Flutzing

[mskater93]

deductive conclusion: a flutz is stubborn?

Yes, it's a stubborn animal to fix.

 

[prettykeys]

Maybe it would help to think about the intent and utility of definitions more generally.

If you want to know what a donkey is you could turn to the dictionary and maybe read something like this:

Definition: A donkey is a stocky four-legged animal similar to a horse, typically used as a beast of burden and reputed to have a stubborn streak.

Two problems are immediate.

1. What if you see a three-legged donkey? It is still a donkey, even though it does not satisfy the definition (a “four-legged animal…”)

2. If someone really wants to know what a donkey is, this definition – or any – does not help much. You have to go to a farm and see one for yourself.

Similarly, we come to a definition of as Lutz jump by seeing lots of excellent skaters do them, starting with Alois Lutz in 1913. Then we abstract what we see to something like this.

Definition: A Lutz jump is a toe-pick assisted figure skating jump that takes off from an outside back edge, typically preceded by a long glide on that edge and with the rotation of the body in the air in the opposite direction to the curve of the blade on the ice, and landed after one or more rotations in the air on the outside back edge of the opposite foot.

A flutz is a three-legged donkey.

Your proposal does not help. Maybe to Joesitz and those who agree with him, a flutz (i.e. Lutz with a wrong edge takeoff) is more like a round square. In their view, the description defies the definition.

Besides, you shouldn't use a biological organism as an example. Biology has ways of defining things like species. A more precise definition of a donkey is this:

don·key (dngk, dng-, dông-)
n. pl. don·keys
1. The domesticated *** (Equus asinus).

This definition is very common; it showed up in the top couple of internet dictionaries when I Google'd "definition" "donkey".

A three-legged donkey is still a domesticated Equus asinus.

 

[Mathman]

A three-legged donkey is still a domesticated Equus asinus.

I think that's circular. What is an equus asinus?

As for utility, if you have never seen a donkey, and someone tells you, oh, that's an equus asinus, no information has been imparted.

Definitions serve people, not the other way around. Here is a classic example. Euclid, whose work stands as a beacon to guide all subsequent mathematical thought and provides a model of logical rigor that other sciences can only envy, defined a "straight line" like this:

Definition: A straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself. (The Elements, Book I, definition 4.)

Plato contributes, a straight line is that of which the middle covers the ends.

Heron chips in with, a straight line is that line which cannot, with another line of the same species, make a figure. And, a line is straight if part of it cannot be in the assumed plane while another part is in one higher up.

It a person is genuinely in ignorance of what straight means, none of these definitions is of the slightest value (if, indeed, we can make anything of them at all.) The only way we can teach someone what straight means is to show that person a bunch of things that are straight and curved.

Definitions are our servants, not our jailers.

 

[prettykeys]

I think that's circular. What is an equus asinus?

I don't think so. When I refer to a donkey as a species, I can then go with the most basic understanding of a species and say that they are creatures that are "capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring." Then you can go look at whatever is called an "equus asinus" as a reference and with high accuracy, scientifically credibly state what qualifies as a donkey and what doesn't. E.g. a mule is not a donkey, although mules can also be described as "a stocky four-legged animal similar to a horse, typically used as a beast of burden and reputed to have a stubborn streak."

Just as one can look at what the original Lutz was to determine what kind of jumps today might satisfactorily be fit to be considered reproductions of the Lutz.

As for utility, if you have never seen a donkey, and someone tells you, oh, that's an equus asinus, no information has been imparted.

Not true. If I had some working knowledge of what the genus "equus" constitutes, then I have some idea of what equus asinus is like. Similar in some way, to a horse. As in your definition. And if I had never seen a horse but I'd seen a zebra and knew that zebras are also part of genus equus, then mine has more utility than yours.

Win.

Definitions are our servants, not our jailers.

Sorry, I stand by my viewpoint definitions are our jailers. (Wait, that was never my viewpoint, but oh well.)

I very much dislike the analogy. Especially when it comes to biology, where no matter how definitions subscribe to varying levels of detail and precision as warranted, observations will remain as they are, and it's up to us to sort out which observations deserve priority as part of the definition.

