- Joined
- Feb 28, 2012
Thank you for letting me know! Now I remember this article (because I didn't like they used Boyang's photo), 4A is 12 points there and I don't know what to say, but yeah, I will wait for the final decision.
ISU VP Lakernik: № of quads may be limited
- Thread starter Tyranid
- Start date
Thank you for letting me know! Now I remember this article (because I didn't like they used Boyang's photo), 4A is 12 points there and I don't know what to say, but yeah, I will wait for the final decision.
If the BV reduction is 10% rather than the initial proposals it won't make a lot of difference. Apart from 4Lz, 0.7 higher if 10% reduction and 4A (let's wait till we see one), everything else is within 0.2/0.3 of the initial proposal. It's the GOE now potentially +/- 5 or 6 points that makes the difference (is currently 3/4).
N.B. In an earlier thread I worked out that the 'cross-over point' for +ve GOE jumps is about +4 GOE under the new system and Lakernik sees to have confirmed this (the 10% per GOE) in his interview, therefore I think we can take it as read that you'll now have the situation where small positive GOE jumps will score a bit less than now, but very good ones will score the same, and excellent/exceptional will score higher. For -ve GOE ones though the skater will lose out a lot more and especially on falls.
N.B. In an earlier thread I worked out that the 'cross-over point' for +ve GOE jumps is about +4 GOE under the new system and Lakernik sees to have confirmed this (the 10% per GOE) in his interview, therefore I think we can take it as read that you'll now have the situation where small positive GOE jumps will score a bit less than now, but very good ones will score the same, and excellent/exceptional will score higher. For -ve GOE ones though the skater will lose out a lot more and especially on falls.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Not really. 4T with 0 GOE is still better to do than 3lz with +5 GOE. 4T with +4 GOE will bring you a lot of points. But if you are falling on quads, yes you lose.
From what was discussed here I was under the impression that a triple could "overtake" a 0 GOE quad at about +4 or +5 GOE. So realistically, someone with very good triples could on TES beat someone with not that great quads, even if clean. But people with quality quads will be very hard to catch up to.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
3lz cant, well 3A can... 3Lz + 5 goe = 5.9 + 2.95 = 8.85. 4T with 0 goe = 9.5
3lz cant, well 3A can... 3Lz + 5 goe = 5.9 + 2.95 = 8.85. 4T with 0 goe = 9.5
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2014
I'm actually okay with them having a well done 3 axel equal to a mediocre quad. 3 axels are hard. A lot of guys have quads but can't land the axel. Let's reward those guys and gals who have lovely triple axels.
But then I'm part of the "I'd rather see a clean program" club.
But then I'm part of the "I'd rather see a clean program" club.
I echo the sentiment that decreasing the BV of quads is an okay step but the expansion of GoE to -5/+5 doesn't really change anything until they specifically spell out exactly what it is. When I initially heard about the extension of GoE, I thought they were adding a grading rubric.
For example, 1 GoE point would correspond with one specific aspect of an element that they would define. Like Height of jump, distance, speed, rotation position and each thing that the skater does would be given a +1 or -1 if executed poorly. Only a jump that satisfies all the specifically laid out criteria would get a +5 GoE. It seems like the one proposed is more of the same subjectivity.
I guess the flaw with the one I thought was happening would be that height of jump would be limited to +1 but in the case of like a Midori Ito doing her 3A, which is a HUGE jump, getting the same +1 as someone who was just regularly high would seem unfair.
For example, 1 GoE point would correspond with one specific aspect of an element that they would define. Like Height of jump, distance, speed, rotation position and each thing that the skater does would be given a +1 or -1 if executed poorly. Only a jump that satisfies all the specifically laid out criteria would get a +5 GoE. It seems like the one proposed is more of the same subjectivity.
I guess the flaw with the one I thought was happening would be that height of jump would be limited to +1 but in the case of like a Midori Ito doing her 3A, which is a HUGE jump, getting the same +1 as someone who was just regularly high would seem unfair.
