise for completing the rotations and not enough for staying upright (with good outflow) on the landing.

Click to expand...

There's a huge difference in point value between landed 4T (BV: 10.3) and fallen ones, especially if the latter is downgraded (4.1) or under-rotated (7.2). << and < quads often have -GOE as well, rendering their final value to 1-4 points, taking the -1 fall deduction into account -- while someone like Patrick Chan can rack up 12+ points for a good 4T. After all, falls typically happen because the jumps are short on rotation. So I think if someone is going to attempt a quad with a high risk of falling, then it's also going to be a very high risk of under-rotating/DG.

Considering a good 3Z could be worth 7 points, I'd say that the current penalty on falls/UR/DG are sufficient. Jeff Buttle only got away with falling on his quads because back then UR/DG weren't scrutinized as closely.

^ Now see, that's all wrong. That's 6.0 thinking creeping into the equation. In the CoP there should not be any penalties at all, not for falling or anything else. Instead, as in all sports, you get points for what you do, and you don't get points for what you fail to do.

So the question comes down to: if you leap into the air, rotate four times, but fall on the landing, then yes or no, have you done a quad toe?

Man, skaters are going to have even shorter careers than they do now if this is the way we're going. All those falls will dent skaters' bones and wear out their soft tissue after just a few years of competition. Skating will require more hospital visits and reconstructive surgery than football. If I wanted to see that many people colliding with the ground, I'd watch auto racing.

Mathman said:

What I am trying to convey is that I think there is too much praise for completing the rotations and not enough for staying upright (with good outflow) on the landing.

Click to expand...

Obviously completing the rotations and staying upright with good outflow is the ideal and should earn the most points.

Then there are several ways that the skater can fail to reach the ideal. E.g.,
*fail to complete the rotation (by a small, moderate, or large amount)
*fall on the landing
*step out of the landing
*double three on landing
*break at waist, hand down
*land on two feet and/or on the wrong foot first because of failure to center the weight over the landing side
*remain upright on one foot but without much or any flow or a clear back outside edge

Of course, some really bad attempts may have three of those errors and lose all point value, with negative points for falls on downgraded triples or lower under the current rules.

For attempts that only have one the errors listed above, which is the worst?
Based on the rules and practices under 6.0, severe underrotation, severe two-foot landing, and fall seemed to be considered equally bad.

The early IJS rules skewed that a bit by overpenalizing moderately underrotated jumps even if they achieved a reasonably good flowing edge (albeit on a smaller circle) after the final bit of rotation on the ice. The addition of the fall deduction a year or two later and the more recent 70% base value rule for moderate underrotations have put those two kinds of errors in better balance.

Back 10 or 12 years ago when watching intermediate skaters attempting triples, I quickly invented an abbreviation for a common combination of errors: u2f meaning underrotated, landed on two feet, then fall. Those attempts weren't even close and under 6.0 mindset were worth less than a fall on a fully rotated attempt with a clear running edge before the fall. I think we can all agree that that degree of failure should be worth the least -- even negative points.

The IJS rules attempt to preserve that distinction between multiple errors vs. fall as the only error.

The Mathman rules would erase that distinction. Well, maybe you'd keep downgrades to take care of part of it. But you'd still lose the difference between a jump that lands on an edge with good speed and then falls vs. a jump that never had a landing edge to begin with.

In fact, it seems you would give more reward to a popped or otherwise severely underrotated jump landed at a standstill on two feet than to a fully rotated jump with a running edge and then a fall.

Which means you're rewarding staying upright more than you're rewarding landing on one foot on an edge with good outflow. So you can't really argue that you're promoting landing on edges and flow if you give credit for landing upright without edges and flow.

Mathman said:

^ Now see, that's all wrong. That's 6.0 thinking creeping into the equation. In the CoP there should not be any penalties at all, not for falling or anything else. Instead, as in all sports, you get points for what you do, and you don't get points for what you fail to do.

Click to expand...

So how many points, if any, would you give for this not-a-triple-lutz vs. this not?-a-triple-(f)lip?

How about this one or this one?

I might have to go to a different event to find other kinds of errors.
So the question comes down to: if you leap into the air, rotate four times, but fall on the landing, then yes or no, have you done a quad toe?[/QUOTE]

The purpose of the fall deduction -- which also applies to falls not on elements -- is to penalize the break in remaining upright. But there is still room to reward elements with falls for any positive aspects of technique that they demonstrate and to distinguish between attempts with many positive aspects vs. those with few. If there are no positive aspects, then the result will be negative points.

