Reasons why the 'Stepukin' twizzles failed at Skate America

sisinka said:

I agree that originality is something what is loosing, with old rules there were much more couples with original and breathtaking programs, while now it tries to look like an athletic sport only (like 3 000 metres of hurdles).

ISU rules tries to come with originality – new Twizzles with new positions are original. But there is a posibility that Sit position can’t be performed correctly like Twizzle. Also Hurtado & Diaz were in trouble and their Sit Twizzles looked like a Piruette more than like Twizzles.

What you must realise Gmyers, is the fact that no matter what position (difficult / easy) you have in Twizzles, it must be still Twizzles. Stepanova & Bukin are performing half Piruette / half Twizzle element in their Sit position. If you watch carefully their path on the ice (visible from normal motion during their SD, especially in Ivan’s case), you will notice that during that half rotation where they stop moving in every rotation of Sit Twizzles, they are doing minor circle on the ice with their skates of standing leg…Twizzles have another path on the ice, without any circles.

So no matter how original you want to be the basic technique of every element must be done properly. If you are not able to fulfill the basic criteria and technique of the element (Twizzles in this case), don’t do it.

Click to expand...

sneakypie said:

After watching S/B twizzles several times here us what I think happened to their level. Fair warning this will be a long, technical post.

This is the requirement to get a level 4 in a twizzle:


The Additional Features I think they were going for were:
In the first twizzle
Group B (skating leg and free leg):sit position (at least 90 degrees between the thigh and shin of the skating leg); this is a Difficult Additional Feature
in the second one it was
Group A (upper body and hands): elbow(s) at least at level with or higher than the level of the shoulders (hand(s) could be above the head, at the same level as the head, or lower than the head);
and in the third one it was
Group C (pattern, entry, exit): both partners perform a third Twizzle of at least 3 rotations, performed correctly, started with different entry edge than the first two Twizzles, and preceded by a maximum of one step for Set of Sequential Twizzles or a maximum of three steps for Set of Synchronized Twizzles.

Lets see what went wrong. They had different entry edges, direction of rotation and enough rotations in each twizzle for level four, so the error must have been in the Additional Features. In the second twizzle Stephanovas left elbow was lower than her shoulder, that drops them to level three

because they still have two Additional Features and one is a difficult one.

Now we get to the murkier part, either one of those Additional Features wasn't credited, but I don't see a reason for that since the sit position was clearly low enough and established within the first half rotation and the third twizzle had three rotation and a different edge unless the forward right outside edge and the backward right outside edge count as the same edge. Even if the third twizzle was not counted as an Additional Feature they still would have gotten a level two
for a Difficult Additional Feature.

So unless the sit position wasn't given credit for some reason, they must have had a level adjustment:


The only one that could apply, in my opinion, is the Pirouettes. Ice coverage is something that is very hard to judge in a video because of the camera angle, in the slow motion replay it looks like they are almost staying in place, but in the angle during the program they seem to travel at least a little. This is rather subjective and the judges may have had an overhead view camera to make that call.

Click to expand...

sisinka said:

Thanks for explanation.
But in this case it is a mistake of ISU rules and people who created this, because as you copy a part of rule about Level 2-4, it sounds....Different entry edge and different direction of rotation for the two Twizzles...it doesn't speak about which two Twizzles (first and third Set, or second and third Set, or first and second Set) must be done in different direction and different entry edge...it only speaks about Two Twizzles, not noticed IT MUST NECESSARILY BE FIRST TWO SETS. If rules are not explained in detail, then many people can explain it in many ways.

The same thing for example in Dance Holds....when ISU rules are saying that dance hold is counted when it is held long enough and clearly recognized...what does it mean? That you keep it for 2 seconds, or for at least one turn, or for 3 seconds?.....or one Technical Specialist will say 2 seconds are enough and another will take a half second and a beginning of one turn like long enough?

Click to expand...

sisinka said:

One thing is that ISU rules don't write that those requirements must be strictly done in first two Sets...
...another thing is that Technical specialist in Finlandia Trophy counted both Twizzles in Stepanova & Bukin's SD and FD like Level 4. He probably took ISU rules like I decribed above. Plus he really didn't notice a visible Piruette kids were doing, which should take one Level down.

What are such Technical specialists for when every single one is judging according different criterias? And as we know one level up and down can make a quite big difference in placement. At the Olympics 2014 5 couples from 12th to 16th place were in distance of 0.57 points.

And if Level 1 was thanks to bad edge in the first Sets, why are some couples getting poor marks and loosing levels for Piruettes or Three turns while Stepanova & Bukin's Sit Twizzles which are not performed correctly like Twizzles looking at blades are OK? What's the sense of it?

Click to expand...

dorispulaski said:

To get credit for level 2, level 3, or level 4, the first two twizzles must be entered from different edges. In Sasha & Ivan's case, both are entered from the Forward Outside Edge, so they get credit for Level 1 only, no matter what other features are added. As Tanith said, this is a mistake of the choregrapher-if there were an additional step and turn between the first two sets of twizzles, they could start their second twizzle from a different edge. But they didn't.