^^^ I hope that very good and excellent/exceptional height and distance get extra bullet points compared with now i.e. just +1 for good height and distance. I suspect the +4/+5 GOEs will just be more bullet points (though there could be a bit of re-jigging going on for +2 and +3), rather than them re-inventing the wheel.
Oh, I thought we weren't sure yet what the new base values were gonna be (like, there was talk of 30 or 40% decrease for all and 10% decrease for quads and stuff)? But I agree that it's good if a very good 3A can score more than a mediocre quad.
?- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I was calculating according to rumors about new base values and what we know about new goe values (where every goe is worth 10% of bv). About the bv for jumps - 4T for example drop from 10.3 to 9.5. 3Lz from 6 to 5.9. I think tho 3F stayed the same or even rise a litlle, so even if judges are not sure about the change of edge, whatever call they make in that case, difference wont be that big.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I kinda liked that to get +3s you didn't have to hit every bullet point. While it remains to be seen how it'll be assessed, I'm wondering if skaters will literally try to load every feature into their jumps to get max GOE (e.g. this will actually cause more skaters to do all tanos/rippons, for fear of not hitting all the GOE bullet points).
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Actually, that is the case in the current guidelance. Judges are able to give 'double goe' for exceptional something about the jump, height and distance included. Also variations in jumps, as tano and rippon or delay in rotation arent necesseraly rewarded with plus goe.
Do you have a link for a document with this? All I've got is the USFSA's guidelines http://www.usfsa.org/content/2017-18 SP GOE Guidelines.pdf which just has the 8 bullet points including good height and distance. However I've heard the Eurosport commentators (Mark Hanretty) talk about extra credit for example for 2nd jumps in combinations being as big as first ones and he is very accurate when it comes to these sort of things. If you or someone else has a further breakdown of the guidelines I'd be very interested.
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2017
Lol Alexander Lakernik? Is he not the technical controller who blatantly ignored Adelina's triple flutz, under-rotated toe-loop and upgraded Adelina's level 2 step sequence to 4? I find it hilarious ISU appointed him as a Vice President. I find it even more hilarious that he's talking about technical judging. The man is obviously delusional.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
Interesting... on the one hand, December 2017 is a long time ago. On the other hand, it almost sounds like the positive GOEs might work the way I want them to. As long as positive GOEs can’t offset negatives to more than +3 GOE (or can’t go positive at all), then the risk-reward isn’t nearly as dire as initially proposed. Which is good news for women’s singles, arguably not so good news for men’s... this is all such a mess. (I still think the quad rep proposal has more potential consequences for the men but that’s a question of it passing.)
From what I understand, bullets 1 and 2 (entry) are applied to the first jump, and bullet 5 (exit) applies to the landing of the final jump. The rest apply to all jumps in the combo, with 3 (varied air position / delay in rotation) being an oddity and one that can cancel out another positive feature (if you go for a tano but in doing so lose bullet 4, you’ve created the same number of positive features); you also don’t need to hit bullet 3 for all jumps in order to get +3 GOE for the combo, nor do all jumps in the combo need to meet that particular feature in order for a skater to be awarded credit for it.
It’s not that there’s “extra credit” so much as that a quality -2T/-2Lo should be worth more to the combination’s total GOE than a small, laboured one. A skater shouldn’t technically be awarded bullet 4 (great distance and height) if the second jump in the combo is lacking. Even if you still wanted to award the first jump bullet 4, however, you could theoretically still hold the combo under +3 GOE (as you should) by not awarding bullet 7 (effortless throughout).
So, yeah, each jump isn’t awarded individual GOEs so much as that entry and exit GOEs are applied to the first and final jump, respectively, while the bullets assessing jump quality are relevant for each jump in the combination. That’s my understanding, at least. [emoji3]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
Oh, for goodness' sake...
You do realise that the technical controller cannot do anything on his own, right?
Oh, like that document from Icenetwork (I think) from like September? I tend to think that's outdated info, seeing that in that proposal, the BVs got decreased unevenly for different jumps, but in all the recent rumors it seems like the decrease will be even (as in 10% of BV lower for quads).
Similar threads
