Flutzing

[kate]

The principle is that the choice of landing foot doesn't change the basic name of the jump (although in describing it we would probably add modifiers to indicate that the skater made an unusual landing choice), it doesn't change the IJS code at all, and errors on both unusual and usual landings don't change the name of the jump either.

My point wasn't really about the basic name, but more about how the jump is seen to a skater. I don't know any skaters who consider a half loop and a loop the same jump -- they are completely different. Certainly, in a double at least, they would require completely different timings and movements in the air. I learned a half loop after the rest of my single (except axel I think) and never even thought about attempting a double half anything. The takeoff determines the basic name, maybe, but the landing has a big role in the jump's identity too.

The fact that IJS now only considers half loops loops when they are in a jump sequence supports the idea that that rule change was really made in order to get rid of the sequence penalty to sequences that contain a half loop.

 

[mskater93]

The fact that IJS now only considers half loops loops when they are in a jump sequence supports the idea that that rule change was really made in order to get rid of the sequence penalty to sequences that contain a half loop.

But it was never a sequence in the first place other than the strange rule that 1/2 lo was considered a non-listed jump as the skater never changed feet or turned or hopped between the first and subsequent listed elements

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Your Boekel is an INSIDE AXEL in figure skating and is an uncaptured element in the scoring system; a 1 foot Axel takes off from a fwd outside edge and lands on a back inside edge on the same foot it took off from.

Nothing wrong with that, and here is your combo into salchow which you need so much.

As to your ad nauseum comments about "blindly believing the rules", it's not that we all agree with everything (in the same way I don't agree with everything called in dog agility, football or hockey when I watch or participate in that), it's that these are the rules of the game and you either play by them or you don't get to play. If you don't like them, you can work from the inside to get them changed if you can garner enough power.

It seems you are glued to the rules and do not want to hear objections or suggestions to the rules. A good religious thinker. However, much of Sport evolves because of objections and suggestions. Should we just agree with each other? What is a Forum for?

 

[mskater93]

It seems you are glued to the rules and do not want to hear objections or suggestions to the rules. A good religious thinker. However, much of Sport evolves because of objections and suggestions. Should we just agree with each other? What is a Forum for?

I don't NEED that combo so much, I wrote the half loop and one foot Axel scenario as exactly that because your posts often come across as BLACK OR WHITE; there are no shades of gray in your universe - must land on a back outside edge or no credit, must take off exactly on the correct edge or else no credit. Cannot pre-rotate (impossible from a physics standpoint) or else it should get no credit. I want to be in your simplistic world where there are no shades of gray. Every day I run into so many things that are in that gray scale that require decision. That's what life is full of!

Even when I skate, there are tons of shades of gray. For example (since this is your personal crusade; talk about religious thinking), my Lutz goes from Lutz-to flatz-to slight change of edge (< 3-4 inches) on the draw-to really nasty change of edge about 18 inches long. My coaches and I understand this and we have worked repeatedly on getting my Lutz to the LUTZ stage all the time but what if it's somewhere in the shades of gray the day I compete, I am not going to swap it for something else and I really don't want my coaches fixing something on the warm up, it rattle me too much. And I am sure if you saw my program and I had one of my "gray scale" days on it, you'd say "oh, why did she even attempt that, she changed edge before the pick and did a totally different jump. Cheater!!!!" I don't think that your belief that it's "cheating" is right, because I didn't go into the competition thinking: "hey, I am just going to pretend I have a Lutz and then I'll change the edge beforehand because it's 'easier' and take the edge call". I DO get penalized for it - I get a negative grade of execution and I hope that my Axel and combination spin executions make up for the Lutz when that happens.

I never said I was glued to the rules, I just understand what they are so that I can abide by them when I compete and I use the information of what they are to construct a program that is most likely going to score well (for me). I use the understanding of rules of the sports I follow when watching a game, competition or match so I can understand who wins and why instead of saying so and so should have won because I liked their program better (or they have cooler player names) or whatever.

