That works for me too.
Last edited:
The "wrong edge" call in JGP events
- Thread starter Mathman
- Start date
That works for me too.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Moving on from the flutz issue... now, about that downgrade...
Isn't it better, and also more difficult, to make a valiant attempt at a triple jump, satisfactory set-up, take-off, in-air position, rotate 2.5 times, hit the ice while you are still turning, but save the landing -- isn't that better than doing a double?
As I am reading the GOE guidelines, a downgrade not only gets the lower base value but then there is a -1 to -3, -GOE on top of that.
So a downgraded triple Lutz as descibed above would probably get 1.6 or 1.3 points, while an unexceptional double would get 1.9.
This is a penalty of 4.4 points or more. Compared to a wrong edge but fully rotated triple Lutz with an fall on the landing -- a penalty of only 4 points including the fall deduction.
Last edited:
Apropos on nothing in this thread, since Jeff is up here (I really did see him in the village) I stopped by the rink tonight. He was working various triple-triple combinations. Particularly with 3A. Some hits, some misses. He landed a 3A+3T+3Lo combo. Also 3Lz+3T, and various other attempts at three jump combos. The 3A looked pretty strong. He was also working 4T. The jump remains elusive.
The Korean champion is up here. He has a solid 4T, and when I left was working 4S. Pretty close he was, but not there yet, I am told his 3A, however, is not good. Didn't see him try one.
But I digress. This is a rock'em sock'em jump error thread!
The Korean champion is up here. He has a solid 4T, and when I left was working 4S. Pretty close he was, but not there yet, I am told his 3A, however, is not good. Didn't see him try one.
But I digress. This is a rock'em sock'em jump error thread!
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
Moving on from the flutz issue... now, about that downgrade...
Isn't it better, and also more difficult, to make a valiant attempt at a triple jump, satisfactory set-up, take-off, in-air position, rotate 2.5 times, hit the ice while you are still turning, but save the landing -- isn't that better than doing a double?
I don't believe so. I think figure skating is about control, consistancy , technique. Overrotating or underrotation is proof that on lacks these qualities and should be penalized for it. A skater who does a clean doubles shows all three qualities and should be rewarde more than someone who over or under rotates.
Right now I think Cop is trying to tread middle ground with the flutz issue. In the future I believe ISU is going to have to make a decision. Either consistantly promote control and technique or promote EYE POPPING tricks a PSAZZ(whatever that means;got that from my drama professeur)
Sorry, I'm language-obssessed - isn't it pizzaz? As in liveliness, with good expression, etc.?
Kypma
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
A clean double does not show anything, really (except for doubles done in a 3-jump combination). Not at the level of the sport that we're talking about.
Doing a double of any jump (except the Axel, in some cases), shows that you didn't have the strength and/or focus and/or correct body position to pull that jump into a triple.
Doing an underrotated triple also shows that one or more of those qualities to do a full triple were lacking, but it does display more courage - that skater at least "went for it" pulled further than if they had just let their body loosen up into a double.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Landing jumps on two feet can still win you a gold Oly. Check out Oksana's LP. Yeah, I know, she was hyped as a waif and that figured prominently in the scoring.
Nothing like clean programs with definitive edging on jumps and spirals in the sport of things. How many have such programs?
Joe
Nothing like clean programs with definitive edging on jumps and spirals in the sport of things. How many have such programs?
Joe
What level of sport are we talking about? The ISU has designed the new judging system to be used for senior and junior internationals, with some modifications for novice competitions. Many national federations also use the system domestically for competitions below the novice level, with further modifications.
Not all junior and novice competitors do triple jumps at all. Double jumps may be a significant part of their technical content.
Not all senior competitors do all the triples. Almost none of the ladies do triple axels, for example, and not all the men either, so we certainly expect them to do double axels.
Some of the lower ranked seniors or mid-ranked juniors might have 3 or 4 different triples in their repertoire. Even with repeats, that would allow a maximum of 5 or 6 jumping passes using triples. Ladies are allowed 7 and men 8. They can use the remaining jump passes for double axels, but if, say, you have a male skater with 3 triples, do you really want to see him do 5 triples of 3 different kinds plus 3 double axels and leave out the other two takeoffs entirely? Or would you rather see him use at least one of those extra jump passes to show that he can do doubles of the other takeoffs?
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's a good point about the ISU judging system being flexible enough to be used for many levels of competition.
But the question still remains of whether underroation should be penalized so heavily, compared to other errors.
