Should base value for a 3A be higher? | Page 5 | Golden Skate

Should base value for a 3A be higher?

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
I really don't care if jump points are upgraded or not, but if they are, I'm not sure that there should be an increase in difference of value between lutz and flip. Someone mentioned on the 4CC thread that there were 10 lip calls versus, I forgot, something like 3 or 5 flutz calls in the men's competition. I guess the poster was questioning why there were more lip calls than flutz calls when flips are meant to be easier than lutzes. That's a question I'd like an answer to too. I know that rotation-wise, lutzes require more than flips, but are they so much more difficult than flips to warrant it to be scaled higher in relation to flips and loops than it is now? It seems to me that most skaters (even men) who can lutz can't flip, and vice versa.

I mentioned it and there were 10 lips and 3 flutzes. Here's an explanation given by SkateNater that I found to be extremely helpful

"They're the same jump except the take-off edge, and most men are stronger than women so they don't tend to have issues with the lutz so much. Rolling the edge on the flip can prevent you from overrotating the flip as it blocks the take-off just a little. However, for women they typically can do flips more easily due to the take-off being less blocked than a lutz, and the fact that their legs aren't as strong. So, they may do good flip take-offs, but turn the lutz into a flip to make it easier.

Most women don't jump like Ito, Slutskaya, Bonaly, or Kim. But lots of men can get that high so the harder jumps may be easy while the easier ones can sometimes be a bit too easy. Their bodies counter this by making the flip harder, while most women will counter that by making the lutz easier.

It's a muscle memory issue, really. Sometimes you can consciously train to take off the wrong edge. Sometimes the body has to go back to square one and train the jumps up from the beginning to relearn the right take-off (I think that's what Joannie Rochette had to do, the latter).

Another thing that has led to a lot of edge calls on both Lutz and Flip is the obsession with taking shorter take-offs into them out of steps. IRT the flip, a lot of people have too straight a take-off, so they can never really get on a secure inside edge and that straight line gives their edge a high probability of rolling over to an outside edge when they try to apply edge pressure to the skating foot."

Given this explanation I woudn't say that flip is as difficult as lutz, it's just that some man have a bit wrong technique if they can't hold on to an inside edge when skating with a lot of speed and jumping flip.

So as most of the posters said, base value for the 3A is just correct. In general I don't have any problems with BVs for jumps. The only thing I would change is rewarding more combinations. Let's say multiply by 1.1 the base value of all combinations. Seems quite fair.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
Thank you Cherryy. And I agree with you:

So as most of the posters said, base value for the 3A is just correct. In general I don't have any problems with BVs for jumps. The only thing I would change is rewarding more combinations. Let's say multiply by 1.1 the base value of all combinations. Seems quite fair.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
An interesting point about the exponential increase in jump values. I suppose that would mean an underrotated jump should receive only 1/1.732 of the value, or ~58%. In other words, the people complaining that 70% for underrotations is too high have a good reason.
Ahhh...I like this idea.

I think that is a very good way to fairly decide the proper BV of jumps, but I question the wisdom of starting from singles. Everything is rounded to the nearest tenth and even for doubles, T=S and Lo=F. I'd say fix the values for doubles, then divide/multiply by 3 to get all the proper point values for singles/triples.
Um, if we're not going to start from singles then why start at doubles? Any particularly good reason? Might as well set the standards at the Triple Jumps since they form the CORE of the senior technical skating (for both the Men and Women) and then adjust the rest of the values relative to the Triples. Which then renders this intellectual exercise redundant. :cool:

Personally, I like the idea of raising 3A to 9.9 points and readjusting the 3T, 3F and 3Lo lower. And throwing in a combination-jump bonus as well as a complete-set bonus (Axel, Lutz, flip, loop, Salchow, toeloop. Note I didn't specify they must be triples.)

It seems to me that most skaters (even men) who can lutz can't flip, and vice versa.
Your perception is wrong. Most men (and women) who can do Lutzes can also do Flips, but accidentally Lip from time to time, perhaps for the reasons that Cherry offered above. Whereas skaters who Flutz rarely (if ever???) accidentally manage to do correct Lutzes.
 

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Setting aside – um – all this :laugh: -- the question that we should be debating is, just how hard is the Axel jump anyway, compared to other take-offs?

The IJS seems to feel that adding an extra revolution approximately triples the difficulty. So, all things being equal, an extra half revolution should be multiplied by 1.73. (The square root of 3. One extra revolution = two half-revolutions, 3 = 1.73x1.73.)

