2023-24 Russian Women's Figure Skating

[brakes]

Last years' older age novice championships was the best top 10 I've ever seen for Novice level, and I expect them to lead the way into the next group of Russian super stars. Some won't make the transition due to injuries, puberty etc, but there is a vast reservoir of junior talent, led probably by Marguerita.

Seven quads in free, haven't seen technical battle like that since 2021 Senior Nationals.

 

[Mathematician]

Interesting fact I just learned,

Riana Kadyrova started skating at just 1 year and 3 months old.

According to google, the average age for a kid to start walking is 12 months.

Is there any other top skater who started this early??

Apparently Kadyrova was even competing already at 2 1/2 years.

 

[AlexBreeze]

Interesting fact I just learned,

Riana Kadyrova started skating at just 1 year and 3 months old.

According to google, the average age for a kid to start walking is 12 months.

Is there any other top skater who started this early??

Apparently Kadyrova was even competing already at 2 1/2 years.

I think it's only possible in a FS family (like Riana's).

Of the women I don't remember anyone right now, but ice dancer Valeri Angelopol was born in 2003 and started skating in 2005.

 

[Mariott]

Interesting fact I just learned,

Riana Kadyrova started skating at just 1 year and 3 months old.

According to google, the average age for a kid to start walking is 12 months.

Is there any other top skater who started this early??

Apparently Kadyrova was even competing already at 2 1/2 years.

Mozalev always tells as an anecdote that the coaches wanted to put him on skates before he started walking, when he was a toddler His mom would bring him to his older sister's practices, and he started running out onto the ice as soon as he started getting on his feet. At the age of two he started skating, and at five he started competing for his first junior titles.

 

[Skating91]

I think it's only possible in a FS family (like Riana's).

Of the women I don't remember anyone right now, but ice dancer Valeri Angelopol was born in 2003 and started skating in 2005.

Alex, I'm always impressed by your skating knowledge on here.

I've looked at the technical handbook, and it doesn't have anything in there about scoring the first jump of a repeated sequence at 0.7. The first jump is only scored 0.7 if repeated, but the lutz was only performed once in the program. Also, there were only three total combinations or sequences performed in her program, so no reason for the deduction on that basis either.

 

[AlexBreeze]

Alex, I'm always impressed by your skating knowledge on here.

I've looked at the technical handbook, and it doesn't have anything in there about scoring the first jump of a repeated sequence at 0.7. The first jump is only scored 0.7 if repeated, but the lutz was only performed once in the program. Also, there were only three total combinations or sequences performed in her program, so no reason for the deduction on that basis either.

The rules really don't say that for some reason. But they've always given +REP for the extra sequences.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

The technical panel had doubts whether to invalidate the 3T, because of this they called Lakernik to help. But they had no doubts whether to give it +REP.

 

[Mathematician]

The rules really don't say that for some reason. But they've always given +REP for the extra sequences.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

The technical panel had doubts whether to invalidate the 3T, because of this they called Lakernik to help. But they had no doubts whether to give it +REP.

View attachment 7261

That whole score card is a total mess. So she accidentally turned a combo into a SEQ when it was actually the next combo that was supposed to be one? Then also got mixed up for the next combo? And then also messed up on the 3Lz? Seems like a really convoluted mistake that doesnt really have any concrete analysis in the rule book.

I guess it seems like she was supposed to start with a 3F for her SEQ but because she messed up the order it started with a 3Lz - could that be where the score came from? But then that would also make the next 3-3 adjusted for the same reason. Then the 3Lz vs 3T? Honestly this skate was a disaster. Im so confused.

 

[Skating91]

The rules really don't say that for some reason. But they've always given +REP for the extra sequences.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

The technical panel had doubts whether to invalidate the 3T, because of this they called Lakernik to help. But they had no doubts whether to give it +REP.

View attachment 7261

Thank you. I'm in awe of this knowledge.

 

[Mathematician]

Thank you. I'm in awe of this knowledge.

But its still so confusing. Why isnt it in the rule book? Isnt that like... a big deal?

 

[Skating91]

But its still so confusing. Why isnt it in the rule book? Isnt that like... a big deal?

