Why are "run-throughs" bad?

[gkelly]

as for your first question, i guess it depends if you are referring to at competition practice ice or normal daily training. at practice ice many skaters won't do a full runthrough to conserve energy for the competition.

Another reason skaters might not do runthroughs at competition is because they have limited access to practice ice at the competition, and their music will be played only once during the practice session, in an order determined by random draw or by skate order.

So if their music is going to be played early in the practice session, they may not feel that they will be sufficiently warmed up to attempt most of their elements while their music is playing.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Other random question:

Why do some dance teams combine the rotational lift and stationary lift?

Wouldn't it make more sense and less risky to keep them separate? And be less strenuous as a lift? Or perhaps this gives a couple more seconds for choreography since it's one less lift set up - and if combined you might avoid an extended lift deduction?

 

[4everchan]

Other random question:

Why do some dance teams combine the rotational lift and stationary lift?

Wouldn't it make more sense and less risky to keep them separate? And be less strenuous as a lift? Or perhaps this gives a couple more seconds for choreography since it's one less lift set up - and if combined you might avoid an extended lift deduction?

less time wasted for set up but also, less risk taken as one set up and one exit only instead of two

 

[gliese]

this is interesting to hear and goes to show how individual it can be. of course it depends on a lot of different factors, but personally i needed the repetition daily to keep consistency. if i lost something, it took me a bit to get it back. i will say that i wasn't really taught proper technique until later in my career so i am sure that had a lot to do with it lol.

Yeah it mostly has to do with the fact that I have very good technique and am very strong. Before both of those things were true (aka I had pretty bad technique and was very weak) I would lose my jumps every monday after the weekend break and would spend all week gaining them back only to lose them the next week. It was such a bad cycle.

 

[Greengemmonster]

Yeah it mostly has to do with the fact that I have very good technique and am very strong. Before both of those things were true (aka I had pretty bad technique and was very weak) I would lose my jumps every monday after the weekend break and would spend all week gaining them back only to lose them the next week. It was such a bad cycle.

Whoa!!!

May I ask how hard did you find it to correct your technique and how old were you when you embarked on correcting it?

 

[gliese]

Whoa!!!

May I ask how hard did you find it to correct your technique and how old were you when you embarked on correcting it?

I was 16.

 

[elektra blue]

just out of curiosity, can new jumps or new spins be invented?

 

[gkelly]

just out of curiosity, can new jumps or new spins be invented?

Jumps are defined by their takeoff edges, whether or not they have a toe assist, and whether they rotate in the same direction or the opposite direction (counterrotation) to the takeoff edge.

Pretty much all possible combinations of the above have been attempted over the last 100 years with 1/2 or single rotation (or 1 1/2 in the case of inside axel).

If it has been done with 1 or 1 1/2 rotations, it's already been invented and may already have a name -- e.g., walley, inside axel, toeless lutz. But if it's very difficult or impossible to get doubles out of those takeoffs, let alone triples and quads, they would only be used as transitional moves, had become rare or never became common long before IJS came along, and are not included in the IJS Scale of Values. Therefore they're worth no points as elements (but could be impressive as a transitional move or part of a choreographic sequence).

If it hasn't been done with more than half a revolution, it's probably because that takeoff does not lend itself to generating rotation. Undoubtedly people tried to do singles earlier in the 20th century and concluded it was too hard to get a full revolution from that takeoff. Once doubles and then triples became important, there was even less incentive to try to master singles from awkward takeoffs.

Skaters can also invent variations of air positions for jumps (usually single or half rotation) from standard or less common takeoffs. That would make it a variation of the existing jump. The variation might have its own name, but if there is a name for that jump takeoff it could also be called by the name of that takeoff, with further explanation of the air position (e.g., delayed axel, tuck axel, split-flip).

Standard jumps land backward on one foot, usually a back outside edge. Back inside edge landings on the other foot are also allowed but less common. The single-rotation jump from a loop takeoff landing on the back inside edge of the other foot has been recognized as useful in three-jump combinations ending with flip or salchow and has therefore been included in the IJS scale of values first under the name half-loop, counting as a single loop, and more recently under the name Euler.

Landing on the opposite foot is also allowed but uncommon for multirevolution jumps used as the first jump in an two-jump combination. Very difficult to do well and with multiple revolutions, and therefore very rare. In any case, the jump would be called by the name of the takeoff.

Intentionally landing on two feet and/or landing on a forward edge would again be a variation the standard jump with the same takeoff. Some of these were attempted as transitional or novelty moves before triples and quads became the name of the game. With IJS rules, those kinds of landings would be counted as mistakes in the context of a jump element but might be usable as transitional moves/within choreo sequences.

