Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Results 106 to 107 of 107

Thread: Should base value for a 3A be higher?

  1. #106
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003

    0 Not allowed!

    Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter! Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Cherryy
    That may be the way they're thinking but logically, is 3Lz and 3T as hard as 3Lz+3T? Also, if the 3Lz and 3T get extremely positive GOE and the 3Lz-3T is UR or sth than the skater A may actually outscore the skater B on jumps so that the 7th pass becomes irrelevant.
    I wonder if that was part of whjat the ISU was thinking when they reduced the value of GOE on triple Jumps?

    For instance, if Skater A got -1 Goe (= -0.7) on the very difficult 3Lz+3T, while Slater B got +2 on both the Lutz combo and the solo 3T, Skater A still comes out ahead even if she does nothing more than a plain double Axel in the seventh pass.

    And if Skater B uses the extra pass for a 3F+2T, or a 3Lo+2Lo, that's a lot of extra points, even if Skater A presents a fuller jump card but with no triple-triple.

  2. #107
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2012

    0 Not allowed!

    Go Ad-Free! Become a GS Supporter! Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    About the 70% factor for under-rotation, that has a history, too. My memory is not perfect here, but I am pretty sure that in the first versions of the CoP there was no designation for under-rotations, just whatever negative GOE the individual judges wanted to apply.

    Then the ISU went on a rampage against skaters who just threw any old thing up and called it a triple. The downgrade rule went into effect, where an under-rotated triple was downgraded to a double, then negative GOEs applied on top of that. This essentially took away the jump's entire score.

    This was too draconian. A skater's entire fate lay in the hands of a whimsical caller who could utterly destroy the performance for errors that appeared to be minor to the audience, if the audience could perceived them at all. Meanwhile more visible errors like falls were given a pass, relatively speaking. So they moderated the penalty by coming up with the 70% rule for mild under-rotations. IMHO this has turned out to be a reasonable compromise.

    They tried a similar approach with wrong edge take-offs for flips and Lutzes. Remember the ! and e? For some reason, unlike under-rotations, the idea of having the tech specialist call "mild bad edge" or "severe bad edge" didn't work out so well. They went back to the single call "e," allowing the judges to deal with it as each felt appropriate.
    ITA, I was defending the 70% rotation rule in another thread a few days ago, I think it is one of the best rules the isu brought in in recent years. Remember the absolutely crappy downgrades people used to get like miki constantly used to get on her 3lz 3lo!

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Posting Permissions

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