There seems like gaps in the rule book. You could imagine if an Olympics medal was at stake and missed out by a point, you would point out to the rule book not the unwritten, implicit practice of applying a 30% deduction.

 

[Mathematician]

There seems like gaps in the rule book. You could imagine if an Olympics medal was at stake and missed out by a point, you would point out to the rule book not the unwritten, implicit practice of applying a 30% deduction.

Bizarre to me. One of Alex's examples was from 2022 so how did they not add it into the rule book this season? Seems like a massive failure from the ISU.

 

[Jumping_Bean]

Alex, I'm always impressed by your skating knowledge on here.

I've looked at the technical handbook, and it doesn't have anything in there about scoring the first jump of a repeated sequence at 0.7. The first jump is only scored 0.7 if repeated, but the lutz was only performed once in the program. Also, there were only three total combinations or sequences performed in her program, so no reason for the deduction on that basis either.

While not written out in words, the technical handbook very clearly shows how to call additional jump sequences:

"There can only be one jump sequence in a Free program. If the skater executes two jump sequences in a program, only the first jump of the jump unit will count.
First jump sequence in the program: 3T + 2A + Seq
Second jump sequence in the program: 3S + 1A* + 2T* + Seq + REP
Second jump sequence in the program: 3S + 2T* + 1A* + Seq + REP"

+REP by nature always lowers the BV by 30%, regardless of if it's explicitly explained or not. It's like the * which automatically marks an element as invalid and value-less and the effect is applied automatically by the system in accordance with the technical panel's input.

 

[Mathematician]

While not written out in words, the technical handbook very clearly shows how to call additional jump sequences:

There can only be one jump sequence in a Free program. If the skater executes two jump sequences in a program, only the first jump of the jump unit will count.
First jump sequence in the program: 3T + 2A + Seq
Second jump sequence in the program: 3S + 1A* + 2T* + Seq + REP
Second jump sequence in the program: 3S + 2T* + 1A* + Seq + REP

+REP by nature always lowers the BV by 30%, regardless of if it's explicitly explained or not. It's like the * which automatically marks an element as invalid and value-less and is applied automatically by the system in accordance with the technical panel's input.

Yea, you're right. But I wouldnt exactly call it clear.

Because, for instance, when a single unplanned jump as part of a combo is performed, it is specified that one jump of the combo is asterisked but the other jump is treated normally, because that particular jump didnt break rules in and of itself, despite being part of a combo rendered invalid, and therefore is allowed to its full score even though the essence of combo is voided. Therefore, I myself would extrapolate that with a repeated SEQ, although the sequence breaks rules, and the essence of SEQ is voided, the jump in and of itself is explicitly an exception and therefore in and of itself not breaking rules and therefore I would conclude that it would be counted normally as consistent with the previous logic. This is why I think the rule book is a failure in this regard. When writing something necessarily concrete such as a rule book, especially in an inherently abstract sport like skating, I think its strange not to clarify these things precisely because the logic throughout the entire paper isn't obviously consistent. Yea, I know the examples I provided arent perfectly equal if you want to get extremely philosophical, but they're similar enough to where its misleading and bare minimum explanation expecting the reader to do a full Schopenhauer tier analysis to understand it is just incomplete.

 

[yume]

The rules really don't say that for some reason. But they've always given +REP for the extra sequences.
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

The technical panel had doubts whether to invalidate the 3T, because of this they called Lakernik to help. But they had no doubts whether to give it +REP.

View attachment 7261

A little question: what is the difference between 3Lz+2A+SEQ and 3Lz+SEQ+2A?

 

[Mathematician]

On the other hand, an additional jumping combination will receive the same treatment, so one could also very much make that connection in a different way than your train of thought. Regardless of it not being written in words, the provided example is very clear, more clear than many other parts of the handbooks where only a description with words is provided.

A 4th (or 3rd, if theres also a SEQ) jumping combo will null the 2nd jump and give 70% for the first? I didnt catch that in the rule book. Anyways, I do get your point.

 

[Jumping_Bean]

Yea, you're right. But I wouldnt exactly call it clear.

