Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011 | Page 11 | Golden Skate

Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

tarotx

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
I think nearly all the ladies can do a good 2A in their sleep so why not allow the require axel be a triple? Why not give a little incentive for ladies to push their limits? If this rule passes I think we may see more ladies go for the triple axel because for one the double axel requirement will be gone and second going for a triple but it gets downgraded-it's still a double axel. I think perhaps in the future we may see more women do triple axel then true triple lutzes. Especially if the tech callers get stricter and stricter with edge calls. I think giving a bonus to 3-3's is also an incentive to push limits. And the 2 quad's in the men's short as well. I believe the regression talk though out COP's history but up front and center during the 2010 Olympics has really opened some eyes. I hope it passes and then I'll hope that along with the required axel a required edge jump and toe jump is required in the future. I also hope that each spin be significantly different too. For the short. I want these to be true technical programs.

I like the no spiral or second foot work sequence in short as well. It leaves more room for individualism and (especially for the men) was just a second test of the same skill set. I want to see ladies spirals but with foot work the way it is now and with the pcs skating skills and especially transition there is no real different skill being tested enough to waste time on ugly positions.

And the half loop be a loop for 3 jump combinations will make things interesting in the long. It makes a 3S-.5 loop-3t worth full points.

I hope it all passes :)
 

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
I think nearly all the ladies can do a good 2A in their sleep so why not allow the require axel be a triple? Why not give a little incentive for ladies to push their limits? If this rule passes I think we may see more ladies go for the triple axel because for one the double axel requirement will be gone and second going for a triple but it gets downgraded-it's still a double axel. I think perhaps in the future we may see more women do triple axel then true triple lutzes. Especially if the tech callers get stricter and stricter with edge calls. I think giving a bonus to 3-3's is also an incentive to push limits. And the 2 quad's in the men's short as well. I believe the regression talk though out COP's history but up front and center during the 2010 Olympics has really opened some eyes. I hope it passes and then I'll hope that along with the required axel a required edge jump and toe jump is required in the future. I also hope that each spin be significantly different too. For the short. I want these to be true technical programs.

I like the no spiral or second foot work sequence in short as well. It leaves more room for individualism and (especially for the men) was just a second test of the same skill set. I want to see ladies spirals but with foot work the way it is now and with the pcs skating skills and especially transition there is no real different skill being tested enough to waste time on ugly positions.

And the half loop be a loop for 3 jump combinations will make things interesting in the long. It makes a 3S-.5 loop-3t worth full points.

I hope it all passes :)
The current rule already has enough incentive for 3A. If you can add 3A to your 3-3 and 3Lz, you wins. But, Mao doesn't have 3Lz and 3-3, and that is why she lost to YuNa. It was't because Mao wasn't rewarded enough for her 3A.
 

RumbleFish

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Actually, proposed rule will benefit Asada massively.

Some people argue that Asada won't benefit too much, because Asada currently lacks a 3-3 combination.

current layout: 3A-2T, 3F, 2A
changed layout assumption: 3A, 3F-2T, 3Lo

Base value increases by only 1.5 points.

However, this is looking at only one side of the coin.

1. Real benefit arises when Asada screws up her 3A.
Under current rules, by missing her 3A, Asada could potentially blow her combination altogether.
In even worse cases, she could get her double axel wiped out as well if her 3A attempt gets judged as an 2A, a la Rostelecom Cup.
Simply put, a failed 3A attempt under current rules could lead to loss of 10 to 15 points and bombing of SP for Asada.

Under proposed rule, the worst Asada could do by missing her 3A would be losing base value of 8.2.
In reality, she will likely receive around 3.5 points as long as she does not underrotate and fall.

Proposed rule will act as a cap for potential loss Asada could suffer from doing a risky 3A.

2. Asada won't have to do the 3A in combination.
If we look at last 2 major competitions, it is easy to spot that Asada has problems rotating her 3A especially when it is done in combination.

Vancouver Olys: both attempts of 3A in combination looked underrotated, though ratified for some reason. Individual 3A in FS looked OK.
Torino Worlds: both attempts of 3A in combination got dinged. Individual 3A looked OK

By letting Asada do 3A free of combination, the proposed rule will enhance success rate for Asada.

Proposed rule is a well crafted attempt at increasing success rate for Asada's 3A and minimizing point loss in case of failure.
People should not be deceived by it's benignly small upside benefit, but scruntinize it's influence on minimizing losses.
 
