Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 107

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

  1. #46
    Custom Title Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan
    Posts
    27,963
    Quote Originally Posted by Krislite View Post
    Oh please. It didn't "just so happen" to benefit a particular skater. If you believe that it was purely coincidental that the new rule benefited Mao, then I have nothing else to say.
    I don't know. I'm usually first in line for a good conspiracy theory. But if the ISU had wanted to boost Mao they should have done it before the Olympics, not after it was too late.

  2. #47
    Custom Title starryxskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I don't know. I'm usually first in line for a good conspiracy theory. But if the ISU had wanted to boost Mao they should have done it before the Olympics, not after it was too late.
    Agreed. Honestly, it took Mao 3 yrs to get a solid 3A back after reworking her technique. The door was OPEN for anyone to come in and take the "advantage" but everyone decided to stay in their own comfort which resulted in the snooze fest we have today. They don't want to take the risk, fine. Excuse Mao for running right to the door.

  3. #48
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    332
    If some are insistent on higher 3A bv, I suggest let's agree on this:

    - Keep the current 3A value or a little higher depending
    - Raise the 3-3 and/or other combination values
    - Raise the 3Lz value
    - LOWER 3L value; not too far from 3F, though

    It's a summary of opinions from this thread. If "fairness" is what you are looking for, I believe all these conditions must go together.

    There's no shame in hoping that a certain change in regulations would benefit the favourite star; that's what fans do. The sad thing is that, if GOEs were given right, Mao would not benefit much from 3A. Now the question has gone from whether she'e gonna succeed or not to whether she would miraculously... attempt it. Even in her good senior years, it was never about a BEAUTIFUL/GOOD 3A, but landing it or not - or ur or not, rubbing it or not. 3A pretty much ruined all of her jumping skills, at least from what her potentials allowed. I sometimes wish someone could've directed her junior years otherwise so that she could focus on having quality jumps. She was gifted with a one in a million hardware (similar to Yuna), plus an environment and support unheard of; she would've been an upgrade version of Ando Miki, instead of trying to mimic Midori Ito. (BTW, Ando never gave up on good jumps, and didn't hang on to her quad - remember she took an entire season fixing her edges? But I digress.) Anyways, it's a past. Whenever I get depressed from this, I watch her Jupiter: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vsf31viaYlo
    Last edited by bebevia; 02-10-2013 at 03:41 AM. Reason: not Pluto

  4. #49
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    256
    ok.
    If 3a's base score go be raise.
    What about this ?
    all jump, three multiplied.
    1a=1.1 2a=3.3 3a=8.5
    →1a=1.1 2a=3.3 3a=9.9
    1lz=0.6 2lz=2.1 3lz=6.0 4lz=13.6
    → 1lz=0.6 2lz=2.1 3lz= 6.3 4lz=18.9
    1f=0.5 2f=1.8 3f=5.3 4f=12.3
    →1f=0.5 2f=1.8 3f=5.4 4f=16.2

    Greetings!don't you think? haha
    Or earlier mao88 say as the triple axel should be higher than 3lz3t=10.10
    3a only four multiplied, 12 points, is it enough?

    Or in 70% rule, only 3a have 100% rule, not minus when she underrated. isn't it fair?
    Last edited by venlac; 02-10-2013 at 05:00 AM.

  5. #50
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I don't know. I'm usually first in line for a good conspiracy theory. But if the ISU had wanted to boost Mao they should have done it before the Olympics, not after it was too late.

    it's right that this rule for mao. I saw an japan article the 70% rule, and rule for triple axel that JSF suggestion and moved. An article titled 'Mao will have advantage in this rule "
    And too late? the base point of the triple axel continuely be raise, And yuna and mao have one more Olympics.
    http://news-paper.jugem.jp/?eid=345

    do you have ever seen the article K. Federation has suggestion rules to ISU , or protest?she does not have the power.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    Even without raising the base value a skater with a triple Axel has a big advantage. In the short program, suppose that imaginary hypothetical skater A can do a triple Axel (out of steps) but does not do a triple Lutz or a triple-triple of any kind. She does:

    3A = 8.5
    3F+2Lo = 7.1
    3Lo = 5.1

    Total = 20.7 (not counting second half bonuses)

    Imaginary hypothetical skater B does

    3Lz+3T = 10.0
    3F = 5.3
    2A = 3.3

    Total = 18.6

    Now suppose both skaters get +1 GOE across the board on all jumps.

    GOE for skater A = 2.4

    GOE for skater B = 1.9

    Skater A wins by 2.6 points, 23.1 to 20.5.

    factor of goe was reduce(except triple axel),she cannot recieve goe more than 2 points no longer.
    nrw trophy protocol


    Ito Midori had have 3a and even 5 kind of jump, but she could not beat kristy Yamaguchi.
    In this forum i can see just they want to mao will beat yuna
    What about the scores of the loop ... what about 3lz ...They will be on mao's side
    Last edited by venlac; 02-10-2013 at 06:20 AM.

  6. #51
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    42
    After what happened to Mao at the Olympics, it seems the rule change was made so that 3A jumpers have a better chance of winning in future competitions. Which is fine with me since I agree that 3A jumpers shouldn't have been limited in that regard in the first place. But as pointed out before, Mao was never at a disadvantage to begin with, technically speaking. She just wasn't able to milk the COP for points the way Yuna did.
    Last edited by Figga; 02-10-2013 at 05:30 AM.

  7. #52
    Simply the best. l'etoile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,056
    Quote Originally Posted by Figga View Post
    After what happened to Mao at the Olympics, it seems the rule change was made so that 3A jumpers have a better chance of winning in future competitions. Which is fine with me since I agree that 3A jumpers shouldn't have been limited in that regard in the first place. But as pointed out before, Mao was never at a disadvantage to begin with, technically speaking. She just wasn't able to milk the COP for points the way Yuna did.
    Saying 3A jumpers is a largely overstatement because there is no other than Mao Asada who throws the jump at competitions.

  8. #53
    Custom Title starryxskies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    208
    Quote Originally Posted by l'etoile View Post
    Saying 3A jumpers is a largely overstatement because there is no other than Mao Asada who throws the jump at competitions.
    But again, it's (an attempted) incentive to make it so that others will train and try the 3A in competition. Though that obviously didn't work at all

    Who actually trains it in practice anyway atm?

  9. #54
    Rinkside
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    23
    I don't think the base value should necessarily be based on creating an incentive for girls to train the 3A. It is a difficult and dangerous jump for women, and seems near-impossible do it as well, with the same impressive ease, height, and quality, as the men often do and Midori Ito did. But it seems like there is a lot of eagerness to see more things like triple axels and quads (another current thread on this board) in the ladies event, which is a result of good spirit and wanting more excitement, but seems unrealistic and maybe irresponsible to me. That's just my view, it shouldn't necessarily be encouraged or made such a strong incentive that whoever lands a 3A wins, but it should be rewarded. And I think has been rewarded more with the rule changes. This thread was created after Mao landed a triple axel in the short program, and it helped her to get a large lead over a strong skate by Akiko. Do people think Mao should have been even more ahead, that she still wasn't rewarded enough?

  10. #55
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    256
    I do not know what the justification is an essential element in the sp, 2a → 2a and 3a
    (will not 2a , she have a benefit from the technical score)
    the reason that in sp double axel was an essential element,
    In order to evaluate appraisal the double axel that all female skaters can jump...

  11. #56
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by Li'Kitsu View Post
    And again, the argument "but it wasn't allowed for men to do quads in the SP". Jaylee, that still sounds like your only point to me too. I don't get why this is suppoessed to be an argument at all. The thing is: it should have been allowed for the men way earlier. Why is it fair if many can to that element, but unfair if it's only one person? Isn't that unfair towards that one person who can do that element? If she's allowed to do that element or not depends on how many other ladies can do it. Meh.
    The answer to your question is again that the rules governing the short program are far more restrictive than the free program. Men and women can do what they want (within more flexible guidelines) in the free program, but not the short program. If you want to get into an argument about why there are restrictions in the short program at all, then that is another discussion entirely.

    You can argue that all the requirements in the short program are "unfair" to a certain extent, but none of the other rules governing the short program were implemented at a time when only one skater could benefit and take advantage.

    And no, it's not the facts that make me cringe. It's your continuieng interpretation of the allowance of a 3A instead of the 2A in the SP to be purely made to benefit Mao. Sounds very political to me. And that is not a fact - it's your way to put it. Having to do a 2A when you are capable of a 3A is not right - if there is one, ten, or hundreds of skaters affected by that. And I'm saying that completly unrelated to who that skater is.
    It's not my interpretation. The only part that is my opinion is how I personally feel about the rule having been implemented. But it's not my "interpretation" of events that the rule change of allowing the 3A in the SP was done to benefit Mao. That was so obviously done for Mao that it is mind-boggling that you dispute it. This was all discussed and documentation was posted on Goldenskate back in the summer of 2010, when the rules were passed. A JSF official publicly stated that they were going to propose the rule change for Mao. And then that's what happened. It's not my opinion. Here, read this post:
    http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sho...l=1#post500196

    Quote Originally Posted by Bartek View Post
    I'm sorry but jaylee's argument is simply stupid - Mao is the only skater who can do a 3A so it should be prohibited because it benefits only her. This is exlactly the reason why the jump should be allowed. If she's the only one, let her do it, let's admire it because it's so difficult and reward it. Reward the risk, upping the ante and the difficulty. It doesn't matter how many skaters can do it. The fact that that there is only one even attempting that jump speaks for itself.

    Jaylee's argument is like: let's think about. Only one skater can do it? Hmmm, that must be difficult right? So what should be done? Reward this challenging element? No, let's prohibit that, discourage. Just like we did with Miki Ando's highly difficult 3Lz+3Lo's. Technical regress instead of the development.
    What's really stupid is mis-reading and mis-stating my argument. Mao was never prohibited from doing the 3A in the SP--it just had to be in a combo. Mao did a 3A combo in her SP at 2009 WTT. Were there complaints afterwards that she couldn't do it as a solo 3A? No, there weren't. (She also did a botched 3A combo at the 2006 Junior Worlds SP, which contributed to her 2nd place finish there. Were there complaints afterwards about the SP rule discouraging or prohibiting 3As? No.) There were never any issues with the rule until after the 2009-2010 season, in which Mao did not get the 3A combo ratified in the SP most of the time except for the Olympics. So after one season of many unsuccessful 3A combos by Mao in the SP, there was all of a sudden complaints and an unprecedented need to make it _easier_ for Mao to do a 3A in the SP by changing the rules to allow her to do it as the solo axel jump. No, I don't think the sport was helped and moved forward by changing the SP rules on a whim, due to one skater's issues within one season, and which helped only that one skater by giving her a tremendous advantage and which didn't affect any other skater.

    For the record, I think the change in rules regarding DG/UR and changes in base value were a GOOD thing to encourage quads and triple axels--that benefited Mao and I have no problem with that. But rules shouldn't be changed on a whim to benefit or punish the strengths or weaknesses of one skater and in contrast with the historical precedent. Most ISU rule changes aren't like that--just this one.

    According to jaylee 3/3 among the ladies were allowed only when a lot of skaters could do it. The same with quads among the men. And only then can we allow ladies to perform 3A in SP - when there will be plenty of them. But how can the ladies be ecnoured to do 3A and actually even think about learning this jump and later on attempting it if it would be illicit?
    Purpose of the short program is different than the free program. The 3A was never illicit in the FS, and it wasn't banned from the SP, either, you just had to do it as a combo.

  12. #57
    Six Point Zero Krislite's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Yunaverse
    Posts
    1,535
    Quote Originally Posted by Mathman View Post
    I don't know. I'm usually first in line for a good conspiracy theory. But if the ISU had wanted to boost Mao they should have done it before the Olympics, not after it was too late.
    I'm pretty sure the ISU was aware Vancouver wasn't the very last Olympics. They knew Mao had every incentive to go for Sochi. Besides, they've probably learned not to be too over with such things.

  13. #58
    Custom Title mary01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    The answer to your question is again that the rules governing the short program are far more restrictive than the free program. Men and women can do what they want (within more flexible guidelines) in the free program, but not the short program. If you want to get into an argument about why there are restrictions in the short program at all, then that is another discussion entirely.

    You can argue that all the requirements in the short program are "unfair" to a certain extent, but none of the other rules governing the short program were implemented at a time when only one skater could benefit and take advantage.



    It's not my interpretation. The only part that is my opinion is how I personally feel about the rule having been implemented. But it's not my "interpretation" of events that the rule change of allowing the 3A in the SP was done to benefit Mao. That was so obviously done for Mao that it is mind-boggling that you dispute it. This was all discussed and documentation was posted on Goldenskate back in the summer of 2010, when the rules were passed. A JSF official publicly stated that they were going to propose the rule change for Mao. And then that's what happened. It's not my opinion. Here, read this post:
    http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sho...l=1#post500196



    What's really stupid is mis-reading and mis-stating my argument. Mao was never prohibited from doing the 3A in the SP--it just had to be in a combo. Mao did a 3A combo in her SP at 2009 WTT. Were there complaints afterwards that she couldn't do it as a solo 3A? No, there weren't. (She also did a botched 3A combo at the 2006 Junior Worlds SP, which contributed to her 2nd place finish there. Were there complaints afterwards about the SP rule discouraging or prohibiting 3As? No.) There were never any issues with the rule until after the 2009-2010 season, in which Mao did not get the 3A combo ratified in the SP most of the time except for the Olympics. So after one season of many unsuccessful 3A combos by Mao in the SP, there was all of a sudden complaints and an unprecedented need to make it _easier_ for Mao to do a 3A in the SP by changing the rules to allow her to do it as the solo axel jump. No, I don't think the sport was helped and moved forward by changing the SP rules on a whim, due to one skater's issues within one season, and which helped only that one skater by giving her a tremendous advantage and which didn't affect any other skater.

    For the record, I think the change in rules regarding DG/UR and changes in base value were a GOOD thing to encourage quads and triple axels--that benefited Mao and I have no problem with that. But rules shouldn't be changed on a whim to benefit or punish the strengths or weaknesses of one skater and in contrast with the historical precedent. Most ISU rule changes aren't like that--just this one.



    Purpose of the short program is different than the free program. The 3A was never illicit in the FS, and it wasn't banned from the SP, either, you just had to do it as a combo.
    well if you think this restriction was okay, then making a rule that says a 3lutz combo is only allowed in the sp if the second part of the combination is a loop, would also be okay, since Kim is one of few ladies who get a huge advantage from the 3lz-3t combo, it's not fair to allow her to do it??

    ***... what a way of thinking, it was on highest time that the 3A was allowed as a single jump, the fact that they have been prohibiting it for so long, just shows the unfairness that was done to 3A jumpers and to Mao in particular!

  14. #59
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    All of you are missing the fact that Mao could have done 3A out of steps in the SP. Not that requiring steps would be any fairer than requiring 3A be in combination, which pretty much negates the advantage it would give a female skater incapable of performing 3A-3T. It would be like saying "oh you can do 3Lz-3T? Well that's an unfair advantage, we'll only let you do it out of steps or mandatory -3 GOE"

    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    It's not my interpretation. The only part that is my opinion is how I personally feel about the rule having been implemented. But it's not my "interpretation" of events that the rule change of allowing the 3A in the SP was done to benefit Mao. That was so obviously done for Mao that it is mind-boggling that you dispute it. This was all discussed and documentation was posted on Goldenskate back in the summer of 2010, when the rules were passed. A JSF official publicly stated that they were going to propose the rule change for Mao. And then that's what happened. It's not my opinion. Here, read this post:
    http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sho...l=1#post500196
    So maybe the JSF did it for Mao. But apparently enough people in the ISU felt it was a fair, justified change that they accepted the suggestion. And the suggestion that the JSF and the RSF floated of providing a bonus to ladies who landed triple Axels and men who landed quads was considered unfair/unnecessary so it was nixed. In case you've forgotten, many people were calling for rule changes rewarding difficulty in both ladies' and men's skating, considering the controversy of the men's result and then the ridiculousness of the nearly 25-point gap between Kim and Asada at the Olympics. Asada and Plushenko's skating federations may have done it for them, but that's because what happened to them was considered especially unjust, and in my opinion there's nothing wrong with changing the rules for specific skaters when the previous rules hosed them. I am sure the ISU did not make the changes just because it was Asada and Plushenko, but because they thought it was right.
    Last edited by CarneAsada; 02-10-2013 at 10:39 AM.

  15. #60
    Custom Title hurrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,148
    The new SP rule benefits any skater who can do a 3-axel and other triples in that the skater no longer is required to do a 2-axel to fill her three jump passes, which I think is totally fair. Before the revision, Mao HAD to include a 2-axel even though she had demonstrated her ability to do an axel jump already by doing a 3-axel. It made for a redundant program component, when SP is all about displaying a full range of basic skills.
    Yes, I think the 3-axel revisions benefit only Mao in the short run, because she's the only one good enough with it to attempt it in competition right now, but that doesn't mean other skaters can't benefit either. The rule doesn't say, let's reward 8.5 for 3-axel if Mao lands them. The rule says, any skater who does a 3-axel gets 8.5 base points.

    I am sure that ISU did not agree to the revisions for Mao's sake. It was more to try and prevent a jump regression that was occuring under CoP. Before CoP, there was talk of women doing quads. Mao trained the quad. So did Miki, and she even attempted them in competition, but the value of these more difficult jumps was so small in proportion to other elements and components that it no longer made any sense for women to even try and train for them. That's why ISU made those point changes, to encourage more difficult jump content.

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

Posting Permissions

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