The Quadruple Jump for the Ladies in Sochi
- Thread starter christinaskater
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
... Well, of course they weren't downgraded! They weren't even done in competition! And your reasoning that jumps cannot be considered downgraded/short of rotation because they were done in practice is seriously twisted. So only *perfect* jumps are done in practice? And by some weird reason, those same *perfect* jumps, only when done in competition, may be considered downgraded?
Well, how else were people suppose to interpret "never"? You did emphasize that you meant "never" before you and another poster posted a few "exceptions".
http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/05_01/1983/0086006/l_3876_0086006_f7b0bf47.jpg
... Well, of course they weren't downgraded! They weren't even done in competition! And your reasoning that jumps cannot be considered downgraded/short of rotation because they were done in practice is seriously twisted. So only *perfect* jumps are done in practice? And by some weird reason, those same *perfect* jumps, only when done in competition, may be considered downgraded?
http://www.movieposterdb.com/posters/05_01/1983/0086006/l_3876_0086006_f7b0bf47.jpg
Don't twist my words the way you want them to be, what I said was that they weren't downgraded and couldn't be downgraded. and it couldn't be downgraded because the quad's weren't performed in an actual competition in those clips. Meaning there was no actual outcome, to make it even more clear no technical controller has ever judged it. no clear result. so therefor it might just as likely have been ratified.
There is a big difference between saying i think it would be downgraded, and it's downgraded. Afterall it can only "be" downgraded if it actually was judged in a competition, and since this wasn't the case, I gave that reply.
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2012
First, I think this thread has been created because we have no competitions to talk about. some of these topics being discussed are reather obscure or almost meaningless. Before we get to quads we need to see ladies to 3A and that seems to be doubtful. Who knows what Mao is going - the skateris goign through a bit of a crisis - correct the lutz and all and get a 3 3 or go for the 3A. She has yet to really be consistent on her jumps - she needs to make a decision and go with it because really time is ticking.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
IMO neither has the ISU. I do not have to present an argument on behalf of the ISU for why they have a Short Program and a Long Program. You have the burden to argue for "SP: LIMIT DIFFICULTY / TEST SKATERS ON QUALITY OF SAME CONTENT" (which is different from what the ISU is currently requiring for the SP, and different from what it has required of skaters since the 1990's.) Furthermore, you haven't provided any arguments for why the short has to be completely differently from the long. You talk about redundancy and "semi-finals." Well guess what, many other sports have redundancy and semi-finals that are exactly the same format/type of challenge as the Finals. Once again, burden is on you to argue for your preference. Moreover, skaters cannot just "jump to their heart's content" in the LP. There are still restrictions as to the # of jumping passes as well as the types, so that point you make is null.
Lastly, you haven't provided any reasonable objections for a SP with the restrictions I outlined in this post:
It's still structured but allows for pushing the athletic boundaries of the sport.
Additional medals optional. I see no reason why a single medal cannot be given after the SP+LP scores are added. Figure Skating doesn't have to follow baseball...if you want to make that comparison, then at least provide basic reasoning as to why it's an appropriate comparison.
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2012
The only skaters i can see getting even close to a quad would be Kanako Murakami and maybe Gracie Gold
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
It is downgraded as in a jump that is greater than 1/2 a rotation short of being successfully completed.
Your "it can't be 'downgraded' if it's in practice" is as wrong as defending a skater who does a flutz in practice as having not flutzed because she didn't perform it in competition and was given an edge call... i.e. you can't say she's flutzing, you can only say you *think* she's flutzing. Some URs/DGs are close but it's not we "think" those Mao's quad attempts in practice would be downgraded... those 4S attempts definitely would be called as downgraded if performed that way in competition (I doubt you would find any non-Mao uber on here who would agree with you). I certainly don't hold it against her... obviously it's a jump few skaters, men or women, have attempted let alone successfully completed. But you've gotta call a spade a spade.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2005
You are definitely NOT a skater, and that's OK, but your statement is totally FALSE here. In practice and lessons, your coach will tell you it's cheated (if you haven't figured it out on your own on the landing) and tell you the tech panel would single or double down the jump depending on how short it is (or you look at your landing and determine if it would be a single or double down). There's no "think it would be" in the case of the clips posted here, it's a case of "it would be downgraded" if performed the same way "for real".
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Precisely. I've seen competitions too where a skater seems to have a clean skate to a general viewer, but the trained eye can catch the URs. I remember poor Murakami despondent after a skate because she knew that her jumps weren't fully rotated. Again, we're not taking away from the attempt that Mao did, but to say because it wasn't downgraded in competition doesn't mean that they weren't under-rotated by at least half a rotation (which they undoubtedly were). It would be different than, say, Sasha's practice attempt in SLC or some of Miki's practice attempts which would be more likely to be ratified.
"Downgraded" refers to something that the technical panel does. So in that sense a jump performed in practice would not be downgraded.
But "underrotated" or "cheated" refers to properties of the jump itself. Practice jumps have been referred to by these terms since long before the concept of IJS was a gleam in anyone's eye.
And if it's severe enough to deserve the << downgrade designation, it will be really obvious that the rotation was not complete. At best, a generous tech panel might assign only the < underrotated call.
In most cases underrotating is part of the process of learning new jumps with greater rotation. But as long as the underrotation is consistently significant and obvious, most skaters and coaches wouldn't consider putting the jump out in competition. As for those who do think they can get away with it, that's probably where the colloquial designation of "cheating" jumps came from.
I seem to remember reading about Barbara Ann Scott attempting double axels in practice back in the 1940s, and deciding with her coach not to try in competition because they weren't rotated. I don't know the exact terminology they used at the time -- I think the book or article I read said "cheated" but possibly that term didn't become common until double axels and triples became more common. Or maybe it was used about other doubles in the 40s.
But "underrotated" or "cheated" refers to properties of the jump itself. Practice jumps have been referred to by these terms since long before the concept of IJS was a gleam in anyone's eye.
And if it's severe enough to deserve the << downgrade designation, it will be really obvious that the rotation was not complete. At best, a generous tech panel might assign only the < underrotated call.
In most cases underrotating is part of the process of learning new jumps with greater rotation. But as long as the underrotation is consistently significant and obvious, most skaters and coaches wouldn't consider putting the jump out in competition. As for those who do think they can get away with it, that's probably where the colloquial designation of "cheating" jumps came from.
I seem to remember reading about Barbara Ann Scott attempting double axels in practice back in the 1940s, and deciding with her coach not to try in competition because they weren't rotated. I don't know the exact terminology they used at the time -- I think the book or article I read said "cheated" but possibly that term didn't become common until double axels and triples became more common. Or maybe it was used about other doubles in the 40s.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Well, gosh. All these burdens.
I am just kicking ideas around, not trying to present any kind of logical argument. IMHO a logical argument would go like this:A. (Premise) The purpose of the short program is ___________.
B. (Conclusion) Therefore the ISU should ___________.
The supporting argument would then try to demonstrate why action B would accomplish purpose A.
Example: A. (Premise) The purpose of the short program originally was to ease the transition from emphasis on figures to emphasis on free skating; that purpose having been accomplished years ago, the short program now has no purpose at all.
B. (Conclusion). The short program should be eliminated.
I don't see how anyone could find fault with this argument. If anyone disagrees with the conclusion, it is not because the argument is faulty but because that person does not subscribe to the premise.
Example 2. A.(Premise) The purpose of the short program is to offer an "apples to apples" comparison.
B. (Conclusion). We should impose rigid performance requirements and those requirements should be within the reach of all elite skaters.
For example, all elite skaters can do a double Axel. In the short program we get to see who does it best. This is a different test than that of seeing which skater can muscle through enough rotations to get credit for a triple Axel. She can do that in the long program, thus pushing the technical envelope and reaping the appropriate reward in terms of CoP points.
