Would Plush have won if the new rules had been applied?

janetfan · May 23, 2010

museksk8r said:
Well, Takahashi did attempt a 4flip in his Worlds LP this season when he won. He was close, but no cigar. It's not like he didn't attempt one at all like Buttle and Lysacek though.

Would the majority of fans rather see a skater fall down on a quad or land a clean 3A?

I guess it depends on our individual preferences.
I would rather watch a clean Buttle or Chan than a clean Joubert or Plushy.

Others feel differently. I think it is good for skating that we have some wonderful artistic skaters as well as some big jumpers. To be fair, they all perform a variery of jumps and all have their own brand of artistry.

I am a fan of Dai's skating whether he does a quad or not. I do like most skaters better when they don't fall down. Maybe others prefer the thrill of a splat but not me.

Olympia · May 23, 2010

Obviously, one hopes that skaters who have reached a certain level can exhibit proficiency in jumps and other elements of skating. But I take that for granted in a world-class competition. At that point, I don't really count jumps. I look at the overall effect. That's why, like Janetfan, I love Takahashi whether he does a quad or not, and in fact I love Takahashi whether he wins or not. He's still Takahashi, and his skating is unequaled, whether someone else beats him on that particular day. It's probably why I don't think much about whether Plushenko would have won the Olympics with another set of numbers grading his jumps.

gmyers · May 23, 2010

ImaginaryPogue said:
Exactly. So the question is what changed? Did the system change? The quad value stayed the same. The triple axel went from 7.5 to 8.2, but in the 08/09 season (Lysacek WC). Were there any other changes that might have effected the value of the quad (not base value, general value). If so, then yeah, you can argue that the system did hurt the quad.

Maybe that change in the triple axel was enough-because if you add the bonus and a double toe after the halfway point -you get a quad equal value.

museksk8r said:
Well, Takahashi did attempt a 4flip in his Worlds LP this season when he won. He was close, but no cigar. It's not like he didn't attempt one at all like Buttle and Lysacek though.

I did see that he got 4F< which was better than 3F and maybe the new rules it would have been 4F with negative GOE but it would have meant more for skating as a whole if it was 4F with plus GOE. I mean an Olympic season with no winner of a major event doing any kind of quad?

ImaginaryPogue · May 23, 2010

In 2007, a quad was worth nine points. A 3A+2T after the second half would've been worth 9.68, so it's always been worth more.

dorispulaski · May 23, 2010

Mathman said:
Still no separate base value for jumps like a single toe Wally or inside Axel. I think the idea is that no-one can do triples of these jumps anyway, so their use is limited to connecting steps. If they gave a base value to a toe Wally, a skater would have to use up one of his jumping passes on a jump that he would at best be a double.

That would be a triple wally, not a triple toe wally, that no one has ever done . Elaine Zayak used to do a triple toe wally, and lots of other skaters have done it too. The triple toe wally is graded under COP as a triple toe loop, and that's been how it is since the Zayak Rule was created.

Mathman · May 23, 2010

I don't think Elaine Zayak ever did a true toe Walley (I kooked up the spelling :laugh:

), in the sense of taking off from an inside edge. As I understand it. many people call a toe loop a toe Walley if it uses the "Walley entrance" of a forward outside three-turn followed by a little hop. Others frown on this usage.

Now that I am reminded, I think gkelly did once post a video of a skater actually attempting an true inside edge triple toe Walley. It was definitely a rarity, though.

Maybe some of our technical experts can comment?

annamac · May 24, 2010

What happened to cause the decline of the quad? I think it was 3 factors coming together:

1) In 2008 Jeff Buttle was the first skater in a decade to win the world title without a quad. Until that point I don't think anybody thought it was possible - in theory, yes, because the CoP allowed it, but not in reality. When skaters with shaky quads or no quads at all saw that they realized that they had a chance, if they tailored their programs right - especially if the quadmasters made a mistake (as was the case in 2008 Worlds).

2) After that the SoV was reworked a little, and the value of the quads and 3A was raised a bit - but so did the penalty. The GoE on a bad quad was enough to render the jump worthless unless you were sure you could land it with positive GoE. The points for a fall on an underrotated quad were ZERO - as if you attempted nothing, while you could score 1.5 points for a nice 2T, so why bother?

3) At the same time, several prominent quadmasters retired/sat out 2009 - Lambiel retired (then came back), Takahashi took a year off for health reasons. That basically left out Joubert and Verner, neither of which had a particulary consistent season. Again - why bother with something risky when you can skate safe and trust the quadmaster to make at least one mistake, which would be enough to win.

But this thread carried itself into Vancouver, where Lysacek, who no one will "accuse" of being the most artistic skater (the "Yagudin" of the match), won without a quad against the old master Plushenko (not quite the "Goeble" of the match), who landed a 4-3 and made no "visible" mistakes - I mean his landings weren't as good, but he did not fall and I think not even a stepout (it's not as if I want to see either program again to check). This caused a lot of peple to say "Huh?" and the ISU to take a step back and reconsider.

