Axel in SP

wallylutz said:

Funny you would raise the issue of gender discrimination considering Japan is by far the worst when it comes to rights of women among the developped countries. I just found it curious, it feels like fox attending the hen's funeral almost. I am all for gender equality but I don't buy baseless claims that are mere camouflage of purely self-serving motives hiding behind a bogus grandiose claim which serves no common good whatsoever.

If the proposal is accepted, which it won't, it may in fact make Mao even worse off. Instead of getting credit for a well executed Double Axel, her Triple Axel attempt may be downgraded and resulting in negative GOE instead of positive GOE. So instead of gaining an advantage, she could easily lose 3 points or more on the Double Axel due to GOE go from say +2 to -1.4

If the proposal is not accepted, Mao Asada still needs to demonstrate her Triple Axel is reliable and not UR. Right now, everytime she does a Triple Axel, it makes the judges worried. "Is it fully rotated or is it not?" If they are scared or unsure, she may or may not credit for it but the judges will be hesitant to award her positive GOE, which discounts the overall value of the element as somone else who does a good Triple Lutz could easily match the base value of a Triple Axel.

Let's face it, the reason why Asada won the 2010 Worlds with only one ratified Triple Axel out of three attempts is because pretty much because the entire field bombed. Kim missed her layback spin = 0, Spiral downgraded to 1, UR Triple Flip, fell on Triple Salchow and poped a Double Axel. Lepisto popped three Triples and stepped out on a Double Axel. Miki Ando fell on a Triple Lutz combo in SP and etc. Oh and Rochette was absent. If any of those girls skated up to their potential, last year's outcome may repeat itself again, which is Asada left off the World podium.

You don't dominate this sport because of one jump, to beleive so is to completely fail to understand how this sport works, especially when that said jump is not even very well mastered.

Click to expand...

Well, if you're going to go with last year's scores, then Mao will be on the podium. Neither Joannie or Miki's scores last year was as high as Mao's. I don't think Miki ever achieved above 195. Even with the inflated scoring at the Olympics, Mao will still be on the podium.
I agree with Mathman that I don't get why the proposal will favor Mao anyways, since she still needs to get them ratified to get any advantage (not much difference from now).

prettykeys said:

I am curious, on a conceptual level, what the SP is supposed to serve as its purpose, and why there are certain requirements and restrictions in it (e.g. the required solo double Axel.)

Click to expand...

Historically, the original purpose of the short program was to allow Janet Lynn to win a world championship.

Janet Lynn was the best free skater anyone had ever seen or heard tell of, but she couldn't win because she couldn't do figures. This was bad PR because audiences would see pretty Janet skating circles around Trixie Schuba every time out, but when it came to figures Schuba was the greatest of all time, utterly without peer or rival.

So this was the start of the phasing out of figures and adding a "short program" which was supposed to...well, I'm not really sure what, but anyway, it would be something that Lynn could do better than Schuba.

Alas, it didn't work. Schuba retired after the 1972 Olympics and at 1973 Worlds Lynn skated her best figures ever, but fell twice in the short program and lost to Karen Magnusen.

Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

In the case of the axel rule I believe it will change when more ladies are including it.
Mao tried three in Torino and had one ratified. Did any other Ladies try a 3A ?

prettykeys said:

I am curious, on a conceptual level, what the SP is supposed to serve as its purpose, and why there are certain requirements and restrictions in it (e.g. the required solo double Axel.)

Click to expand...

Good question. In a general sense, it's supposed to demonstrate skaters' ability to perform specific skills that are deemed important for their event (singles vs. pairs, men vs. women, junior vs. senior) and to do them on demand, with no do-overs allowed. The specifics, including how specific the restrictions are, have changed over time.

To hit a couple of high points in the conceptual development of the short program:

Originally singles skaters did compulsory figures and freestyle programs. Pairs skaters only did free programs.

Around 1960, a short program was introduced for pairs so they would have to demonstrate some required moves that all pairs would have to do, and not just whatever they were good at.

Meanwhile, there was a movement afoot to increase the importance of freestyle skating and decrease the importance of figures for singles skaters.

In 1972-73, a short program was introduced for singles. It was only worth 20% of the total score at first, but short plus long program together added up to more than the figures.

I believe that double axel was always a required element for both senior men and ladies in the SP, until 1998-99 when men were allowed to do triple axel instead.

