Correct technique and COP

[gio]

So why have Asians come to recently dominate figure skating? Well, having tutored many Korean and Japanese students in English, I have found that they are always looking for the “right” way--grammatically and syntactically correct--to say something even though there may be many correct ways to express a given thought. The “right” way is what the teacher wants to see and this “right” way is what will create a healthy student/teacher dynamic. Asian students will do their grammar lessons over and over and over again until the written sentences are perfect. Ironically, this does not always make for a verbally proficient speaker; in fact, the overemphasis on “technique” makes for students who cannot express their thoughts easily because what they need to say in daily life and what they have practiced in their grammar lessons are usually never the same thing. But if you were to ask me which high school student—American or Korean—has a better mastery of the rules of English grammar, I would say the Korean student, 7 times out of 10.

To add to the disincentives, the judging right now is perceived by the general public to be incomprehensible and unduly punishing (edge calls, UR penalties). Whether the system is fair or unfair, it certainly sounds oppressive to casual viewers when announcers talk of losing decimal points for some invisible transgression--skating starts sounding like homework!

Inspired by the inputs of skatingpunk and Olympia I decided to start a new topic about the correct execution of elements and COP. Do you think that COP will motivate skaters to correct their technique in jumps, spins, spirals etc?

I'm a purist and so I think that every element should be done correctly, so if COP will be able to motivate the skaters to correct bad technique I'll give a +3 to COP.

Skatingpunk saying that FS is like a language and that you have to correctly use the grammar is fascinating. IMO, if you speak a language with a wrong pronounciation, grammar and synthax the language loses it beauty. The same applies to a FS program. JMO

Spins should not travel. That's one of the worst mistakes, together with sloppy spins and loosing speed by changing position, foot etc. Unpleasing positions is another thing that should be avoided.
Camel spin - the knee, the foot and the body should be at least parallel to the hip, but better if above. The position of the free leg foot is also important. Contorsionist spins without those features are bad camels IMO
Sit spin - buttocks should be always below the knees, regardless of variation. In the standard sit the shoulders should not be curved and the free leg should be stretched.
Layback - the knee and the toe of the free leg should not look to the ice.
Spirals - should have deep edges and the free leg position have to be as higher as possible with the toe pointed out. Speed should not be lost when changing positions, edges etc. The glide should be smooth without sloppiness
Jumps - one of the most important features of those elements are edges IMO. A double lutz with a deep outside edge is more valuable than a triple lutz with a sloppy flat edge.
MITF - deep edges in spread eagles

There are elite skaters that commit those mistakes in favour of difficult jumps and positions in spins and spirals.

 

[sorcerer]

...I decided to start a new topic about the correct execution of elements and COP. Do you think that COP will motivate skaters to correct their technique in jumps, spins, spirals etc?
....
I'm a purist and so I think that every element should be done correctly, so if COP will be able to motivate the skaters to correct bad technique I'll give a +3 to COP.
....
There are elite skaters that commit those mistakes in favour of difficult jumps and positions in spins and spirals.

I think that CoP does motivate skaters and/or coaches to correct techniques, but also that the effect varies considerably depending on elements.
Skaters seem to be doing sit spins much better with the clarifications becoming preciser; while they don't seem to get flutzes and lips corrected so easily.

I think it would be interesting to elaborate on the diversity of difficulty of correct execution from element to element, not discussing in general.
The efficiency of CoP can't be measured by a single scale, IMO.

That said, too much TP's nitpcking does decrease fun in watching this sport; skaters sometimes seem doing "homeworks" at the sacrifice of fluidity.

 

[gio]

I think that CoP does motivate skaters and/or coaches to correct techniques, but also that the effect varies considerably depending on elements.
Skaters seem to be doing sit spins much better with the clarifications becoming preciser; while they don't seem to get flutzes and lips corrected so easily.

I think it would be interesting to elaborate on the diversity of difficulty of correct execution from element to element, not discussing in general.
The efficiency of CoP can't be measured by a single scale, IMO.

I agree with you in that.

That said, too much TP's nitpcking does decrease fun in watching this sport; skaters sometimes seem doing "homeworks" at the sacrifice of fluidity.

I don't know, correct technique is very important IMO. The beauty of deep edges in Lutzes, the wonderful Nikodinov laybacks, Michelle COE spirals
Beauty is achieved with good technique IMO.