Quad toe with a fall = 5.0 points.
Quad toe downgraded = 3.0 points.
Triple toe = 4.0 points.
Triple Lutz with wrong take-off edge = 5.0
Triple Lutz with correct take-off edge but downgraded = 1.6
Double Lutz = 1.9.
Double Lutz with wrong take-off edge = 1.6.
How can a double flutz be worth as much as a properly launched triple Lutz whose only fault is a cheated landing?
But the question still remains of whether underroation should be penalized so heavily, compared to other errors.
Quad toe with a fall = 5.0 points.
Quad toe downgraded = 3.0 points.
Triple toe = 4.0 points.
Triple Lutz with wrong take-off edge = 5.0
Triple Lutz with correct take-off edge but downgraded = 1.6
Double Lutz = 1.9.
Double Lutz with wrong take-off edge = 1.6.
How can a double flutz be worth as much as a properly launched triple Lutz whose only fault is a cheated landing?
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
No senior competitor has a planned solo double jump, aside from the axel.
For that matter, no Junior does either?
A solo double lutz, flip, loop, salchow, or toeloop is an absolute flaw in any junior or senior program.
Yes.
Last edited:
Now I am going to be the rigid purist and take issue with the word "only".
If a triple jump is so badly under rotated that it is downgraded, then the skater has not mastered the jump or come even close to mastering the jump. It is ASSUMED that if the triple is under rotate then the skater is capable of landing the double; thus, the use of the BV for a double as the base value for the under rotated triple. (Though it doesn't have to be that way, and could be done differently.)
Skating has always had the rule that a poorly executed triple should have less value than a well executed double, to put emphasis on quality over poor attempts at things the skater can't really do. Now under 6.0 that rule was never really properly/consistently enforced by the judges, but CoP insures that it is.
So under CoP a triple Lutz (for example) that is downgraded and gets a GoE of -2 not only gets less points than any triple, it also gets less points than any double. Whether that is too extreme is a valid question, but since the under rotation show a complete lack of ability to get around three times, the loss of points should be severe.
This example, as well as others elsewhere in the thread illustrate (IMO) a basic problem CoP has had from the beginning, and that has never been fixed, and will never be fixed with the piecemeal approach the ISU takes.
The SoV and the entire point model (as I call it) is totally screwed up. You can compare one point value to another and maybe those two things make sense. But if you start to compare this element with that error to several other elements and/or several other errors you find inconsistencies everywhere. Add to that the SoV is used by the ISU not to just specify the relative difficulty of things, but also to manipulate the skaters into putting certain kinds of programs on the ice, or to not put them on the ice.
So if the idea is the points the skaters earn should be a measure of what the skaters have actually accomplished in terms of difficulty and quality, I remain convinced the point model was and still is a failure in that regard.
You have rather high expectations in that regard. If you look at all the senior ladies in the U.S., if there are ten that can consistently land all the triples through triple Lutz in a program I would be surprised. Among the men, if there are ten that consistently land all the triples through triple Axel in a program I would likewise be surprised. In order to pass the Senior FS test, the most difficult jump the skater has to land is double Lutz.
Now if the point is that to be a Senior competitor the requirement should be a higher skill level, you would not be alone in that view. But it you set the bar too high, say land double Axel and only 3-4 triples to compete at Senior, you would find, even in as large a country as the U.S. you would have precious few senior skaters, and the only Senior competition would be once a year when they all went to Nationals. If you were to extend the triples requirements to Juniors you would be even worse off in that division.
The reality is that being able to do all the triple jumps (or event the majority of them) is extraordinarily difficult and only a handful of skaters ever reach that level. The fact the elite skaters toss them out there so effortlessly looking disguises the fact it is a rare skill and those few elite skaters are the only ones who can do it.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I would think that a rigid purist (or someone playing that role, LOL), would say the same thing about other types of errors, too. For instance, if you cannot land on your feet a case could be made that you have not mastered the jump (it used to be sort of that way under 6.0 scoring, where a jump was not "ratified" if it was double footed, never mind a fall).
The question of whether the skater has "come close to mastering" the jump -- that's a whole different can of worms altogether, judgingwise. There are falls and then there are falls, just like there is underrotation and then there is underrotation, there is wrong edge and then there is wrong edge.
IMHO the basic problem with the whole CoP approach is that it pretends that figure skating is not a judged sport. But it is.
Who skated the best? Who was second best? That's what the judging system is supposed to tell us. This is ordinals. To graft an add-up-the-points system onto what is intrinsically a non-parametric adventure (even setting aside the second mark) will (IMHO) never produce anything more than the bizarre hybrid that we have now.
