Results 1 to 15 of 20

Thread: Should the base value of jumps be different for men and ladies?

Threaded View

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Beyond Neverland
    Posts
    1,738
    I might be crazy, but I look at it purely from a Mathematical view since essentially COP is about Code of Points, where inclusion of whatever mix of technical element is almost secondary. It is NOT about incentivise the best well designed program (although it should be) but about generate the best well scored program. That is where Morozov got it right, exploiting the weakness of the system, and that is why the system sucks so much, and it need to be fixed.

    To change in base value to address the imbalanced algorithm is a start, and it is not about treating it as 2 separate sport but acknowledging there are rule variables for different genders that have not been accounted properly in the first place.

    In Senior FS program, there's 13 elements for men, and only 12 elements for ladies.
    Men do 8 jumps 3 spins, 2 steps sequences have 4 min 30 seconds to do this.
    Ladies do 7 jumps, 3 spins, 1 step sequence and 1 spiral sequence and have 4 minutes to do this.

    Given how men are allowed to perform more elements than women and have extra 30 seconds time to do so, their program components are factored according to these differences. So no wonder any major changes to constant relative values like GOEs (include depreciate in scale) that were designed to reward the men for the quads and remove risks (GOE losses and gains, bonuses are redistributed to Quad BV) for hardest elements, would have such a weird effect for the women; considering women and men compete according to different elements and conditions in the first place.

    No women does the quad currently, only 1 do the 3axel. The most tricky/rare element other than the 3A is suppose to be the 3Lutz point remained unchanged, which are widely acknowledged and accepted according to the history of this sport, while other jumps that have been inflated in value and depreciate in value made literally no difference when Lutz itself no longer get rewarded properly like before unlike the new BV of the quad and 3A. When the inflated 3T and 3L done with positive GOE can easily offset the risk for the 3Lz, and an UR 3A is worth practically the same as a fully rotated 3Lutz. The mathematicians behind these changes are either deliberately ignorant to these rippling effect to have affected the level playing field for the ladies, or were hopelessly negligent failed to cater for these risks/reward variables in the first place.

    If they want to have the same set of relative GOE and apply to both genders in the first place, then women and men should be allowed to perform the same number of elements and within the same amount time. Then that is properly treated as 1 sport, but that would be more about make it convenient for the maths, but not the sport, and not the fact women and men do have different thresholds of performance.

    I am not sure how to fix this without a major overhaul to the system. We can tweak it here, tweak it there, but we'll just ends up at the mercy of ISU, who can easily use this as power play to manage the feds or favour a particular type of skater du jour.
    Last edited by os168; 12-16-2012 at 11:24 AM.

Posting Permissions

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