Side by side double lutz is required in the junior pairs short program in some years.
On a side topic, I wasn't around when the COP were conceived, but I have always wondered from what 'exactly' did they assign different values for different jumps? Other than considering current scale of difficulty which I understand in relative values, but I never understood why Lutz is 6, why not 10, 100, or if 3A is so rare, why only 8.5, not 10, 100 etc. Or who decide Flip and Loop is only worth 0.2 difference? Is it from scarcity, technicality, speed, power, energy? What, Who decide and how? (this might be a different thread.)
Also does the current system allow new moves/types of jumps being invented like the first lutz, flip, salchow etc.
Maybe instead of a triple lutz, a double lutz/triple toe or double lutz/triple loop should be a required combo for junior ladies. I know it sounds easy, but it isn't. The skater would have to maintain enough speed after the double to pull off the triple. Also, they'd be forced to do the correct edge on the takeoff. In the free, they can do the triple lutz.
There was general agreement on which jumps are more difficult than others. (Of course some skaters will just do better with a jump that everyone else finds difficult, or struggle with a jump that everyone else finds easier, but those are exceptions. And there may be some disagreement about whether salchows and toe loops should be worth exactly the same or one of them a bit more than the other; ditto with loops and flips.)
But how much difference there is in average difficulty across the skating population between a given jump and the next harder one is harder to quantify. In some ways I think the initial values written into the system in 2003 were somewhat arbitrary and the changes in the Scale of Values since then have been attempts to better reflect the consensus of the skating community as well as to reward specific skills that enough experts believed were not adequately rewarded by the initial SoV.
Originally when IJS was new, there was a rule that allowed officials (I think it was up to the technical panel, IIRC) to award a 2.0 originality bonus for new moves. But no one was ever awarded it in international competition, so that seems to have been quietly dropped from the rules.Also does the current system allow new moves/types of jumps being invented like the first lutz, flip, salchow etc.
It's not likely at this late stage of skating development that anyone will invent a completely new type of skating skill; it's all about varying the basics that already exist -- or in the case of jumps, adding more rotations in the air.
Pretty much every possible jump takeoff, direction of rotation, and landing has been tried up to half or one revolution. The problem is that some takeoffs lend themselves to multiple rotations in the air and some do not.
Here's a list that breaks down the possibilities:
Even the ones that say "nobody does this" have surely been done with half a rotation back before WWII when only the best jumpers did double jumps and the number of revolutions in the air was not considered especially important in judging technical merit.Finally, here is a list of all possible jumps by takeoff edge. Note that "natural" rotation refers to a jump that rotates in the same direction (e.g., counterclockwise) as the entrance edge, while "counter" rotation refers to the entrance edge being in the opposite sense to the jump rotation.
BO edge, natural rotation, no toe: loop, half loop, falling leaf
BO edge, counter rotation, no toe: toeless lutz (rare)
BI edge, natural rotation, no toe: salchow
BI edge, counter rotation, no toe: walley
BO edge, natural rotation, toe: toe loop, ballet jump
BO edge, counter rotation, toe: lutz
BI edge, natural rotation, toe: flip, split, stag
BI edge, counter rotation, toe: toe walley
FO edge, natural rotation, no toe: waltz, axel, one-foot axel
FO edge, counter rotation, no toe: ? (nobody does this)
FI edge, natural rotation, no toe: inside axel
FI edge, counter rotation, no toe: ? (nobody does this)
And they can still show up as transitional moves or in the middle of step sequences.
But they're not explicitly rewarded, and it's too difficult to do 1 or 1.5 revolutions, much less doubles or triples, from those takeoffs.
So these are considered "nonlisted jumps" that are not included in the scale of values and therefore earn no points.
The question is what would happen if someone went out and did a double jump from a nonlisted takeoff, or a really good single landing on a good back outside edge. Unless it was mistaken for one of the listed jumps (and probably scored as a flawed example thereof), right now it would only be rewarded as a transition. Maybe some judges who were paying attention would reward it for difficulty in the Transitions score and for Originality in the Choreography score. Maybe not enough would be paying attention.
But if the skater made a big deal about it to make sure the ISU was aware they were doing something that has never or almost never been done before, then that might force them to reconsider and add new jumps to the scale of values.
I would expect double walley and double inside axel to be candidates, since they have each been attempted at least once in the last 40 years.
However, meanwhile the skater would need to devote practice time and program energy to an element that should probably be worth 3-5 points in base mark that it won't actually earn. Probably not a high priority for skaters who actually want to win under the current rules.
Currently the solo jump in the junior short rotates every three years among lutz, flip, and loop, and skaters have the option to do either double or triple.
If the powers that be decided that it were important for all junior skaters, or all junior ladies (different rules for junior men) to demonstrate lutzing ability every single year, they could stop rotating the solo jump and just require double/triple lutz every year, same way double axels, and laybacks for ladies, are required every year.
Or they introduce a required jump in the junior short program jump combination, same as there used to be a required double in the senior SP as well during the 1970s and 80s, and make sure that every year the lutz is required either as the solo jump or in the combination. Probably continue to give the option of double or triple, given the wide range of jumping ability that we see in junior competition worldwide.