 

[sorcerer]

Well, CoP couldn't fix Yukari's leg wrap, could only partially fix Mao's lutz at this moment, .... well done corrections are rare in jumps.
Most skaters just keep flutzing on, they earn some points for it.
And UR calls ended mostly in selecting easier jumps.

CoP couldn't encourage correct jumps of senior skaters as a whole.
But it may motivate novice skaters to have correct jumps.

 

[gio]

Well, CoP couldn't fix Yukari's leg wrap, could only partially fix Mao's lutz at this moment, .... well done corrections are rare in jumps.
Most skaters just keep flutzing on, they earn some points for it.
And UR calls ended mostly in selecting easier jumps.

CoP couldn't encourage correct jumps of senior skaters as a whole.
But it may motivate novice skaters to have correct jumps.

I think that now coaches in the pre junior level won't rush in teaching triples as once they did. They will be more motivated to teach triple lutzes and flips correctly.

However I think stricter rules should be implemented about those two type of jumps. Just count the inside edge take off a Flip and outside edge take off a Lutz. If a skater does three jumps with the same take off (two flips and a cheated lutz) the last one is not counted because of the Zayak rule. That would be the best solution.
On the contrary I'm also for the distiction between a toe loop and a toe walley which are two different jumps (the toe walley being more difficult to execute). Zayak in fact did two 3toe loops and two 3toe walleys in her program. The merge of the two jumps was done to "penalize" Zayak which I find it a little bit unfair.

 

[sk8rdad]

However I think stricter rules should be implemented about those two type of jumps. Just count the inside edge take off a Flip and outside edge take off a Lutz. If a skater does three jumps with the same take off (two flips and a cheated lutz) the last one is not counted because of the Zayak rule. That would be the best solution.
.

Agreed, I have been saying for years that a Flutz should be scored as a Flip and counted toward the number of flips in the program. This would quickly force a correction of technique or elimination of the attempts. For the same reason I fully support the current UR calls. The basic message is if you can't do the element leave it on the pratice rink until you can.

 

[miki88]

Anyone think they should go back to 6.0 system? I think the COP is too nitpitcky on a lot of things and rather than motivating skaters, I think they just put more pressure on them and sometimes this cause skaters to skip out elements they cannot do correctly under the rules. Also, one of the major issues with the old system was favoritism on the part of the judges, but favoritism still exists in the current judging system. At when favoritism was shown in the old system, it was more obvious. The current system is too complicated for the casual viewer, so a lot of people become confused with the scores at times.

 

[Phoenix347]

I think that now coaches in the pre junior level won't rush in teaching triples as once they did. They will be more motivated to teach triple lutzes and flips correctly.

However I think stricter rules should be implemented about those two type of jumps. Just count the inside edge take off a Flip and outside edge take off a Lutz. If a skater does three jumps with the same take off (two flips and a cheated lutz) the last one is not counted because of the Zayak rule. That would be the best solution.
On the contrary I'm also for the distiction between a toe loop and a toe walley which are two different jumps (the toe walley being more difficult to execute). Zayak in fact did two 3toe loops and two 3toe walleys in her program. The merge of the two jumps was done to "penalize" Zayak which I find it a little bit unfair.

A flutz is not really equivalent to a flip... a flutz results from a Lutz entry which is different from a flip entry and vice verse.

 

[Figure88]

...I think they just put more pressure on them and sometimes this cause skaters to skip out elements they cannot do correctly under the rules.

Well, if a skater can't do the elements correctly according to the rules, they shouldn't be doing it! Why should a skater be awarded the same points for "cheating" the elements as a skater who is doing it correctly under the rules? Moreover, under the old systems there were more opportunities for judges to give cheated scores to their favorites because the whole judging methodology was undisclosed to the casual viewer. As least, if there is cheating going on now, it is apparent to everyone and judges are made accountable.

 

[museksk8r]

Well, CoP couldn't fix Yukari's leg wrap, could only partially fix Mao's lutz at this moment, .... well done corrections are rare in jumps.
Most skaters just keep flutzing on, they earn some points for it.
And UR calls ended mostly in selecting easier jumps.

CoP couldn't encourage correct jumps of senior skaters as a whole.
But it may motivate novice skaters to have correct jumps.