Whereas in figure skating, as far as I know, people decided to create the terms and skills to define the sport. If one wishes to argue for a laxer application of the original definitions, that is fair game. If one wishes to keep the original definitions but either increase or decrease the relative value of variations on a defined element, that is also valid and a huge part of the IJS. Joesitz obviously wouldn't like it. I personally don't mind it, and I think it's an interesting debate. I don't think it is a language issue.

Three-legged donkey? *snort* A flutz is not a donkey (Lutz), to me. Flutz can be a mule, though.

 

[Mathman]

"don·key (dngk, dng-, dông-) n. pl. don·keys
1. The domesticated a$$ (Equus asinus)."

This definition is very common; it showed up in the top couple of internet dictionaries when I Google'd "definition" "donkey".

A three-legged donkey is still a domesticated Equus asinus.

I am no wiser than before. I looked up "a$$": "any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears."

Now we're getting somewhere. A flutz is a donkey with an even number of toes.

Anyway, the point I was making is that definitions are our servants, not our jailers.

 

[prettykeys]

I am no wiser than before. I looked up "a$$": "any of several hardy gregarious African or Asian perissodactyl mammals (genus Equus) smaller than the horse and having long ears."

Now we're getting somewhere. A flutz is a donkey with an even number of toes.

Anyway, the point I was making is that definitions are our servants, not our jailers.

I do not believe Joesitz or I was ever making the argument that definitions are "our jailers." Please elaborate on how anyone was making that argument.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It's time to tryyyyyyyyy
Defying graaaaaaavity
I think I'll tryyyyyyyy
Defyyyyyyying graaaaaavity
And you can't pull me doooooooooowwwwwwwwn

And nobody in all of Oz
No wizard that there is or was
HAS EVER HEARD OF SUCH A BORING TOPIC OF DISCUSSION

 

[EricRohmer]

I know Midori was one of the best jumpers ever (probably THE best jumper ever, actually), but she lipped too!

??
I've never heard about Midori's lip.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Well let me tell you a story about it then.

I punched Midori Ito's lip one time. We were drinking and she was getting too roudy. What else was I supposed to do? She bled. Turns out her blood is green. I was tempted to lick her now bloody lip because I was reminded of absinthe but then I realized "Wow, maybe she's an alien. It might kill me."

Midori and I stopped being friends after that night. Her side of this story will likely be much different.

 

[EricRohmer]

Well let me tell you a story about it then.

I punched Midori Ito's lip one time. We were drinking and she was getting too roudy. What else was I supposed to do? She bled. Turns out her blood is green. I was tempted to lick her now bloody lip because I was reminded of absinthe but then I realized "Wow, maybe she's an alien. It might kill me."

Midori and I stopped being friends after that night. Her side of this story will likely be much different.

 

[blue dog]

Well let me tell you a story about it then.

I punched Midori Ito's lip one time. We were drinking and she was getting too roudy. What else was I supposed to do? She bled. Turns out her blood is green. I was tempted to lick her now bloody lip because I was reminded of absinthe but then I realized "Wow, maybe she's an alien. It might kill me."

Midori and I stopped being friends after that night. Her side of this story will likely be much different.

You're confusing other people's memories with your own =P Isn't that the story Maia Usova said after she and Pasha...

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's not an "imaginary Lutz", it's a Lutz that the skater doesn't hold the counter-check position quite long enough for it to take off from the outside edge (usually under 1/2 second). It's not an "imaginary flip", either, it's a flip where the skater cross checks a little too hard on the reach back causing them to roll over to a slight outside edge. I can say from personal experience on the Lutz, it's hard to get the timing exactly right to Lutz all the time, especially when amped (liked in competition) and that I've seen skaters who NEVER flip the edge in practice release their upper body just early enough to get a call when competing.

Well now, we have a Revisionist Definition especially if an element is difficult. What other jump can we revise? We must continue to pamper the skaters.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Two problems are immediate.

1. What if you see a three-legged donkey? It is still a donkey, even though it does not satisfy the definition (a “four-legged animal…”)

2. If someone really wants to know what a donkey is, this definition – or any – does not help much. You have to go to a farm and see one for yourself.

