6.0 in scoring

[Rgirl]

Welcome to GS Citrus! And in welcoming you, the first thing I'm going to do is disagree with you If the scores for every element under the COP were posted at the event, I think it would just look like a mess. I don't know of any scoreboard that could even handle that many numbers! Plus, with the two high, two low, and two random scores thrown out, at least under the current system, that means the scores of 11 judges would be shown, but only five would count. Also, in the ladies final at Trophee Lalique, the winner had 13 technical elements. That's 143 different numbers to put up on the scoreboard or on the TV screen. And having looked at the detailed results, no score has ever jumped out at me as "WHAT?" They're all within a reasonable and justifiable range. Sure, there have been mistakes, but I think this has been due to the problem of the technical caller. [EDIT: Thanks for the correctoid Hockeyfan Once again you've saved me from complete COP humiliation. I've edited the following sentences to fix my mistake.] If the TC misses a two-foot landing or a significantly pre- or underrotated jump, the judges have to go by the TC. This problem needs to be fixed in the COP system, but I don't think it's cheating by the TC and certainly not by the judges who are supposed to go by what the TC says. I think it's usually just error, that is, the TC missed it. And error is going to be in any system of judging, no matter what you do. The best you can do is try to account for it so that error does not adversely affect the outcome of the event. As for flutzing and lipping, the judges can deduct -1 to -3 from the base mark. As I said once before, I think there are degrees of flutzness. One judge may see a flutz as a -3 whereas another may have legitimate reasons for believing -1 is correct. This season I've only seen the judges deduct for the most severe flutzes and rarely for lipping. But I have seen them add points to true Lutzes for the women, which is perhaps the way most judges are handling it--no or minimal deductions for minor flutzing, but added points for true Lutzes. I don't know that that's what they're doing or if I agree with that approach, but as long as the true Lutzers get more points than flutzers, whether minor or severe, that's what counts for me. OTOH, I think it sends the wrong message. If the judges start deducting for all flutzing, then I think we'll start to see more skaters correct it. Same with lipping, though that doesn't seem to be as common.

Under the COP, I thought all the outcomes were spot on, which is really what I'm interested in, not whether somebody flutzed or not--at least as far as the event is concerned. I can express my opinion here that Skater A should fix her flutz, but as long as the whole of a skater's performance and program justifies his/her final placement and most significant errors are accounted for in the scores, then I think the COP is doing its job.

When skaters are very close in technical and presentation ability, which happened in pairs a couple of times, I hope all mistakes made by the skaters are caught, but that's hoping for the impossible. Human systems just can't do that. For example, there was one event where the final result between first and second in pairs was separated by only a few tenths of a point. People on the forum, some of whom saw the event live, argued in favor of both teams--some thought the result was right, some thought the silver medalists should have won the gold. With six of 11 judges' scores thrown out, I find it virtually impossible for a group of judges to get together to preplan any outcome under the COP unless ALL 11 judges are in on it, plus the TC, plus the referee. Sure, it's possible. But is it probable? Not to me. Also, sometimes things just happen. Referees in football and basketball make bad calls. We try to make the judging as fair as possible, but human error is always going to be present. At least under the COP I find it far less likely for judges to be able to truly cheat than under the 6.0 system. And it's not like there haven't been plenty of close results under the 6.0 system (Nancy and Oksana anyone?)

I think it's taken the judges time to get the hang of the COP and that the system itself has weaknesses that definitely need to be addressed. But having read through all the detailed results for all the GP events, I personally have not seen any evidence of cheating. If somebody has in the COP, I'd be interested to hear the specifics--really--because I don't want to have missed cheating. Some judges have scored higher than others in the compoenent scores, but at most by .5. And the good thing about the COP is that if two judges "cheat" by giving unfarily high scores to a skating, their marks are thrown out. Same thing if judges try to give blackball a skater with low scores--they're out.

Anyway, here it is your third post and I write this long disagreement. Sorry! It's nothing personal, of course. I hate cheating judges, believe me, but sometimes I think people see a judge who gives a mark they think is too high or low and think "Cheating!" when the final outcome of not only the entire event, but of that judge's placement, indicates no cheating at all.

Welcom again and don't worry, you'll rarely get responses that are long and boring like this one, even from me, I promise
Rgirl

[hockeyfan228]

Just a CoP factoid: The judges are responsible for catching flutzes and lips, not the callers. (They have their own instant replay.)

[Joesitz]

Good points, Rgirl, but I can't imagine a flutz having variations. A minor, average and major flutz? If so, it is indeed recognizing it as a special kind of skating jump, imo. The flutz, imo, should then have a basic score and then we can take off minus points as to how bad the flutz is executed. I don't see it as getting pluses for a well executed flutz.

For me, if we accept the flutz, then we must immediately take off 3 points for an attempted LUTZ regardless on how badly the flutz is executed. This would at least not recognize the flutz as a legitimate jump.

