New ISU rule changes: "Flutzing" addressed
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
What is so important about defining a sitspin other than what is meant by a sitspin? Level Schmelin. A sitspin goes all the way down. If you don't think that is a tough position, look at all the skaters who refuse to do this. And those that do, do you see any quads or 3x3s after it? Why not? Because it is tough to do those elements after a true sitspin. If you need levels for your stats, praise to be, look at jumping into a sitspin; changing feet on sitspins. I guarantee the skaters who do these type of sitspins will be exhausted after finishing.
Meanwhile your twisted sit spin (it first appeared in Ice Capades 1948) should be judged separately as a spin somewhere between a scratch spin and a true sit spin. That's where the position is. Why is this so difficult to see before your eyes.? I promise I wont argue about the level is assigned to this easy position. (Remember, I am talking about skaters with secure edges.)
Yes, you can make jokes because the times were a changing. The Cop assigns points to a spin and we all have stats that vary between judging and moreso in competitions. Yeah, true stats.
Believe it or not even a camel spin is a camel spin. Camel spins should be judged on the position of the free leg being slightly above the head of the skater. Knees turned out, toes pointed should add to the GoEs.
Now don't get me started on the easy Russian Split as opposed to the Classical ballet Split.
Joe
Maybe there should be a thread now on just the sit spin!
It has been said more than once above that the sit spin is supposed to be all the way down, and also that it is supposed to be a hard position.
When I first started skating my coaches when I lived on the right coast, and my coach on the left coast all told me that the "traditional" sit spin was up, with the knee roughly at 90 degrees or a little less -- and this was the Haines sit spin. I have never seen a picture or read from an early source that the Haines sit spin was all the way down. My understanding has been (but could be wrong) that the spin all the way down on the boot came much later (after WW II).
Also, when discussing this with a coach at the PSA conference she made the comment that the sit spin was ONCE considered one of the easiest position, but with all the focus now on how low it has to be and the variations, it was NOW a difficult position.
Can any history buffs shed any light on this with either pictures or writings on this that predate, say WW II?
It has been said more than once above that the sit spin is supposed to be all the way down, and also that it is supposed to be a hard position.
When I first started skating my coaches when I lived on the right coast, and my coach on the left coast all told me that the "traditional" sit spin was up, with the knee roughly at 90 degrees or a little less -- and this was the Haines sit spin. I have never seen a picture or read from an early source that the Haines sit spin was all the way down. My understanding has been (but could be wrong) that the spin all the way down on the boot came much later (after WW II).
Also, when discussing this with a coach at the PSA conference she made the comment that the sit spin was ONCE considered one of the easiest position, but with all the focus now on how low it has to be and the variations, it was NOW a difficult position.
Can any history buffs shed any light on this with either pictures or writings on this that predate, say WW II?
When I was in grad school, I came across a book in the library that was a history of the Oslo skating club. In Norwegian, so I couldn't make much sense of the text. Most of it seemed to be about speed skating. There was, however, a picture (I think an engraving but it might have been a photo) of Axel Paulsen doing a sitspin, and he was sitting pretty low. It wasn't a well-stretched position though.
You can get some glimpses of his more famous clubmate's sitspins here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9bRafPgkHk
And here's Fritzi Burger's (plus Karl Schaefer doing Paulsen's jump
):http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9bRafPgkHk
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Wow, that was great, GKelly. Thanks for posting.
(I think the second link should be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgfDSw0CvJk )
Jumps have come a long way since the 1930s, but I can't find fault with the ladies' spins.
(I think the second link should be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgfDSw0CvJk )
Jumps have come a long way since the 1930s, but I can't find fault with the ladies' spins.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Interesting in the Henie clip she does a bi sitspin all the way down and changes foot to a bo sitspin without a bobble and remain in the all the way down position.
Not easy to get that smooth transition.
I think the clip of Sonia shows the sitspin all the way down before WWII.
Two positions were quite common in those days. Curling the free leg or straight leg free leg. Maybe crooked leg sitspin was around at that time. I don't know. I'm not that old.
All the way down or call it something else. Nothing wrong with calling it something else.
Joe
Not easy to get that smooth transition.
I think the clip of Sonia shows the sitspin all the way down before WWII.
