Don't misread me. My point is not that Shizuka Arakawa, Sarah Hughes (maybe an exception here), and Tara Lipinski were going around cheating jumps left and right and that it was swept under the rug. My point is that they won the Olympics because they were strong skaters and all strong jumpers, regardless of a few degrees of lost rotation here and there. The fact that I am trying to impress upon this board, and in particular this discussion, is that this does not constitute cheated jumping. I forget who it was now, but another poster indirectly backed me up on the issue, reiterating that a normal triple jump may have as little as 2.25 rotations in the air. This is what is physically (as in physics) normal.
I am not misreading you, Jeff Goldbum. My literacy is top-notch.
Your argument was along the lines of (and correct me if I'm wrong, and adjust the way you structure your arguments) "historically speaking, this is how female jumpers jumped, and how they won Olympic titles, so why the drastic changes, I liked the guidelines before as is."
I already had a more specific discussion with
Blades of Glory in another thread regarding the air-rotation issue. The 2.25 approximation is not etched in stone and is subject to a certain interpretation of other rules. For example, it may be said that 2.25 air rotations is reasonable for certain triple jumps where the technique allows up to 1/2 pre-rotation before taking to the air (e.g. triple loop), but for other triples, it is probably NOT normal (e.g. triple flip--especially for the guys) and I found a lot of quality 2.5+ air rotational triple-jump examples from skaters not even considered the best jumpers. So throw out that conception of "normal". (btw, I only submitted to 2.25 because of BoP's insistence that even 2.5 rotations in the air for those typically 1/2 pre-rotated jumps is to demand too much perfection.)
Secondly, I am objecting to a norms-based-standard; I don't care so much what is currently or has historically been "normal" and "acceptable", especially within the female figure skating establishment. We already know that it is possible. Do you think YuNa or Joannie have some freaky genetics where their anatomy or muscles aren't ordinarily human? Can you think of non-biological reasons why their techniques and methods are exceptions? (I already proposed some non-physical--as in physics--reasons why it may be so.)
Third, what was "normal" is contextual, with respect to the rules of the day and motivation. Let me explain. The argument "most girls jumped like that and it was accepted" is within the 6.0 era which we already agreed was more lax about underrotations, etc. That means less motivation to push harder for a different "norm". So it's not a very good argument. I already posted here explaining why motivation and execution are both tied hand-in-hand. Bottom-line is,
just because it was normal in the past doesn't mean we can't get to a higher, better "normal".
I always had that association whenever I saw your username, so it snuck out that time, I guess.