Hockeyfan - Thanks for the info. I have been in the habit of blaming everything on The Caller and His Gang.

Joe

[Rgirl]

Joe,
I think there are degrees of flutzness just as there are degrees of prerotation or underrotation. I don't think it has anything to do with the Lutz being a legitimate jump. Of course it's a legitimate jump. The edge take-off gets a lot of attention because it's so difficult for women. To me it's like someone doing a great 3Axel but landing on an back inside edge. Does one take off -3 because of the wrong landing edge? Knowing your feelings about flutzing, ie, that until recently you didn't think there should be any such thing as a flutz, only a Lutz or a flip, no attempted Lutz that didn't maintain the outside edge throughout the entire take-off. Having looked at many, many flutzes in slow motion on tape, I was amazed at the number of variations on how ladies do this jump. Some go so far to the inside edge the side of their ankle is almost on the ice. Some just go to the flat at the last moment. And everything in between. So I think judges should be allowed to decide whether to take off -1, -2, or -3 for a flutz.

But nowhere in my post did I say a skater should get bonus points for a flutz because obviously that's ridiculous. If a judge genuinely misses a flutz, thinks it's a true Lutz, and decides to give bonus points, that's a mistake. Mistakes happen. Of course so does cheating. But assuming most judges see a flutz, one judge giving +1 or +2 for a flutz either by mistake or cheating will not count because it will be thrown out.

But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
Rgirl

[citrus]

Originally posted by Rgirl

.........lots of good stuff..........

But like I said, we will have to agree to disagree on this issue
Rgirl [/B]

I see the problem of "flutzness" is with the presentation which goes with the jump?

If one does a couple of "beautiful" flutzes, would that overcome someone else with a so-so/average true lutz if "all else being equal" (never happen)?

I can somewhat see an overall presentation overcoming the overall technical if the technical wasn't too bad; it would be more difficult for me to say in comparing elements in that regard.

God! Before I started reading on the forums I only thought of presentation and whether or not the skater fell. I may have been better off being dumber and so saner.

[Joesitz]

Rgirl - I understand what you are saying about the flutz. Some are better than others. At the same time, and in my opinion, you are legitimizing it as an official jump, and not an attempted lutz (or flip for that matter). I'm not against legitimitizing the flutz but I would like to see the Official definition - not something we as fans would make uop. With the official definition I could decide the +s and -s. But not until it has become an official jump.

What you said about my views is not quite correct. It may be that I was not clear but from what I heard was that a flutz is considered officially as an attempted lutz, and is marked down accordingly. There was no judging the flutz as you may wish it; there was definitely judgiong a bad lutz. But this is hearsay that I picked uip. I have not read anything official on the flutz. I would love some poster to point it out to me.

Sorry about the misunderstanding of your views on the flutz. It was your use of the term 'minor' flutzing which got to me. It seemed to have deemed that flutzing should be graded on whether it was minor or major or somewhere in between.

IMO, if a skater takes off from a flat to execute a lutz, he/she is having a poor take off of the lutz. If he/she rocks over to an inside edge, heshe is executing a flip by definition.

We can still agree to disagree on this topic. No problem but I do wish there was an official definition of a flutz, because to me the jump does not exist officially. However, when I see a real defintion of a flutz, I'll change my mind.

Joe

[berthes ghost]

If he/she rocks over to an inside edge, heshe is executing a flip by definition.

I disagree.

Each jump clearly has a different entry and one is taugh each jump differently.

If a skater glides back on an outside edge and then inadvertantly switches over to an inside edge just before take-off, it's clear that it's a failed Lutz attempt and not an intended flip.

I think that the skater should get a little credit for at least attempting a Lutz, over the skater who simply does the flip and doesn't even try to do a Lutz.

No one teaches a flutz, and no one does a flutz on purpose, IMHO. flutzes are just Lutzes done by people who can't always keep the outside edge, either due to lack of strenght or poor edging, or nerves, etc...

[Joesitz]

Bethe - Can't disagree with you totally. I was just trying to figure out how one judges a flutz. To me, and it seems like you, it is a failed lutz. the LUTZ is the jump. Either a skater does a lutz by definition or he does not do a lutz. there are plenty of faults with a true lutz besides entry.

If the jump is deemed an attempted Lutz which is because of the entry, then, the skater has failed to do a lutz, but has jumped something which, apparently has an unofficial name. You can call it officially as a flip or unofficially as a flutz.

By the way, can you name a skater who does not attempt a flip? If there are any their numbers are so tiny.

Giving credit to an attempted lutz is not so much giving credit for the attempt, but it is more realistic to give discredit for the lack of the true jump which would be more correct and is far more important.

Of course, no one does a flutz on purpose. Whoever said that? That is not the point, and neither are the excuses for not doing a true lutz valid. In a SPORT, it should matter what it is that you are actually doing officially. Can you imagine judging a camel to sits spin where the skater forgets to do the sitspin because he/she is nervous of an edge change. hmm.

