Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: Any Ladies training Quads?

  1. #31
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    3,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    At one point I felt the same way, based upon my own inclination as a skater towards jumps (I could do 3Flip before 3Loop) and the fact that so many women were completely omitting the Loop jump when CoP started, but further examination has made me feel otherwise.

    Let's first start by looking at distant history. Many women in the 1980's were able to do 3Loop, but hardly any could do 3Flip. 3Loop was also performed by Men earlier in history than 3Flip (Dick Button did 3Loop, John Curry's hardest Triple in competition was 3Loop).
    Yes, 3loop came sooner. According to a 1979 article I read, there were 8 women who had done 3loop up to that time, and no 3flips yet.

    If we take into account which was performed first in history, that would suggest that 3Lutz is easier the 3flip for both men and women, but I don't think anyone is making that argument. Or that loop was easier than toe loop even though Button did it first.

    Are you also looking at how many men in the 1980s, or 1970s, could do 3loop vs. 3flip?

    Just out of historical curiosity, it might be interesting to make a list of as many 1980s women as we can think of who could do harder triples (loop, flip, lutz, and axel) and who could do which. Maybe I'll start a thread for that purpose.

  2. #32
    I got your program components right here. Pepe Nero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Canton, Michigan
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    But unless there are going to be completely separate scales of values for each sex...
    I think this is an interesting topic to explore. I can see how someone could see this idea as sexist, but I don't think that would obviously be so. If one thinks that the abilities of male and females skaters differ (on average) for physiological reasons, then it stands to reason that there should be a different scales of values for women and for men. In fact, equality would demand it. I sometimes think the current scale of values is implicitly based on male-typical physiology. One bit of evidence for this is the disproportionate value of jumps relative to spins and spirals.

    I have no conclusive thoughts on this. It might be nice if the scale of values resulted in the top female skaters earning roughly the same number of points as the top male skaters.

  3. #33
    Medalist
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    95
    Quote Originally Posted by Pepe Nero View Post
    I think this is an interesting topic to explore. I can see how someone could see this idea as sexist, but I don't think that would obviously be so. If one thinks that the abilities of male and females skaters differ (on average) for physiological reasons, then it stands to reason that there should be a different scales of values for women and for men. In fact, equality would demand it. I sometimes think the current scale of values is implicitly based on male-typical physiology. One bit of evidence for this is the disproportionate value of jumps relative to spins and spirals.

    I have no conclusive thoughts on this. It might be nice if the scale of values resulted in the top female skaters earning roughly the same number of points as the top male skaters.
    Different scales already happens, with PCS factoring. Men's PCS are multipled by a factor of 1.0 for the SP and 2.0 for the FS, while the factoring for ladies is 0.8 and 1.6, respectively. They do this so that ideally, TES and PCS will each account for roughly 50% of the total scores in both disciplines (of course it doesn't work out so perfectly). So while the TES values are nominally the same for male and female skaters (a triple lutz is marked 6.0 points for both), the same jump is actually already worth more for the ladies relative to how much they will score in PCS.

    Or using a better non-jump example: the difference between a level 3 and level 4 step sequence, something often achieved by both male and female skaters, is 0.6 (3.9-3.3). In the short program, that difference is equal to 0.12 points per PCS component for men (0.6/5 components). For ladies, that difference is equal to 0.15 points per PCS component (0.6/0.8 factor/5 components).

    Personally, I'd rather see PCS being scaled the same for men and ladies, and having the technical scale of values be different, rather than the other way around. The problem with PCS factoring is that it assumes all technical elements have the same difficulty difference between males and females. But as you pointed out, spins and spirals come easier for women. Having different technical scales and the same PCS factoring can better accommodate these difficulty differences. In that system, a triple axel can be worth more points in ladies than in men, but a layback spin can be worth more points for men than ladies. While many ladies routinely achieve level 4 layback spins, even a level 2 layback/layside would be really impressive and just as difficult for a male skater (and could be a choreographic highlight for some lyrical programs), but under the current system it's not worth spins that can't potentially score level 4. Make a level 2 layback worth more for men, and spins could get more interesting.

  4. #34
    We can barely get ladies to do 3Flip or 3Lutz and as we know, you don't need them to win a World Title so why on earth would anyone risk a Quad?