It's not COP's job to fix incorrect technique - that's the technical coach's and skater's job to fix. The COP protocols that the skaters and coaches are provided with after competitions show them what they need to work on improving and what they are doing well. The coaches should motivate and encourage their skaters to have correct jumps. Again, that's not the job of COP to do.

 

[n_halifax]

Well, if a skater can't do the elements correctly according to the rules, they shouldn't be doing it! Why should a skater be awarded the same points for "cheating" the elements as a skater who is doing it correctly under the rules? Moreover, under the old systems there were more opportunities for judges to give cheated scores to their favorites because the whole judging methodology was undisclosed to the casual viewer. As least, if there is cheating going on now, it is apparent to everyone and judges are made accountable.

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. With the 6.0 system the judges could simply *interpret* a jump as being clean/faulty and judge it accordingly.Now most certainly the judges have to be much more accountable. As always, the second set of scores can certainly allow a judge the liberty of placing skaters where they truly want (as it always has, even in the old system).

 

[miki88]

Well, if a skater can't do the elements correctly according to the rules, they shouldn't be doing it! Why should a skater be awarded the same points for "cheating" the elements as a skater who is doing it correctly under the rules? Moreover, under the old systems there were more opportunities for judges to give cheated scores to their favorites because the whole judging methodology was undisclosed to the casual viewer. As least, if there is cheating going on now, it is apparent to everyone and judges are made accountable.

Well I never said the old system was more fair. I am just saying that the COP is too nitpicky with the jumps. Also edge calls and UR calls can be subjective as well. Figure skating has always and will always be a subjective sport; it's not like track and field where the first one who crosses the line wins IMAO. And it is definitely not more apparent to casual viewers. I agree with Olympia for saying "the judging right now is perceived by the general public to be incomprehensible and unduly punishing"

 

[gio]

A flutz is not really equivalent to a flip... a flutz results from a Lutz entry which is different from a flip entry and vice verse.

A renowed italian coach has more than once explained on Italian TV that a flutz is nothing more than a flip. The only thing that makes a difference between the two jumps is edge take off (LBI vs LBO). This is the same opinion of the author of the skatejournal website which is very accurate IMO.
You can read it also here (another accurate website)
http://www.sk8stuff.com/f_recog/recog_j_lutz.htm

Different entries aren't important (they can just make a jump more or less difficult), what it matters is edge take off (last second edge take off). You can enter a jump with a mohawk, with brackets, with a three turn etc.
In fact the flutz is nothing more than a Flip with a Lutz entry/preparation, so it is a Flip with a difficult entry. Midori Ito for example in her 1988 SP did a Lutz entry then immediately jumped a double Axel. The Axel was still an Axel, because she jumped from LFO edge even if a second before she was on a LBO edge.

 

[Figure88]

Well I never said the old system was more fair. I am just saying that the COP is too nitpicky with the jumps. Also edge calls and UR calls can be subjective as well. Figure skating has always and will always be a subjective sport; it's not like track and field where the first one who crosses the line wins IMAO. And it is definitely not more apparent to casual viewers. I agree with Olympia for saying "the judging right now is perceived by the general public to be incomprehensible and unduly punishing"

There can be wrongly given edge and UR calls case at times, but in most cases they are correctly given, especially with skaters with obvious violations. In any case, if the skater is talented enough, he or she should be able to correct the defects with enough practice. Ando & Flatt used to have jump problems, but they fixed it. Why should the whole system be changed to accommodate a select few skaters who can't be bothered to learn the correct technique? And why should a skater be rewarded for a jump they can't do correctly?

 

[sk8rdad]

Part of the reason for the existance of COP is to be more nitpicky about execution of elements. The 6.0 system was entirely subjective, even when an attempt was made to add required deductions the rules for these were never followed well or enforced well. At least under COP the favoritism is somewhat limited by ensuring that half the mark is determined by a clear system of technical merit. While this still does not eliminate favoritism it does reduce its effect. It can never by eliminated entirely in any subjective sport.