Berthe, I do appreciate your caring for the skater. I do too, but decisions have to be made to select a winner.

Joe

[citrus]

Don't know if this should be a separate thread but it does apply to the 6.0 (even CoP).

I keep hearing about need for faster spins but I do wonder if the spins should be somewhat insync with the music? Fast music for fast spins & "slow" spins for slower music.

Watching MK's "slow spin" at the Nationals, I fiind that it reflected the pace of the music but still remarks are should be faster & faster.
Mayhap it needed the choreography to be faster with faster music as I can't see a 4/4 or 3/4 time music accompaning a fast spin.

So, should the spin always be mucho fast no matter what? Are the judges concerned about that aspect?

I'm still finding it hard to correlate the music with the skaing movements/elements but hopefully, it'll come within this decade.

[Joesitz]

MK gets a lot of nitpicking. Just wait till the summer! Of course you are correct. The speed of anything should be comensurate with the tempo of the music. Maria Butryskaya did not execute fast camels, but imo, they were with the music and the best in the world. I'm just giving credit where it is due, I was not a fan of MB.

Joe

[Nadine]

This whole thread reminds me of that old saying that I can't for the life of me recall exactly ~ something about "missing the beauty of the forest due to focusing too much on the trees" ~ in other words, it's about the whole picture man, at least for me it has always been (no lie).

Whatever moves you, personally, should be a 6.0.......no need for somebody to tell you what you should feel according to him/her........too much analysis IMHO. Takes the pure magic, joy & beauty out of skating. Just let the skating move you; don't be dictated by outside forces. JMHO.

Peace Baby, Nadine (hippie here :D )

"ignorance is bliss"

MODIFIED TO ADD: upon reflection, "anal retentive" is what comes to mind when I think of this fixation with the flutz.

"the way I understand the flutz rule, judges are less likely to deduct than NOT to give credit for another flip that was supposed to be a lutz." - Philip Hersh

[BravesSkateFan]

Joe...I understand what you are saying about the flutz. There basically seem to be 2 schools of thought on the lutz/flutz/flip.
1. If it is a jump that is intended to be a lutz, but the skater takes off on an inside edge, then it is a flutz.
OR
2. If it is a jmp that is intended to be a lutz, but it takes off on an inside edge, it is then a flip, because a that is what a flip jump is.

So basically it seems to be a matter of technique vs. intention.

I've head some describe a the difference between a flutz and a flip like this: If the skater starts on an outside edge then switches at the last second then its a flutz. but if they start on an inside edge or spend most of the entrance on an inside edge then they define it as a flip.

I tend to lean more towards #2 above, although on the boards I refer to the jump as a flutz, becuse if I were to say "skater x's flip" rather than "skater x's flutz" It would just confuse people. LOL Of course on some skaters its hard to discern whether its an inside or outside edge with out slo-mo, but usually If I can't tell with the naked eye then I say its a lutz.

[citrus]

Question: I think that it is probably true that a lutz is a required jump in the short program? And wonder if the lutz is also required in the long program.

Or do the required jumps vary and whether any there are "required" jumps in the long program at all.

[berthes ghost]

The only required jump in the ladies SP is the double axel.

There are no required jumps in the LP.

In the SP, they must do a jump combination and a solo jump out of footwork. The top ladies do the triple Lutz/double toe combo and the 3flip out of footwork because those are the hardest, will gain the most points and that is what they need to do to finish on top, so they are "required" to do the Lutz if they want to finish anywhere near the podium, but it is not an official requirement.

[Joesitz]

Braveskater - Long before you were born a flutz was defined by skaters, not by fans and not by officials. It was a derrogatory term to put a skater down. Now however, he is forgiven for the error. times have changed!

It was simply that the skater took off from a flat (no edge) hence the fl plus the utz. Rocking over to an inside edge was doing a flip and who care'd if you did more than one.

When Tara came on the scene with the her low height bullet like rotations in the air she was executing a lutz a la back inside edge and as I recall quite a wide displace between the BI edge and the toe off leg.

Other figure skaters being much younger than my group called it a flutz and in some circles Tara was branded Queen of the Flutz.
The fans of Kwan loved it since MK was executing perfect lutzes at the time. I have at times noticed that MK takes off from the flat occasionally.

IMO, if a skater is about to do a Lutz and unfortunatyely takes off from a back inside edge then to me he has made a very serious mistake in the Lutz. Unless there is a definition of what present day skaters call a flutz, I can not recognize it. I doubt the brass at ISU recognize it.

Let's leave it to The Caller and His Gang. I doubt they will say flutz. I think they have the power to call it an "attemped Lutz", but I am not sure of that.

Citrus - There is no set rule in the LP about leaving out a jump but in the case of a missing lutz, that would raise eyebrows. In the LP I think it is wise to do one of a kind jumps and repeat 2 only if they are in combo.

Joe