Had Sasha not fallen twice in her LP at the 06 Olympics, she would have been Olympic champion instead of Shizuka. She led after the SP and she had a better LP than Shizuka. Sasha was also 21 at that point and very much at her peak as a skater. When one looks back on her career, that was her big opportunity and it was a big opportunity missed - not 2010. Even if she had made the 2010 Olympics, there was little likelihood of her winning given the form Kim and Mao were in.
What do you want to see at Worlds ...Ladies
- Thread starter Mrs. P
- Start date
Had Sasha not fallen twice in her LP at the 06 Olympics, she would have been Olympic champion instead of Shizuka. She led after the SP and she had a better LP than Shizuka. Sasha was also 21 at that point and very much at her peak as a skater. When one looks back on her career, that was her big opportunity and it was a big opportunity missed - not 2010. Even if she had made the 2010 Olympics, there was little likelihood of her winning given the form Kim and Mao were in.
at least, i am better than you because i have never ' giggled' while a skater spinning.
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
And if Shizuka had done the long program she did in practice which regularly had 7 triples and 2 triple-triple combos she would have blown Sasha away no matter what Sasha had done. As it was Shizuka landed only 5 clean triples, the same # as Sasha, and still won easily by 8 points and nearly 9 points in the long program, besting Sasha in points for GOE of jumps (of course unless the judges were blind), non jump elements, and PCS all.
I do agree Shizuka is not an all time skater, but neither is Sasha of course, and Shizuka as a World and Olympic Champion will be remembered as the better skater between the two.
I do agree Shizuka is not an all time skater, but neither is Sasha of course, and Shizuka as a World and Olympic Champion will be remembered as the better skater between the two.
Shizuka may not be an "all-time skater," as you say, but there's something unique about her longevity and skills. I'm not going to say it right, so I'll just throw it out there, but the fact that she has retained triple-triples into her late twenties proves something about the superiority of her technique, and that alone makes her a great skater to me. Then there's her special grace, partly born of her height (and that's unusual in itself, because taller ladies tend to have less stable jumps), and partly her flexibility (oh, that sublime Ina Bauer). She's more subtle and less overtly spectacular than some other skaters of her era, but even so she hits the top of almost every scale you can grade her on. I'll never get tired of watching her.
Given that Sasha fell twice, a 9 point lead in the LP was not that great. She would have more than made good the difference had she skated clean. I agree that Shizuka had the superior jumping technique - there is no question about that given that Sasha seemed incapable of ever putting together two clean programs in one competition. However, Sasha's spins, spirals, etc and all round general grace and artistry were far superior to those of Shizuka. Hence, had Sasha had a better jumping technique and temperament, and had she been able to skate clean throughout a competition, in my opinion she could have been a triple world champion (2004,05, and 06) and Olympic champion (06). Basically, the avoidable (with better technique and temperament) falls and mistakes she made in each of those competitions cost her every one of those titles. She had the potential to be one of the all time greats, but she just couldn't for one reason or another translate that potential into major titles. A real shame. I think temperament played a major part in that. But you see that a lot. I mean, Kostner and Czisny would have achieved a great deal more in the sport had they had a better temperament - although Kostners height does her no favours at all
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2010
This thread should be titled "What do you want to see at Worlds Past......Ladies'.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2010
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Given that the program Shizuka doubled a planned triple and landed the same # of clean triples as Sasha (5) losing by 8-9 points is not that great. Given that Shizuka's performance was worth 10-15 points less than her regular practice performances in Turin, losing by 9 points with 2 falls is not that great.
If Sasha had skated clean..... Well one could say if Shizuka and Slutskaya had skated their best Sasha wouldnt have had a hope of winning anyway, which would be true. Yeah Sasha skating clean which she has never done in her life anyway, and combined with all of Shizuka doing a very simple program with a major mistake herself, Slutskaya skating horribly, and Kwan and Asada both out of the Olympics, could have won with all those events somehow combining. Somehow I dont see much meaning in that.
She isnt capable of it as you admit yourself, so what does it matter. Shizuka was in fact more likely to have skated much better than she did than Sasha. Shizuka's practice performances in Turin or her 2004 Worlds performance (coupled with now having a "name" unlike her undermarked 2004 Worlds LP) would have beaten a fantasy never seen before clean Sasha probably by an even bigger margin than she actually won by.