Would Plushy have won under the new rules and SoV? Yes, by a narrow margin (about the same as Lysacek's narrow margin). As many people would have been happy with that as with Lysacek's win (maybe they would be from other parts of the world). It was a close competition, anyway.

A more interesting question would be - would Joubert have won against either Takahashi or Chan in Torino, where he landed two quads (neither perfect)? Remember, Joubert landed 2 quads and 5 triples, fell on his 6th triple, while Chan landed 7 triples and fell on his 8th. Which is better? Well, I ran the numbers, and while Joubert would have received a lot more points that he actualy did in Torino, Takahashi and Chan would also have benefitted from the new combo bonus and Dai would receive the new base value for his underrotated 4F, so the order would have remained the same, although the result would be much closer. Are you satisfied with that?

Anna

Joesitz (RIP) · May 24, 2010

Mathman said:
I wouldn't exactly say no hope. For next season the base value of a double Axel will be lowered, a triple toe raised, a triple Salchow lowered, a triple loop raised, a triple flip lowered, a triple Axel raised, a quad toe raised, and a quad Salchow raised.

Only one jump stayed the same, the triple Lutz.

Still no separate base value for jumps like a single toe Wally or inside Axel. I think the idea is that no-one can do triples of these jumps anyway, so their use is limited to connecting steps. If they gave a base value to a toe Wally, a skater would have to use up one of his jumping passes on a jump that he would at best be a double.

Even with the changes, the Loop Jump still gets more value than the Salchow. What a Tech Panelist should be looking for is a defined back inside take off of the salchow and flip. If you look closesly many skaters take off on the Flat of the blade. But then again, any which way take offs have never been considered an error. Technique is only considered for the air rotations and the landings on all Jumps.

No one is stopping a skater from executing a Tripple Walley. It's not so much about using a jump pass as it is about base values. There are no BVS for any kind of Walley. The single Walley could be used for the PC scores, I would imagine.

Olympia · May 24, 2010

Quote: "It's not as if I want to see either program again to check."

Cute one, Annamac! It's true that neither program was an artistic accomplishment for the ages, though Lysacek's was far more meticulous, and of course compliant with the CoP rules of its time. Keep in mind that if the rules had been different, Lysacek and Carroll would have crafted a program to those rules--possibly without a quad, but racking up the points in some other manner--while Plushenko would have been equally dismissive of the requirements for moves in the field, jumps executed throughout the program and so on.

I would love to see Lambiel's short program again, though! And Takahashi's long.

Joesitz (RIP) · May 24, 2010

Mathman said:
I don't think Elaine Zayak ever did a true toe Walley (I kooked up the spelling ), in the sense of taking off from an inside edge. As I understand it. many people call a toe loop a toe Walley if it uses the "Walley entrance" of a forward outside three-turn followed by a little hop. Others frown on this usage.

Now that I am reminded, I think gkelly did once post a video of a skater actually attempting an true inside edge triple toe Walley. It was definitely a rarity, though.

Maybe some of our technical experts can comment?

I presume the ICJ does not want its Skaters to be in danger of the difficulties in executing Triple Walleys, any more than executing Triple Toeless Lutzes.

They are extremely difficult, and could cause grave harm even during practice. So no credit/no Sov.

PolymerBob · May 24, 2010

annamac said:
2) The GoE on a bad quad was enough to render the jump worthless unless you were sure you could land it with positive GoE. The points for a fall on an underrotated quad were ZERO - as if you attempted nothing, while you could score 1.5 points for a nice 2T, so why bother?

I thought that under the old rules, a fall on a quad was the value of a triple with -GOE, minus 1 for the fall. I'm prettty sure that's more than zero.

gkelly · May 24, 2010

Mathman said:
Now that I am reminded, I think gkelly did once post a video of a skater actually attempting an true inside edge triple toe Walley. It was definitely a rarity, though.

I don't remember finding a good example of a clear inside-edge triple toe walley.

I did once post an example of a very rare double walley (no toe assist). The edge wasn't totally clear there either.

Joesitz said:
Even with the changes, the Loop Jump still gets more value than the Salchow.

As well it should.

What a Tech Panelist should be looking for is a defined back inside take off of the salchow and flip. If you look closesly many skaters take off on the Flat of the blade.

On flips, yes. Not on salchows.

But then again, any which way take offs have never been considered an error. Technique is only considered for the air rotations and the landings on all Jumps.

Depending on the nature of the problem, of course a bad takeoff can be considered an error. Some kinds of takeoff errors are strictly scrutinized by the technical panel for determining the name of the jump in the first place, whether it was sufficiently rotated or needs to be downgraded, or whether it deserves an "edge call" (flip vs. lutz).