Last edited:

RumbleFish

Rinkside
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
I also want to point out that proposed rule for multiplying 1.1 for combinations will not benefit Yuna in particular, as all skaters, including Asada, will benefit similarly.
It is perfectly fair that Yuna's 3Lz-3T will receive highest bonus, as her jump has the highest base value among all ladies in the current field.
If I were an Asada fan, I would urge her to perform 3A-3T or at least reestablish 3F-3Lo rather than complaining about the rules or slandering Yuna.
 
Last edited:

tarotx

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
The proposed 3A rule will benefit Mao and any skater willing to do the 3A now that they wouldn't have to worry about keeping the 2A perfect. I want the sport pushed to it's limit and the required 2A keeps ladies stagnated. Mao isn't a power jumper and she does a respectable attempt at a 3A and I think that this means that most women in the future should be able to get their 3A. If last gen men had 3A's then the ladies coming up should have it. That's the way it's been with the other triples.

I don't see why Yu Na can't get a triple Axel. Her double is usually beautiful so why not try for the triple? Why not push her limits? It's a new goal and I know she's looking for goals to keep competing. Now that she wouldn't have to use all that energy on a super hard level 4 spiral (since the lp spiral would just be for goe) and there would be no required double axel in the short and one less throw away double axel attempt in the long, why not go for a triple axel?

Yu Na could really benefit since she has all the other triple-yes even the loop that she didn't compete lately because it being only 1 point more then a double axel which was easier on her old injuries.
 

Hanaka

Rinkside
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Why is a surprise?

As I explained earlier, it's more difficult to rotate that second jump. You have have good speed and be within that center of axis to rotate all the way around the second time and flow out of it well.

As commentators have explained, In a 3Z-3T you have to rotate 6 times around while you rotate 5.5 times in a 3A-2T combo.

It's the same reason that a 3A is more difficult and worth more (apparently not enough for some folks) than a 3Z. It's that extra half rotation. So why does it mystify people that you get more points for an extra half-rotation in a jump combination?

I don't skate, but I have a friend who skates. I heard from him that 3A is an extremely hard jump, it's difficult not just because it needs a half more rotation than 3, but because it is an AXCEL jump. Taking off of 3A gives you enormous fear, that's one of the things he said. (I read that Mao feared, feared, feared, feared, feared 3A and she cried, cried, cried, cried, cried thinking that she could not manage to do it.) I can't describe what he said in English properly, so I give up here.

But when I look at men's competitions and see a lot of men have difficulties in 3A, so many mistakes and falls on that jump, and there are even some men's champions who struggle with it and have hard time landing it and some of them actually can hardly land it, while not as many men have trouble landing 3-3.
That's why I feel just a single 3A must be an extremely difficult jump (ask the men) and 3A combo is even more difficult, particularly for a woman.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Hi Joesitz, appreciate the reply. Well, you say tomato...If it's a matter of descriptive choice, I certainly won't argue.

My own view, though, is that the reason that "artistic" or "artistry" is not generally used vis-a-vis ballet, opera, etc. performances is that the existence of artistry is wholly assumed, not because it is being denied. Skating, on the other hand, is often ambivalent about its dual nature, hence the use of the word either in praise or in scorn (Elvis Stojko, anyone?).
Interesting thought about the adjective 'artistry' not being used in Opera, Ballet but I believe it is because the great singers and dancers are limited to 'great performances' each time they perform, and not because they have consistent great performances. One vocalist may perform a great Tosca but misfire on Carmen.

The noun 'Art' can certainly be used as in The Art of Figure Skating; The Art of Cinemetography, The Art of Playwriting, The Art of Plumbing meaning a high level of workmanship. It is my opinion that Michelle Kwan exemplifies the Art of Figure Skating. It is, however, just an opinion. Biographers like to toss around words like 'artistic', 'Diva', 'Most popular', but these too, are just opinions of the biographer.

I am also of the opinion that die hard Figure Skating Fans want their Sport to be equal to those of the Performing Arts. But is it? Can a 4 minute version of chopped up music be equal to a 3 plus hour of musical drama? I know I am in the minority, but I can only see good performances in figure skating sometimes and not always consistent with the same performer. I do enjoy them though when I do see them. What can one say about John Curry?

As for Elvis Sctojko, I believed his performances were more than adequate if not great. JMO
 

ayayukiituka

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Some people argue that Asada won't benefit too much, because Asada currently lacks a 3-3 combination.

current layout: 3A-2T, 3F, 2A
changed layout assumption: 3A, 3F-2T, 3Lo

Base value increases by only 1.5 points.

If she does 3A, 3F-2T and 3Lo at competetions, she will get only 1.5 points up.
but I heard she wants to attempt 3-3 and 3Lz( I'm thinking she won't try 3Lz in SP) a few times.

She really try 3-3, she would get more points.