Similarly, we come to a definition of as Lutz jump by seeing lots of excellent skaters do them, starting with Alois Lutz in 1913. Then we abstract what we see to something like this.

Definition: A Lutz jump is a toe-pick assisted figure skating jump that takes off from an outside back edge, typically preceded by a long glide on that edge and with the rotation of the body in the air in the opposite direction to the curve of the blade on the ice, and landed after one or more rotations in the air on the outside back edge of the opposite foot.

Why don't we revise the definition of skating elements to be more like donkeys?

 

[SkateSkates]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAR2QX1W04Q&feature=related

Go to about 1:53. She didn't always lip, but she sometimes did and she sometimes took off of a flat.

 

[Mathman]

Why don't we revise the definition of skating elements to be more like donkeys?

I think we have.

For instance, we have revised the definition that says "a loop jump is a jump that takes off on a back outside edge and lands on the back outside edge of the same foot." If the skater lands on an inside edge, that violates the definition. But -- since definitions are not our jailers -- we score that as a "loop jump" even though the definition is not satisfied.

That is the way we have chosen to use the words "loop jump" in the context of scoring. Are we wrong to do so? Well, sort of. We say, that was a pretty sloppy loop jump, it deserves a minus two GOE. The skater gets only 3.3 points instead of 5.3.

Would it be better to say, aha! you did not satisfy the definition, which clearly specifies landing on a back outside edge. Therefore you did not do a loop jump. Indeed, you did not do any kind of figure skating jump because all jumps land on a back outside edge by definition. By definition you have not done a jump at all.

 

[Mathman]

I do not believe Joesitz or I was ever making the argument that definitions are "our jailers." Please elaborate on how anyone was making that argument.

In any definition you must list the characteristics that distinguish an example of the thing being defined from other things. A synonym (a donkey is as a$$) is not a definition. No definition is so marvelous, no lexicographer so subtle, as to be able to do this in such an encyclopaedic way as to account for all possibilities.

The family equidae is classified as comprising "perissodactyl ungulates" (hoofed animals with an odd number of toes.) If you saw an animal that was like a donkey in every respect except that, by a freak of nature, it had an extra toe, you would "bust out of intellectual jail" an say, screw the dictionary, that's a donkey.

 

[seniorita]

a flutz donkey, notice the inside edge the last second

 

[vlaurend]

@ Joesitz - Since you have made it clear ad nauseum that you think wrong edge lutzes should be called as flips, you'll be happy to know that my lutz was called as a flip at my competition over the weekend, even though the entrance made it clear that it was intended as a lutz. The technical controller told me they debated whether to call it as a flip or as a lutz (e) and decided to call it a flip, since I only had one other flip in my program and that call would not result in an invalid element. He said if I had had two flips in the program, they would have called is a lutz (e). In other words, the calls are interchangeable and the point is not to invalidate an entire jump pass over a balanced program rule technicality.

 

[Mathman]

...the point is not to invalidate an entire jump pass over a balanced program rule technicality.

yes, this is what I mean. We know what the goal of the judging system is -- to give a score that fairly represents what the skater put on the ice. In persuit of that goal the technicalities should be our servants, not our masters.

Did you get negative GOE on your flip on top of the reduced base value?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I think we have.

For instance, we have revised the definition that says "a loop jump is a jump that takes off on a back outside edge and lands on the back outside edge of the same foot." If the skater lands on an inside edge, that violates the definition. But -- since definitions are not our jailers -- we score that as a "loop jump" even though the definition is not satisfied.

have you seen a loop jump land on a back inside edge. I would say that was a Wrong Edge Landing.

That is the way we have chosen to use the words "loop jump" in the context of scoring. Are we wrong to do so? Well, sort of. We say, that was a pretty sloppy loop jump, it deserves a minus two GOE. The skater gets only 3.3 points instead of 5.3.

Would it be better to say, aha! you did not satisfy the definition, which clearly specifies landing on a back outside edge. Therefore you did not do a loop jump. Indeed, you did not do any kind of figure skating jump because all jumps land on a back outside edge by definition. By definition you have not done a jump at all.[/QUOTE]