2.0 Bonus
- Thread starter gio
- Start date
Also illegal.
What about Ilia Klimkin's camel spin into double salchow?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmVod-LMkxg
(I really wish the camera angle didn't change just as he makes the transition from the spin to the jump; at about 1:40)
Maybe if there was no three turn in the transition?
Of course, if someone does it this year, they won't get the bonus because Klimkin was doing it a decade ago.
I agree! Spins have evolved with a lot of difficult positions and increased speed. That is a positive aspect.
ITA! Even if I would prefer the 6.0 system, now it is not possible anymore. So COP rules can be changed to encourage a wider variety of possibilities.
To be fair, COP is not a bad system, but should be reworked IMHO.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
- Country
-
I have often wondered what would happen if a skater did a "bobrin" today. Igor Bobrin used to do a kind of sideways flip. I know it was part of his 1981 Worlds LP. It was never declared illegal, so as far as I know, it's still legal. I guess, like a walley, it would be a transitional move. Also a 1 1/2 flip used to be quite common, and now because it is now not legal because it was not included in the COP. It was quite pretty when combined in sequence with the axel. A double axel 2 1/2 flip would be possible (and quite nice, too))
Matt
To answer your question, yes he did! Matt was great about doing his jumps out of footwork or other transition moves.
To answer your question, yes he did! Matt was great about doing his jumps out of footwork or other transition moves.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
There's really no need for the bonus, ever. Anything a skater does can (and should) be reflected either in the GOE for the element or in the PCS.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
And she lands on one footl.. The sport is so acrobatic in many ways to begin with, why do they worry about acrobatics?
The Russian skaters getting bonuses at Nationals weren't for originality. The RSF gave a 1 point bonus to award quads and other difficult jumps (I think 3A in combo for men, 3z in combo for women, but not sure of the specifics other than the quads)
Similar arm variations had been done on easier jumps before Boitano did it on triple lutz.
Not exactly. It can be done with the arms more curved to look more like 4th positions arms . . . or 5th position with both arms overhead.
In any case, arm variations are just that -- variations of existing moves. They wouldn't get a bonus for being a completely new *kind* of move.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
What if a skater executed a perfect 3z and immediately toe'd off for a another in the different direction. We will never see that.
It would be beautiful. But it isn't worth doing it, if the judges really discouraged Rohene Ward from doing it.
Yeah, skaters did that on the compulsory double jump in the SP.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
I think the reason the 2 point bonus isn't given out is that, at the beginning of each season, the technical controllers clarify which variations will get credit as difficult variations that raise the level so that there is continuity in how levels get called throughout the season. When something shows up for the first time, the technical panel may not be sure whether it should count. And even if it's clear that it should be considered a difficult variation, they have no way of knowing whether this skater is the first to do it or if it's already been done in a different region of the country by someone else. Unfortunately, no guidelines were given for how to award it, so everyone just avoids it.
I think that the best solution is what judges are already pretty much doing: Formalize the suggestion that +3 GOE be given by judges for moves or variations that are new and/or unusual. This is how Caroline Zhang ended up getting the ISU's first ever element with the maximum possible points (level 4 layback spin with +3 GOE from every single judge, for her layback with "pearl" variation transitioning to Biellmann).
I think that the best solution is what judges are already pretty much doing: Formalize the suggestion that +3 GOE be given by judges for moves or variations that are new and/or unusual. This is how Caroline Zhang ended up getting the ISU's first ever element with the maximum possible points (level 4 layback spin with +3 GOE from every single judge, for her layback with "pearl" variation transitioning to Biellmann).
I don't think she got +3s because no one had done that variation before. In fact, people had done very similar positions before; if they didn't look 100% identical, that's because different people's bodies are shaped differently.
I think she got +3s because the spin was very fast, very well centered, with many many revolutions, in well controlled and attractive positions with good control from one position variation to the next. And she'd get the same scores for similar execution of the spin whether it was the first year or the tenth year the judges had seen her do those particular variations.
As I understand it the originality bonus was never intended to reward new variations of existing moves; its purpose was to reward an entirely new category of moves if and when anyone ever invents one.
Now, along with centering, speed, number of rotations, attractiveness of positions, etc., some judges might also take into account the originality of the variations that they see in a spin and bump up the grade of execution (and the choreography component mark) if the variations strike them as especially original. I do think that's one place where original variations can be rewarded.
It would be hard to codify that because one judge might have seen a particular variation quite often before if it's trendy where they come from and another judge from another part of the world, even another part of the same country, might never have seen it before.
Similarly, judges could also bump up the GOEs and/or choreography mark if the timing of the spin rotations and position changes goes especially well with the music or if the specific variations make thematic sense with the theme of the program. Even if the specific positions have often been seen before, the choice to coordinate them with the music and program theme shows a certain kind of originality, and successfully coordinating the timing of the spin changes with the music shows mastery of the technique.
But you could never require +3s for original variations because they might be very original but not executed very well.
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2008
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
True. It's inherently impossible to enforce because you end up right back at the question, "How do you know whether it's been done before?"