So you understand where I am coming from:
Do I like all the rules and believe in them 100% (for IJS)? No.
Do I believe IJS is 100% perfect? No.
Did I think 6.0 was 100% perfect? No.
Do I think rules are applied consistently? I believe (most) tech panels and (most) judges try to apply the rules consistently, but there are times when their applications are inconsistent and suspect.
Are the rules consistent with one another? No.
Do I have control of what the rules are? No, I don't sit on the ISU technical committee and have no control over them in the same way that I have no control over the rules (and enforcement thereof) of football, basketball, hockey, or dog agility.
Do I think some of what gets written on this forum regarding "cheating" with wrong edge take offs, pre-rotations and the like? NO and I write back with scenarios to get people to think about shades of gray (like the 1/2 loop) because I skate and I KNOW what it is to try and fix something that is "technically broken" and understand there are stages to that and that even if you fix it and the fix is consistent in practice and run throughs, it can "break" again at in inopportune time.

As it is, if I am TRULY unhappy with a rule that I have no control over (as you seem to be with wrong edge take offs and falls), I either lobby the right people (boss, board of directors, government) or I find a way to get into a position where I DO have control over that rule so I can effect a change (change jobs/career to get more authority (done it), run for the board of directors (done it, currently sit on the board of my skating club), or run for government (haven't done this an suspect I would be really disappointed if I did and won an office)).

 

[Mathman]

A common One Foot Axel on rollers is called a Boekel named after someone who invented it.

Just for fun I looked up Willy Boekl. He was an Austian figure skater who won four world championships and two Olympic silver medals in the 1920s. Then he moved to the U.S. and was one of the founding fathers and first president of the organization tat became the Professional Skaters Association.

Edited to add: Donkey, donkey, donkey. (That was just to make Blades of Passion crazy. )

 

[Mathman]

The fact that IJS now only considers half loops loops when they are in a jump sequence supports the idea that that rule change was really made in order to get rid of the sequence penalty to sequences that contain a half loop.

I agree. The ISU certainly knows that a half-loop is not a 1Lo. But it was more convenient to score it that way in the protocols than to write a few extra lines of software code to include this new wrinkle.

There are several places in the way the protocols are presented that are like that. For instance, if a skater repeats a jump not in combination. The ISU could have an extra line in the protocols that says, "Zayak violation, -1.5 penalty." But instead they could just tack a "+SEQ" on to the end, which gives a 70% reduction without rewriting the software.

Maybe that would be a good way to think of the flutz problem. The ISU knows that a flutz is not a Lutz, but it is more convenient to list it under the name "Lz(e)," with appropriate penaly, than to rewrite the program that produces the protocols.

By the way, I just noticed (maybe I am the last to do so) that the "!" designation for questionable edge has been done away with this year. There is just one symbol, "e," given by the technical panel, and then each judge must decide for himself whether the jump was clearly off the wrong edge (resulting in -3 GOE and GOE must be negative overall), or whether the edge was "in doubt," resulting in lesser penalty.

It seems you are glued to the rules and do not want to hear objections or suggestions to the rules. A good religious thinker. However, much of Sport evolves because of objections and suggestions. Should we just agree with each other? What is a Forum for?

I think the problem is that sometimes posters are so adamant about the correctness of their own opinion that they come off (unwittingly I hope) as contemptuous of the opinions of others.

 

[mskater93]

I think the problem is that sometimes posters are so adamant about the correctness of their own opinion that they come off (unwittingly I hope) as contemptuous of the opinions of others.

That is why some of us are being called "wrong edge take off defenders" by a certain poster here.

 

[Mathman]

^ Yes, it is never a good idea to label people or call anyone names.

For instance, I am not going to call Prettykeys a pipsqueak even though she has been thoroughly been out-debating me about definitions.

 

[seniorita]

I promise to steal Natalie Portman's impending Oscar for Black Swan and donate it to Goldenskate if a moderator locks this awful, repetitive discussion already (OMG, the donkey talk - I can't handle!)