Because, for instance, when a single unplanned jump as part of a combo is performed, it is specified that one jump of the combo is asterisked but the other jump is treated normally, because that particular jump didnt break rules in and of itself, despite being part of a combo rendered invalid, and therefore is allowed to its full score even though the essence of combo is voided. Therefore, I myself would extrapolate that with a repeated SEQ, although the sequence breaks rules, and the essence of SEQ is voided, the jump in and of itself is explicitly an exception and therefore in and of itself not breaking rules and therefore I would conclude that it would be counted normally as consistent with the previous logic. This is why I think the rule book is a failure in this regard. When writing something necessarily concrete such as a rule book, especially in an inherently abstract sport like skating, I think its strange not to clarify these things precisely because the logic throughout the entire paper isn't obviously consistent. Yea, I know the examples I provided arent perfectly equal if you want to get extremely philosophical, but they're similar enough to where its misleading and bare minimum explanation expecting the reader to do a full Schopenhauer tier analysis to understand it is just incomplete.

On the other hand, an additional jumping combination will receive the same treatment, so one could also very much make that connection in a different way than your train of thought. Regardless of it not being written in words, the provided example is very clear, more clear than many other parts of the handbooks where only a description with words is provided.

A 4th (or 3th, if theres also a SEQ) jumping combo will null the 2nd jump and give 0.7 for the first? I didnt catch that in the rule book. Anyways, I do get your point.

Yes, see here:
"If the total number of jump combinations or sequences is more than three, only the first jump of the extra jump combinations/sequences is counted. This jump will be marked with the sign “+REP” and receive 70% of the base value (as a repetition of a jump combination/sequence), e.g. 3Lo+3T*+REP, 3Lo+3T*+2A*+REP etc.

"A little question: what is the difference between 3Lz+2A+SEQ and 3Lz+SEQ+2A?

Usually, a 3Lz+SEQ+2A* is the result of a step-out or two three-turns between the two jumps, i.e. anything that would break the definition of a jump sequence. In that case, the second half of the combination is always invalid.

This can also happen on jump combinations, not just sequences, see Kami's 4T+SEQ+3S* at Euros 2022.

 

[Mathematician]

Yes, see here:
"If the total number of jump combinations or sequences is more than three, only the first jump of the extra jump combinations/sequences is counted. This jump will be marked with the sign “+REP” and receive 70% of the base value (as a repetition of a jump combination/sequence), e.g. 3Lo+3T*+REP, 3Lo+3T*+2A*+REP etc.

Oh, you're right. Thats incredibly clear. Thanks, I have no idea how I missed that.

@Skating91 here it is, you can find this at the bottom of page 22.

 

[yume]

On the other hand, an additional jumping combination will receive the same treatment, so one could also very much make that connection in a different way than your train of thought. Regardless of it not being written in words, the provided example is very clear, more clear than many other parts of the handbooks where only a description with words is provided.

Yes, see here:
"If the total number of jump combinations or sequences is more than three, only the first jump of the extra jump combinations/sequences is counted. This jump will be marked with the sign “+REP” and receive 70% of the base value (as a repetition of a jump combination/sequence), e.g. 3Lo+3T*+REP, 3Lo+3T*+2A*+REP etc.


Usually, a 3Lz+SEQ+2A* is the result of a step-out or two three-turns between the two jumps, i.e. anything that would break the definition of a jump sequence. In that case, the second half of the combination is always invalid.

This can also happen on jump combinations, not just sequences, see Kami's 4T+SEQ+3S* at Euros 2022.

Then i wonder why so many skaters still do the next jump after a three-turn. Maybe because of the lack of a back-up plan.

 

[icewhite]

Then i wonder why so many skaters still do the next jump after a three-turn. Maybe because of the lack of a back-up plan.

Hoping the judges will be soft?

 

[Jumping_Bean]

Then i wonder why so many skaters still do the next jump after a three-turn. Maybe because of the lack of a back-up plan.

One three-turn is usually fine (though not always, as poor Aleksa Rakic had to learn at Canadian Nats in 2021/22), but multiple? Or a foot down? Usually not.

Sometimes it really is just adrenaline and panic, sometimes lack of backup plan, and I guess sometimes it's just skaters actually having no idea about the scoring system.