Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Mao & Mr. Sato

  1. #16
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    No one is saying that those mistakes didn't exist back then, or that it was made up in 2007. But the deductions for them were not as clearly defined.
    Not as clearly defined? Wrong.

    Reference: http://ww2.isu.org/news/1086.pdf

    Please see the deductions for "less than required revolutions" or "starting from the wrong edge". How more clearly defined can you get? What could possibly be more clearly defined?

    Even Shizuka Arakawa and Miki Ando who you hold up as paragons of good technique both had problems with outside edge takeoffs on their flips, and both have had plenty of problems rotating 3-3 combos. Miki Ando has also had her -2Loop-2Loop combinations downgraded in the past.
    I wasn't holding them up as paragons, as I already pointed out that Shizuka did sometimes underrotate the backend triple of a 3/3. And yes, both had very obvious lips. But they didn't have the mule kick or flutzes that we were discussing, so they're good counterexamples to the original poster's argument, particularly since they're both Japanese and they trained under AND competed under 6.0, yet managed to have true lutzes and avoid the hammer toe flaw.

  2. #17
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,449
    Thanks so much for the careful, complete analysis, Inskate!

    And welcome, Supsu, and thanks for asking the questions so that we could get the answers.

  3. #18
    Mashimaro on Ice
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    1,419
    So they had different problems. Maybe for those two, the lutz was just easier to do. I remember reading discussions of how Shizuka often underrotated the back-end of her 3-3 but wasn't as penalized for it during her career.

  4. #19
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    Please see the deductions for "less than required revolutions" or "starting from the wrong edge". How more clearly defined can you get? What could possibly be more clearly defined?

    I wasn't holding them up as paragons, as I already pointed out that Shizuka did sometimes underrotate the backend triple of a 3/3. And yes, both had very obvious lips. But they didn't have the mule kick or flutzes that we were discussing, so they're good counterexamples to the original poster's argument, particularly since they're both Japanese and they trained under AND competed under 6.0, yet managed to have true lutzes and avoid the hammer toe flaw.
    Thanks for the reference (are there similar ones for the FS, btw?), but under 6.0 we did not have a technical panel there to call the jumps and review them in slow motion, writing "e" and < for jumps with those errors (or I don't remember there being one, correct me if I'm wrong), so it was possible for someone like Hughes to do her Lutz in the far corner in the hope that a nearsighted judge would overlook it. Also, it didn't have the 90 degree rule; "rotation not complete" (less than required revolutions is for doubling/popping, I think) is more vague than the current under-rotation rules. Both wrong edge and rotation incomplete left the exact deduction up to the judges. It is less specific, as there are varying degrees for each kind of error.

    I don't necessarily agree with everything in inskate's post either, but Shizuka and Miki are hardly counterexamples (having the opposite problem is not much better in my opinion), even if they didn't have the same ones as Murakami and co. Not all skaters are the same and obviously not all of Yamada's students will have the exact same leg wrap as Nakano, the exact picking technique as Murakami and so on.

  5. #20
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    232
    I also don't think, we should blame coaches, the same coach can have many students with different technical problems. It is more depend on the skaters' natural talent. in what way s/he is used to jump. some jump with arms, some jump with back, some use hammer toe, some use the momentum from edges and torque etc....
    The correct "text book" jumping technique is just the most efficient way to do those jumps, however, only one mastered these technique (5 different take-off, completely different techniques),those jumps become easy. However to master the technique is quite different for different people with varied natural talent.

  6. #21
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    Thanks for the reference (are there similar ones for the FS, btw?), but under 6.0 we did not have a technical panel there to call the jumps and review them in slow motion, writing "e" and < for jumps with those errors (or I don't remember there being one, correct me if I'm wrong), so it was possible for someone like Hughes to do her Lutz in the far corner in the hope that a nearsighted judge would overlook it.
    Y'know, I don't think it's a big deal to be wrong about something, as long as we're arguing and debating in good faith. I kind of doubt that you're arguing in good faith here. It just seems like you'll keep twisting the argument so that you don't have to concede a single point. Disappointing.

    The original argument was that the technical flaws that Mao had in her jumping technique weren't universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0. I have cited numerous examples and evidence to show that that is not true. Flutzing and underrotating were clearly and specifically against the rules under 6.0. This isn't even about Mao and her coaches or blaming or whatnot. It's about a scoring system that is being inaccurately described here.

    The fact that there was no technical panel back then and whether or not judges consistently noticed skaters making such errors is a separate, independent issue from whether or not those flaws were universally recognized as flaws per the scoring system and the rules of the time. They were absolutely recognized as errors and flaws. Case in point: in 1998, Frank Carroll never denied that flutzing was an error back then; he merely denied that Michelle Kwan flutzed. There's a distinct difference between the two.