The other jumps either rotated specified takeoffs every year or allowed the skaters to choose (at least one jump in the combo has always been the skater's choice). When other specific takeoffs were required in the 1970s and 80s, they were required as double jumps, on the theory that every senior skater should be able to execute them. In the later 1990s and 2000s the jump out of steps rotates for juniors among loop, flip, and lutz, and skaters have the choice to do double or triple.

When the junior SP was introduced, I think at first both junior men and junior ladies had to do single axel, then the men were allowed or required to do double axel, then junior ladies were allowed and then required to do double, and very recently junior men have been allowed to do triple axel as the solo axel.

The spin requirements have also sometimes been very specific and other times offered skaters more options.
The shape of the step sequence was originally specified. That ended in 1988-89, which is also when the ladies' spiral sequence and the second step sequence for men were added.

So the requirements have always been either something that everyone was expected to be able to do, a choice between easier elements everyone could do or harder elements that would separate the top contenders, or free choice.

But there has always been some kind of required axel.

Why is the axel considered so important? I can only guess it's because the forward takeoff is believed to demonstrate skating (edge control) skill more than the other jumps, and not just athleticism.

Anyway, although the restrictiveness of the SP requirements has changed over time, the SP has always been about doing specified elements on demand, with no second chances to try a missed element again and penalties for executing moves not according to the SP requirements. The required elements are chosen to reflect elements that everyone in the field should be able to execute according to the definition, so that skaters could be compared on how well they execute the same moves, or in some cases the same kind of moves with opportunities for the more skilled skaters to show more difficulty within the requirements. Originally it was supposed to be comparing apples to apples -- more recently especially in seniors it might be more like comparing different varieties of apples as skaters choose different triple jumps and different spin variations.

The free program was historically an opportunity for skaters to showcase their own best skills in whatever combination of elements they could fit into the time limit. The only real restrictions were on repeating triple jumps, starting in 1982-83, and later limits on jump combos and sequences. In the mid 1990s there started to be a move toward standardization with recommendations for what would constitute a "well-balanced program," and in the early 2000s there were minimum requirements for each kind of elements (jumps, spins, steps, field moves) with deductions for leaving them out.

Then came the new judging system, and with it much more restrictive limits on how many of each kind of element a skater could include. Some of this is necessary for fairness, so that a good jumper won't rack up points by filling the program with dozens of triple and double jumps and not spend much time on spins or steps, for example. But the result is that the long program content is now almost as regimented as the SP content; it's not really a "free" program any more.

One additional requirement that was added to the long program along with the new system was "an axel-type jump." In the LP, that requirement can be filled by a double axel, a triple axel, a single axel with or without variations, including a one-foot axel (landed on the other foot). The skater can choose whether to fill that requirement with a difficult, high-base-value element, or to use a lower value element and hope to earn +GOE points for quality. Or both. Unlike the short program, there's no penalty for doing a single instead of a double except in the lower base mark.

So again, it seems to be important to the powers-that-be for skaters to demonstrate some mastery of the forward outside jump takeoff. But there's less sense of comparing apples to apples.

Under the current rules, there's a lot less difference in the level of restrictions or requirements between long program and short than there was >20 years ago when SPs were more uniform in their requirements and LPs were more free. The main differences are just in the time limits and number of jump elements. So it's harder to define what the purpose of the short program is. I think it still exists mainly because of tradition and to reward consistency across more than one performance.

wallylutz said:

Let's face it, the reason why Asada won the 2010 Worlds with only one ratified Triple Axel out of three attempts is because pretty much because the entire field bombed. Kim missed her layback spin = 0, Spiral downgraded to 1, UR Triple Flip, fell on Triple Salchow and poped a Double Axel. Lepisto popped three Triples and stepped out on a Double Axel. Miki Ando fell on a Triple Lutz combo in SP and etc. Oh and Rochette was absent. If any of those girls skated up to their potential, last year's outcome may repeat itself again, which is Asada left off the World podium.

You don't dominate this sport because of one jump, to beleive so is to completely fail to understand how this sport works, especially when that said jump is not even very well mastered.

Click to expand...