I mean she will do if she wants to:3A,3F-3Lo(or 3T) and 3Lz,3T or 3Lo
the base value is 22.7 points!!

I believe she gets 3-3 back and recieve a lot more points.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Cui bono? (That's for Robeye ;) )

Who benefits from the new ten per cent bonus on combinations?

Kim:

SP: 3Lz+3T = 10.00
LP: 3Lz+3T = 10.00
......2A+2T+2Lo = 5.50
......2A+3T = 7.50

Total (not counting second half bonuses and base points lost to under-rotations) = 33.00

Benefit from new rule = 3.30 points

Asada:

SP: 3A+2T = 9.50
LP: 3A+2T = 9.50 points
.....3F+2Lo = 7.00
.....3F+2Lo+2Lo = 8.50

Total: 34.50 (those 2-loops add up! :) )

Benefit from new rule = 3.45 points.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Cui bono? (That's for Robeye ;) )

Who benefits from the new ten per cent bonus on combinations?

Kim:

SP: 3Lz+3T = 10.00
LP: 3Lz+3T = 10.00
......2A+2T+2Lo = 5.50
......2A+3T = 7.50

Total (not counting second half bonuses and base points lost to under-rotations) = 33.00

Benefit from new rule = 3.30 points

Asada:

SP: 3A+2T = 9.50
LP: 3A+2T = 9.50 points
.....3F+2Lo = 7.00
.....3F+2Lo+2Lo = 8.50

Total: 34.50 (those 2-loops add up! :) )

Benefit from new rule = 3.45 points.
Good figuring, MM et al. I'm not sure if the changes are advantageous for particular skaters yet, but do you think all these changes will sell at the box office or enable FS to regain its former position on TV?
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
Frankly, for someone who can do a triple axel, making them do a double axel is sort of unnecessary, because the skater already demonstrated that he or she can do an axel jump. This is just like in school when some people have demonstrated their skill in a particular subject that they are allowed to do harder stuff in an advanced class, while the others stay in the regular class. It's not unfair in principle because everyone is given the opportunity to enter the advanced class if they demonstrated the skills.
 

Robeye

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Cui bono? (That's for Robeye ;) )

Who benefits from the new ten per cent bonus on combinations?

[/b]

:laugh::laugh:

Yes, but the more fundamental question, raised by Janetfan and others, is: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?* If the decision-making machinery of the ISU were more transparent as to process and motive, then changes wouldn't be viewed with quite so much reflexive suspicion (although they may still provoke disagreement). This has always been a slow cancer eating away at the sport, which they have not yet adequately addressed.

*who will guard the guardians [themselves]?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Interesting thought about the adjective 'artistry' not being used in Opera, Ballet but I believe it is because the great singers and dancers are limited to 'great performances' each time they perform, and not because they have consistent great performances. One vocalist may perform a great Tosca but misfire on Carmen.

I think one reason why skating fans like to hold on to the word "artistry" is so they can say things like this:

"At the 2006 Olympics Plushenko gave a commanding performance, but he did not demonstrate much artistry." Or

"Michal Brezina is an artistic skater, but an inconsistent performer."
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I think one reason why skating fans like to hold on to the word "artistry" is so they can say things like this:

"At the 2006 Olympics Plushenko gave a commanding performance, but he did not demonstrate much artistry." Or

"Michal Brezina is an artistic skater, but an inconsistent performer."

Or maybe some judges/fans like to say this skater was an incredible jumper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQXiiknXAH8


but he lacked the artistry of this skater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhIiisXRBys

Did the judges get it right - and if so how did the "Crossover King" place ahead of the "Quad King?"
 
Last edited:

steyn

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
I think we are making a mountain out of a molehill in this triple Axel discussion.

Ladies are already permitted to do triple Axels, if they are able. They are already permitted to do two triple Axels in the long program. They are already permitted to do a triple Axel in the short program, either in combination or out of footwork. The only change in the proposed rules is to add "or as a substitute for the double Axel" to the previous sentence.

I do not think that this change will cause a sudden rush of young skaters and their coaches to say, well, I didn't give two hoots about the triple Axel when it was allowed only twice in the LP and once in the SP substituting for another jump in combination or out of footwork. But -- whoa -- now I can substitute if for the double Axel in the SP!!! That's for me!

I don't think so. I agree with wallylutz.

I believe the real thing this change implies is that 3A is now a kind of risk-free point getter. Probably the most serious risk in attempting 3A is the possibility to get downgraded to 2A. Now in SP you don't need to worry about it. Even if your success rate is low there is almost nothing to lose (except GOEs) by doing your incomplete 3A instead of 2A. If you are lucky you will get extra 8.2-3.5=4.7points compared with doing 2A. If you are unlucky, still no problem because you will just get the usual 3.5 points. This means there would be practically no punishment.