Which is why Sasha was outscored in all those categories in the long program in Turin. Shizuka's basic skating quality is far superior to Sasha as far as edges, flow, speed, power, ice coverage too, in addition to her jumping. Even if all you said were true Shizuka has no real weakness in her skating to the extent of Sasha's jumping and her basic skating. She is very strong in all of jumps, spins, footwork, spirals, musicality, choreography, stroking, which a couple of those Sasha is only mediocre in, regardless how great she is at some of them.
Sasha was never winning the 2005 Worlds. Irina was on her home ice, was dominant that year was skating the best she had ever had going into Worlds, and had all the momentum. Sasha skated the closest to a clean competition she ever has done, and Irina botched 2 elements in her short program and had a triple jump discounted in the long and still won by a big 2 fall or so margin. She would have even had a better chance of winning the 2003 Worlds than 2005 (not that I think she could have won the 2003 Worlds either).
2004 Worlds she would have won had she skated better but only due to Shizuka's lack of name at the time and all of Kwan's problems at those Worlds.
2006 Worlds was a gimme since the field was a joke but she still blew it.
Maybe the fact she doesnt have better technique just means she is not super talented in all areas needed to be a champion. She might have alot of talent for spins, spirals, pretty positions, and other things but not much talent for jumping or basic skating ability.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2008
Blast from the past again between Sasha and Shizuka??? 
Let see...
Sasha lost (-4 on fall on 3Lz, -2.5+ on Flip, + not completing her intended 3+2+2 combo -1.2 + -1.6) total = 9.3? points ... so her LP score will be 125 ish
Shizuka 2Lo (lost -3.7) ...LP score will be 129 ish (IMO her spiral should have score +3 GOE as it has the best speed, edges and ice coverage..)
Let see...Sasha lost (-4 on fall on 3Lz, -2.5+ on Flip, + not completing her intended 3+2+2 combo -1.2 + -1.6) total = 9.3? points ... so her LP score will be 125 ish
Shizuka 2Lo (lost -3.7) ...LP score will be 129 ish (IMO her spiral should have score +3 GOE as it has the best speed, edges and ice coverage..)
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2010
Blast from the past again between Sasha and Shizuka???
Sasha lost (-4 on fall on 3Lz, -2.5+ on Flip, + not completing her intended 3+2+2 combo -1.2 + -1.6) total = 9.3? points ... so her LP score will be 125 ish
Shizuka 2Lo (lost -3.7) ...LP score will be 129 ish (IMO her spiral should have score +3 GOE as it has the best speed, edges and ice coverage..)
Not to mention that would have been with Sasha having 1 more triple, and Shizuka not doing the triple-triple combos she could easily do which Sasha was not even capable of. Had Shizuka felt like she needed atleast 1 triple-triple to be secure in beating a spectacular Sasha it would have been easy for her to do one, much easier than it would have been for Sasha to have skated clean if by some miracle she pulled that off. She had been doing 2 per program no practice in practices in Turin.
Poll set up - will be interesting
Needless to say, one of the biggest draws to this years Worlds will be the return of Yu-Na. The big unknown here is how well she will skate after a year off and how good a job Peter Oppegard is doing as her coach. It is going to be exciting getting the answers to these two questions which hopefully will turn out to be "great" and "great".
Easy, Yu-Na Kim just needs to have a Triple Loop in her program, then she can reap the full benefits of having an additional jumping pass. Considering how junior skaters all have to do the Triple Loop as the required jump, are you saying the Olympic Champion can't learn to do something that even juniors are doing?
Well, let's not forget Yu-Na Kim herself relies on such 2A+2T+2Lo combo in her own FS.
3 Jump combo that includes two double jumps is not as easy you think. Aesthetic of these small jumps is a matter of personal taste so I can't tell you what you like or not like but being able to do a 3 jump combo well often comes at a cost in terms of GOE because GOE on such combo is evaluated based on the 3 jumps performed as a single Element. Even if you did the Triple really well but messed up on the Doubles, and it happens more often than you think, your GOE will likely be negative and that could worth more than the base value of the double jumps performed. God forbid you also get downgraded or UR on the Doubles, that could really kill your GOE. So in my opinion, adding double jumps after a Triple is not exactly free points. In fact, they often lower the GOE compared to stand alone Triple jumps because it is harder to maintain flow and good control in all 3 jumps vs. just 1 jump. What happens if you pop or downgrade a planned 3Lo or 3T and possibly get a combo nullified? Don't plan combos with all the same double jumps, and/or consider doing a sequence combination without 3Lo or 3T.