I dont think your offer is tempting enough, if you promised Collin Firths Oscar we could have made a deal
Sorry for OT, keep donkeying

 

[Mathman]

Remind me again what would be wrong with just having one category of CoP jump that would comprise both the flip and the Lutz?

A skater to do two flips, or two Lutzes, or one flip and one Lutz, skater's choice.

The technical panel would simply call what they see. Actually, they wouldn't have to call anything. The judges could give + GOEs to a jump with a strong outside back edge and with a good counter-rotational snap, and they could reward skaters who did both (instead of two of the same) in PCSs, under variety, etc.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

You take away a jump possibility. They're two different jumps. Because the flip is gorgeous and to relate it to the lutz, which is a little ungainly, makes the flip a little less beautiful.

 

[Mathman]

^ I don't see why. The jumps would not be any more "related," it's just a question of how to label the box in which you record the score.

You could still do the world's most beautiful flip, followed by the world's most eye-popping and athletic Lutz.

 

[vlaurend]

We are on different wavelenghths, mskater93. I have no power to change anything in the Rules and Definitions of Figure Skating. I merely try to bring out what I believe to be wrong with the official interpretation of the rules and definiton by current standards.

Others appear to accept the Rules as divine providence, and find nothing wrong with all the changes that the ISU decides particularly if a change makes things easier for a skater.

One of the major differences between you and Mskater is that Mskater really knows the rules, whereas I have never seen you go to the trouble to really learn all of the IJS rules. Instead, you just stay fixated on one or two details (like flutzes) and repeat your opinion about their categorical incorrectness over and over, without taking into account the rest of the rules or how the skater's final score is affected. I believe you said you used to skate. You should skate again. It will give you a little much-needed perspective.

I don't think any of us skaters are 100% happy with the rules, and it is seriously annoying that they keep changing every season. However, the jump rules seem to be pretty fair right now, IMO.

 

[mskater93]

One of the major differences between you and Mskater is that Mskater really knows the rules, whereas I have never seen you go to the trouble to really learn all of the IJS rules. Instead, you just stay fixated on one or two details (like flutzes) and repeat your opinion about their categorical incorrectness over and over, without taking into account the rest of the rules or how the skater's final score is affected. I believe you said you used to skate. You should skate again. It will give you a little much-needed perspective.

I don't think any of us skaters are 100% happy with the rules, and it is seriously annoying that they keep changing every season. However, the jump rules seem to be pretty fair right now, IMO.

Thank you, vlaurend. Your last couple statements concerning 100% happy with the rules reflect what I meant in parts of my (incredibly long) post. As I said, while I don't necessarily agree with all the rules, I do have to abide by them when I "play the game" in the same way you do for any competitive situation.

Again, if you don't like the rules, either take your ball and go home, or go about getting into a position that can affect the change you are looking for in them.

 

[Mathman]

I don't think any of us skaters are 100% happy with the rules, and it is seriously annoying that they keep changing every season. However, the jump rules seem to be pretty fair right now, IMO.

I tend to agree. Despite its little peccadilloes and inconsistencies, I think the IJS does a pretty good job of assigning a score that reflects what the skater puts on the ice.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Double-footing a Quad + stepping out of the landing + putting both of your hands down on the ice should not be worth 7.3 points.

 

[Mathman]

^ But then again, if the judges agree that it should be penalized further, they can mark the skater down in various program components as detracting from the program in many ways.

I think as long as we don't take the CoP seriously, by-and-large it all comes out OK in the end.

 

[SkateSkates]

I have seen someone do a single axel+double sal combo with a "one-foot axel" and it was scored like a regular combination 1A+2S. This could be done with double and triples, but it would be VERY hard to control the landing, and easily downgradable by the tech panel.

 

[Mathman]

Michael Chack once did a one-foot Axel quad Salchow (1991 U.S. Nationals) I don't know if he got the rotations, but it wasn't ratified because the landing was two-footed.

 

[gkelly]

See my third link in post #193.