I do think Mao did more than just one triple axel to win the gold. Are you forgetting about her other elements, that she does quite well? Your bias against her, on this forum as well as at Icenetwork, is sickening. You accuse someone of having a "Kozuka love fest" (or something like that), while you go on gushing about Patrick Chan, and you constantly put people down because you think you are the God of judging ice skating, with never any respect for anyone else's opinion.

janetfan said:

Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

In the case of the axel rule I believe it will change when more ladies are including it.
Mao tried three in Torino and had one ratified. Did any other Ladies try a 3A ?

Click to expand...

Actually, I enjoy watching compulsory figures. It give me a sense of tranquility. Not only that but Trixi Schuba had incredible edge control while doing the figures. I could watch that ... just not 50 (some which would not be as good as Schuba for sure.) Maybe 30.

gkelly said:

Originally singles skaters did compulsory figures and freestyle programs.

Meanwhile, there was a movement afoot to increase the importance of freestyle skating and decrease the importance of figures for singles skaters.

In 1972-73, a short program was introduced for singles. It was only worth 20% of the total score at first, but short plus long program together added up to more than the figures.

.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the post gkelly.

I am curious - before the introdution of the SP what were the values for compulsary figures and freeskating?
I used to think it was 50% for each part - but were the figures worth more than 50% of the skater's score? Maybe closer to 60-40?

Also after the introduction in 1973 of the SP (technical program) what was the breakdown?

20% was the value of the SP - but how much were the figures worth and the LP (freeskating)?

Thanks for posting. This is the first time I ever see a vedio of figure competition. Thank goodness the figure is dumped. It's so boring, eek.

janetfan said:

Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

In the case of the axel rule I believe it will change when more ladies are including it.
Mao tried three in Torino and had one ratified. Did any other Ladies try a 3A ?

Click to expand...

janetfan said:

I am curious - before the introdution of the SP what were the values for compulsary figures and freeskating?
I used to think it was 50% for each part - but were the figures worth more than 50% of the skater's score? Maybe closer to 60-40?

Click to expand...

It changed. Originally 60-40, but then during the last few years (1969-72 maybe?) it was 50-50.
However, the way the two parts of the competitions were scored, it was easier to build up a big lead in figures that would be close to impossible for anyone to overcome than for a skater who was much better at freestyle to catch up from behind.

Also after the introduction in 1973 of the SP (technical program) what was the breakdown?

20% was the value of the SP - but how much were the figures worth and the LP (freeskating)?

Click to expand...

IIRC at first it was 40-20-40, then 30-20-50, and finally in the last two years 20-30-50.

The number of figures also decreased from six to three to two.

Isn't it funny we still call this sport "Figure Skating" even though figures are long gone? I think "Free Skating" would have been the more appropriate term today but then, with all these restrictions in place in IJS, some may object to the term "Free".

antmanb said:

As to the mid-way BV for an under-rotated jump. I agree that something needs to be done about the fact that UR jumps are penalised more than anything else, however, the mid-way point value looks very "slippery slope" to me. Skaters who are starting to rotate harder jumps and manage to stand up on them may be encouraged to stand up on jumps they have never fully rotated in order to get more points. Male skaters going for 3.5 toe-loops or salchows, or given the vast points those who can rotate quad salchows stand a fairly good chance of doing 4 revs on an axel take-off. Do we really want to encourage sloppy attempts at greater rotation? I don't know how to fix the system to make it "work" but the mid-way BV seems like a good fix until you look at what it might encourage.

Click to expand...

Look at my suggested values for underrotated jumps:

4Lutz - 7.6 (-1.5, +1 for GOE)
4Flip - 7.2 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
4Loop - 6.8 (-1.4, +1 for GOE)
4Sal - 6.0 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)
4Toe - 5.6 (-1.3, +1 for GOE)

3Axel - 4.8 (-1.2, +1 for GOE)
3Lutz - 3.3 (-.9, -.9, -.8, +.9 for GOE)
3Flip - 3.1 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
3Loop - 2.9 (-.8, +.8 for GOE)
3Sal - 2.4 (-.7, +.7 for GOE)
3Toe - 2.2 (-.6, +.7 for GOE)

If someone underrotates a Quad and has a sloppy landing, they will be punished highly on the -GOE. Takahashi's Quad Flip attempt at Worlds that was double-footed and underrotated would be worth 4.4 points (not much more than what he got with the current rules).

janetfan said:

Here is a clip that tells about Janet, Trixie, the intro of the SP and reduction in value of the compulsory figures.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vzvtjbcv-Cs

and here is a clip of Trixie and Janet from '72 the figures competion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTDLjhTUMbA&NR=1

Can you imagine watching 50 skaters doing this? :indiff:

Rules were changed to accomadate the fans who became very enamored with free skating as opposed to compulsory figures.