As to the Lutz/Flutz/Flip issue, gio had it basically right. The Lutz takeoff is from a back outside (BO) edge, the flip is from a back inside (BI) edge. A Flutz if defined as a change of edge during a planned Lutz from BO to BI edge, which by the definition of the two recognized jump makes it a Flutz abliet from a slightly more difficult entry. It should be counted as a Flip and scored as such. Every skater I know that gets edge calls works diligently at eliminating them, they do NOT complain that the system is unfair and would be more upset by skaters being credited for poor jumps when they have worked to eliminate the edge call from their jumps. If anything the complaint I have heard is that the mark down is not always consistent for an edge call from judge to judge. The same argument holds for UR's most skaters that have come up under COP work to eliminate the problem by being more consistent in their rotations.

 

[Blades of Passion]

A renowed italian coach has more than once explained on Italian TV that a flutz is nothing more than a flip. The only thing that makes a difference between the two jumps is edge take off (LBI vs LBO). This is the same opinion of the author of the skatejournal website which is very accurate IMO.
You can read it also here (another accurate website)
http://www.sk8stuff.com/f_recog/recog_j_lutz.htm

Different entries aren't important (they can just make a jump more or less difficult), what it matters is edge take off (last second edge take off). You can enter a jump with a mohawk, with brackets, with a three turn etc.
In fact the flutz is nothing more than a Flip with a Lutz entry/preparation, so it is a Flip with a difficult entry. Midori Ito for example in her 1988 SP did a Lutz entry then immediately jumped a double Axel. The Axel was still an Axel, because she jumped from LFO edge even if a second before she was on a LBO edge.

This is not correct.

When a skater attempts to do a Lutz and switches over to the inside edge, the momentum of their body is different than if they had attempted a Flip. The jumps are different, regardless of the edge. There is still counter-rotation in a Flutz.

Similarly, with a Lip, the skater's body is still moving as if it was a Flip. They may take off from the outside edge but their body was still following the curve of the turn going into the jump, which separates it from a Lutz.

With Midori's jump, her body is still going forward when the thrust of the takeoff happens. It's not just the edge that separates the jumps. You can jump backwards from a LFO edge if you wanted to. That doesn't mean you're doing an Axel.

The other case is the toeloop and toe-walley. They are considered the same jump. The way the body is moving into those jumps is the same, regardless of whether the skater takes off from a slight outside edge or a slight inside edge. That's why it is recognized as a toeloop either way.

 

[vlaurend]

Gio - I agree with what Blades of Passion just pointed out. But an even bigger reason NOT to just call each jump based on the actual edge of each flip or lutz on takeoff is because of the huge penalty that can ensue for breaking the balanced program rules. Under the current rules, each skater is only allowed to do (or attempt) each triple jump twice, and one of those two times must be in combination.
Also, a skater is not allowed to repeat the same jump combination twice (i.e., 3F+2T, then another 3F+2T). If an intended 3Lz+2T is called as a 3F+2T--and this may happen or not happen, depending on the day and the TS on duty--then the skater could lose a huge number of points by then receiving no credit at all on the 3F+2T that follows (since it is the same combination) OR the solo 3F that follows that (since it is now considered the third 3F jump). That huge loss in points is a far greater punishment than any skater deserves for just shifting her weight slighly to the inside while reaching back to take off on one jump.

 

[gkelly]

Also, a skater is not allowed to repeat the same jump combination twice (i.e., 3F+2T, then another 3F+2T).

That's not true.

It's pretty common for skaters, especially men, to repeat the 3T with both 3T as the second half of a combination. A few skaters have done this with 3Lo.

I can't name any specific skaters offhand, but I think you will find that some skaters do, e.g., 3F+3T and 3F+2T+2Lo, or use 3Lz or a different triple as the first jump.

I can definitely name some examples from the 6.0 era, and before quads were common, where men did two 3A in their long programs, both in combination.

Etc.

Doing the exact same combination twice is a little silly, but it is allowed.

What's not "allowed" is doing the same triple jump twice not in combination either time. Under 6.0, there was supposed to be a deduction for that and the second attempt was not supposed to count. It's impossible to know exactly how judges applied those penalties, but it's one theory for why Kulik did not win 1996 Worlds.

Under the current rules, there's a penalty: the second attempt is called as a jump sequence with the 0.8 factor to the base mark for that jump, even if there was clearly no attempt at a second jump. And it fills one of the three combo/sequence slots, so if the skater also does three real combinations and/or sequences the last one won't count at all.