As for why there seems to be fewer ladies doing 3Lz these days, my guess is that it has to do with the change in the scoring system. 3Lz used to be the benchmark jump for ladies since the 1990s and onward. But under the 6.0 system where it was hard to quantify the value of each jump, the lack of a 3Lz can weight more heavily on judges' perception of your overall technical merit. Remember, 6.0 system is more heavily influenced by perception than the CoP. Another factor we have to consider is that the severity in which the addition of a Technical Panel reviewing edges and rotations making this particular jump, error prone. This is another major change vs. the 6.0 system where there was no Technical Panel, instead, it was left up to individual judges to catch any wrong edge take off or UR. Plus, depending on where the judge is sitting, if you place your 3Lz at a particular corner, it will make it very difficult for some judges to spot any error you may have. And in practical terms, the wrong edge take off has been for a time, more or less ignored by the panel under 6.0 until such time when the awareness was heightened, then wears off. Finally, the CoP system may have somewhat diluted the value of the 3Lz. Whereas it was the benchmark under the old scoring system, its current value stands at less than 1 point more than a 3 Loop, even less so than a 3 Flip. So with its reduced importance as part of the overall technical mark, combined with the higher probability of receiving a penalty on this jump - I think it should not be a surprise that we are seeing it less often.
All very true.
The question is, is this really a problem, as the premise of this thread presupposes?
Despite the diminished importance on paper, the Triple Lutz still remains a potent weapon in an elite lady's arsenal. Whoever can master it consistently, coupled with a complete repertoire of other Triple jumps (excluding the Axel), will automatically become a dominant force in this discipline. The last really dominant lady was Yu Na Kim and her very consistent Triple Lutz was a major factor behind her success.
More to the point, even with reduced value vs. the 6.0 era, be able to do solid Triple Lutz is still very important for a lady to include 7 Triple jumps in her FS. Without it and assuming Triple Axel is out of question as well, the most Triples a lady can include in a FS is 6. This almost limit what a skater can do in terms of jump combinations and how to maximize the value of the 7 available jumping passes. It might not seem obvious at first but this can be a huge tactical advantage for a lady who is seeking to maximize her BV. It hasn't been such a big factor because ladies these days struggle with less than optimal jump layout, therefore, automatically leave points on the table even if they manage more or less clean performance. The latter is not only rare, like I said, when they were done, they were less than optimal vs. their potential, meaning there are still points left on the table.
This is not the case in Men's however, where we have been seeing some pretty cutthroat layout lately where men squeezed their 8 jumping passes to the max. There, the impact of extra jumping pass or creative jumping combo really demonstrate their values.
If there is a lady who can master Triple Lutz and all 5 Triples, she will easily be the one to chase and that's because the Triple Lutz will give her the flexibility to fully utilize the 7 jumping passes whereas the others can't. I have a feeling that we won't wait for a long time to see such lady appearing again.
I really feel like feds are behind this....I may be wrong ......But, I need a clear explanation why ISU didn't raise the base value of 3Lz. Also, if the reason why quads and axels' BV are raised is because they're harder jumps and ISU wants skaters to attempt these jumps, why raise loop? i say feds..........
In that chart (I'm looking at the 2006-07 version, which may be the last year it was printed in the rulebook), single salchow and single toe loop were both worth a factor of 2, double sal was 4 and double toe 3, and triple sal and triple toe both 6. Loop and flip were both 3, 5, and 8 for single, double, and triple respectively; lutz was 4, 6, and 8, and axel 4, 7, and 10.
So the thinking at that time was that salchow and toe loop were pretty much equivalent in difficulty and loop and flip were pretty much equivalent, and lutz was clearly more difficult.
The original IJS scale of values arranged them with equal 0.5 increments between the base values of the triples, but I think most skaters, coaches, etc., would agree that triple salchow is much closer in difficulty to triple toe than it is to triple loop, or put differently, triple loop is much closer to triple flip than to triple sal. The latest revision to the scale of values reflects that consensus.
But now, although lutz is still the next-most-difficult triple and is further in value from flip and loop taken together, the lutz value has not been raised and the triple loop is actually a little closer in value to triple lutz than it was a few years ago. I don't know why the values of the easy and mid-level triples were changed and not the lutz. Maybe such a change was discussed and rejected, or maybe no one in a position to recommend changes felt strongly that that particular jump was being over- or undervalued compared to the others.
Either lower the value of other jumps (toe, loop, sal, flip) so ladies can attempt 3Lz to raise their bv scores, or raise 3Lz's bv for the same reason.
although, I don't think this will ever be done
It seems like the ISU thinks adding one more revolution approximately triples the difficulty of the jump. (By this rule quads should be worth a little more.)
I think skaters who don't have a satisfactory triple Lutz should consider a double. 2Lz with +2 GOE = 2.7; 2Lz<(e) = 2.8.
2Lz+2Lo+2T = 5.2
2Lz+3T = 6.2