- Joined
- Jan 23, 2004
- Country
-
This one I like:
This one I don't:
Last edited by a moderator:
Coaches' proposals 10-15: Jumps
- Thread starter visaliakid
- Start date
This one I don't:
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
I like the idea of givine the flip and lutz the same base value, but I hate the reason they're giving.
Why I think it should be done: For the sake of argument, I'm only talking of skaters who do both jumps on the appropriate edge.
Theoretically, the lutz is 'harder' than the flip, but in competition the flip seems harder (in that AFAICT a higher percentage of flips end in falls). The timing for a flip is the trickiest of all the jumps and very susceptible the pressures of competition. The timing for a lutz isn't quite as difficult and doesn't suffer as much in competition.
I'm also for giving toeloops and salchows the same base value.
What I think of their proposal: The problem is that current training protocals all work against most skaters being able to do the right edges in both jumps. The pressure to get all the jumps as early as possible means that skaters are creating muscle memory with bad technique which is then almost impossible to change.
This is largely the result of dumping figures in training. For most, even elite skaters, MITF don't really incorporate edge control into the skater's fundamental technique.
Yes, some skaters do get it with MITF and some skaters who were good at figures flutzed (Dagmar Lurz for example) but those are exceptions and not what you want to base policy on.
Overall nothing makes edge control a part of a skater's muscle memory quite like figures.
Why I think it should be done: For the sake of argument, I'm only talking of skaters who do both jumps on the appropriate edge.
Theoretically, the lutz is 'harder' than the flip, but in competition the flip seems harder (in that AFAICT a higher percentage of flips end in falls). The timing for a flip is the trickiest of all the jumps and very susceptible the pressures of competition. The timing for a lutz isn't quite as difficult and doesn't suffer as much in competition.
I'm also for giving toeloops and salchows the same base value.
What I think of their proposal: The problem is that current training protocals all work against most skaters being able to do the right edges in both jumps. The pressure to get all the jumps as early as possible means that skaters are creating muscle memory with bad technique which is then almost impossible to change.
This is largely the result of dumping figures in training. For most, even elite skaters, MITF don't really incorporate edge control into the skater's fundamental technique.
Yes, some skaters do get it with MITF and some skaters who were good at figures flutzed (Dagmar Lurz for example) but those are exceptions and not what you want to base policy on.
Overall nothing makes edge control a part of a skater's muscle memory quite like figures.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Exactly! Some skaters can not do a proper lutz and never will, and they have been protected year after year on the proivso that wrong edge takeoff is less important than the landing of the jump. Now we have a no name jump to toe off and just make the rotations and, of course, that 3/4 landing.
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
10. Eliminate the downgrading of jumps if they are not fully rotated, and instead change the point values for the GoEs so that ANY element so poorly executed as to deserve a GoE of –3 should get no more than 25% of the base value, regardless of its difficulty (see related item 16).
With the present system, the competitors are penalized twice: by downgrading the jump and by applying a GoE from -1 to -3.
This is an easy one for me. I completely agree. Punish underrotation but punish it once and not twice!
With the present system, the competitors are penalized twice: by downgrading the jump and by applying a GoE from -1 to -3.
This is an easy one for me. I completely agree. Punish underrotation but punish it once and not twice!
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
Proposal # 11 No more edge calls
11. Unify the base value of the Lutz and the Flip jumps into a single jump.
In view of the never ending controversy over the starting edge of the Lutz and the flip jumps it is proposed of getting rid of the take-off edge requirements for these jumps. This is not unprecedented in the world of figure skating. The "Toe Walley" used to be a "real" jump and now it is just the same as a toe-loop. The skater will be allowed to take off from the inside, the outside, or the flat of the blade. A competitor will be allowed to attempt this Flip/Lutz jump twice, following the current repetition rule for jumps.
Here, I agree with giving the flip and lutz the same base value (if anything the flip is harder than the lutz to do in competition) but _strongly_ disagree with defining jumps by the approach and not the edge.
11. Unify the base value of the Lutz and the Flip jumps into a single jump.
In view of the never ending controversy over the starting edge of the Lutz and the flip jumps it is proposed of getting rid of the take-off edge requirements for these jumps. This is not unprecedented in the world of figure skating. The "Toe Walley" used to be a "real" jump and now it is just the same as a toe-loop. The skater will be allowed to take off from the inside, the outside, or the flat of the blade. A competitor will be allowed to attempt this Flip/Lutz jump twice, following the current repetition rule for jumps.
Here, I agree with giving the flip and lutz the same base value (if anything the flip is harder than the lutz to do in competition) but _strongly_ disagree with defining jumps by the approach and not the edge.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
Proposal # 12 Jump sequences
12. Base value of jump sequences
For jump sequences, the jumps must be connected by small hops. In addition a single Mohawk should be permitted between each jump in the sequence, but no other turns or steps. It is proposed sequences be evaluated as follows:
* in the case of only small hops connecting the jumps, the value of the sequence shall equal the sum of the base values for the two highest value jumps in the sequence;
* in the case where a Mohawk is included between any two jumps in the sequence the value of the sequence shall equal to the sum of the base values for the two highest value jumps in the sequence, multiplied by a factor of 0.9.