Multiplying the base value for a double Axel by 1.73 gives 5.7 for the scaled base value for a two-and-a-half Axel, which would be the same number of revolutions as a normal triple jump. So applying the difficulty-per–three-revolution standard puts the Axel, at 5.7, halfway between the flip, 5.3, and the Lutz, 6.0, in terms of the intrinsic difficulty of the take-off edge.

Therefore a triple Axel, 3-and-a-half revolutions, should be worth 5.7x1.73 = 9.9.

It’s just arithmetic, not who we like better, Mao or Yu-na.

This is what I admire about the CoP. :yes: This kind of objective analysis would not have been possible under earlier judging systems.

Except it is not really objective is it?

On what scientific basis did they come up with 1A = .8 , 2A = 3.5 etc? In sport, shouldn't a performance bell curve featured somewhere? Just because you can run 100 meters in 10 seconds doesn't mean 1000 meters can be done in 100 meters and so on. Why isn't rarity, perfection being adequately marked? If penalties are reduced for UR, and edge calls are hardly penalized, then why isn't perfection being rewarded more?

Is a perfect 3Lz roughly = approx 70% 3A adequate? Just because one is incapable of doing a clean 3Lz, to get away by only doing UR 3A just to get approx same point should not be considered as cheating?

The biggest fallacy of COP is that somehow numbers can be good indicator of performance when the systems suffers from all sort of kinks and manipulation due to human factors. I don't understand why no computation or real statistics are accumulated to help assessment. The fact there are no correlation or re calibration process from one competition to the next makes it a ridiculous system not to be trusted. And why the sport will only favour skaters with more home events and remain an imbalanced level playing field where 4CC = 2CC, where world championship = 4 nations + guests.

(Argh.. too much random thinking on Chinese New Year day, i am off to dinner)

oh yeah and 3A shouldn't increased, because the last time it increased, it hasn't made the ladies field any better, it has gone worse due to the reduced GOE and change of values for other jumps. A more important thing might be what to do to make the ladies field better. To encourage them to go for the Lutz and difficult combos, and perfect rotated jumps. One way to do that is increase value for the Lutz, the difficult combos, reduce value for the 3Ts / 2T etc. I personally would like to see as many 2A be allowed reintroduced again, after all this is suppose to be a free program and those who propose all skaters should be able to do what they are capable of doing should have no problem with this.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
An interesting point about the exponential increase in jump values. I suppose that would mean an underrotated jump should receive only 1/1.732 of the value, or ~58%. In other words, the people complaining that 70% for underrotations is too high have a good reason.

Well, the 70% is for any jump with rotation somewhere between 90 degrees and 180 degrees short. So the 58% should properly apply only to those jumps that are right at the 180 mark, whereas, for a jump that is 135% short the 70% factor is not too outrageous.

I think that is a very good way to fairly decide the proper BV of jumps, but I question the wisdom of starting from singles. Everything is rounded to the nearest tenth and even for doubles, T=S and Lo=F. I'd say fix the values for doubles, then divide/multiply by 3 to get all the proper point values for singles/triples.

I agree with that. Prettykeys suggests that keying on triples might be even better. But the advantage of using doubles as the standard is that the great majority of skaters that compete under the scoring system cannot do triples at all.

In that case the scores for singles would have to be carried out to hundredths of a point in order to provide a separation among them while still following the pattern.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
os168 said:
I don't understand why no computation or real statistics are accumulated to help assessment.

I have a feeling that somewhere in the bowels of the ISU headquarters a cabal of statisticians is figuring furiously away even as we speak, only they don't release the data to the public. The first version of base values was simply increments of five. 3T = 3.0, 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0. 3A was quite a bit harder, so it got a whopping 7.5.

Somewhere along the line they decided that the 3T was a tiny bit harder than they thought at first, so they raised it to 4.1. Some skaters find the Salchow at least as easy as the toe loop, so they reduced the 3S to 4.2. The difficulty, in practice, of the flip versus the loop was not as great as they originally guessed. Etc.
 

CarneAsada

Medalist
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Except it is not really objective is it?

On what scientific basis did they come up with 1A = .8 , 2A = 3.5 etc? In sport, shouldn't a performance bell curve featured somewhere? Just because you can run 100 meters in 10 seconds doesn't mean 1000 meters can be done in 100 meters and so on. Why isn't rarity, perfection being adequately marked? If penalties are reduced for UR, and edge calls are hardly penalized, then why isn't perfection being rewarded more?