    Also, it didn't have the 90 degree rule; "rotation not complete" (less than required revolutions is for doubling/popping, I think) is more vague than the current under-rotation rules. Both wrong edge and rotation incomplete left the exact deduction up to the judges. It is less specific, as there are varying degrees for each kind of error.
    ...Um, the exact deduction for wrong edges and underrotations is still left up to the judges under the current IJS. They can choose to give a skater a GOE like 0, -1, or -2 for a flutz after taking all qualities of the jump into account. They were given a range of deductions under 6.0 that they could apply depending on the severity of the error and they're given similar flexibility under IJS.

    You're really nitpicking now with this argument about the rules back then being "more vague" or "not as clear." No, the rules back then are not the same as the rules now, and they were not as detailed. They were different systems. However, the rules back then were clear enough that there should be specific deductions for the flaws that inskate said weren't universally recognized as flaws. Nope. They were clearly punishable flaws under 6.0. It was in the rules. There were deductions spelled out. The end.

  7. #22
    Custom Title Franklin99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    122
    Thank you CarneAsada for your very detailed explanations regarding Mao's and jumps in general.

  8. #23
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    Y'know, I don't think it's a big deal to be wrong about something, as long as we're arguing and debating in good faith. I kind of doubt that you're arguing in good faith here. It just seems like you'll keep twisting the argument so that you don't have to concede a single point. Disappointing.

    The original argument was that the technical flaws that Mao had in her jumping technique weren't universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0. I have cited numerous examples and evidence to show that that is not true. Flutzing and underrotating were clearly and specifically against the rules under 6.0. This isn't even about Mao and her coaches or blaming or whatnot. It's about a scoring system that is being inaccurately described here.

    The fact that there was no technical panel back then and whether or not judges consistently noticed skaters making such errors is a separate, independent issue from whether or not those flaws were universally recognized as flaws per the scoring system and the rules of the time. They were absolutely recognized as errors and flaws. Case in point: in 1998, Frank Carroll never denied that flutzing was an error back then; he merely denied that Michelle Kwan flutzed. There's a distinct difference between the two.

    ...Um, the exact deduction for wrong edges and underrotations is still left up to the judges under the current IJS. They can choose to give a skater a GOE like 0, -1, or -2 for a flutz after taking all qualities of the jump into account. They were given a range of deductions under 6.0 that they could apply depending on the severity of the error and they're given similar flexibility under IJS.

    You're really nitpicking now with this argument about the rules back then being "more vague" or "not as clear." No, the rules back then are not the same as the rules now, and they were not as detailed. They were different systems. However, the rules back then were clear enough that there should be specific deductions for the flaws that inskate said weren't universally recognized as flaws. Nope. They were clearly punishable flaws under 6.0. It was in the rules. There were deductions spelled out. The end.
    No one needs to twist points or avoid conceding anything, as you are absolutely right that flutzing and under-rotations were always flaws whether 6.0 or CoP, but under 6.0 the deductions were not applied as strictly and consistently, so some coaches let those flaws slide. Which I was trying to say and I suspect was inskate's originally intended point anyway, despite the poor wording. Latching onto that one sentence is just as nitpicky in my opinion as the bulk of that original post was spent explaining the technical problems with Mao's jumps.

  9. #24
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    825
    Quote Originally Posted by CarneAsada View Post
    No one needs to twist points or avoid conceding anything, as you are absolutely right that flutzing and under-rotations were always flaws whether 6.0 or CoP, but under 6.0 the deductions were not applied as strictly and consistently, so some coaches let those flaws slide. Which I was trying to say and I suspect was inskate's originally intended point anyway, despite the poor wording. Latching onto that one sentence is just as nitpicky in my opinion as the bulk of that original post was spent explaining the technical problems with Mao's jumps.
    Ok, so some coaches let those flaws slide, and some did not. Therefore there was a choice made on the coach's part. There was no systematized acceptance of flaws under the 6.0 rules. Thank you for finally conceding this.

    And no, I didn't just latch onto that one sentence, I responded to a good chunk of that post. The one sentence I cited most often is a very convenient summary of inskate's whole argument about the 6.0 system. And that argument sets the entire context for Mao's jump issues and why she had flaws that needed to be fixed. I had a legitimate disagreement with someone inaccurately describing the 6.0 system and its rules. Is that really nitpicking? I think you're nitpicking about whether I'm nitpicking.

  10. #25
    Custard Title
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    Ok, so some coaches let those flaws slide, and some did not. Therefore there was a choice made on the coach's part. There was no systematized acceptance of flaws under the 6.0 rules. Thank you for finally conceding this.

    And no, I didn't just latch onto that one sentence, I responded to a good chunk of that post. The one sentence I cited most often is a very convenient summary of inskate's whole argument about the 6.0 system. And that argument sets the entire context for Mao's jump issues and why she had flaws that needed to be fixed. I had a legitimate disagreement with someone inaccurately describing the 6.0 system and its rules. Is that really nitpicking? I think you're nitpicking about whether I'm nitpicking.
    Would you like to nitpick over the definition of a legitimate disagreement, too? I think this back-and-forth has been a useful clarification for oversimplifications in the original post, as you don't seem to disagree with explanations of flaws in Mao's technique, or that raking one coach over the coals is unneeded, or with my final explanation of why early problems were overlooked. Hardly a disagreement or argument as we kept saying the same things. But thanks for adding a more detailed and nuanced explanation of the 6.0 situation.

