Last edited by CarneAsada; 02-10-2013 at 02:23 PM.
And the harder they try, the more likely they are to get injured and lose the ability to do some of the other triples, temporarily or permanently, with the same quality or consistency, that they have been doing already.
I.e., I think if you make the value of a triple axel so high that every girl with a triple lutz and a good double axel will devote herself to learning it, we're going to see a lot more broken girls and we will not see greatly increased jump content.
Quite likely decreased jump content, because the injured ones will either scale back their jump content until they're fully recovered, or they won't be able to compete at all and the next-best skaters who take their places will be weaker jumpers to begin with.
But your other point doesn't really address the argument I was making. We can discuss potential vintage Mao Asada SP layouts all day, but it doesn't change the fact that even if she could've gained a BV advantage without the SP axel rule change, it would not have been as big an advantage as she would've had with it, and moreover, the advantage would have come with unnecessary strings attached (requiring a combination or requiring steps).
"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.
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.)
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 by os168; 02-10-2013 at 06:12 PM.
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.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.
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.
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.Originally Posted by os168
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.
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 . 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?
Last edited by CarneAsada; 02-10-2013 at 06:39 PM.
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 by os168; 02-10-2013 at 07:14 PM.
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.
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.