Is a perfect 3Lz roughly = approx 70% 3A adequate? Just because one is incapable of doing a clean 3Lz, to get away by only doing UR 3A just to get approx same point should not be considered as cheating?

The biggest fallacy of COP is that somehow numbers can be good indicator of performance when the systems suffers from all sort of kinks and manipulation due to human factors. I don't understand why no computation or real statistics are accumulated to help assessment. The fact there are no correlation or re calibration process from one competition to the next makes it a ridiculous system not to be trusted. And why the sport will only favour skaters with more home events and remain an imbalanced level playing field where 4CC = 2CC, where world championship = 4 nations + guests.

oh yeah and 3A shouldn't increased, because the last time it increased, it hasn't made the ladies field any better, it has gone worse due to the reduced GOE and increased of other jumps. A more important thing might be what to do to make the ladies field better. To encourage them to go for the Lutz and difficult combos, and perfect rotated jumps. One way to do that is increase value for the Lutz, the difficult combos, reduce value for the 3Ts / 2T etc. I personally would like to see as many 2A be allowed reintroduced again, after all this is suppose to be a free program and those proponent that skaters should able to do what they are capable of doing should have no problem with this.

Rarity is certainly being marked higher; just look at how the only SPs that scored over 70 in international competition this season featured either a 3Lz-3T or a 3A. What you're doing right now is using a double standard - calling a real 3Lz "rare" while dismissing an underrotated 3A as "cheating".

I probably shouldn't be mystified by your reasoning that somehow a 3A or even a slightly underrotated 3A is not rare or extraordinary while a 3Lz is, considering the changes you suggest (revert to the 2010 system and because it was "fairer" hahaha, what a joke). And this talk about how doing an underrotated 3A to make up for a lack of 3Lz is somehow cheating is just :laugh: . Firstly, the intention is always to do a rotated 3A; anyone who deliberately aims for an underrotated 3A is probably going to get << in a real competition, and a good 3Lz will always trump a 3A< due to the GOE difference. You've mentioned your dislike of the 70% rule; I also think 70% is a little generous (going by the 3^x scale, it should be 58%) but still better than knocking off a whole revolution and requiring -GOE on top of that. But if landed and rotated, the 3A MORE THAN makes up for the lack of a Lutz, especially considering the fact that no one else can do it. After all, a 3A underrotated by 90 degrees is still more revolutions than a 3Lz. If anyone were to judge a program with a 3A vs. the exact same program with a 3Lz, then yes, the program with the triple axel should always win.

COP is certainly a flawed system, and you're right that it can still be easily manipulated. But dismissing it as worthless when the predecessor was even less objective, even easier to manipulate, and had no better correlation or calibration between competitions (not to mention absolutely zero standards for judgement) is questionable logic at best. Mathman has said exactly what I would've added, that the ISU most likely collects tons of data and crunches numbers to come up with changes/improvements to the rules. Why else would they keep records of all their competition protocols?

Well, the 70% is for any jump with rotation somewhere between 90 degrees and 180 degrees short. So the 58% should properly apply only to those jumps that are right at the 180 mark, whereas, for a jump that is 135% short the 70% factor is not too outrageous.
You're right that 58% would properly apply for halfway-there jumps. But in the end, all jumps underrotated by >1/2 a turn are downgraded to the lowest value on the scale, so I would argue that jumps with underrotation >90 degrees should be held to the same standard, i.e. knocked down to the lower value.
 
Last edited:

OS

Sedated by Modonium
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I actually think the 70% is a red herring without taking exactly what are they 70% of X?

Just like these excuse for not punishing those with with UR to encourage harder content, means those who works hard perfect their jumps are no longer rewarded like they should. Those who aim for difficult combos like Zijun and Liza with 100% 6/7 perfect triples rate including difficult combos can not possibly compete with those with a built in high PCS but only 3 triples and more than 50% failures rate to land their triples that result in < or e. In any sport, surely quality, difficulty and sporting performance should be most important than reputation? Yes it is not all about jumps, but it should be an important aspect of the sport. A fair Sport should be where the young can defeat the old if they bring the goods on the day. In ladies figure skating, this is simply not possible with the state of the COP algorithm, where consistency scoring from one competition to the next carried on through out the season. If you look at all the protocals with < and e mark, the - GOEs with the reduced scale value hardly impact on the score any more. So why bother with quality anymore? The young have no way of winning, since they don't have the PCS, and they can't gain PCS without the tech.

