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

1. 0

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
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.

2. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
I guess one way to get a sense of this would be to look at novice ladies' protocols. How many are doing correct double lutzes (would you want +1 GOE or accept at least 0 with no edge call?) vs. how many are doing triple toe at all (GOE at least 0 or -1?).

At least that would be easier research to do than surveying coaches. Although there would be a lot more coaches who have taught multiple skaters to do 2Lz and 3T than who have taught multiple ladies to do 3Lo and 3F.

We'd need to find novice protocols from different parts of the world, though, because there might be regional trends at work beyond the absolute relative difficulty of the jumps.

Or the lower-ranked JGP short programs in a year when the solo jump is either loop or flip -- how many do correct 2Lz in their combinations vs. how many do 3T (or 3S)?
I think skaters would be served if they were consistently getting +2 and +3 on any given double jump before being allowed/encouraged to competed the same triple.

3. 0
Originally Posted by os168
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)
When you say "the best well designed program" do you mean a single ideal program design that every skater should attempt (and they'd all be measured on how well they succeed at executing the same thing)?

Or the best program design for each skater to showcase his/her own strengths, given that each skater has his/her own unique skill set with as many differences as commonalities?

Seems to me that the short program would tend more toward the former and the long program more toward the latter. Although if we wanted to redesign the program requirements so that everyone would be required to demonstrate all jump takeoffs, it might make sense to use a longer program time for the required-elements program and come up with different names that "short" and "long" to distinguish them.

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.
Good point. I can definitely make a case for lengthening the ladies' time limit and allowing one more element (not necessarily a jump element) and increasing the PCS factor accordingly. But that's probably a subject for a different thread.

Just for fun I'd also love to see a IJS-scored competition with elite skaters of both sexes using 2001-2010 ladies' SP elements (solo 2A required, no quads allowed in the solo jump or combination; layback and spiral sequence required).

Originally Posted by ivy
I think skaters would be served if they were consistently getting +2 and +3 on any given double jump before being allowed/encouraged to competed the same triple.
Allowed by whom? Their coaches? Kind of hard to enforce across the board by any kind of rule.

You could encourage this approach by adjusting the Scale of Values to ensure that any double with +3 is worth more than the triple from the same takeoff with 0 GOE. We'd see a lot more cleaner programs with some excellent jumps -- and they would often win over programs with much more difficult jump content. I'm sure there would be complaints about that -- e.g., look how many people were unhappy with Laura Lepisto's bronze medal.

4. 0
Originally Posted by gkelly
When you say "the best well designed program" do you mean a single ideal program design that every skater should attempt (and they'd all be measured on how well they succeed at executing the same thing)?

Or the best program design for each skater to showcase his/her own strengths, given that each skater has his/her own unique skill set with as many differences as commonalities?

Seems to me that the short program would tend more toward the former and the long program more toward the latter. Although if we wanted to redesign the program requirements so that everyone would be required to demonstrate all jump takeoffs, it might make sense to use a longer program time for the required-elements program and come up with different names that "short" and "long" to distinguish them.
What is the "best well designed program"? Oh boy, isn't this the 64 million dollar question! It is like what is the best art, the best car, the best food? My guess is what I feel personally the best well designed program might not be same as yours, although it would be nice if it could be because we all agreed to the values and principles as well as the judging criterion which it is written.

In principle, I do think the judges should vigorously adhere to some good general art and design principles when marking for these programs for example, in particularly the PCS. I do think there should be additional formal guideline or even scoring that factor success and failure of the skater on the day beyond +-.25, +-0.5 off judge's impressions. As much as Carolina is revered for her skating skills and speed, if it is not on display on the day, she should not be award for it, and series of major mistakes likewise should be reflected more in the PCS than just just one major mistake.

Take Dieter Ram's 10 principles for industry design for example (Which Apple's chief designer Jonathan Ives follows)

Good design is innovative.
Good design makes a product useful.
Good design is aesthetic.
Good design makes a product understandable.
Good design is unobtrusive.
Good design is honest.
Good design has longevity.
Good design is consequent down to the last detail.
Good design is environmentally friendly.
Good design is as little design as possible.

I would add two more to his list that is more relevant to skating:

Good design is NOT formulaic
Good design is good execution

It would be nice if the design program can tick at least some of the above points. When the program fails more than 60-70%, then a red flag should be raised.
(I consider Yuna's Gershwin program fits majority of the above principles that is why I consider it as one of the greatest COP program of all time, but that is just me.)

I am hugely in favour of you advocating that FS should be truly free, in the sense other than satisfy the minimum requirement, the performers should be allowed to express a choreographed program that can showcase and highlight to their strength, unique qualities, and specialties. I also consider the need for 2nd panel of judges to able to give more literal interpretation and immediate impression on the performance of the day that is beyond the numeric. The survival of figure skating must be that it remains a spectator sport, and to celebrate diversity and unique qualities are the way forward where different audience can rewarded with the best of skater's abilities instead of watching more or the same cookie cutter program done over and over where choreography are done for the sake of COP and while ignoring spectating sport almost as an afterthought.

The Olympic Motto consist of Citius, Altius, Fortius, "Swifter, Higher, Stronger", that all athletes should always perform to their best abilities. I honest think something is lost in the ladies figure skating these 2 years, that does not conform to this sporting standard. It became about calculated risks, more about momentum building based on PCS over a season which only advantage certain senior ladies based on their built in PCS.

5. 0

Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter!
I think there are two separate sets of questions we could ask. Maybe the first should be in this thread and the second in a separate thread.

1) What should the rules require and encourage of all skaters? (And reward them when they deliver it)
Examples of places to build in the rewards and their relative values would be in the short program required elements and long program well-balanced program rules, the Scale of Values, the rules for earning higher levels on leveled elements, with appropriate differences for different competitive disciplines (different sexes in the case of singles freestyle) and competitive levels.

2) How should judges evaluate and reward the program design -- as executed -- of different skaters in relation to a fixed standard and/or to each other?
This would be the place to look at program components, especially but not exclusively Choreography in relation to
What are the written criteria? How are they understood, applied, weighted against each other?
How could they be rewritten for better clarity or better agreement with a consensus of what constitutes good choreography (and good performance/execution and good musical interpretation)?

What can the rulemakers or the judges learn from fans or official consultants with extensive training in off-ice principles of choreography and other forms of design? What can nonskaters learn from skaters, skating choreographers, and judges/rulemakers about how the limits and possibilities of skating technique inform the parameters of good design within this specific medium? What about the ways that competitive rules under 1) above also shape the design possibilities in short programs differently than long, let alone the difference between competitive programs in general compared to programs designed for artistic performance contexts?

Page 2 of 2 First 1 2

#### Posting Permissions

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