Other kinds of takeoff errors are up to the individual judges to evaluate. Some judges will be more vigilant than others, and the of viewing can affect what they see as well.

No one is stopping a skater from executing a Tripple Walley.

No person is stopping a skater from executing triple walley. Nor are any rules (although as you note it would earn no points if identified as such).

What's stopping skaters from executing triple or even double walleys is Physics. It's too difficult even for good jumpers to accomplish at all.

The single Walley could be used for the PC scores, I would imagine.

It can be and it often is.

Joesitz said:
I presume the ICJ does not want its Skaters to be in danger of the difficulties in executing Triple Walleys, any more than executing Triple Toeless Lutzes.

They are extremely difficult, and could cause grave harm even during practice. So no credit/no Sov.

I don't think it's so much that the ISU is trying to discourage skaters from doing these jumps as that they see no reason to build a score into the Scale of Values for a jump that doesn't exist in practice.

What would be the point of declaring that a triple unicorn is worth 25 points if no one has ever seen a triple unicorn in real life and even the reports of double unicorns are rare and dubious?

PolymerBob said:
I thought that under the old rules, a fall on a quad was the value of a triple with -GOE, minus 1 for the fall. I'm prettty sure that's more than zero.

The rules changed over the years, but for the last several years the amount of TES remaining for a triple toe with a -3 GOE was 1.0. After you also take off the 1.00 deduction for a fall, that left a net value of 0 for a fall on an underrotated quad.

PolymerBob · May 24, 2010

gkelly said:
The rules changed over the years, but for the last several years the amount of TES remaining for a triple toe with a -3 GOE was 1.0. After you also take off the 1.00 deduction for a fall, that left a net value of 0 for a fall on an underrotated quad.

Well, that explains how those guys won Worlds and Olympics without Quad Almighty.

gmyers · May 24, 2010

annamac said:
What happened to cause the decline of the quad? I think it was 3 factors coming together:

1) In 2008 Jeff Buttle was the first skater in a decade to win the world title without a quad. Until that point I don't think anybody thought it was possible - in theory, yes, because the CoP allowed it, but not in reality. When skaters with shaky quads or no quads at all saw that they realized that they had a chance, if they tailored their programs right - especially if the quadmasters made a mistake (as was the case in 2008 Worlds).

2) After that the SoV was reworked a little, and the value of the quads and 3A was raised a bit - but so did the penalty. The GoE on a bad quad was enough to render the jump worthless unless you were sure you could land it with positive GoE. The points for a fall on an underrotated quad were ZERO - as if you attempted nothing, while you could score 1.5 points for a nice 2T, so why bother?

3) At the same time, several prominent quadmasters retired/sat out 2009 - Lambiel retired (then came back), Takahashi took a year off for health reasons. That basically left out Joubert and Verner, neither of which had a particulary consistent season. Again - why bother with something risky when you can skate safe and trust the quadmaster to make at least one mistake, which would be enough to win.

But this thread carried itself into Vancouver, where Lysacek, who no one will "accuse" of being the most artistic skater (the "Yagudin" of the match), won without a quad against the old master Plushenko (not quite the "Goeble" of the match), who landed a 4-3 and made no "visible" mistakes - I mean his landings weren't as good, but he did not fall and I think not even a stepout (it's not as if I want to see either program again to check). This caused a lot of peple to say "Huh?" and the ISU to take a step back and reconsider.

Would Plushy have won under the new rules and SoV? Yes, by a narrow margin (about the same as Lysacek's narrow margin). As many people would have been happy with that as with Lysacek's win (maybe they would be from other parts of the world). It was a close competition, anyway.

A more interesting question would be - would Joubert have won against either Takahashi or Chan in Torino, where he landed two quads (neither perfect)? Remember, Joubert landed 2 quads and 5 triples, fell on his 6th triple, while Chan landed 7 triples and fell on his 8th. Which is better? Well, I ran the numbers, and while Joubert would have received a lot more points that he actualy did in Torino, Takahashi and Chan would also have benefitted from the new combo bonus and Dai would receive the new base value for his underrotated 4F, so the order would have remained the same, although the result would be much closer. Are you satisfied with that?

Anna

Good interesting post. Lots of stuff here-also lysacek nearly beat Plushenko on jumps in the long programs because of all the bonus points he got for doing so many jumps after the halfway point. If you can nearly beat someone with a quad triple because of bonus points and goe on triple jumps after the halfway point of course that is a major reason not to do any qyads.

Olympia said:
Quote: "It's not as if I want to see either program again to check."

Cute one, Annamac! It's true that neither program was an artistic accomplishment for the ages, though Lysacek's was far more meticulous, and of course compliant with the CoP rules of its time. Keep in mind that if the rules had been different, Lysacek and Carroll would have crafted a program to those rules--possibly without a quad, but racking up the points in some other manner--while Plushenko would have been equally dismissive of the requirements for moves in the field, jumps executed throughout the program and so on.