I agree that rotating 4 times is not by itself a skating skill. However, I don't know of anyone who can stand on the floor, jump up, and rotate 4 times. I have seen 3 1/2 from a few male skaters who can do triple axels on the ice. As far as I'm aware 4 rotations is only done in sports performed in media that produce speed and/or extra jump height. To do a quadruple jump on ice requires using the speed and control of the curve going into the jump as well as the ability to convert the large curving rotation of the edge into the tight rotation in the air. A skater who doesn't have both those approach/takeoff-related skills (the first two phases of the jump according to the GOE guidelines) is not going to be able to achieve the multiple rotations that make up the third phase in the air.
Even a skater like Surya Bonaly who brought off-ice rotational skill to the ice needed speed and enough control of on-ice curves to attempt her quads.

So giving positive credit for rotated quads (or harder triples) with falls is giving credit for the skating skills demonstrated in those first two phases of the jump, and for successful completion of the third phase.

Then there's also the question of how badly failed the fourth (landing) phase was, as noted above. Not all failures on phase 4 are falls, and not all falls are equally bad.

gkelly said:

So how many points, if any, would you give for this not-a-triple-lutz vs. this not?-a-triple-(f)lip?

How about this one or this one?

Click to expand...

Well, for the first comparison Viktor Petrenko's effort at least made me smile. Kurt, beside the fall, had a very obvious lip. How do we know he was even trying for a flip and not a Lutz? The three-turn entrance?

Nevertheless, of the two, Kurt's was better -- or at least less silly.

For the second comparison I give the nod to Oikawa over Dino. Oikawa's effort seemed to me to have more snap. (It is hard to tell in slow-motion. I think I would have a firmer opinion if I could see it in real time.)

Now...notice that I have not answered your question. How many points would I give? To me, this exercise shows why figure skating is ill suited to a scoring approach like the IJS. What if I say I would give Kurt 3.2 points for his attempt and Petrenko only 2.8 (well, at least he didn't get a 2.7!) for his. What meaning could these numbers possibly have?

However, if I were an expert judge I would have no trouble at all in comparing these four attempts, saying which I thought was worst, which next, which next, and which was the pitiful best of four botched attempts. I could give cogent reasons for my opinions. In these examples, most other expert judges would agree. In other cases there might be disagreement as to which errors were worse than the others.

IMHO this method of judging matches the thing that is being judged, whereas saying that Petrenko deserved 2.8 points but not 2.9 for his forward two-foot-landing two-and-a-half Lutz -- well, there does not seem to be any rational basis for saying such a thing.

(And if the question is, do any of them deserve bupkis -- I'll have to think about that. )

Short program was called technical program? So the free program was really free?

Mathman said:

Well, for the first comparison Viktor Petrenko's effort at least made me smile. Kurt, beside the fall, had a very obvious lip. How do we know he was even trying for a flip and not a Lutz? The three-turn entrance?

Click to expand...

Yeah.

Nevertheless, of the two, Kurt's was better -- or at least less silly.

Click to expand...

And yet, if I understand what you proposed above (and elsewhere) you want to give no credit for Kurt's attempt because he fell (after landing backward on a running edge) and some credit -- as a bad double lutz? -- for Viktor's.

For the second comparison I give the nod to Oikawa over Dino. Oikawa's effort seemed to me to have more snap. (It is hard to tell in slow-motion. I think I would have a firmer opinion if I could see it in real time.)

Click to expand...

I agree about who showed the better lutz technique.

Now...notice that I have not answered your question. How many points would I give? To me, this exercise shows why figure skating is ill suited to a scoring approach like the IJS. What if I say I would give Kurt 3.2 points for his attempt and Petrenko only 2.8 (well, at least he didn't get a 2.7!) for his. What meaning could these numbers possibly have?

Click to expand...

Well, under either scoring system, the judge doesn't have to decide exactly how many tenths of points to give the element. They just have to decide how well (or in these cases how badly) it was done. Does it deserve full credit? Deductions or reductions or rough fractional partial credit, however you want to define them, or bonus points for good elements?