Click to expand...

Whoa! I know Trixie is given quite a bit of grief for not being a stunning a freeskater as the dazzling Janet, but the difference between Trixie's and Janet's figures in those clips clearly shows exactly how and why Trixie was able to rack up those huge leads in figures. The edge control, the speed, the confidence, the clearly-defined tracings she displays...simply amazing. Also, I love the judges' expressions in 2:39-2:42--you can practically hear them think "Damnit Janet! We want you to have a chance to win, but those figures....!hwell:"


On a more shallow note, Janet had amazing hair.

Well, I had a big post written up yesterday night but my stupid router died on me as I was posting it so it never went through.

Just wanted to say a big thank-you to gkelly for explaining the SP and its evolution throughout the years. There's a lot to think about. I like the way that the SP and LP are set up right now, but I believe I might prefer a more standards-based program + a more freer free program. The things that I'm mulling over in my head are:

-if the main purpose of the 2A requirement is to demonstrate forward-entry into a jump, then it would make sense to allow 3A as an optional substitute
-however, would this allow too few skaters to rack up excessive points going into the LP?
-but YuNa frequently already does the above, to the cheering of many of her fans, and to the dismay of some other skating fans
-so, would it be more appropriate to allow the 3A to replace the 2A requirement and have the SP remain open to the abilities of all exceptional skaters, or to curb the opportunities for skaters to run-away with the lead in the SP (e.g. YuNa style) and also maintain the 2A requirement/restriction?

-if there were a standards-program, what should it include? As it stands now, there are many ladies omitting certain triple jumps. JoeSitz in another thread, mentioned he would want a technical-elements only (i.e. no show, no music, etc.) portion of a figure skating competition. Would it be appropriate to include the 5 standard triples + 2A (or 3A?) + spiral + spin + steps? (for example, having Groups like we have now, but allowing skaters to just skate around in turns on the ice and demonstrating 4-5 skills at a time, two turns per Group.) I would definitely watch this...but now it's more like a LP than a SP since there are so many things to do
-then the Free Skate can include anything a skater wants, and can highlight any outstanding skills they have (e.g. 3-3), but also they could have more freedom to do whatever they want, and it would be graded more heavily with emphasis on the compositional/interpretive/performance abilities. Yes/No to this idea?

On a separate note, I also found the clip of the Figures to be really interesting. I don't think I'd want to see it as part of a figure skating competition, but it was neat to see. Janet is beautiful.

Mathman said:

I don't think the proposed rule change would help or hurt any specific skater. Every skater would face the same choice. Should I work on my triple Axel and a triple-triple to try to get more points, or should I back off to jumps I know I can do and not take a chance on under-rotating, etc?

If a skater says, hey, no fair -- Mao has a triple Axel and I don't -- well, go work on your triple Axel for next season.

If Mao says, hey this new rule is hurting me because i keep falling on my triple Axel -- well, practice more or leave it out.

Click to expand...

Actually, the change of the rule benefits specific skaters only -- at least for a short term or a few yrs -- as it takes time to learn and execute a difficult jump with any level of consistency. (It gets increasingly difficult and time consuming to master a new jump as a skate gets mature physically.) Therefore, the possible change could be unfair to other skaters depending on how it is to be implemented.

For instance, under-rotation, wrong jump edges, etc., were subject to deduction under the 6.0 system. Only the degree of enforcement has changed upon them. Still, it took a few yrs to get really strict -- though not strict enough yet, I think -- about it in order to allow enough time for the skaters to make adjustments.

The option of Triple Axel is rather a structural change, and it ultimately changes significantly the weight of one skill in overall score. Therefore, skaters who have not trained for triple axel are unfairly affected by the change (as it has been a tradition to be able to win without it for ladies, and they have trained accordingly). If allowed, it should be implemented in a way that skaters have enough time to adjust to it as it requires time to learn the technique. Therefore, they may have to set a time table properly if the change is to happen at all.

If you ask me, I'll say "give it to them" for my own selfish reason. I would love to see UR (along with edges) applied strictly and consistently. But, the application of it has been subject to politics. With bigger score potential for one skill, they will have to be more strict about UR. Without a strict and consistent application of UR, the good intention of good/correct technique may not fly high.

Now, U.S. may have a shot at the gold for the ladies single in Sochi. So does Russia. Japan will have to work it out with them for whatever changes she desires. Give and take in politics. I hope there will be a concession on fluency in triple jumps if triple axel gets all the proposed benefits. Of course, the implementation of the fluency should be gradual and on a long term basis to accommodate older skaters without the skills.

I am sure ISU cares about what I have to say here. Ha...

key65man said:

I am sure ISU cares about what I have to say here. Ha...

Click to expand...

Interesting points. But I have to say that I am generally not very sympathetic to complaints that a certain rule or rule change might favor or disfavor "the skater who."

If "the skater who" faces a competitive disadvantage, don't be "the skater who." (The skater who often under-rotates her jumps is at a disadvantage if the tech specialist calls under-rotations strictly. The skater who flutzes is at a disadvantage if the rules get tough on wrong edge take-offs. The skater who falls down all the time is out of luck if they increase the penalty for falling.)

I can see the point about working in the changes gradually. But at the same time, as long as the rules apply equally to all skaters, I do not see anything "unfair" (or even worthy of political maneuvering) about them.

Although...major league baseball teams do bring in the fences in the home stadium if they have strong hitters, then next year, if they have strong pitching, they move them back out. If they have strong left-hand hitting they make the right-field line shorter, etc.

Mathman said:

Interesting points. But I have to say that I am generally not very sympathetic to complaints that a certain rule or rule change might favor or disfavor "the skater who."

If "the skater who" faces a competitive disadvantage, don't be "the skater who." (The skater who often under-rotates her jumps is at a disadvantage if the tech specialist calls under-rotations strictly. The skater who flutzes is at a disadvantage if the rules get tough on wrong edge take-offs. The skater who falls down all the time is out of luck if they increase the penalty for falling.)

I can see the point about working in the changes gradually. But at the same time, as long as the rules apply equally to all skaters, I do not see anything "unfair" (or even worthy of political maneuvering) about them.

Although...major league baseball teams do bring in the fences in the home stadium if they have strong hitters, then next year, if they have strong pitching, they move them back out. If they have strong left-hand hitting they make the right-field line shorter, etc.

Click to expand...

I guess we may have to disagree on how the implementation is to be done. But, it may be worthy of a political maneuver as it will affect the results in Sochi. If only I am to have a seat at the meeting for it.

Congrats if you are a Spartan. I am not. But, you can say I am a closet Izzo admirer.

I think it is not a very wise timing to make this proposal as only one female skater is doing 3A right now. There were a few who landed 3A in competitions a few years ago and a few may be around in the near future. But on principle, I am in favour of this proposal.

I would like to thank gkelly for explaining the history of SP and how SP rules have changed in the past. But to me, one thing we really need to take seriously is that the scoring system has undergone a drastic change: from 6.0 system to COP system. They are based on completely different principles. So there is no reason that we should stick to the way they changed the SP rules under 6.0 system.

What matters under COP system is how many points you can collect by executing elements. In Sp, female skaters are required to execute three jump elements, (1) combination jump, (2) step jump and (3) axel jump. Now, is there any justification not allowing skaters to do triple axel while allowing skaters to do triple for the second jump in combo and collect more points? Now that only few ladies are doing 3-3 or 3A, why do we want to allow skaters to take a huge advantage over others with 3-3 and not with 3A?

Another way of presenting this case is to compare three possible set of rules.
(A): 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A
(B): either 3-2 or 3-3 combo, step 3, either 2A or 3A (or better, no restriction on a number of rotations)
(C): either 3-3 or 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A.
Under (B), skaters are allowed to choose a number of rotations and are rewarded accordingly. It is simple as that. In the case of (A), in a top tier competition, all serious contenders for the gold would be placed in the level playing field in terms of base value (except for those who cannot do both Lz and F). One with higher quality jumps will collect more points and takes the lead (insofar as jump elements are concerned). I can see the logic in (A) and (B). But what is the logic of (C)? I don't see any.

Things look worse because men are allowed to do either double or triple axel. 3A is more difficult for ladies than for men. However, this jump has less worse in ladies’ competition than men’s because of the SP rule. This is not a matter of gender equality (It was rather unfortunate that hurrah brought this up). The point of comparison with SP rule for men is that it really highlights how badly 3A is treated in ladies’ competition for no apparent reason.

I've been watching this thread for a bit and decided to give my two cents worth as a coach. It is far too easy for arm-chair athletes, and has-beens (um, retired skaters), and ISU/federation members who can't /didn't really skate, plus judges/officials (many whom never skated)......to decide that the skaters of today and tomorrow should be pushing to do more difficult elements.

Remember - the champions of yesterday were really lucky if they could do a double axel in the men's division, and double jumps for women were normal not so long ago.....take a look at the 1988 Calgary Olympics women's programs. Not as well done as some of the middle of the pack women at the Olympics this year.

As a coach, it is frustrating for non-skaters to demand that my athletes accomplish skills far beyond their ability - at least for now. The reality of skating is that barely one percent - 1% - of skaters EVER get the double axel. Far less than that percentage ever get a triple jump, let alone all five triple jumps. And the triple axel.......how many men actually can do it consistently now??? The quad - reserved for a few men - all built very similarily and in total numbers....maybe a dozen in the world?

So to push women to the point where a triple axel is allowed in the short program, means that women skaters will have to break their bodies at a far earlier age in order to achieve this jump. Take a look at the body type of Mao Asada......At 19 years of age, she does not look like a young adult. Her body has not matured. Same with YuNa Kim. Take a look at the teens you know who are athletic but average. Chances are that puberty has caught up with them and they have curves, etc. and body builds that are not like that of a pre-teen. Now take a look at the young women on the international skating scene and see just how many of them have the same body type as Mao....

Making the sport even more elite is not the way to go. We are already seeing viewership down and registration at all levels for the sport diminishing. The high cost of achieving even national success is astronomical......and the select few at the top that have sponsorships etc. are spending a small fortune just to keep training at that level.

I would much rather see a short technical program that requires every one to do the same elements - and let the best man/women win that event. A fair playing field for skaters of all shapes, sizes, nationalities, and give every skater at the top a run for their money. Fans love that sort of thing. The underdog can have a chance.

Face it - if the 3A becomes the thing to do at World's etc.....we will have the same boring competition over and over and over. And, for me - I can only watch YuNa or Mao etc. do their programs a couple of times a season -

I want the sport to reward an athlete that is the best overall skater in the event - not the best jumper or best spinner or best artistic --- That's called an all-round athlete, and isn't that what the sport should be all about????


BTW - If the Japanese Federation wants the 3A in the short because just one women - theirs - can do it....then perhaps some of the other federations whose skaters finished at the bottom should petition that the SINGLE axel be made the mandatory jump for the short... I mean, fair is fair..

Another way of presenting this case is to compare three possible set of rules.
(A): 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A
(B): either 3-2 or 3-3 combo, step 3, either 2A or 3A (or better, no restriction on a number of rotations)
(C): either 3-3 or 3-2 combo, step 3, 2A.
Under (B), skaters are allowed to choose a number of rotations and are rewarded accordingly. It is simple as that. In the case of (A), in a top tier competition, all serious contenders for the gold would be placed in the level playing field in terms of base value (except for those who cannot do both Lz and F). One with higher quality jumps will collect more points and takes the lead (insofar as jump elements are concerned). I can see the logic in (A) and (B). But what is the logic of (C)? I don't see any.

Click to expand...

C is what the rules were for senior men from the 1989 through 1998 seasons, and for junior men from whenever they were allowed to do triple-triple combo (I don't know the year offhand) until 2008-09 . . . well into the new judging system.

There are more junior men than senior ladies doing triple axels.

Those who can do triple axels do them in the combination. Those who can do triple axel with plenty of speed coming out do triple axel-triple toe.

Mao already has that option and has been using it this year.

If and when a lady could do 3A+3T combo and 3Lz in the short, she'd have a big advantage over all the rest. It wasn't until all the medal contenders were doing that in the men's event that more options were opened up.

It doesn't pay off when the 3A is downgraded, but the same is true for 3-3 combos. They're both iffy propositions for most women who can do them at all.

Personally, I don't care whether the solo 3A option is offered in the ladies' SP before more than one skater is in a position to take advantage of it. But based on the history of SP changes in the past, I don't expect that rule to change until after several women are consistently landing 3A in the LP and some of them doing 3A in the SP combination or solo jump from steps.