Today's skaters might invent new variations that would fit into the transitional move category. They wouldn't invent new takeoffs for multirevolution jumps, because most possible takeoffs that aren't already part of the scale of values have already been proven impossible to do triples of. There are very very few examples from the 20th century of double inside axel and double walley -- maybe those could be added to the SoV, and maybe even someone could someday manage to get a third revolution, if it would be counted as a jump element with enough points to be worth training. So if someone suddenly mastered a triple walley and put it in a program, that would be a jump that had never been done before, but we already know well what single walleys are and that doubles are more or less possible. Adding a third revolution wouldn't be "inventing" a new jump any more than adding a fifth revolution to a toe loop would be inventing a quintuple toe. We already know what it is in theory -- it just hasn't been done yet.

For spins, there are definitions of general categories of positions, but it is always possible for skaters to come up with new variations. If a new position is unique and distinctive enough it might be given its own name, perhaps named after a skater who popularizes it (e.g., Biellmann), but for scoring purposes it would be categorized as a variation of upright, sit, camel, layback, or "nonbasic" position.

There could also be new variations on ways of using edge changes or direction changes in spins.

At what point would you define such new variations as entirely new types of spins?

 

[Tinymavy15]

just out of curiosity, can new jumps or new spins be invented?

I'm curious if any skaters start incorportaing jumps the "wrong way." In lower levels, I've seen skaters been taught how to jump and spin in both "righty" and "lefty" ways, and we've seen spins done in both ways in both ways at the senior levels here and there. During one point in IJS, spinning in both directions was in all the top dance and pairs programs as well as some singles events. How should jumps done in the "other way" be scored? If i rotate left naturally, should jumps to the right be scored higher? and vice versa?

 

[gkelly]

That's the tricky part -- figuring out a practical and equitable way to reward the difficulty of jumping in both directions.

Not to mention getting the ISU to buy into the belief that it's worth the effort.

 

[macy]

Yeah it mostly has to do with the fact that I have very good technique and am very strong. Before both of those things were true (aka I had pretty bad technique and was very weak) I would lose my jumps every monday after the weekend break and would spend all week gaining them back only to lose them the next week. It was such a bad cycle.

i hate to say i could relate to this for most of my competitive years

 

[gliese]

Why SHOULD we jump in both directions??? Not to mention I easily rotate both ways. I know many people who can't even do a single loop the other direction. It's one of those things where there actually is a HUGE discrepancy in difficulty depending on natural talent.

 

[gkelly]

Why SHOULD we jump in both directions??? Not to mention I easily rotate both ways. I know many people who can't even do a single loop the other direction. It's one of those things where there actually is a HUGE discrepancy in difficulty depending on natural talent.

Yes, that's true.

It's also true for rotating 3 or 4 times in the air. Or for getting into spread eagle or Biellmann positions, for example.

Which is why I think there should be points available for skaters who are able to do all those things, as well as points available for skaters who are able to jump both directions, especially doubles and higher.

None of those skills should be required.

As of now, triple jumps are required for senior singles skaters. Quads are not.

If there is a skater who can't master quads but who can master double axels or any triples in both directions, triple something-reverse double lutz combination, etc., why not offer them extra reward for those very difficult skills, same as there are extra rewards for rotating 4 instead of 3 times in the air?

 

[gliese]

It's also true for rotating 3 or 4 times in the air.

No one can just easily do that lmao. Many people can easily do at least an axel the opposite direction.

I'm not talking about how some things are just slightly harder for others. It's the fact that these things can be extremely easy for some. As in taking only a couple tries to land. No one takes only a couple tries for their quad salchow.

As for big spin positions, there are ALWAYS alternatives for the same points. And spread eagles have other alternatives as well as they are not a required element. Other transitions can be done.

They are not comparable.

 

[gkelly]

No one can just easily do that lmao. Many people can easily do at least an axel the opposite direction.

I'm not talking about how some things are just slightly harder for others. It's the fact that these things can be extremely easy for some. As in taking only a couple tries to land. No one takes only a couple tries for their quad salchow.

As for big spin positions, there are ALWAYS alternatives for the same points. And spread eagles have other alternatives as well as they are not a required element. Other transitions can be done.

They are not comparable.

The reward for doing a single axel in the other direction would be much smaller than the reward for doing a double (or triple!) axel in the other direction.

The latter would take a lot longer to master and should be rewarded accordingly.

Some people will discover early on in their attempts to learn those skills that the effort is not likely to pay off and can turn their attention to skills that do match their talents and body types.