Well, what you say could not possibly lead to combo being nullified. Since Double Lo or T are not subject to Zayak rule, pop is irrelevant. Someone who say, got downgrade on a Triple Axel will not be considered as having repeated a Double Axel and will not have the element voided as repeated jump or extra element either. I think you are getting really side tracked in your thought process, 99% of 3/3 jump combo or sequence has to involve either a Triple Loop or Triple Toe. Has Yu-Na ever done a 3/3 without using either Triple? I don't think so. The only successful 3/3 without either a Toe or Loop this year is 3Lz/3 Salchow and it was not even performed at an ISU event.
I understand you and many other Yu-Na fans are unhappy that rule changes seem to be working against Yu-Na Kim. Would it make you feel better if I say I concur? The cards are stacked against her but I would say it was not done on purpose. Many of the changes are welcome changes, like not being able to do three 2A. I personally agree that jump combo should receive the 10% bonus but it got voted down, what can I do?
hwell:If Yu-Na skate clean, she will still be hard to beat. If she doesn't skate clean however, the rules changes probably won't matter very much either way.
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2009
wallylutz, I think you are misunderstanding me a little bit but this will be my last post on this subject because a) my criticism won't change the rules, and b) I feel bad for side-tracking this thread further in this direction while it gets sidetracked in another (Sasha vs. Shizuka.)
I am sorry for picking on her considering her recent injury and withdrawal from this year's Worlds, but here is Laura Lepisto's FS jump layout from last year:
3T+3T
3Lz
3Lo+2T
2A
3Lo
2A
2S+2T+2T
Clearly Lepisto is capable of doing 3Lo's, but for some reason she only adds toe-loops as the second/third jumps in her combos. I find that odd.
)
I am sorry for picking on her considering her recent injury and withdrawal from this year's Worlds, but here is Laura Lepisto's FS jump layout from last year:
3T+3T
3Lz
3Lo+2T
2A
3Lo
2A
2S+2T+2T
Clearly Lepisto is capable of doing 3Lo's, but for some reason she only adds toe-loops as the second/third jumps in her combos. I find that odd.
Of course not; she was seen practicing it even in the 2009 season when she took it out of her LP. The point is, though, is that she may not be ready or willing to incorporate the 3Lo into her programs at this time yet. To reiterate the points before me, dismantling her 3-3 would be one way she could increase her scoring potential while keeping her current choice of jumps, which is silly.Easy, Yu-Na Kim just needs to have a Triple Loop in her program, then she can reap the full benefits of having an additional jumping pass. Considering how junior skaters all have to do the Triple Loop as the required jump, are you saying the Olympic Champion can't learn to do something that even juniors are doing?
Good, that's exactly my point. I'm glad YuNa likes to mix it up, and I think it's a very pretty combo. Prettier than a 2A+2T+2T or 2A+2Lo+2Lo would be. I never said 3-jump combos of any kind were easy. I don't know why my posts are being misunderstood in that way.Well, let's not forget Yu-Na Kim herself relies on such 2A+2T+2Lo combo in her own FS.
First, I never believed that double jumps are subject to the Zayak rule, but said I think they should be. Second, there's a thought for YuNa. She should just declare her solo Axel to be an Intended 3Axel and just do the 2Axel and say it was merely popped. That's totally in line with the IJS's philosophy of scoring jumps as they are called/"intended" (e.g. "wrong-edge 3Lutzes" which are practically 3Flips evade the Zayak Rule
)wallylutz, I think you are misunderstanding me a little bit but this will be my last post on this subject because a) my criticism won't change the rules, and b) I feel bad for side-tracking this thread further in this direction while it gets sidetracked in another (Sasha vs. Shizuka.)
