2016-17 State of Russian Ladies skating

[Pracygr]

Doing a difficult transition right before a jump makes the transition more difficult, and the PCS category rewards difficult transitions.

No it doesn't. A couple of brackets before a 4Lz aren't any harder to do than a couple of brackets in the middle of program. The Lutz is very much harder to do in this case, but not the brackets. There is no reason to reward those brackets in transition score - they're just novice level element. Just step back and think about it. The rules are this way for a reason.

 

[andromache]

No it doesn't. A couple of brackets before a 4Lz aren't any harder to do than a couple of brackets in the middle of program. The Lutz is very much harder to do in this case, but not the brackets. There is no reason to reward those brackets in transition score - they're just novice level element. Just step back and think about it. The rules are this way for a reason.

Then by your logic, a couple of brackets AFTER a 4Lz are way harder than the brackets in the middle of a program...so those brackets can be rewarded in transition score but not the ones before the 4Lz? The 4Lz made those brackets difficult to do.

By MY logic, transitions sandwiched between elements - yes, including on the way into an element and on the way out (i.e., an entrance or exit) are more difficult than transitions in the middle of a program without any other elements.

 

[Pracygr]

Then by your logic, a couple of brackets AFTER a 4Lz are way harder than the brackets in the middle of a program...so those brackets can be rewarded in transition score but not the ones before the 4Lz? The 4Lz made those brackets difficult to do.

By MY logic, transitions sandwiched between elements - yes, including on the way into an element and on the way out (i.e., an entrance or exit) are more difficult than transitions in the middle of a program without any other elements.

Brackets aren't any harder after the jump either. You either have good balance and smooth running edge and you do them easily, or you don't and you just can't. There's no way to make a difficult entry for brackets - they don't really require any preparation time (for pro skaters anyway). An element on exit of a jump simply increases the requirement for quality of landing, and as such is just another way to demonstrate to the judges just how good of jump you just did.

 

[andromache]

Brackets aren't any harder after the jump either. You either have good balance and smooth running edge and you do them easily, or you don't and you just can't. There's no way to make a difficult entry for brackets - they don't really require any preparation time (for pro skaters anyway). An element on exit of a jump simply increases the requirement for quality of landing, and as such is just another way to demonstrate to the judges just how good of jump you just did.

Yeah, if you don't have balance or a smooth running edge coming out of your jumps and you're unable to do whatever transition you planned, you're accomplishing fewer transitions and decreasing your variety. Hmmmm, sounds like that could impact the transitions score?

 

[Sam-Skwantch]

I thought difficult entries were simply rewarded thru positive GOE. Difficult entries like "stars" into a spin or walleys into a jump. I also think they would add to the TR score if performed well.

 

[Pracygr]

Yeah, if you don't have balance or a smooth running edge coming out of your jumps and you're unable to do whatever transition you planned, you're accomplishing fewer transitions and decreasing your variety. Hmmmm, sounds like that could impact the transitions score?

If you don't have balance, you just put your free leg down, regain balance, then do your brackets. Overall quality of your skating is worse, your jump was worse, but TR score isn't able to reflect it, because it only cares about the brackets themselves, not whether they were used as a proof of high jump quality. There is no hole in this logic. As I said, the rules are this way for a reason.

 

[Pracygr]

I thought difficult entries were simply rewarded thru positive GOE. Difficult entries like "stars" into a spin or walleys into a jump. I also think they would add to the TR score if performed well.

Well, yes. It's just some posters here suggested that GOE reward should be more or less removed, and I was just trying to explain how it would damage the sport in general as well as why TR score isn't an adequate substitute.

 

[andromache]

If you don't have balance, you just put your free leg down, regain balance, then do your brackets. Overall quality of your skating is worse, your jump was worse, but TR score isn't able to reflect it, because it only cares about the brackets themselves, not whether they were used as a proof of high jump quality. There is no hole in this logic. As I said, the rules are this way for a reason.

You've stated exactly how the "easier" brackets would be accomplished versus the more difficult brackets done right after the jump.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that the transitions score also evaluates the "continuity of movements from one element to another." You know what is more continuous than a jump, some two-foot skating, and some brackets? Eliminate the two-foot skating in between.

 

[andromache]

Well, yes. It's just some posters here suggested that GOE reward should be more or less removed, and I was just trying to explain how it would damage the sport in general as well as why TR score isn't an adequate substitute.

Actually, one poster, drivingmissdaisy, merely suggested that difficult entries/exits should not be rewarded as highly in comparison to other aspects of jumps (such as height and distance):

A skater would still benefit if they can do transitions in to and out of jumps. They would just have to be able to balance actually doing jumps well, too. Transitions and air positions are not a substitute for height, flow and control of the jump, but are treated as such with the judging system.

If you disagree and think that transitions are as important to jumps as the actual jump itself, feel free to make your argument about that instead of the losing argument you've decided to pick instead regarding whether or not transitions into and out of jumps get considered in the transitions score.

 

[Pracygr]

You've stated exactly how the "easier" brackets would be accomplished versus the more difficult brackets done right after the jump.