  11. #26
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    210
    Just a quick reply before I leave:

    Quote Originally Posted by jaylee View Post
    Sorry, I just can't agree with what you're saying about 6.0. Technical flaws such as a flutz, mule kick/hammer toe, and underrotating were universally acknowledged as flaws under 6.0.
    English is not my native language, so I apologize for not making myself clear. The definitions of correct take-offs come from the 6.0 era, and the judges were instructed to penalize for them. Some of the commentators and coaches pais attention to them, and I know at least of 2 skaters who started reworking their Lutz before the judges started to really scrutinize the jumps (Joannie Rochette and Nobunari Oda).

    However, a lot of coaches sort of... turned a blind eye to certain flaws, because it was easier to hide it from the judges, than to force a kid to learn the jump properly (and temporarily render him/her inconsistent & suffer criticism from the skater's parents and his/her federation). Hiding Lutzes in "the Lutz corner", where it was difficult for the judges to see the take-off edge, was common. Because there was a clause "if the judge isn't certain, a jump should be judged in the skater's favor" a lot of flawed jumps passed under the radar, so to speak.

    The mule kick/hammer toe was even less criticized. Certainly, there were some coaches who did acknowledge that it could mess up a skater's timing (again, Joannie Rochette had a mulish take-off as a junior, but it was eventually fixed). However, I don't remember any commentarors criticizing it - Dick * Peggy thought Sasha's jumps were "exquisite", and never mentioned that her lack of consistency might be caused by her technique (among other things).

    Oops, I have to go, I'll reply to the rest of your post when I get back. Again, sorry for not explaining things properly in the first place!

  12. #27
    Custom Title mary01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    499
    Well regardless of which jumping technique is better or most efficient, if the skater is a naturally talented jumper, the technique will not make that much of a difference, just think about skaters like Mao Asada, Miki ando or Midori ito. Their jump arsenal and consistency has been incredible despite not having been teached the most efficient technique as novice skaters. Naturally born jumpers are just naturally born jumpers!

  13. #28
    Custom Title
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    305
    Quote Originally Posted by mary01 View Post
    Well regardless of which jumping technique is better or most efficient, if the skater is a naturally talented jumper, the technique will not make that much of a difference, just think about skaters like Mao Asada, Miki ando or Midori ito. Their jump arsenal and consistency has been incredible despite not having been teached the most efficient technique as novice skaters. Naturally born jumpers are just naturally born jumpers!
    Not really, in the case of Mao, as inskate has comprehensively explained, her flawed technique was ok as long as her body was tiny but then when she grew up, more and more problems occured finally leading to her giving up on the lutz and salchow around 2009 and having hard time controlling the flawed flip too. Ultimetaly, she did have to go to the drawing board and re-learn the proper technique as the old one she was tought in her childhood was not sufficient enough for her to be able to fully rotate flips and lutzes and land them consistently with good flow-out, regardless of natural jumping ability she doubtlessly has. Mao's example actually proves the contrary to what you're claiming. Flawed technique is so hazardous that it can ultimately destroy one's jumps even if one has natural jumping talent and it is of a paramount importance that coaches teach young children the proper technique from the very beginning.

  14. #29
    Custom Title mary01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Bartek View Post
    Not really, in case of Mao, as inskate has comprehensively explained, her flawed technique was ok as long as her body was tiny but then when she grew up, more and more problems occured finally leading to her giving up on the lutz and salchow around 2009 and having hard time controlling the flawed flip too. Ultimetaly, she did have to go to the drawing board and re-learn the proper technique as the old one she was tought in her childhood was not sufficient enough for her to be able to fully rotate flips and lutzes and land them consistently with good flow-out, regardless of natural jumping ability she doubtlessly has. Mao's example actually proves the contrary to what you're claiming. Flawed technique is so hazardous that it can ultimately destroy one's jumps even if one has natural jumping talent and it is of a paramount importance that coaches teach young children the proper technique from the very beginning.
    I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

    Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.

  15. #30
    Tripping on the Podium
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by mary01 View Post
    I don't think so, despite people making such a big deal about jump techniques, some of the skaters who are considered to have text book techniques like Gao and Elizaveta are also some of the most inconsistent this season. I think a technique plays a big role, but so does other factors. But examples like Mao and Miki show that despite not always having had what is considered the most efficient technique, they were still exceptionally good jumpers, and Mao's jumps in particular also looked beautiful and effortless.

    Then there are examples like Kanako who's technique really isn't the most pleasing to see, but it works for her.
    I don't think you and Bartek are talking on the same page. He/She is talking about because of the flawed technique, Asada became more and more prone to underotations and inconsistency during 2008-2010 when her body continued to grow. You are talking about despite the flawed technique, her jumps still looked beautiful and effortless.

    What you said didn't answer his/her argument that they were underroated and somehow inconsistent during that time, DESPITE her jumps looked nice.

    Aren't you talking on a different topic to his/her?

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 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
  •