I am sorry for picking on her considering her recent injury and withdrawal from this year's Worlds, but here is Laura Lepisto's FS jump layout from last year:
3T+3T
3Lz
3Lo+2T
2A
3Lo
2A
2S+2T+2T
Clearly Lepisto is capable of doing 3Lo's, but for some reason she only adds toe-loops as the second/third jumps in her combos. I find that odd.
I think you are right, I am not understanding you very well. Re: Using 2T in lieu of 2Lo, is often a strategic consideration that has little to do with whether someone is comfortable with the loop jump or not. 2T vs. 2Lo are almost the same in Base Value, merely decimals in difference. However, in reality 2Lo is widely considered far more risky than a 2T in a jump combination where the additional risk taken on by the skater is not properly compensated by the small difference in Base Value. Risk of 2Lo vs. 2T has two levels. One being the fact that a 2T is easier to execute and is combinable even when the first jump, usually a difficult Triple is landed less than perfect. By contrast, a 2Lo is very hard to do if there is any minor wobble on the landing of the 1st jump. The second level is 2Lo also carries higher risk of being called as < or << than a 2T. More difficult to execute and higher probability of error, hence in a 3 jump combo/sequence, if 2Lo is included, it almost always is the 3rd jump, not the 2nd jump. Long story short, one's comfort with the Triple Loop jump has nothing to do with why he/she chooses to do 2T in lieu of 2Lo in a jump combo. Many coaches would advise their skaters to stick to 2T for better execution, meaning better chance of getting higher GOE, which would more than compensate for the difference in BV and less prone to be called by the Tech Panel, which would end up penalizing more than just a loss of BV, but negative GOE on the Triple in the combo as a whole, which could easily worth more than the BV of the double jump itself.
If an Olympic Champion is not ready to include the Triple Loop jump, 2 years after she last fell on it in a competition, then she deserves to be penalized for not having a full repertoire of Triples as she had more than plenty enough time to correct whatever issues she may have. As for the 2nd claim that dismantling her 3/3 would increase her scoring potential, that is simply not true.
You are welcome to show me an example of how that is done and I will be happy to show you that the claim is bogus. First, I never believed that double jumps are subject to the Zayak rule, but said I think they should be. Second, there's a thought for YuNa. She should just declare her solo Axel to be an Intended 3Axel and just do the 2Axel and say it was merely popped. That's totally in line with the IJS's philosophy of scoring jumps as they are called/"intended" (e.g. "wrong-edge 3Lutzes" which are practically 3Flips evade the Zayak Rule
This will not work at all. It doesn't matter what she declared, it's what she actually skated that will count. Assuming she does a slightly over-rotated Double Axel and claim it's a Triple Axel attempt. The Technical Panel has a couple of choices:
1) Call it as a 2A, and if it's her third 2A in the program or that she later includes a 3rd 2A somewhere, in combination or otherwise, the element that included the 3rd 2A will be voided.
2) Call it as a 3A<<, although she will successfully receive the BV of a 2A as a result, she risks falling and other potential errors. Also, the << sign plus any other executional issue almost guarantees nothing but -3 and -2 GOE. Personally, I would go with a -3. If so, she is better off doing a clean Double Lutz.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
[...] As for the 2nd claim that dismantling her 3/3 would increase her scoring potential, that is simply not true.
[...]
Consider the following jump layouts. Let us omit the jump types (T, S, L, F, Lz), suppose the following jump layouts abide by the Zayak rule, and that they constitute the exact same set of triples, including the same types repeated (hence identical base values, disregarding 1/2 bonus marks):
3+3
3
3+2
2A+2+2
3
3
2A
----------
3+2
3
2A+3
3+2+2
3
3
2A
Would you not agree that the second layout omitting the triple-triple has greater maximum GOE potential than the first layout with the triple-triple? After all, in the first jump layout, there are TWO jumping passes consisting only of double(s), whereas in the second layout only one jump pass is a double. [The new rules factoring the GOEs on jumps and jump combos restrict the maximum GOEs a skater gets based on the highest valued jump in the combo.]
In particular, I have the following examples in mind since it has been claimed to be Yu-na's jump layout at worlds:
3Lz+3T
3F
3S+2T
2A+2T+2L
3Lz
3S
2A
----------
3Lz+2T
3F
2A+3T
3S+2T+2L
3Lz
3S
2A
The two jump layouts above are identical in jump contents, but the second one omits the triple-triple combo. In fact, the second layout is slightly higher in base value once we take the 1/2 mark bonus into account. Add in the maximum GOE potential, and you get a jump layout that has higher base value and higher GOE potential.