In 6.0 judges could decide how to set the SP base mark based in part on what solo jump and jump combo the skater chose to attempt, and then the deductions would be based on how bad the mistake was, according to the SP deduction rules at the time. In long programs, they could decide approximately how much credit to give for each jump but I suspect few judges were actually adding up points in their head. Maybe setting a general base mark in their heads according to the overall skill level and then mentally nudging it up and down according to how many good skills vs. bad skills the skater demonstrated. I think in the short program Viktor's and Kurt's errors on those jumps were about equally costly; in a long program -- well, maybe for the reigning world champ and the reigning-for-one-more-hour Olympic champ those failed jumps would have added nothing to a long program, but for an unknown skater the former would have added a mental thought along the lines of "tried a 3Lz, didn't come close" and the latter "can do a 3F out of steps but changed edge on the takeoff and didn't land it this time." I.e., I think the latter would be worth a little more.

In IJS the judges are just deciding how much to take off in grades of execution: -1, -2, or -3, which work similarly to the old SP deductions. Then there's another whole group of officials who decide whether the jump was fully rotated and if not how far short it was, and whether the skater fell. How much each element is worth to start with, how much if it gets a < or << call, and how much the fall deduction or each + or - GOE step is worth, is not something that any of the officials have to decide during the program. Those decisions are written into the Scale of Values and changed every so often; between changes they're exactly the same for everyone all year.

Neither group is coming up with a final point value for the element. E.g., judges might say -3 for both Kurt's and Viktor's jumps, the tech panel might downgrade << Viktor's lutz and give Kurt the fall deduction and not rotation call (the edge call won't affect the score because he already has the lowest possible GOE -- which would also be true under a 6.0 SP deduction system with today's emphasis on flip takeoff edges), and then when those separate decisions are put together Kurt ends up with a little more positive credit for his failed attempt (3.2 for the jump after GOE reduction, 2.2 if you also subtract the fall deduction from the element score) than Viktor does for his (1.2 for a double lutz base value with -3 GOE), and it's clearly spelled out in the scale of values that that's exactly what those jumps with those errors would receive no matter what skater executed them that way. The exact amounts of the base values and and GOE values have changed over the years as the technical committee revises the SoV to reflect the consensus of the skating community. They will probably change again one of these years. But the general consensus is that fully rotating and then falling is worth more than falling far short of rotation and landing on two feet.

(And if the question is, do any of them deserve bupkis -- I'll have to think about that. )

Click to expand...

Please do.

seniorita said:

Short program was called technical program? So the free program was really free?

Click to expand...

As of 1994, IIRC, the only restrictions in the long program were the Zayak rule and a requirement to do at least one combination or sequence. I think the limit on maximum three combos or sequences came the next year or a couple years later, and official guidelines (not yet requirements) about spins and step sequence were a couple years later.

gkelly said:

Please do.

Click to expand...

Petrenko. I have to go with the human judge who said, "tried a triple Lutz -- didn't come close." 0 credit.(maybe even negative credit in the context of the program as a whole). I think this human judgement is a better reflection of what happened on the ice that the computer that says 3Lz<< = 2.1 base value, -3 GOE = -0.9, total = 1.2.

Browning. Not really a creditable effort. 0 credit. (In this case reputation works against you. If I were a judge I would say to myself, "Come on Kurt, you call yourself a world champion and you throw that out there?" -- OK, that part's not fair.)

Dino. Um..no. Way under-rotated, lost balance on the landing, saved himself only by hands down. 0 credit.

Oikawa. Gave it a shot, pretty good take-off, rotations looked complete, needed more height to stay over his skates. Better than nothing.

That is how I would "score" it in 6.0 judging, as an amateur judge.

Here's one thing in another sport that IS similar to the partial credit you are so vociferously against: the field goal. The team marches down the field, gets to the 10 yard line of the other team, get's stopped on 3rd and goal. They trot out the FG kicker and he gets 3 points for the team instead of the 6 for a touchdown.

Not the same.

Partial credit would be like, they line up for a filed goal, the snap is OK, the kicker has pretty good form as he addresses the ball, but the kick is wide right.

One-and-a-half points partial credit?

Totally the same - you didn't get in the endzone, therefore you shouldn't score points - you didn't stay upright, therefore you shouldn't score any points.

I don't think so. Cross the goal line, you get six points. Kick the ball through the uprights, you get three points.

To me, that's more like, do a triple Lutz, you get 6 points. Do a level 4 CoSp, you get 3 points.

But you might have a point. They should give one-and-a-half points partial credit for a missed field goal, because if they didn't, then no team would ever dare to try one. Too risky without the guarantee of partial credit for missing. :yes: