Ant? How can you say 3A-2T is easier than 3-3 when many (lady) skaters have done the latter and a tiny handful the former?
Because a 3/3 is harder than a 3/2. While the triple axel is a special jump in and of itself it is still "only" a triple jump - with a point value that was recently increased because people didn't think it was worth enough, so it is worth what? 2.5 points more than a triple lutz. That is a large increase. Even more so when you conisder that the differential between every other type of triple jump is only 0.5 points. So the point differential is already five time that of the differences between the rest of the other triples.
Tell me this - what do you think is more difficult a 3Lz+2T or a 3F+3T? Or this - a 3F+2T or a 3Lp+3T? I think the 3/3 is harder everytime, so why is the 3A any different - it is the next hardest triple but the 2T is throw away. That was the main point of my post . Or maybe conisder this - a 4T+2T combination compared to a 3A+3T combination? That to me is cut and dry as well - the 3/3 is more difficult than the 4/2.
My main frustration in listening to the arguments is that the scale of values has not changed in what? 18 months? 2 years? The triple axel (and quad's) value has increased and there hasn't been some surprise change all of a sudden. Everyone knows what things are worth on paper. Everyone knows (though barely anyone agrees) that COP does not treat combinations as more difficult than the jumps done individually, so with this in mind, looking at COP who in this example has done more content if the following jumps are executed in single passes:
Skater A: 3A, 3F, 2A, 2T
Skater B: 3Lz, 3F, 2A, 3T
Two triples to three is easy to spot. The first skater did the hardest triple in the book, together with the third hardest triple, the hardest double and the easiest double. The second skater did the second and third hardest triples in the book, the easiest triple and the hardest double. That's how COP scores it.
But even if you don't agree with the scoring of combination (which I don't) and you think the system should be tweaked (which I do) I still don't think you end up with skater A beating skater B because everybody knows that the second (and third) jumps in combinations are more difficult comparatively than the first. So if you use a system like e.g. gkelly has sugested (which i personally like) where the first jump in a combo is given a 0.1 multiplier and the second jump is given a 0.2 multiplier, then you still end up with skater B getting more points because doing the same jump with a whole revolution more as the second jump is worth more than doing the first jump with half a revolution extra.
And as for tacking on the 2T - correct me if I'm wrong since I"m not a technical person, but aren't skaters often omitting to tack it on because they lack speed or the first jump wasn't landed quite right? I don't think it's to be minimized... esp. after a 3A!
No i don't think skaters are omitting 2Ts at all. Some skaters notorisouly forget or don't maximuise points by putting 2T on the end of 3/2s and 3/3 combinations. But i have seen a whole host of downright fugly 2Ts and 2Lps on the end of 3 jumps combos just because they must. I've seen skaters (like Kevin VDPs Oly LP) where the skater has to put the double toe on the back of the triple or risk losing is as a phantom SEQ because of Zayak violations so despite a seriously flawed triple they easily tacked the double (and in Kevni's case a triple!) toe onto the end of the combination.
I think people are up in arms about the results of Mao and Yuna (which was always going to happen). To have a sensible debate about the way the elements are scored we need to not personalise it with the skaters. If the scale of values is to remain the same for men and women I don't see how you can make a 3A/2T cmobination worth more than a 3Lz/3T combination without making the men's competition regress even further becuase the message is - hey guys 3a/2s or 4T/2s are worth more than 3/3s or 3A/3s and that to me just feels wrong. I think people want to change the rules because their favourite isn't in the lead, and that is not a good reason to change the rules.
I think Stojko is helping to focus a debate, so why the problem with his speaking up? He seems to enjoy being in the thick of controversy. Not every former champion would be up for that.
I have no problem with stojko speaking up as long as he doesn't misrepresent facts to present his skewed argument. Saying that a triple lutz is worth more than a triple axel, is an out and out lie. Saying that a triple lutz combination is worth more points than a triple axel combination is misleading because it could be a 3Lz+4T combination and a 3A+1T combination...in which case DUH! Missing out facts like - the reason the combiantion scored more was because the difference between a 3 Lutz and a 3 Axel is 2.5 points, but the difference between a double toe and a triple toe is 3 points (I know i've got the points wrong because i haven't looke it up but for the purposes of making the point the actual point difference doesn't matter) so overall the system worksa it out as more valuable does many things. It explains the reality of what happened to the lesser informed public, he coudl even go one better and say, not only that but the system rewords X,y, and z in the GOE which is why one combination got 2 extra GOE points to only 0.60 extra points for the other. But it also then gives a good platform, having stated the facts correctly to go on to say , and that is why i disagree with the way the system works, i would prefer to see A,b, and c changes effect to achieve x, y and z outcomes. And from there we can debate it!
Ant