Still (to paraphase Anne Franck), in spite of everything, I like the CoP. All those delicious numbers to look at after every competition.
And it does no worse than other schemes in that most of the time the skaters come out in more or less the right order.
Last edited:
A foolish consistency ....
And actually for the most horrendous errors I think CoP is far too generous for giving out points for garbage.
"most of the time", "more or less", I agree to a large extent, but my view is still "not enough of the time" in "exactly the right order". And other schemes potentially can do better. So CoP remains for me a work in progress.
Like I tell people in USFSA, I am behind CoP a full 51%!
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
A senior lady only needs to have 2 different Triples to make a program where every jumping pass begins with a Triple or a Double Axel. For example:
3Toe/2toe/2loop
3Sal/2toe
2Axel
3Toe
2Axel/2toe
3Sal
2Axel
A senior male only needs to have 3 different Triples to achieve the same thing. That is not a high expectation at all; that is the very bottom level that is expected.
So, again -- a solo double Lutz, Flip, Loop, Salchow, or Toeloop is a total error.
An underrotated Triple should absolutely be worth more than a double. It's not more difficult to say "okay, I'm going to do a controlled Double". Anybody can do a controlled double who is at that level with a very, very high amount of accuracy. It's nothing. Trying to add more revolutions is harder.
Also, what is worse...a Triple Lutz where the skater nearly falls (worth 3 points after the negative GOE) or a Triple Lutz where the skater is slightly short on rotation but lands essentially clean and it barely looks like anything was wrong (worth about 1.5 points after the downgrade and negative GOE)?
Underrotated jumps are punished far too harshly and they need to have their own point values. After all, an underrotated Triple is basically just a 2.5 revolution jump anyway.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Who Are the Consistent Flutzers?
I can relent on my tirade against the flutz if it were a one time thing with a skater because errors do happen. But if it is year after year and competition after competition, for certain skaters. It is not just an accident error. It is an inability to do a proper lutz. As was pointed out in another post, at the senior level the requirement should be that the elite competitor should be able to do the lutz by its ISU definition just as much as the elite skater should do the requisite air turns in a triple. So-called 'elite' skaters who flutz each and every time they do a lutz at each and every competition, can not do a proper lutz, but get lots of points for courage while doing it without practicing it in years. They have brought the flutz into their repertoire. That's fact.
Mathman - Por favor, Can you begin to list by names the skaters who flutz in competition and tally the results from season to season. Let's see if it's an accidental error or one that the skater is just too lazy to correct.
Joe
I can relent on my tirade against the flutz if it were a one time thing with a skater because errors do happen. But if it is year after year and competition after competition, for certain skaters. It is not just an accident error. It is an inability to do a proper lutz. As was pointed out in another post, at the senior level the requirement should be that the elite competitor should be able to do the lutz by its ISU definition just as much as the elite skater should do the requisite air turns in a triple. So-called 'elite' skaters who flutz each and every time they do a lutz at each and every competition, can not do a proper lutz, but get lots of points for courage while doing it without practicing it in years. They have brought the flutz into their repertoire. That's fact.
Mathman - Por favor, Can you begin to list by names the skaters who flutz in competition and tally the results from season to season. Let's see if it's an accidental error or one that the skater is just too lazy to correct.
Joe
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2007
So? What's your point?
People act like flutzing is akin to the skater committing some massive sin, like taking off their underwear during the performance.
You give them a small penalty for the incorrect Lutz and move on. What is the big deal?
That's like saying all girls without a Triple Axel are "too lazy" to learn it properly.
The Lutz is simply a hard jump and therefore many skaters have trouble mastering it.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
You are bent on keeping the flutz as an element in figure skating. Are you aware of that? It's very important to you this illegal jump from what I read in your posts. You do not want anything to keep these skaters from getting a true ISU lutz except for the attempt and a -1 is sufficient for you.
It's easy for me to say I am bent on outlawing the flutz totally because it is not even listed in the ISU elements'
It's a hard jump, you say. So what? Many skaters do a correct lutz. You must have a favorite skater who can not do it. am I correct?
A triple axel has nothing to do with a lutz or a flutz. Bad comparison; You should know better.
Why not give the skater whose underrotated jump a smalll penalty and move on.
I have this distinct feeling you must be afraid to say anthing that may call you a whistle blower. Have you ever gone against the grain?
Joe