Here's the requirements for level 2, which they did not meet as a consequence of this:



Level 3 and Level 4 start with the same requirement I have bolded with only 2 twizzles talked about, so those requirements are not met either.

It doesn't matter that the extra set of twizzles started from a different edge. It is the first two twizzles that have the requirement to be different.

All that happens if they add an extra step (they can get up to 3 steps) is that the twizzle is coded as synchronized twizzles rather than sequential twizzles.

Click to expand...

elif said:

Tanith could be right. Maybe you have to do different entry edge for first two twizzles. I remember other three set of twizzlers doing three different entry edge .Last year Stepanova/Bukin did that too. If I remember correctly that junior team also lost a level on twizzles, but they must lost only Group C feature. Their first two set is different which is requirement for level2.

Click to expand...

sisinka said:

As to comments about Stepanova & Bukin and wrong entry edge like minor mistake which caused that the couple lost all Levels in Twizzles….I don’t think this is the only problem, and I even think that she is wrong.

According ISU rules:
The four (4) different types of entry edges for Twizzles are as follows:
Forward Inside; Forward Outside; Backward Inside; Backward Outside.

In both SD and FD Sasha & Ivan started with Forward Outside edge (Sit Twizzles), then continued with Forward Outside edge into different direction and the third Set with jump into it (the entry edge for the Twizzle is determined by the landing edge of the Dance Jump) was started from Backward Outside edge. So according the rules, they executed third Set of Twizzles from different entry edge then previous two ones.

But even if we imagine that the couple would loose Feature from Group C, they would still have Feature from Group A and B (arm and leg position) which would be enough for Level 2, but they got Level 1. So, I think that problem is somewhere else.

Btw. Junior Grand Prix had another Svinin & Zhuk’s students in – Shpilevaya & Smirnov and this couple uses the same Feature from Group C in their programs – they are executing third Set of Twizzles and their all Sets entry edge are - Forward Inside, Forward Outside and Forward Inside in the third Set….and the couple got Level 4 (for this Level you need Feature from all three Groups).

Rule about different direction of rotation is done by Sasha and Ivan during the first two Sets.

This time slow motion moments show a middle of Sit Twizzles and it is visible that they are both moving just for half a rotation and second half a rotation is done on one place, and in the next rotation once again and once again.

Click to expand...

breathesgelatin said:

According to Tanith Belbin on Ice Network, it was because each set of twizzles starts on the same edge. She said all they need to do is change the edge on the entrance to one set and they would be fine.

Click to expand...

dorispulaski said:

Tanith put the blame squarely on the choreographer's head.

And while we are alloting blame to the Russian test skate technical experts,…

Click to expand...

gmyers said:

It recived level 1 in both SD and FD but in a weird twist judges gave them almost unanimous +2 and +3 GOE on them!

Click to expand...

breathesgelatin said:

According to Tanith Belbin on Ice Network, it was because each set of twizzles starts on the same edge. She said all they need to do is change the edge on the entrance to one set and they would be fine.

Click to expand...

Alba said:

That's not weird though. Not letting the level of the element dictate the GoE's it's how it should be.

Click to expand...

gmyers said:

Hope she's right.
It wasn't the level it was the fundamental edge problem that I would imagine judges giving negative goe for. The technical panel saw violation of rules and did level punishment so I would think a judge would also punish.

Click to expand...

elif said:

It was not violation of rules. You can plan level1 element If you want.

Click to expand...

gmyers said:

Of course. Some say they didn't do twizzles at all though in the sit position but that they were transitional spins into twizzles. But if that's the case couldn't the technical panel have just judged the second two and wouldn't that have given them a higher level as the edge entry was different? And so the judges just judged the entry spin plus two twizzles?

Click to expand...

gmyers said:

Of course. Some say they didn't do twizzles at all though in the sit position but that they were transitional spins into twizzles. But if that's the case couldn't the technical panel have just judged the second two and wouldn't that have given them a higher level as the edge entry was different? And so the judges just judged the entry spin plus two twizzles?

Click to expand...

1. The first performed Set of Twizzles shall be identified as the required Set of Twizzles and given a Level, or No Level if the requirements for Level 1 are not met. Subsequent Sets of Twizzles shall not be identified

Click to expand...

Alba said:

I get your point now. But If the wrong edge determine the level only, as it seems in their case, then positive GoE's are fine also.

Click to expand...

dorispulaski said:

P.58 of the tech manual



Since sit twizzles are specifically described in the rules, and the first set done starts with them, it looks like the two possible levels are One and No level in this case.

Click to expand...

Sandpiper said:

Carol Lane and Kurt Browning on the CBC broadcast said it was because their twizzles made huge circles on the ice and weren't very fast? :scratch:

Side note, to anyone who think it's because they're Russians in America: They got nice PCS (which I agree with) to cover up for having low TES in the SP, allowing them to finish third. So even if there was an anti-Russian conspiracy, it definitely didn't extend beyond the technical controller. The judges certainly didn't collude to hurt them.

Click to expand...