Except I didn't? There's no "easier" here. The brackets are exactly the same. Whether you can do an element or you can't because you're in the process of stopping yourself from falling on the ice has exactly zero relation with difficulty of that very element.

Furthermore, you're ignoring the fact that the transitions score also evaluates the "continuity of movements from one element to another." You know what is more continuous than a jump, some two-foot skating, and some brackets? Eliminate the two-foot skating in between.

You're going to have to put that other leg on ice sooner or later, don't you? The continuity will have to break just to the same degree at some point, and those brackets would go where they're most appropriate and "continuous", as it would be very simple to do in a program containing few or none difficult entries or exits. There should be no difference in TR score, not based on that particular anecdote.

As I see it, you're just trying to find a couple of words that you can somehow distantly relate to difficult entry/exit in that rulebook, and these few words should somehow prove that difficult entry/exit and transitions in general are exactly the same thing. You either already understand that this isn't the case and just arguing out of principle, or you don't and then I don't think any further explanation will help. Good day.

 

[gravy]

Unless Evgenia's arms are somehow weightless, bringing one arm up does inevitably shift her center of mass - upwards. Not to mention other difficulty aspects of tano, like longer, less regular tightening up motion. Whoever that was that misled you into thinking that "it doesn't mean anything" should have also provided a long list of other skaters replicating the same style on all of their jumps with ease. Did he do it? If not, you have all the reasons to believe he's not being intellectually honest.

Perhaps editing my post to "it doesn't mean much" from "nothing" would placate your pedanticalness?

I think I've made it quite clear that I understand how angular momentum works--I know throwing her arm up will cause her center to rise, but she bends her elbow to decrease the shift as much as possible. The whole point of my post was about how her lack of full extension makes it easier to rotate than if she stuck her arm straight up. Fact.

 

[Pracygr]

Perhaps editing my post to "it doesn't mean much" from "nothing" would placate your pedanticalness?

I think I've made it quite clear that I understand how angular momentum works--I know throwing her arm up will cause her center to rise, but she bends her elbow to decrease the shift as much as possible. The whole point of my post was about how her lack of full extension makes it easier to rotate than if she stuck her arm straight up. Fact.

You cannot make a conclusion of something being "nothing" or "not much" solely on observation that it's less than something else. Driving a car on two wheels while evading obstacles and balancing a spinning basketball on your finger is certainly harder than only driving a car on two wheels. Doesn't actually mean that driving a car this way is in any way simple.

Arguing about overall difficulty of an element based on idea that maybe it's simpler than it could have been is actually completely baseless. This is not only fact, but also the only conclusion permissible by logic.

 

[andromache]

Except I didn't? There's no "easier" here. The brackets are exactly the same. Whether you can do an element or you can't because you're in the process of stopping yourself from falling on the ice has exactly zero relation with difficulty of that very element.


You're going to have to put that other leg on ice sooner or later, don't you? The continuity will have to break just to the same degree at some point, and those brackets would go where they're most appropriate and "continuous", as it would be very simple to do in a program containing few or none difficult entries or exits. There should be no difference in TR score, not based on that particular anecdote.

As I see it, you're just trying to find a couple of words that you can somehow distantly relate to difficult entry/exit in that rulebook, and these few words should somehow prove that difficult entry/exit and transitions in general are exactly the same thing. You either already understand that this isn't the case and just arguing out of principle, or you don't and then I don't think any further explanation will help. Good day.

LOL, literally the only thing I've argued for is that difficult entries and exits are transitions and accounted for in the transitions score. I've never said they are exactly the same thing.

Your assumption that the rules/judges do not take entries/exits of jumps into account while determining the transitions score is baseless and your stubbornness is confounding. It's like you're arguing just to argue.

 

[Pracygr]

LOL, literally the only thing I've argued for is that difficult entries and exits are transitions and accounted for in the transitions score. I've never said they are exactly the same thing.

Transitions = difficult entries and exits to elements

I think your own words answers this better than I can.

 

[gravy]

You cannot make a conclusion of something being "nothing" or "not much" solely on observation that it's less than something else. Driving a car on two wheels while evading obstacles and balancing a spinning basketball on your finger is certainly harder than only driving a car on two wheels. Doesn't actually mean that driving a car this way is in any way simple.

Arguing about overall difficulty of an element based on idea that maybe it's simpler than it could have been is actually completely baseless. This is not only fact, but also the only conclusion permissible by logic.

I would normally agree with this philosophy, but when it comes to something as objective as physics I think you can certainly make such conclusions. We clearly have different views on this matter and I'm not necessarily interested in writing out a mechanics lesson on this board or giving an in depth analysis of my issues with the IJS (not that anyone would care to read either).

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[lyndichee]

You cannot make a conclusion of something being "nothing" or "not much" solely on observation that it's less than something else. Driving a car on two wheels while evading obstacles and balancing a spinning basketball on your finger is certainly harder than only driving a car on two wheels. Doesn't actually mean that driving a car this way is in any way simple.