Two positions were quite common in those days. Curling the free leg or straight leg free leg. Maybe crooked leg sitspin was around at that time. I don't know. I'm not that old.
All the way down or call it something else. Nothing wrong with calling it something else.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Well, your basic all-the-way-down sit spin, without change of position or change of edge, is worth 1.2 points.
So I guess a half-hearted effort like this should be about 0.6.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2006
Is that really all the further down she achieved??? That looks like it is coming out of a sit, but a good example - very decorous of you to use Kwan as the example and not others who currently are achieving that as their max.
Personally I would give the "squat spin" a .8 JMO
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Whever there's numbers, there's MM. :agree:
The lady in the picture was doing a stylized spin used very much in ice shows of yore, with the arms in an asianIndian posiition. Quite effective and quite easy.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Yeah, I think she's on the way up.
But the reason that I mentioned the points is this. How much effort is a skater going to put into a move that kills your leg if you do it right, leaves you too worn out to do much of anything else afterward, and is only worth 1.2 points?
Wouldn't it be smarter to do a half-baked easier version and work on your triple Axel (7.5 points) instead? Even if the tech specialist says, uh uh, you didn't get low enough to count as a sit spin -- OK, so you lost 1.2 points, so what? Make it up on your 3F/3Lo (9.5 points).
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
PS. But if you want to throw in a "difficult variation" and move up to a "level 2 sit spin" (1.5 points, instead of a mere 1.2), you could do this:
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/more/03/22/womens.meissner/tx.meissner.jpg
Or this:
http://www.raisport.rai.it/RaiSport/pub/static/85600/20051029pattghUSAAlissaCzisny2.jpg
(I'm sorry, but that just looks awful. Shame on the New Judging System for encouraging and rewarding it. :disagree: )
http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2007/more/03/22/womens.meissner/tx.meissner.jpg
Or this:
http://www.raisport.rai.it/RaiSport/pub/static/85600/20051029pattghUSAAlissaCzisny2.jpg
(I'm sorry, but that just looks awful. Shame on the New Judging System for encouraging and rewarding it. :disagree: )
Last edited:
Well, to be fair, if you look at stills of skaters jumping or spinning at high rotational speed, they're usually grimacing or making some other silly face. It's okay, the audience/judges can't really see it, and the skaters themselves probably don't even notice it. If someone were doing a spiral with that facial expression, then I'd be really worried!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
^ True, but it's not just the facial expression. To me, it's the ungainly position itself.
In contrast, this is a thing of beauty and a joy forever:
http://heatherw.com/mk/pics/rach/wsh_sit.jpg
In contrast, this is a thing of beauty and a joy forever:
http://heatherw.com/mk/pics/rach/wsh_sit.jpg
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Meissner is all the way down and twisting. She deserves a high GoE.
Alissa is all the way down and deserves a full base value/
Kwan is Kwan and nothing wrong with an old fashion sitspin. Loverly!
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
You got it. Go for the easier points. That's strategy and that's what Bianchetti is complaining about.Yeah, I think she's on the way up.
Wouldn't it be smarter to do a half-baked easier version and work on your triple Axel (7.5 points) instead? Even if the tech specialist says, uh uh, you didn't get low enough to count as a sit spin -- OK, so you lost 1.2 points, so what? Make it up on your 3F/3Lo (9.5 points).
Easier for whom. Some skaters are especially talented jumpers and others are especially talented spinners. It's easy to *say* it's a better use of time and energy to go for the triple axel or a triple-triple, but that strategy isn't going to work for a skater who struggles with consistency on the rest of the triples on their own but to whom spinning and flexibility come naturally.
The properly executed jumps are not less energy consuming than a properly executed spin (I read lots of comments from the top skaters regarding the energy needed to execute a quad). As we all know, in order to execute a jump, the skater needs to jump high+ rotate in the air + control landing&attain a proper landing position and for a jump combo the process must be repeated immediately. So jump+rotate+land + jump+rotate+land + eventually jump+rotate+ land in case of three jumps combos is less energy consuming than even the most complicated spin?
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
The strategy is for the skater to go for the easiest elements (for him/her) that also gives him/her the most points. If jumping will do for it - go for it; if spinning will do for it - go for it. Whatever it takes the object is to win.
Of course the strategy has to be well planned.
Joe