I would love to see Lambiel's short program again, though! And Takahashi's long.

There is no requirement to put jumps throughout a program-you just get bonus points if you do. Now this discourages people from doing the hardest jumps I think so they only do triples now to do more jumps after the halfway point. I don't see any benefit in backloading jumps if it means the difficulty level of jumps goes down as a result-which is happening and bad for skating as a sport.

janetfan · May 24, 2010

gmyers said:
Good interesting post. Lots of stuff here-also lysacek nearly beat Plushenko on jumps in the long programs because of all the bonus points he got for doing so many jumps after the halfway point. If you can nearly beat someone with a quad triple because of bonus points and goe on triple jumps after the halfway point of course that is a major reason not to do any qyads.

.

There was nothing stopping Plushy from doing a quad and then saving more triple jumps for the second half of his program. If he passed up the bonus points there was a very good reason for it.

Tim Goebel landed triple jumps and a third quad in the second half of his LP back in 2002 so we have seen it done.

Of course it is more difficult to do so many triples in the second half of an LP and that is why CoP awards them bonus points. It is in the rules and every skater and coach is aware of this. Some can do them - and some probably would struggle.

ImaginaryPogue · May 24, 2010

Yeah, gmyers, you're making a fundamental omission and that is the guys were still doing quads when the back end bonus was first applied. I agree with anamac - that a number of factors came together that exist outside the system that cause the quad to decline. The ISU is making an effort to rectify that, clearly, but I didn't think this three year trend signals something for the future of the sport. Essentially what Lysacek and Buttle did is skate their hearts out and earn their medal, but relied on Joubert/Plushenko to make mistakes to actually win.

gmyers · May 24, 2010

I can't think of any skaters who do a quad and then do as many jumps after the halfway point as skaters who don't. Obviouslhy that is for a reason. At the recent world championships the top three skaters in the free skate had no quads and all had five pluus jumps after the halfway point Joubert was the only one -to do two quads and he came in 4th place in the free skate-he also fell once but did do 2 quads. So you had all the clean triple people beat the ones with with quads. I am getting the feeling that you think quad skaters are lazy or have no stamina.

You saw what happened to Goebel's career under COP so how can you compare 6.0 successes to COP skaters?

janetfan · May 24, 2010

gmyers said:
I can't think of any skaters who do a quad and then do as many jumps after the halfway point as skaters who don't. Obviouslhy that is for a reason. At the recent world championships the top three skaters in the free skate had no quads and all had five pluus jumps after the halfway point Joubert was the only one -to do two quads and he came in 4th place in the free skate-he also fell once but did do 2 quads. So you had all the clean triple people beat the ones with with quads. I am getting the feeling that you think quad skaters are lazy or have no stamina.

You saw what happened to Goebel's career under COP so how can you compare 6.0 successes to COP skaters?

Yags and Goebel both had to end their careers prematurely. It had nothing to do with the system but possibly had something to do with practicing quads.

I do know that Plushy said he had to skip Worlds this year because the the quads were killing his knee. Dai also blew out a knee and I would hate for some of these skaters to cut their careers short just for one jump. Dai is such a wonderful all around skater I would feel bad if he gets hurt again by putting such stress on his body.

Mathman · May 24, 2010

If I remember correctly the reason for giving the 10% bonus fro jumps in the second half had to do with the "balanced program" idea that underlies the whole concept of the CoP. I think it is not so much about stamina as about choreography.

Skaters were loading up their programs with as many quads and triple Axels as they could do in the first two minutes, with very little "program." But the music may call for technical highlights in the second half, too.

janetfan · May 24, 2010

Mathman said:
If I remember correctly the reason for giving the 10% bonus fro jumps in the second half had to do with the "balanced program" idea that underlies the whole concept of the CoP. I think it is not so much about stamina as about choreography.

Skaters were loading up their programs with as many quads and triple Axels as they could do in the first two minutes, with very little "program." But the music may call for technical highlights in the second half, too.

And why do you suppose certain skaters were frontloading as opposed to spreading the jumps throughout the program? Certainly not because it is easier to save some of the big tricks for the second half of the program?

Could it have been that the ISU saw a need for more balanced and better looking programs and used the bonus as a way to encourage this? :think:

Would Plush have won if the new rules had been applied?

janetfan

Match Penalty

Olympia

gmyers

ImaginaryPogue

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl

Mathman

annamac

Joesitz (RIP)

Olympia

Joesitz (RIP)

PolymerBob

gkelly

PolymerBob

gmyers

janetfan

Match Penalty

ImaginaryPogue

gmyers

janetfan

Match Penalty

Mathman

janetfan

Match Penalty

Similar threads

Connect with us