Arguing about overall difficulty of an element based on idea that maybe it's simpler than it could have been is actually completely baseless. This is not only fact, but also the only conclusion permissible by logic.

Why can't gravy do so? What is so wrong about her talking about Evgenia's shift on her centre of gravity; gravy supported their argument by talking about inertia and having a longer arm extension certainly change the weight distribution when jumping. At least gravy used a figure skating example directly rather than something about a car and basketball. These are two objects that cannot be compared as they are different shapes, sizes and maneuvers. Comparing the original tano arm from Boitano and Evgenia's tano is a fair comparison.

They are not arguing that it is maybe simpler, they are arguing it is simpler based on physics which isn't baseless at all. Your statement saying that this is the only conclusion permissible by logic is flawed and seems to be a tool to shut down criticism of your arguments.

If she did a real tano with full extension (a la Jason Brown, Boitano himself, or even Mao that you mentioned), I suspect she would be less consistent. Evgenia's tano arm has a bent elbow which decreases her moment of inertia and makes those jumps easier to rotate (pure physics, not opinion). She gets a GOE bullet point for throwing her arm up, but it doesn't mean anything since she's not actually shifting her center of mass when she tanos (which is the whole point of that difficulty feature).

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

I wouldn't disagree with a fact. I really don't think this is a matter of opinion.

 

[andromache]

I think your own words answers this better than I can.

Your semantics are exhausting.

It's like I'm arguing that a square is a rectangle but you're insisting that I'm instead arguing that a rectangle is a square, when I'm very obviously not.

 

[gravy]

Why can't gravy do so? What is so wrong about her talking about Evgenia's shift on her centre of gravity; gravy supported their argument by talking about inertia and having a longer arm extension certainly change the weight distribution when jumping. At least gravy used a figure skating example directly rather than something about a car and basketball. These are two objects that cannot be compared as they are different shapes, sizes and maneuvers. Comparing the original tano arm from Boitano and Evgenia's tano is a fair comparison.

They are not arguing that it is maybe simpler, they are arguing it is simpler based on physics which isn't baseless at all. Your statement saying that this is the only conclusion permissible by logic is flawed and seems to be a tool to shut down criticism of your arguments.

*Him

I wouldn't disagree with a fact. I really don't think this is a matter of opinion.

Maybe I misworded something, but the disagreement was with the argument Pracygr made about not being able to make conclusions solely on the basis of how it relates to something else. I obviously don't agree with that idea in a case like this when the comparisons come down to something as indisputable as physics.

 

[Pracygr]

Why can't gravy do so? What is so wrong about her talking about Evgenia's shift on her centre of gravity; gravy supported their argument by talking about inertia and having a longer arm extension certainly change the weight distribution when jumping. At least gravy used a figure skating example directly rather than something about a car and basketball. These are two objects that cannot be compared as they are different shapes, sizes and maneuvers. Comparing the original tano arm from Boitano and Evgenia's tano is a fair comparison.

They are not arguing that it is maybe simpler, they are arguing it is simpler based on physics which isn't baseless at all. Your statement saying that this is the only conclusion permissible by logic is flawed and seems to be a tool to shut down criticism of your arguments.

I don't think you quite understood my example. Here's another one.

Let's say there's a guy out there that can hit a target with his handgun gun at 1000 yards while aiming in a mirror. Let's also say that there is another guy that can do the same at only 800 yards. Is the shot that this second guy can make is simpler than the first one? Clearly yes. Does this mean that making an accurate shot with a handgun at 800 yards while aiming in a mirror is a simple task? No it doesn't. The fact that second task is clearly simpler than the first one doesn't actually give you right to claim anything about overall difficulty of any of those tasks. Doing otherwise will require you to break rules of logic and would be a fallacy.

Likewise, regarding Medvedeva, you cannot claim that her version of tano is "nothing" or "not much" simply based on idea that maybe it's simpler than Boitano's. Doing so will be just as baseless as claiming that 800 yards mirror shot is "nothing".

 

[lyndichee]

I don't think you quite understood my example. Here's another one.

Let's say there's a guy out there that can hit a target with his handgun gun at 1000 yards while aiming in a mirror. Let's also say that there is another guy that can do the same at only 800 yards. Is the shot that this second guy can make is simpler than the first one? Clearly yes. Does this mean that making an accurate shot with a handgun at 800 yards while aiming in a mirror is a simple task? No it doesn't. The fact that second task is clearly simpler than the first one doesn't actually give you right to claim anything about overall difficulty of any of those tasks. Doing otherwise will require you to break rules of logic and would be a fallacy.

Likewise, regarding Medvedeva, you cannot claim that her version of tano is "nothing" or "not much" simply based on idea that maybe it's simpler than Boitano's. Doing so will be just as baseless as claiming that 800 yards mirror shot is "nothing".

It is not that I didn't understand. You didn't provide comparable examples. Your argument would then be equally as baseless as you cannot quantify 800 yards vs. 1000 yards in the same metric as an Evgenia tano vs. Brian tano.