  5. #35
    I got your program components right here. Pepe Nero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Canton, Michigan
    Posts
    221
    Quote Originally Posted by Brenda View Post
    Different scales already happens, with PCS factoring. Men's PCS are multipled by a factor of 1.0 for the SP and 2.0 for the FS, while the factoring for ladies is 0.8 and 1.6, respectively. They do this so that ideally, TES and PCS will each account for roughly 50% of the total scores in both disciplines (of course it doesn't work out so perfectly). So while the TES values are nominally the same for male and female skaters (a triple lutz is marked 6.0 points for both), the same jump is actually already worth more for the ladies relative to how much they will score in PCS.

    Or using a better non-jump example: the difference between a level 3 and level 4 step sequence, something often achieved by both male and female skaters, is 0.6 (3.9-3.3). In the short program, that difference is equal to 0.12 points per PCS component for men (0.6/5 components). For ladies, that difference is equal to 0.15 points per PCS component (0.6/0.8 factor/5 components).
    Yes, I am aware of how program components are factored differently in different disciplines. But I'm not sure that what you say follows from this actually follows. The value of technical elements for women is exaggerated in the way you say only when looking at single elements, one at a time. But since women are limited relative to men in how many elements they may perform and in how long they may skate, technical elements are not worth more for them overall relative to men. (In fact, isn't that the very point of factoring the program components?)

    Quote Originally Posted by Brenda View Post
    Personally, I'd rather see PCS being scaled the same for men and ladies, and having the technical scale of values be different, rather than the other way around. The problem with PCS factoring is that it assumes all technical elements have the same difficulty difference between males and females. But as you pointed out, spins and spirals come easier for women. Having different technical scales and the same PCS factoring can better accommodate these difficulty differences. In that system, a triple axel can be worth more points in ladies than in men, but a layback spin can be worth more points for men than ladies. While many ladies routinely achieve level 4 layback spins, even a level 2 layback/layside would be really impressive and just as difficult for a male skater (and could be a choreographic highlight for some lyrical programs), but under the current system it's not worth spins that can't potentially score level 4. Make a level 2 layback worth more for men, and spins could get more interesting.
    Love this idea.
    Last edited by Pepe Nero; 02-15-2013 at 03:40 AM.

  6. #36
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    28,084
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    If we take into account which was performed first in history, that would suggest that 3Lutz is easier the 3flip for both men and women, but I don't think anyone is making that argument. Or that loop was easier than toe loop even though Button did it first.
    That is quite interesting, Brandon Mroz is in the record book with a quad Lutz, and Michael Weiss came close a couple if times, but no quad loop or quad flip yet.

    Maybe some jumps are harder to learn in the first place, but once you get them adding another rotation is not as hard as it is for some other jumps. Or maybe training and coaching methods take time to catch up with the cutting edge, so that what is easier or harder for the pioneer might not be the same as what is easier of harder for "everybody" later on.

    Yes, I am aware of how program components are factored differently in different disciplines. But I'm not sure that what you say follows from this actually follows. The value of technical elements for women is exaggerated in the way you say only when looking at single elements, one at a time. But since women are limited relative to men in how many elements they may perform and in how long they may skate, technical elements are not worth more for them overall relative to men. (In fact, isn't that the very point of factoring the program components?)
    I think the ideal theoretic ratios are starting to be thrown off by all the men doing quads, without a corresponding increase in technical difficulty on the ladies' side.

    Just to take an example, I looked at the top ten from Four Continents. Granted, there was quite a variation on the men's side, because the top two, Sawyer and Aaron had huge TES and not much PCS, while Takahashi had the reverse, and also Hanyu's TES wasn't as high as expected. But anyway...

    Men

    Average TES = 74, average PCS 75 (pretty much perfect)

    Ladies

    Average TES = 55, average PCS = 58 (not too bad)

    Per cent increase of men's scores over ladies' (it should be 25% higher, according to the 1,6 versus 2.0 multiplier rule)

    TES: Men are 34% higher than ladies. PCS (including multiplier): Men are 29% higher. Without multiplier men are 4% higher)

    Ladies need get those triple-triples cranking.
    Last edited by Mathman; 02-17-2013 at 09:39 PM.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Posting Permissions

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