Nevertheless, people who have observed Yu-na's recent training say she will go for the harder but less valuable jump layout (the first example).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
My post above has led me to the following theorem (I dare anyone to disprove it):
THEOREM: Given any CoP-compliant 7-triple jump layout with two triple-triple combinations, two double axels and one 3-jump combination, one can rearrange the layout of the jumps such that you get at least the same base value and a higher GOE potential by removing both triple-triple combinations. (We disregard the 1/2 bonus mark without loss of generality)
PROOF: A 7-triple jump layout with two 3x3s, two 2A's and a 3-jump combo will have one of the two following layouts (exact order of jump passes is inconsequential):
3+3
3+3
2A+2+2
3
3
3
2A
OR
3+3
3+3
3+2+2
2A
3
3
2A
Take either one of the above layouts and now change it so that each triple-triple becomes a 2A+3 combo, while rearranging the jumps according to the Zayak rule. Then you have
2A+3
2A+3
3+2+2
3
3
3
3
This new jump layout clearly has at least the same base value since it's the exact same jumps but rearranged to form different combos. But its GOE potential is higher because every jumping pass has at least a triple.
-----------
Anyone care to give a counterexample? The above theorem generalizes what I stated in the previous post about Yuna's potential jump layout.
Here's an example. Suppose this is Yuna's ultimate jump layout:
3Lz+3T
3F+3T
3S+2T+2L
3Lz
3L
2A
2A
Then we can rearrange those exact same jumps to get at least the same base value but higher GOE potential:
2A+3T
2A+3T
3Lz+2T+2L
3Lz
3F
3L
3S
As you can see, this jump layout has exactly the same jumps (so the same base value). But there is no triple-triple, and is considerably much easier to execute. And since there is a triple in every jumping pass, GOE potential is higher.
THEOREM: Given any CoP-compliant 7-triple jump layout with two triple-triple combinations, two double axels and one 3-jump combination, one can rearrange the layout of the jumps such that you get at least the same base value and a higher GOE potential by removing both triple-triple combinations. (We disregard the 1/2 bonus mark without loss of generality)
PROOF: A 7-triple jump layout with two 3x3s, two 2A's and a 3-jump combo will have one of the two following layouts (exact order of jump passes is inconsequential):
3+3
3+3
2A+2+2
3
3
3
2A
OR
3+3
3+3
3+2+2
2A
3
3
2A
Take either one of the above layouts and now change it so that each triple-triple becomes a 2A+3 combo, while rearranging the jumps according to the Zayak rule. Then you have
2A+3
2A+3
3+2+2
3
3
3
3
This new jump layout clearly has at least the same base value since it's the exact same jumps but rearranged to form different combos. But its GOE potential is higher because every jumping pass has at least a triple.
-----------
Anyone care to give a counterexample? The above theorem generalizes what I stated in the previous post about Yuna's potential jump layout.
Here's an example. Suppose this is Yuna's ultimate jump layout:
3Lz+3T
3F+3T
3S+2T+2L
3Lz
3L
2A
2A
Then we can rearrange those exact same jumps to get at least the same base value but higher GOE potential:
2A+3T
2A+3T
3Lz+2T+2L
3Lz
3F
3L
3S
As you can see, this jump layout has exactly the same jumps (so the same base value). But there is no triple-triple, and is considerably much easier to execute. And since there is a triple in every jumping pass, GOE potential is higher.
Last edited:
My problem with the ISU rules is that there is too much emphasis on the jumps and technical content. It does not leave enough room for the artistry. Competitions have become too much of a jumping competition. They should redress the balance by awarding more marks for original and greater artistic content and the execution of it. Moreover, the rules as they stand provide too much encouragement for skaters to attempt jumps that are beyond their physical capabilities or which increase the likelihood of injury. How long will it be before 3A's become standard in ladies competitions and how long will it be before one of them attempts a 4L or a 4S? That really would cause more problems with injuries than its worth. I think there should be limits on what jumps are allowed and any future rule changes should be confined to encouraging more artistic content.
Last edited:
