Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011 | Page 13 | Golden Skate

Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
With so much discussion over the new "Mao rules" I was wondering about the Men and the step sequence change.

Is there anything proposed to takes it's place or will this be the official time for posing, pelvic thrusts and crossovers?

Are these new "Joubshenko rules" likely to be disputed?

Here is what I am hoping, perhaps naively.

It looks to me like the ISU is diminishing the idea of step sequences and spirals as separate scored elements in order to give them more weight in the program components. Especially Transitions, but also Choreography and Interpretation.

I think the Joe Inman letter represented just the tip of the iceberg with respect to dissatisfaction over judges giving out PCSs for nothing just because someone jumps a quad. I think the ISU is trying to give the judges something to get their hands on: this skater deserves strong component scores because he did a three-turn into a spread eagle. That sort of thing, not just, well, this guy is pretty good, I guess i'll give him an 8.

If this is the ISU's intent, I like it and I hope it works.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Here is what I am hoping, perhaps naively.

It looks to me like the ISU is diminishing the idea of step sequences and spirals as separate scored elements in order to give them more weight in the program components. Especially Transitions, but also Choreography and Interpretation.

I think the Joe Inman letter represented just the tip of the iceberg with respect to dissatisfaction over judges giving out PCSs for nothing just because someone jumps a quad. I think the ISU is trying to give the judges something to get their hands on: this skater deserves strong component scores because he did a three-turn into a spread eagle. That sort of thing, not just, well, this guy is pretty good, I guess i'll give him an 8.

If this is the ISU's intent, I like it and I hope it works.

If it is done in that spirit then it might be a step in the right direction.
Inman gets mentioned alot - but remember good ol' Jenny wrote a scathing column about Abbott/Joubert's Sp marks at NHK.
She was flabergasted that Joubert scored higher in the pcs than Jeremy and even questioned if the judges actually watched them skate.
 
Last edited:

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
The limit of 2A rule is not simply targeted at Yuna. I see so many female skaters getting points by doing a lot of double axels. This is probably a response to Lepisto's controversial bronze medal at Worlds. I think people should try to wonder why technical committe would agree to the 3A rule before calling it conspiracy or whatever. Naturally, JSF would want to support their star skater just like any other federation would do. I'm pretty sure the committee are aware that only one female skater does the 3A as of now, so for them to propose it means that a) compromises were made b) some members do support this idea. The new rules would encourage female skaters to do the 3A because it will no longer be do or die. The current rules actually punishes female skaters who do the 3A in the short program because a downgrade on it will cost them major points. It almost seems not worth it for Mao to do the 3A in the SP because of the downgrades. She would have gotten more points with a regular 3-2 than a downgraded 3axel combo. I think this is ISU way of responding to claims that they should reward more risk-taking.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
So you would prefer a format that appeals to your "just a fan" understanding of the differences between the programs?

Many just fans can't tell the difference between different triple jumps. Some even think that "triple axel" is another word for "triple jump."

So should skating allow, say, long programs to consist of 8 triple jumps with no distinctions, so that a program with 8 successful triple toes, some of them in combination, would be worth more than a program with 2 triple axels (fall on one of them), 2 triple lutzes, and 1 each of triple flip, loop, salchow, and toe loop?

Of course not. But many just-a-fans couldn't tell the difference, at least not without informative commentary.

If there are reasons for the way things are done, and we think they should be done differently, we should be able to give better reasons in support of the change. "I liked the way things were when I didn't know much about what I was watching" is not a good reason for a change.

I don't see why we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Come up with a format that honors the traditions of the sport and excites the audience, too.

You could still have scoring that takes into account intricacies that casual fans are not aware of (like the differences between different jumps), but keep the ordinal one-third/two-thirds idea to determine the overall winner.

I am not saying that this is the only way to do it. But the knife cuts both ways. If you have a format that is thrilling to spectators, it seems like you ought to have a good reason before abandoning it."I like it the way it is" may not be a good reason for change, but it is a good reason to keep it the way it is.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
The limit of 2A rule is not simply targeted at Yuna. I see so many female skaters getting points by doing a lot of double axels. This is probably a response to Lepisto's controversial bronze medal at Worlds. I think people should try to wonder why technical committe would agree to the 3A rule before calling it conspiracy or whatever. Naturally, JSF would want to support their star skater just like any other federation would do. I'm pretty sure the committee are aware that only one female skater does the 3A as of now, so for them to propose it means that a) compromises were made b) some members do support this idea. The new rules would encourage female skaters to do the 3A because it will no longer be do or die. The current rules actually punishes female skaters who do the 3A in the short program because a downgrade on it will cost them major points. It almost seems not worth it for Mao to do the 3A in the SP because of the downgrades. She would have gotten more points with a regular 3-2 than a downgraded 3axel combo. I think this is ISU way of responding to claims that they should reward more risk-taking.

Isn't Laura a little bit loop crazy - just the way Miki and Mao are? Oh, I forgot it is still OK to do as many 2Loops as you want. It is only the 2A that is being reduced. :)

If I remember right I think Mirai was doing three 2A's in her LP so she will have to either add a bunch of 2Loops or bring back her 3Sal.
 

chloepoco

Medalist
Joined
Nov 1, 2009
Have you forgot this already?

Mao's 3F+3Lo in SP, NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m10s

Mao's 3Lz in SP. NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m33s

There is no need for an imaginary supergirl. The change to allow 3A in lieu of 2A is custom designed for Mao Asada. Expect her to re-introduce the above mentioned jump combo and solo jump in the 2010-2011 season. Why? Because she is Japanese. That means, she will go for what it is the theoretical maximum with very little regard to the risk and this change in the rule is to allow her to include the 3A without having to sacrifice either the 3F+3Lo or the 3Lz.

What does her being Japanese have to do with it? Sounds like a racist statement to me. In fact, in reading everything you write, it appears you really dislike (I would say hate, but hate is such strong word) Mao Asada and everything she does. As well as all the other Japanese skaters.
 
Last edited:

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
The current rules actually punishes female skaters who do the 3A in the short program because a downgrade on it will cost them major points. It almost seems not worth it for Mao to do the 3A in the SP because of the downgrades. She would have gotten more points with a regular 3-2 than a downgraded 3axel combo. I think this is ISU way of responding to claims that they should reward more risk-taking.

So instead of taking the risk of getting downgraded on a 3A+2T where the cost is high vs. say a 3Lz+2T alternative, the ISU now gives Asada a carte blanche on doing the 3A in the SP since even if it's downgraded 3A -> 2A is still equal to what other girls are doing. In other words, it's almost a riskless option granted to Mao Asada for free yet the option obviously has a value due to upside potential. The value at risk for Mao Asada in this situation is the base value of the 2A, which is equal to 3.5 points = her gamble at risk. But her upside potential is 8.2, meaning the upside potential significantly trumps the downside risk.

No matter how you put it, this comes across as a custom designed solution for a single individual. If I were Yu-Na Kim, I'd seriously consider retirement now.
 

☆Genie

Rinkside
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
YuNa doesn't skate to win. She wants to do her best.
And anyway this will also benefit Russia because one of their junior does the 3A.
 

tarotx

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 30, 2005
Mathman well you could have the short program points rank a skater and then do something like give the leader a point value and say each ranking after is say 2 points less then the placement before them. Say have #1 lady have 70 points and then have #2 with 68 and then have #3 with 66 and then have #4 with 64 and then have #5 with 62 and then have #6 with 60 points and so on and so on. I have idea what that would do to risk assessment.

As for as Mao's carte blanche-all the ladies have the option of attempting the 3A if the new rule passes. Taking away some of the risk could make it a risk worth taking for many women. Especially those who have edge issues.
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
What does her being Japanese have to do with it? Sounds like a racist statement to me. In fact, in reading everything you write, it appears you really dislike (I would say hate, but hate is such strong word) Mao Asada and everything she does. As well as all the other Japanese skaters.

Pointing out a perceived cultural difference does not imply racism.

Don't you think many Americans wondered why Dai "fell on his sword" so to speak and handed Evan the OGM?

If Frank Carroll had been coaching Dai he most likely would be Olympic and World champion.
I say that only knowing Frank coaches to win and is not overly enamored with "losing with honor."

Do those thoughts make me racist? Maybe I am sterotyping but that would make me ignorant and not necessarily racist.

Personally I respect Dai for following his heart - even if I think it was a very bad choice for him to go for the quad in Vancouver.
Dai showed me the best skating in Vancouver and I think if he had a winning stategy he would have won Gold. I believe part of his choice to go for the quad was a cultural one. I don't quite understand it but I respect it.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Pointing out a perceived cultural difference does not imply racism.

I guess I must be so racist towards the Japanese that I actually read Japanese as well, isn't that funny? :) Please don't quote that poster, I have him on ignore and with good reasons as you can see.
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
I feel like this debate on whether the rules are fair or not is so pointless. Because when are rules absolutely fair to everyone? Rules are rules. It's the ISU responsibility to make them and it's the skaters responsibility to skate under them. Just because the rules may benefit one skater doesn't mean it will play out that way. How one utilizes the rules is also key to success. Actually, I can think of many current rules under this system that I do not think work in Mao and some of my other favorite skaters's favor. Everything is pro and con. Some rules will benefit you and some rules will not.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I can't believe that grown men and women are moaning in terror and shivering in their boots about what jumps Mao Asada might do in her short program next year. Trust me, contrary to popular opinion Mao is not King Kong and Godzilla rolled into one (she might be Rodan, though ;) ).

Did Mao land any triple Lutzes last season? Did she do any triple flip/triple loop combinations? She landed half of her triple Axel attempts. So now all of a sudden we are howling an gnashing our teeth in horror that she might try an SP jump layout of 3Lz, 3F+3Lo, 3A?

To the skaters: Man up, ladies! If you are afraid of monster-Mao, stop whining and start start upgrading your own stuff. Tell Gargantua, "You got yours, I got mine; come on!" :yes: :laugh: (Go Rachael!)
 

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
I can't believe that grown men and women are moaning in terror and shivering in their boots about what jumps Mao Asada might do in her short program next year. Trust me, contrary to popular opinion Mao is not King Kong and Godzilla rolled into one (she might be Rodan, though ;) ).

Did Mao land any triple Lutzes last season? Did she do any triple flip/triple loop combinations? She landed half of her triple Axel attempts. So now all of a sudden we are howling an gnashing our teeth in horror that she might try an SP jump layout of 3Lz, 3F+3Lo, 3A?

To the skaters: Man up, ladies! If you are afraid of monster-Mao, stop whining and start start upgrading your own stuff. Tell Gargantua, "You got yours, I got mine; come on!" :yes: :laugh: (Go Rachael!)

Is it fair to say Yuna beat Mao so decisively in Vancouver she did everything but run her over with the Zamboni. ;) And Mao skated very well in Vancouver.

Something must be amiss with the rules and ISU in it's infinite wisdom (and most likely other factors) has decided to level the playing field.

That's all I see happening here. It doesn't make me weep and it doesn't infuriate me.
IMO it is just another example of ISU doing what it thinks is best for ISU. Nothing else matters to them as much as their financial well being.

Who can blame them?

Go Mirai! (and start practicing your 2Loops :laugh:)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Is it fair to say Yuna beat Mao so decisively in Vancouver that she did everything but run her over with the Zamboni. ;)

Exactly. So what are the Yu-na fans crying about? That Yu-na will win by only 15 points instead of 20 next time? :cool:
 
Last edited:

janetfan

Match Penalty
Joined
May 15, 2009
Exactly. So what are the Yu-na fans crying about? That Yu-na will will by only 15 points instead of 20 next time? :cool:

And maybe Team Yuna will remember NOT to skip 4CC next time it is in Korea right before the Olympics. Such jetlag might knock another few points off Yuna's score. So now she only wins by 10points :laugh:

Go Yuna, Go Mao, Go to Stanford Rachael, and Go, go, go Mirai :love:
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Here is what I am hoping, perhaps naively.

It looks to me like the ISU is diminishing the idea of step sequences and spirals as separate scored elements in order to give them more weight in the program components. Especially Transitions, but also Choreography and Interpretation.

I think the Joe Inman letter represented just the tip of the iceberg with respect to dissatisfaction over judges giving out PCSs for nothing just because someone jumps a quad. I think the ISU is trying to give the judges something to get their hands on: this skater deserves strong component scores because he did a three-turn into a spread eagle. That sort of thing, not just, well, this guy is pretty good, I guess i'll give him an 8.


If this is the ISU's intent, I like it and I hope it works.
Joeinman and Joesitz hated stoping in the middle of a program to show 3-5 Spirals at the senior level. Has anyone ever watched a juvenile competition. There is where the Spiral should count when one sees those tots raise one leg off the ice. In Novice, we can talk about edges of the spiral but in Seniors it is a piece of cake or should be.

And for step sequences can anyone disern the good from the poor except in those skaters who are going to podium anyway and mostly because of the jumps and spins. Let's see those school figure turns thoughout the program. Nothing like a grand Rocker into a triple lutz. or a grand counter into a quad toe loop. Where is the 'artistry' in circling the arena with crossovers for that super quad toe, and that carefully planned 3A? Why bother with music?

I see no reason to give spirals at the senior level more weight, but yes at the juvenile level. Transitions are fine if they connect with whatever their aiming to connect with - no pausing. I reiterate, Step Sequences should be shown throughout the program, albeit in a musical fewer steps form.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I don't see why we cannot have our cake and eat it, too. Come up with a format that honors the traditions of the sport and excites the audience, too.

Well, different fans will be excited by or interested in different things. How do we decide which fans' preferences take precedence?

Some of the differences will be based on what draws each fan to the sport.
Some will be most excited by the jumps -- they can see the differences between doubles, triples, and quads more easily than the differences between different takeoffs, or between everything else that happens on the ice as opposed to in the air, and the higher risk of splatting and the greater glory of succeeding with the hardest jumps. Anything that encourages and rewards more jump risks would be their preference.

Others may have been drawn in by the "artistry." Maybe their first favorite skater was a competitor who was especially gifted in musical interpretation or body line, or maybe they were first attracted by exhibition or professional skating and later expanded their interest to competition. These fans will probably prefer rules that discourage splats and encourage more interesting aesthetic use of the whole body.

Probably no casual fans are excited by the difference between, say, a three turn and a bracket. But skaters know the difference and want them rewarded commensurately. And fans who go beyond casual viewing and become interested in the details of the sport and its technique can learn to recognize and, yes, get excited by details that eluded them when they first started watching.

You could still have scoring that takes into account intricacies that casual fans are not aware of (like the differences between different jumps), but keep the ordinal one-third/two-thirds idea to determine the overall winner.

First of all, it confuses the use of the word "ordinal" in the 6.0 system to use it like that.
Ordinals were the rankings given by each judge to all the skaters in one phase of the event. It was rare for any judge's ordinals for the field to match the overall result, especially in large events.
The one-third/two-thirds split in value between short and long program was referred to as factored placements.

And of course the split might not be one-third/two-thirds when there were additional phases of competition. It was different when there were figures plus short program plus long program. It was different when qualifying rounds counted toward the overall results. It was different in the experimental Grand Prix Finals a decade ago that required skaters to perform two long programs.
And for ice dance it was different when compulsory dances were part of the event.

So fans who remember Elaine Zayak's come from behind to win 1982 Worlds from 7th place after the SP, for example, might have a different idea of "exciting" than fans who sweated over whether their favorites could pull up from 4th.

Fans who started watching in the last 5 or 6 years were never excited by the intricacies of ordinals or factored placements in the first place and learned from the beginning of their fandom to be more interested in point spreads.

Some fans who started following short programs in the 1970s or 80s may have enjoyed the apples-to-apples comparisons of every skater doing the same solo jump, the same required double jump in the combination, the same flying spin, the same shape of step sequence, etc. They may want to go back to those kinds of requirements.

Some, likely newer fans and/or fans who only watch the top elite skaters, may want to require specific triple jumps, ignoring the fact that not everyone who can do some triples and can compete credibly at the senior level is capable of executing every kind of triple.

Other longtime fans may not miss those requirements and be happy with the current balance of requirements and options.

Some fans may want to get rid of all specific requirements in the short program and replace them with the equivalent, much looser, long-program requirements. E.g., an axel jump, a solo jump, a jump combination, a flying spin, a spin in one position, a combination spin, a step sequence.

You were arguing in favor of the latter. Which would be a brand new approach to the short program structure, not a return to the way it ever used to be in real life. That may have been what you thought short programs were about when you didn't know the rules, but you were wrong.

I am not saying that this is the only way to do it. But the knife cuts both ways. If you have a format that is thrilling to spectators, it seems like you ought to have a good reason before abandoning it."I like it the way it is" may not be a good reason for change, but it is a good reason to keep it the way it is.

We were discussing whether to change the short program requirements to make them even looser than they ever have been, more like long programs.

The short program requirements did not change with the introduction of the new scoring system, by the way.

But then you started arguing that they should be changed to something they never were before because you liked the way things were before.

To which I say, huh?

How did we go from discussing whether women should be able to do triple axels to fulfill the solo axel required element to whether we should go back to factored placements, and specifically the one-third/two-third split that used for most competitions in the 1990s and early 2000s?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
How did we go from discussing whether women should be able to do triple axels to fulfill the solo axel required element to whether we should go back to factored placements,...

I think it went something like this. Many posters referred to historical precedent to argue for or against the change in the Axel requirement -- in my opinion, to the neglect of the question of whether or not the new rule was a good one or not. (Others got sidetracked into whether or not the rule would benefit one particular skater.)

So..let's see... When I began that paragraph I thought it was headed somewhere... Something about factored placements of ordinal rankings is good, never mind history (?)
 
Top