The same is true for triple jumps and quads. For those who can excel in all skating skills but not in jumping high enough to rotate that many times, there should be other places they can turn their training to develop other difficult skills and be rewarded for doing so.

There are a number of other types of jump difficulty that are not currently rewarded commensurately with difficulty, or rewarded at all, or even allowed, under the current rules. Unless we want the sport to turn into primarily a rotating-in-the-air competition, there need to be other ways to earn points, through other types of jump difficulty and through other types of skating difficulty, so that we don't weed out good skaters from the possibility of competing at an elite level purely on the basis of their talents for jumping high and rotating quickly.

 

[Greengemmonster]

Super silly question but for those of you who skate seriously:

Would you rather be tall and find it more difficult to jump but obviously have height (I'm 158cm, always wished I was tall) or did you always wish to be as short as possible so that jumping would be easier?

Is it even easier to jump if you're short?

 

[anonymoose_au]

If i rotate left naturally, should jumps to the right be scored higher?

Satoko is an interesting case study here, she's a natural clockwise turner in jumps, but due to Japan's crowded rinks she had to jump counter-clockwise for safety reasons.

I wonder though, what her jumping would be like if she'd been able to jump her natural way, would they be so small? Or would she be the complete skater with amazing jumps, spins AND footwork.

Perhaps the judges subconsciously take that into account when they score her jumps!

 

[Emily98]

Super silly question but for those of you who skate seriously:

Would you rather be tall and find it more difficult to jump but obviously have height (I'm 158cm, always wished I was tall) or did you always wish to be as short as possible so that jumping would be easier?

Is it even easier to jump if you're short?

I am 180cm and would prefer being shorter, so that many elements (not just jumps, but also spin centering, deep edges, and general balance) would be easier. People often compliment me on having "nice lines and extensions", this might be the one perk of being tall, but a lower center of gravity would definitely be more practical! I don't think any woman on the current competitive circuit is my height, this just goes to show that being tall makes things harder.

Concerning your last questions about jumps in particular, here are the main reasons why being on the shorter side is an advantage (from a skater and physicist's point of view):
1) A tall skater has to deal with the inertia of long limbs when pulling in, while a short skater can pull in quicker and tighter to achieve optimal rotation speed
2) A high center of gravity makes balance more challenging, so taller skaters have more risk of getting off-axis or losing balance upon landing
3) At similar fitness levels, a tall skater will weigh more than a shorter one. Even though the taller one might be naturally more powerful, this will not necessarily result in increased jump height because a larger mass needs to be propulsed into the air. Also, more weight means more impact from landings and falls.

 

[gliese]

The reward for doing a single axel in the other direction would be much smaller than the reward for doing a double (or triple!) axel in the other direction.

The latter would take a lot longer to master and should be rewarded accordingly.

Some people will discover early on in their attempts to learn those skills that the effort is not likely to pay off and can turn their attention to skills that do match their talents and body types.

The same is true for triple jumps and quads. For those who can excel in all skating skills but not in jumping high enough to rotate that many times, there should be other places they can turn their training to develop other difficult skills and be rewarded for doing so.

There are a number of other types of jump difficulty that are not currently rewarded commensurately with difficulty, or rewarded at all, or even allowed, under the current rules. Unless we want the sport to turn into primarily a rotating-in-the-air competition, there need to be other ways to earn points, through other types of jump difficulty and through other types of skating difficulty, so that we don't weed out good skaters from the possibility of competing at an elite level purely on the basis of their talents for jumping high and rotating quickly.

That does make sense. I would like to see a requirement that it be done both ways in the program for it to count, though. Just so that it's obvious that the skater can do it both ways. That would mean that one would also have to be in a combo.

 

[gkelly]

The tricky part is establishing which way is the skater's preferred direction so that we'd know which jump(s) are the reverse-direction ones.

There would probably have to be rules about the context in which to include these skills in the program so that the technical panel could identify which jumps qualify or not.

There are rare skaters who have done some jumps in one direction and others in the other direction. Sonja Henie's lutz is one example. I think my coach told me she used to do (double) loop, flip, and lutz one way and axel, salchow, and toe loop the other way. Or maybe it was a different breakdown.

So as you point out, it might be necessary to require to do the same jump in both directions, either in combination or sequence, or one right after the other as solo jumps. The examples I've seen of skaters attempting opposite-direction jumps in 6.0 competition made it obvious by doing one and then the other.

Or at least the same takeoff, if not the same number of revolutions. If a skater can do a triple or quad in the good direction, they should still be able to earn more for a double or triple in the bad direction than they would for that same double or triple their normal way. Without having to waste a jump slot on a normal-direction double or triple to match the reverse jump.