Some observers will disagree with the conclusion, but again, what that means is that those observers reject the premise, not the argument.
Example 3. A. (Premise) The purpose of the short program is to make figure skating competitions longer and to give skaters more minutes on the ice to rack up points, thus giving the top skaters greater opportunities to separate themselves from the pack and one from another.
B. (Conclusion) What the ISU is doing now is OK. It could be tweaked a little, as in your (Prettykey's) revised list of requirements.
I do not know of any argument on either side of that issue. One cannot argue for preferences. That's why they are preferences.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. Figure skating under CoP does not follow the "semi-finals then the finals" format. Under 6.0 they did, to some extent. To me, it made some sense to do the same thing twice under the 6.0 structure (factored placements), but this is less appropriate under the combined points model.
I have no objections, reasonable or otherwise.
If we are in the setting of Example 3, I like it. In fact, I think this is what the ISU should and will do in the next go-around.
Last edited:
OMG, why is there even an ongoing debate about the SP?
The SP is there so that you can eliminate the terrible skaters and round up the top 24.
The SP is there so that the final groups are the best group. Who wants to see Caro, Mao, Kim in group 1, when the other 4 groups are still to come? I would walk out the moment the medal is decided.
And since they score the SP anyway, why not add it to the LP so all that scorings don't go to waste.
That's all, folks. Don't make a mountain out of a double axel.
The SP is there so that you can eliminate the terrible skaters and round up the top 24.
The SP is there so that the final groups are the best group. Who wants to see Caro, Mao, Kim in group 1, when the other 4 groups are still to come? I would walk out the moment the medal is decided.
And since they score the SP anyway, why not add it to the LP so all that scorings don't go to waste.
That's all, folks. Don't make a mountain out of a double axel.
Carl Mao Kim got a load of points at 2013 worlds and will be in the final groups. Points from worlds medals/placement can determine skate order. You don't need the sp for skate order. Worlds points can do it. And the isu could alter point values and carry previous Olympic placement as well. Sp for skate order is unnecessary and not only reason why it exists but it's meaning is being abolished more every year.
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2010
World points will keep young phenoms from skating where they should be.
Shen/Zhao were first to skate in Vancouver.
SP doesn't require a lot of effort. And it put into perspective who should be skating in what group. World points don't tell you the right state of many skaters at the time of the competition.
Kiira Korpi was 3rd or 4th in the World points ranking at one time, should she be in the ultimate group? No, she would have to be top 6 to make it.
Caro had a terrible season leading to Vancouver, her world standing was still 2 or 3rd, should she be in the ultimate group? No!
This is why you need a SP to weed out the terrible and the non-competitive. No world points can tell you who's good at that particular moment.
Shen/Zhao were first to skate in Vancouver.
SP doesn't require a lot of effort. And it put into perspective who should be skating in what group. World points don't tell you the right state of many skaters at the time of the competition.
Kiira Korpi was 3rd or 4th in the World points ranking at one time, should she be in the ultimate group? No, she would have to be top 6 to make it.
Caro had a terrible season leading to Vancouver, her world standing was still 2 or 3rd, should she be in the ultimate group? No!
This is why you need a SP to weed out the terrible and the non-competitive. No world points can tell you who's good at that particular moment.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Are these truly the only reasons why the short program exists? If the short program serves no other purpose than these then it certainly should be eliminated. These goals can easily be accomplished in other ways (like rankings), and the ISU could save the money.
Who is this Carl Mao Kim that you speak of?
she is the superskater named Carl Mao-Kim from NK
That would be great! With commas and wihout AC it was Caro, Mao, Kim! Kostner, asada, Kim!
Sp should be a test of skills by the best scores can be from 3t+3t, 3 loop and 2a which shows all jumps as placeholder elements and real points cominG from all other things in Tes and pcs.