12. Base value of jump sequences
For jump sequences, the jumps must be connected by small hops. In addition a single Mohawk should be permitted between each jump in the sequence, but no other turns or steps. It is proposed sequences be evaluated as follows:
* in the case of only small hops connecting the jumps, the value of the sequence shall equal the sum of the base values for the two highest value jumps in the sequence;
* in the case where a Mohawk is included between any two jumps in the sequence the value of the sequence shall equal to the sum of the base values for the two highest value jumps in the sequence, multiplied by a factor of 0.9.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
Proposal #13 Fall? Nul points!
13. Award NO value if a jump or a throw (in pairs) is marred by a fall.
In case of a fall or landing on two feet on any jump or throw jump in pairs, the concerned element should be considered as a not-completed element and called by the Technical Panel as a no-value element, and not marked by the judges either.
No longer should jump attempts with a fall be rewarded by nearly as many points, if not more, as a completed jump of a lower level.
(note eurovision tribute in subject line)
I like this. I'm all in favor of scrapping the deduction for falling and substituting zero points on an element with a fall.
13. Award NO value if a jump or a throw (in pairs) is marred by a fall.
In case of a fall or landing on two feet on any jump or throw jump in pairs, the concerned element should be considered as a not-completed element and called by the Technical Panel as a no-value element, and not marked by the judges either.
No longer should jump attempts with a fall be rewarded by nearly as many points, if not more, as a completed jump of a lower level.
(note eurovision tribute in subject line)
I like this. I'm all in favor of scrapping the deduction for falling and substituting zero points on an element with a fall.
For all elements, or only jumps (and throw jumps) as proposed here?
How about a jump combo with a fall at the end? Credit for the jump(s) landed and none for the last one that ended in a fall?
What about spins or step sequences or spiral sequences or other pair moves? No credit if there's a fall at the end or in the middle? Full credit for as much as was completed before the fall? Or also include whatever happens after a fall?
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
I think underrotations should only be penalized once, but I think it should be downgraded and then the GOE applied accodingly. Otherwise penalizing underrotation will probably stop and we will see more skaters who cannot fully rotate their jumps. It also seems like they want underrotation to go unpunished by just applying GOE. It makes more sense to me to award marks for a double if the jump was 90+ degrees short and then give it good GOE if it was landed and had good hight.
This I compleatly agree with though.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
Giving the flip and lutz the same base value seems like a good idea IMO. Even though the lutz is generally considered harder there are quite a large # of skaters who find it easier than the flip. Deductiong for the wrong edge takeoff should continue though.
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
I find sequences harder than combo so I say give a 10% bonus for sequences and add the base values of combos.:yes:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
I'm not for giving nothing for a fall. I think the skater should get some credit. However a fall on a quad should get the same value as a -3 on a triple and a fall on a triple should get the same value as a -3 GOE on a double and so on. A fall on a single can get -3 because it's worth next to nothing anyways. That will give the skaters some credit for the attempt, but should sufficently discourage them from puting jumps they know they will fall on in their programs.
Then a fall on a 4T would get 1 point instead of 6. So they get something, but not much.
Then a fall on a 4T would get 1 point instead of 6. So they get something, but not much.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
#15: Revised scale of jumps
I noticed this one hasn't been posted yet so I thought I'd do it. My though on it: Are They CRAZY!:scowl: I don't care if Jeff would still have won his title with this BV in place, there is no way that one element should be worth that much. I don't agree that it dosn't make the sport a one jump game either. I think it would. I like the values the way they are.
I noticed this one hasn't been posted yet so I thought I'd do it. My though on it: Are They CRAZY!:scowl: I don't care if Jeff would still have won his title with this BV in place, there is no way that one element should be worth that much. I don't agree that it dosn't make the sport a one jump game either. I think it would. I like the values the way they are.
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2004
A fall on the quad give _9_ points now? No wonder I hate quads so much.
I hate quads more than Surya Bonaly hated the RBO paragraph bracket
I hate quads more than Trixi Schuba hated having to do a free skate (knowing the audience would hate her for having already won)
I hate quads more than Totmianina hated death spirals (even more than _Kazakova_ hated death spirals!)
I hate quads more than Yamaguchi hated the 3 salchow
I hate quads more than Galindo ever hated Yamaguchi (before he officially declared apathy)
I hate quads more than Cinquanta hates transparency and accountability!!! (go ahead, try to top _that_!).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2007
- Country
-
Sorry that was a typo. A fall on the quad gets 6 points, which is still too high but... 9 is the base value.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
I don't think it is necessary for the base values to increase so rapidly, reflecting the relative difficulty of the toughest elements.
The proposed change might make for larger margins of victory sometimes. But the relatively low value on quads at present, if so perceived, has the virtue of keeping the quadsters honest. You can't just do a couple of quads and blow off the other requirements of a well-balanced program.
The proposed change might make for larger margins of victory sometimes. But the relatively low value on quads at present, if so perceived, has the virtue of keeping the quadsters honest. You can't just do a couple of quads and blow off the other requirements of a well-balanced program.