Put it this way, if the algorithm is so perfect since all the changes after the Olympics, then why the ladies appears to be stagnant and no longer making good technical progress. It was only until Yuna's return who determines to put in her 3Lz3T despite its less rewards which artificially forced the field to upped theirs technical content regardless to the COP algorithm, but more to do with responding to rivals?

I have never stated 3A is not deserve its high value for its rarity and risks. I agree with it in principle. But I do question how the rule been changed for every other jumps including holding back the traditional money jumps like the Lutz did hurt the sport for the ladies substantially and wasn't done with care since women and men compete differently but these were not taken into account.

For men Quad are worth the risks due to better rewards and lessen risks, No women has 3A except 1, the Lutz the hardest for majority of the ladies, but they have been reduced in value due to the reduced scale of GOEs, BV unchanged so why should anyone go for it? 70% of Lutz is only worth 4.2, they might as well do other triples with +GOEs.

70% of 3A is fine, but 70% of 3A is not fine if it = Fully rotated 3Lz especially if the skater can't Lz

So clearly the 3Lz BV should increase, difficult combo should increase, or the % reward for UR should decrease, with greater penalties in GOE for failed jumps than now. COP is flawed, but it is also backwards in this day and age where computation and statistics should be readily available to measure sporting performances but are some how not.
 
Last edited:

aims

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 9, 2013
No time to read all the earlier posts, so just my honest opinion to the thread title. Sorry if it overlaps with an earlier opinion.

No, the base value shouldn't be higher.
What SHOULD be made higher, or given extra credit for are certain 3-3 combos which include higher difficulty jumps.
I'm thinking any 3-3 with a lutz, flip, loop starters, or any 3-3 that ends with a 3Lo, like give them a x1.05/1.10 value or something.
 

ehdtkqorl123

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 6, 2009
Well, I will only agree with it if ISU gives credits to those who undoubtedly fully rotate without any cheating. Otherwise, it will benefit only one skater.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I think the reason that the ISU does not give an extra bonus to triple jumps in combination is that there is already a big bonus automatically built in. Namely, you get a whole extra jumping pass. Here is a simplified example. Skater A scores as many points in six passes as Skater B scores in seven.

Skater A

3Lz+2T
3Lz
3F
3Lo
3S
3T
2A

Skater B

3Lz+3T
3Lz
3F
3Lo
3S
2A+2T
7th pass
 

CarneAsada

Medalist
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
I actually think the 70% is a red herring without taking exactly what are they 70% of X?

Just like these excuse for not punishing those with with UR to encourage harder content, means those who works hard perfect their jumps are no longer rewarded like they should. Those who aim for difficult combos like Zijun and Liza with 100% 6/7 perfect triples rate including difficult combos can not possibly compete with those with a built in high PCS but only 3 triples and more than 50% failures rate to land their triples that result in < or e. In any sport, surely quality, difficulty and sporting performance should be most important than reputation? Yes it is not all about jumps, but it should be an important aspect of the sport. A fair Sport should be where the young can defeat the old if they bring the goods on the day. In ladies figure skating, this is simply not possible with the state of the COP algorithm, where consistency scoring from one competition to the next carried on through out the season. If you look at all the protocals with < and e mark, the - GOEs with the reduced scale value hardly impact on the score any more. So why bother with quality anymore? The young have no way of winning, since they don't have the PCS, and they can't gain PCS without the tech.

Put it this way, if the algorithm is so perfect since all the changes after the Olympics, then why the ladies appears to be stagnant and no longer making good technical progress. It was only until Yuna's return who determines to put in her 3Lz3T despite its less rewards which artificially forced the field to upped theirs technical content regardless to the COP algorithm, but more to do with responding to rivals?

I have never stated 3A is not deserve its high value for its rarity and risks. I agree with it in principle. But I do question how the rule been changed for every other jumps including holding back the traditional money jumps like the Lutz did hurt the sport for the ladies substantially and wasn't done with care since women and men compete differently but these were not taken into account.

For men Quad are worth the risks due to better rewards and lessen risks, No women has 3A except 1, the Lutz the hardest for majority of the ladies, but they have been reduced in value due to the reduced scale of GOEs, BV unchanged so why should anyone go for it? 70% of Lutz is only worth 4.2, they might as well do other triples with +GOEs.

70% of 3A is fine, but 70% of 3A is not fine if it = Fully rotated 3Lz especially if the skater can't Lz

So clearly the 3Lz BV should increase, difficult combo should increase, or the % reward for UR should decrease, with greater penalties in GOE for failed jumps than now. COP is flawed, but it is also backwards in this day and age where computation and statistics should be readily available to measure sporting performances but are some how not.
I completely agree that GOE as it works now is flawed. I would prefer to see GOE scaled to 15% of each jump. After all, why should GOE be worth the same on a 3T and a 3Lz?

But the rest of your post I take issue with. Again with the double standards...
1. When Carolina and Mao were busy at work "pushing the sport back by 2 decades," they weren't going for 3 triples with <50% success rate on said 3 triples, they were going for 7. And by the standards of the self-styled jumping enthusiasts (at least one of whom is showing an admirable lack of double standards, I'm happy to say), they were landing 3 or 4. You can discount a 3flutz if you want, but it is still a 3-revolution jump that can be either rotated or underrotated, and in Mao's case she was not underrotating it. Zijun and Liza NEVER lost without committing significant errors like step-outs, falls, or pops. They are absolutely capable of beating Mao and Carolina if they are perfect and Mao and Carolina don't bring the goods.

2. 70% of a Lutz is 4.2. That's a 3S, or 0.1 more than a 3T. The -GOE will make it worth less than a high quality 3T or 3S. But how is that any different from a 3A< ? 3A< is 6.0, and that's a 3Lz. But again, a good 3Lz will get +GOE that makes it worth more than a 3A< in the end. This deduction may not be sufficient, but I've already said before what I think about it. Are you now going to argue that there's a bigger difference between 3Lz and 3T than there is between 3A and 3Lz? I already mentioned this very fact, which you chose to ignore earlier, yet here you are claiming that the fact that the same thing applies to a 3Lz is somehow unfair. I know you like Yu-na Kim, but you can't have it both ways when talking about fairness. If you're going to discount a program with a 3A for the fact that it lacks a 3Lz, then you'd better be discounting a program with a 3Lz for the fact that it lacks a 3A and a 3Lo.

3. If only one woman is doing a 3A with only occasional success, while multiple women are trying 3Lz with great success (Liza, Kim, Gold, etc), then how can you argue that there's not enough incentive for a 3Lz but the incentive for a 3A is high enough? Gold and Tuktamevshaya are both doing clean 3Lz-3T, which I think says a lot about its supposed increased rarity with respect to a 3A (How many women are landing 3A or even 3A<? :laugh:). But I do not by any means think we disagree on everything. Perhaps difficult 3-3 combos are not being attempted enough though; how about adding a bonus 0.5 to a 3-3T combination and a bonus 1.5 to a 3-3Lo combination, due to its much lower number of attempts (even among the men) and dreadfully low rate of success? I think there is nothing preventing ladies from doing 3Lz but the lack of ability to do so, just like there's nothing else holding them back from doing 3A.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
I think the reason that the ISU does not give an extra bonus to triple jumps in combination is that there is already a big bonus automatically built in. Namely, you get a whole extra jumping pass. Here is a simplified example. Skater A scores as many points in six passes as Skater B scores in seven.

Skater A

3Lz+2T
3Lz
3F
3Lo
3S
3T
2A

Skater B

3Lz+3T
3Lz
3F
3Lo
3S
2A+2T
7th pass

Well, that makes sense.
 

skates_lively

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 10, 2013
No, it should not

Currently, the base value for a triple axel is 8.5. However, in the ladies event, the 3A is so rarely landed cleanly that I don't think 8.5 properly reflects how difficult it is in the ladies event. Only 6 ladies skaters have successfully landed a 3A in competition in the entire history of figure skating, and it has taken Mao a long time to get the 3A back.

Hence, should the base value for a 3A be increased?

Do you really think Mao has not rewarded for her controversial 3A enough?
You created this thread right after mao's sp, mao88. and everyone knows why. :p
We know that 4cc GOE would not likely to happend in Canada. Her fan must be desperate.
It's all because Mao's 3A is not consistent enough to guarantee her a win.
Obvious. Look at what happened in FP. Two footed 3A, underrotated triples on and on.
Her 3A is not solid. Always controversial and playing with the rule change. It's not like Men's Quad.