In this sense allowing 3A to replace 2A is totally different from the current rules. (Remember that in SP there will be no stamina issue either.) I bet that many female skaters, especially young skaters will try to learn 3A from now on. Otherwise they will simply lose the chance to collect that extra points without much risk. This will results in many injuries. I guess.

By the same reason, this change will help Mao a lot even if the point calculation does not look so at first sight. So far the success or failure of 3A in SP was like the difference of day and night because her 3A had to replace one of the triples. But after the rule changes, you will not lose much because downgraded 3A will be still counted as 2A with other triples untouched. Of course Mao would feel mentally much better and probably the success rate would increase as well, which is not bad.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I don't think so. I agree with wallylutz.

I believe the real thing this change implies is that 3A is now a kind of risk-free point getter. Probably the most serious risk in attempting 3A is the possibility to get downgraded to 2A. Now in SP you don't need to worry about it. Even if your success rate is low there is almost nothing to lose (except GOEs) by doing your incomplete 3A instead of 2A. If you are lucky you will get extra 8.2-3.5=4.7points compared with doing 2A. If you are unlucky, still no problem because you will just get the usual 3.5 points. This means there would be practically no punishment.

In this sense allowing 3A to replace 2A is totally different from the current rules. (Remember that in SP there will be no stamina issue either.) I bet that many female skaters, especially young skaters will try to learn 3A from now on. Otherwise they will simply lose the chance to collect that extra points without much risk. This will results in many injuries. I guess.

By the same reason, this change will help Mao a lot even if the point calculation does not look so at first sight. So far the success or failure of 3A in SP was like the difference of day and night because her 3A had to replace one of the triples. But after the rule changes, you will not lose much because downgraded 3A will be still counted as 2A with other triples untouched. Of course Mao would feel mentally much better and probably the success rate would increase as well, which is not bad.

The defenders of the new axel rule have glossed over this point.
It is a tremendous advantage for the only skater doing a 3A in her SP.

Perhaps it will lead to more than one Lady trying a 3A in her SP - but from what I have seen this past season the CoP is already challenging many skaters to the breaking point.

It was mentioned if this will help boost TV ratings. I would guess fans who love splats will enjoy seeing more ladies falling and risking injury. Skating purists maybe not so much.
 

Basics

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
But when I look at men's competitions and see a lot of men have difficulties in 3A, so many mistakes and falls on that jump, and there are even some men's champions who struggle with it and have hard time landing it and some of them actually can hardly land it, while not as many men have trouble landing 3-3.
That's why I feel just a single 3A must be an extremely difficult jump (ask the men) and 3A combo is even more difficult, particularly for a woman.

Well, one interesting fact that might contradict your opinion.

In men's FS at Vancouver, there were actually one more 3A (including combo) landed and ratified than 3-3 (excluding 4T combo). So does this mean 3A-( ) is rather an easier jump compared to 3-3 combo?

I just want to say they are both difficult jumps, and you can't just argue which one is harder. It just depends on each skater.
 
Last edited:

Phoenix347

Final Flight
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
One thing is for sure... if these changes proposed by the ISU technical committee gets ratified as it seem they will, I think the records books should be reset. What I mean by that is that because the some of these changes are pretty radical, scores that are awarded under the new revised system is not directly comparable to the scores before these changes. So I say they should have a record for the scores before these changes and records under the revised system. Of course ISU has not shown this much sense before as the score from the early days of ISU are still included with the new one with higher points for 3A's and quads plus various changes in UR, edge calls, etc. Not that records matter that much anyway. All we know is that new scores cannot be compared directly to previous scores.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Or maybe some judges/fans like to say this skater was an incredible jumper:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQXiiknXAH8

but he lacked the artistry of this skater:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhIiisXRBys

Did the judges get it right - and if so how did the "Crossover King" place ahead of the "Quad King?"

I know this isn't the question that you asked , but...

How can anyone deny that men's figure skating has gone down the toilet since the inception of CoP judging?

At the 2002 Olympics Tim Goebel did

3Lz
4S+3T
3A+2T
4T
3A
4S
3F
3Lo

Plushenko's first four jumping passes were

4T+3T+3Lo
4T
3A/half loop/3F
3A

And that got them only second and third.

(Let's see now. What did the 2010 Olympic gold medalist do?) :disagree:

As for Plushenko's "artistry" in that program, he was so artistic that he could afford to stop in the middle and do some comic dancing and posing. :rock:
 
Last edited:
Top