Well, the topic of the thread was, should the value of triple Axels for women be increased (leaving men's the same). So we can cross the quad bridge later.
And the question isn't really should the ISU have separate scoring systems for men and women, but rather, should the same scoring system use different point values for some elements for men and women. They already use different multiplying factors for the component scores and have different requirements for the short program, and to a lesser degree for the long program, so in that sense it wouldn't be too much of a stretch to have differential point values.
About percentages, we could look at it this way. How much is an extra revolution worth?
OK, the whole scale of values could be redone to base all the increments, between progressively harder elements and between various GOE values, on percentages. The current scores seeem to be based largely on trying to use relatively round numbers, especially for triple jumps.
I guess I don't really have one. It just seems like under the present rules a skater can get a lot of points for repeating possibly flawed flips and Lutzes, and blowing off the "balanced program" idea, at least with respect to presenting the full complement of jumps.
Well, there are more aspects to a balanced program than just the types of jump takeoffs. Some aspects can be enforced by the rules, which the current well-balanced program rules do much more than the guidelines of the 1990s or even the requirements of the early 2000s. Other aspects cannot be legislated -- skaters can make choices that are balanced or unbalanced within the rules, or they can have more success on a given day with executing some kinds of elements than others, and it would be up to the judges to ercognize and reward that balance under Choreography as appropriate.
First, I do not think it is the job of the scoring system to encourage or discourage anything. It is the job of the scoring system to provide a means of determining who skated the best.
But the well-balanced program rules and the definitions of what elements earn which scores certainly do have the effect of encouraging or discouraging certain kinds of technical content. If you spell out in the rules that certain elements will gain more points, skaters will have incentive to include them if they can. If you spell out that other elements will earn fewer or no points, there's less incentive to include them.
The first well-balanced long program rules were the Zayak rule about repeat triples, and later the rules about how many jump combinations or sequences may or must be performed. They certainly had the effect of discouraging skaters from repeating the same jump over and over again and of encouraging them to learn more triples if they could, of encouraging the skaters who did no combinations to do some and then later of encouraging skaters who did too many combinations to show some flowing landings for a change.
Under the new Lutz/flip proposal, a skater could still do a Lutz (and earn 6.5 points) and a flip (and earn 5.5 points.)
How do you get these values? The base value is 5.5 and a clear outside edge automatically gains a +1 GOE? Which leaves only two more possible GO increments for the best possible triple lutz?
Brian Boitano in his day had some huge clean triple lutzes with spread eagle entry and arm overhead in the air, the best of which should deserve +3 GOE in the current scoring system. Under today's rules, if all judges agreed, they'd be worth 9.0 points -- this change would cap their score at 8.5?
Or...a skater could do two Lutzes, if that skater had a strong Lutz. Or a skater could do two flips if the skater did not have confidence in her Lutz edge and/or had a crackerjack flip.
The only difference would be that the skater could not do two Lutzes AND a flip in the LP, etc.
In that case... The current well-balanced program rules limit men to 8 jumping passes and women to 7. Those limits are based on the premise that there are 6 different kinds of jumps that we'd like to see skaters execute, that many men can do the hardest triple (3A) and some can do quads, and that most women cannot do 3A and many cannot do all 5 of the other triples.
If the jump definitions change so that there are only 5 different types of triples (of which women generally do only 4 or fewer), would it make sense to take away one of the jump passes? Or at least give skaters the options of doing one fewer jump pass and replacing it with a different kind of element?
Skaters who can do triple-triples but who can't do triple axels or quads (top senior ladies, mid- to lower-ranked senior men) could easily use up their 4 different triples plus 2 repeats in 4-5 jump passes. Then they may still need to do a 2A. They'd still have another jump pass or two left. One of them can be another double axel. What should they do with that last jump pass? Double Newjump? It would be worth more points to do a level 3 or 4 of most other kinds of elements.
Or let that extra jump pass encourage the revival of single jumps with spectacular air positions that are not worth doing in the current rules? E.g., delayed axel, split-flip, split-lutz . . . oh, excuse me, split-Newjump. But if the split-flip version is a +3 single Newjump already, there goes any incentive for anyone to master the more difficult and always rarer split-lutz version. Well, except for the fact that counterrotated approach allows for more variety and surprise in the patterns across the ice, to be rewarded in the Choreography component.
First of all your plan robs this woman of the opportunity to do 8 triples. Midori Ito did.
I don't think she ever actually did 8 triples. She did have the jump repertoire to do so legally, so she apparently planned to do 8 on occasion, but I'm not aware that she ever succeeded.
Also, as I keep on saying, eventually nobody will bother to learn both new Jump inside or New Jump outside edge. Why should your skater show case both New Jump Outside Edge and New Jump Inside edge, when doing New Jump inside edge costs them points?
Well, that assumes that it's as simple as bothering to learn it. Some will put in a lot of effort and not succeed. If the skater can get three full revolutions and a clean landing fairly consistently from the inside edge takeoff and never from the outside edge, they'll stick with the inside takeoff. That would be every skater who ever planned a program with triple flip and not lutz, plus those who usually got positive GOE for their flips and negative for their lutzes.
Your plan will absolutely sound the death knoll for the hardest jump most women do (and I question if the 3axel will ever be normal) and it will also mean more Lepistos.
I agree with your points, although I wouldn't focus so specifically on the current crop of top ladies and prefer to look at a broader picture.
)