My answer is NO.
Mao has finally proved that the rule is there for her at this 4cc with huge and generous GOE thrown at almost every element,
after two years of struggle.
Why want more? cos it's not enough to win whom?
This thread is silly. We all know why.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here is another way to look at it.

The ISU wants a single schedule of base values that will apply to both men and women and for the full range of abilities from beginner to world champion. If they put the value of the triple Axel up, say, to 9.9, reflecting the true relative difficulty between a double Axel and a triple, then they would have to put the value of quads way up, too. (A triple Axel is listed as the "lowest quad," not the highest triple.)

Right now the factor of increase of a quad over a triple is about 2.5, rather than the factor of 3 for a triple jump over a double jump. They can't put the base value of quads any higher because if they did then in men's skating at the top level the only thing that counts would be the number of quads.

As I recall, in some of the preliminary beta versions of the CoP quads were scored higher. But when they tested the CoP against past competitions, it turned out that Timothy Goebel with his three quads would beat both Yagudin and Plushenko at the 2002 Olympics. That wpuld be like Kevin Reynolds winning Four Continents. :) So when the 2003 version on the CoP came out, quads were valued less.

Since then they have raised the values of quads slightly (the Buttle/Lysacek effect).

Anyway, the current value of 8.5 is about 2.5 times as high as the 3.3 value for a double Axel (they lowered the value of the double Axel from 3.5 to 3.3 to make it come out that way). This is consistent with triple toe 4.1, quad toe 10.3, triple Sal 4.2, quad Sal 10.5, etc.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
That wpuld be like Kevin Reynolds winning Four Continents. :)

I was okay with Kevin Reynolds winning Four Continents given how Yuzuru and Daisuke fibbed their jumps. Course, I still think Daisuke is by far the better skater, but on that day, Kevin was, in my mind, the rightful winner.

So all this discussion leads me to think that the jump point scale doesn't need to be changed... until the day when there's a result at a crucial competition that leaves everyone scratching their heads and thinking 'Huh?' :scratch:
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

hurrah

Medalist
Joined
Aug 8, 2009
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.

All these changes were really good. It was so excruciating to be a figure skating fan few years back!! I like it much, much better now.
I still question how skaters can get any points for jumps that they fall on, but in the interest of encouraging more difficult jump layouts, I consider it a necessary evil.

Come to think of it, CoP has made the nature of figure skating spectatorship into a totally different experience for me. Before CoP, watching my favorite skater jump was simply excruciating, and if I saw him/her fall, I knew that was it for them, and time for me to start singing a dirge. But now, of course I still gasp when my skater falls but I know it's not over for them and I watch the rest of the program still holding onto hope. And before CoP, once my favorite skater's routine finished, I could start breathing again and I just waited with my skater for the score. Now, even after my skater finishes, I'm not able to breathe normally yet, because I have to obsessively look at the slo-mo of jumps so that I can make an educated guess as to what my skater's score is gonna be. :laugh:

Sorry, going off topic.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
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.

I'm not aware of how underrotated jumps were handled in any "beta version" of the scoring system before it was tried out publicly at fall competitions in 2003. But at that time, downgrading was already in effect, in an extremely draconian manner -- if a triple was determined to be short of rotation by >90 degrees, the jump was called as if it had one less revolution.

So there are no symbols on the protocols, just doubles listed where the naked eye saw triples, and triples where the naked eye saw quads (which, depending on the acuity of the eyes in question, may have looked cheated or otherwise not quite right).

Then, at 2003 Trophee Lalique IIRC, Michael Weiss had his 4T downgraded to a 3T and he also executed two triple toes later in the program. The last triple toe element ended up getting no points because as far as the computer knew he had done three triple toes and violated the Zayak rule.

So then the next year they introduced the < symbol so that instead of calling an underrotated triple as a double or quad as a triple, they could call it as the jump that was intended, and count it as the intended jump for purposes of the Zayak rule, while indicating that the rotation was not sufficient. The base value was still that of the lower revolution jump.

This solved the Zayak problem and also made the protocols more informative after the fact. And was probably a better way for tech panels to communicate the call to judging panels as well, although I think there may have been a year or two in there when the judges did not see the < symbols.

But the penalty (loss of a 360 degrees worth of base mark for 91+ degrees of underrotation) was still too severe, so that's why they finally introduced the 70% base value for jumps 91-180 degrees short, and the distinction between < and << codes.
 
Top