Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011 | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I don't really see anything controversial or unexpected about these proposed changes. These are suggestions that have been vigorously discussed all year. Personally, I like all of them. I don't think we need to get paranoid about how it will affect this particular skater or that.
 

Lilith11

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 1, 2010
I'm personally not for these changes. The removal of the spiral sequence for the ladies in the SP? What?! I love seeing high-quality jumps, but spirals are a part of figure skating as well as the jumps. T_T As for the triple axel... I'm okay with that. The only thing is, there's not many ladies currently (I don't know about the Russian girls; they're still young and maybe the puberty monster hasn't hit them yet), scratch that, no lady currently who can do the 3A in competition other than Mao Asade (in competition at least). So the way I see it, it seems kind of strange to make a change that will favor only one skater currently. I do like the part on giving jump combos more value; like Bekalc has said before, a 3Lz and 3T is definitely harder than those jumps alone. But w/the men's proposed changes... it's like they're trying to move it in the "jump" direction. I disagree with that; if you do superior footwork to someone, you should get rewarded for it. Skaters like Joubert can do the quad, awesome. But do they also have great edges, can they do complex footwork, can they spin, can they express the music well, can they- there's so much more to figure skating than just the jumps.
 

hikki

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Country
Japan
I don't really see anything controversial or unexpected about these proposed changes. These are suggestions that have been vigorously discussed all year. Personally, I like all of them. I don't think we need to get paranoid about how it will affect this particular skater or that.

Agreed. We should be celebrating the sport going forward.

Imagine the ISU had banned 5 triples from ladies field just because there was almost nobody doing it in the 80's? Where would the sport be now? Don't be afraid, people.
 

miki88

Medalist
Joined
Dec 28, 2009
I don't have a problem with the new rules except the "all or nothing" clause for spirals in the LP. I feel this requirement is a bit severe. As for the triple axel in the SP, it will only be a benefit for the skater if she is capable of doing a 3A and a 3/3 really well. As of now, I don't see this new rule benefitting Mao very much since she has some issues with her 3/3 and the new rule that rewards 3/3 more will offset any benefit she may get from a 3A. If she gets a solid 3/3 again, then she will benefit. Some of the Russian girls are already learning 3A and have good 3/3. If they get past puberty and still have these jumps, then I see no problem rewarding future skaters who are capable of executing both of these jumps.
 

blue_idealist

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 25, 2006
I like most of them.

Allowing ladies to do the triple axel instead of double is good - why should they be limited to doubles when some are capable of triples? (not very many, but with this new rule, there might eventually be more).

I like the one step sequence thing as well. I don't think that jumps should be the be-all and end-all, but it was almost getting to the point at which step sequences were being rewarded so much more than jumps, it was kind of unfair. Ie. Chan's SP ahead of Joubert's at the World Championships.

Limiting the double axels.. good too.. now more women will be 'forced' to do all or almost all of the triples, or lose jumping passes.

The only thing I don't like is the all or nothing spiral sequence. Why is that happening, were the spiral sequences THAT bad the past seasons? lol.
 

Basics

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
No spiral in sp? This I don't get it.

Well, I think many of them will not go through. Let's just wait. lol
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Here is why I like both of the proposed Axel rules.

Allowing a 3A as the Axel jump in the ladies’ short program is just common sense. The short program is supposed to demonstrate your technical skills. If you do a triple Axel as your solo jump, what extra skill are you demonstrating if you are then required to do a double of the same jump?

To me, it makes a lot more sense to do, say, 3A, 3Lz+3T, 3Lo out of footwork (“balanced program”) than to do 3A out of footwork, 3Lz+3T, 2A.

As for allowing at most two double Axels in the free skate, that is consistent with Zayak principles. If a skater wants to present a triple-triple and has only four triple jumps in her repertoire, she can still do it without penalty (3Lz+3T, 3F+2T, 3S, 3T, 3Lz, 2A+2Lo+2T, 2A – assuming the new rules allow two triple Axels plus two different triples repeated.)

What we don’t want is skaters throwing in a third double Axel gratuitously at the end just because she has run out anything else to do. (This happens in men’s programs a lot.)

I also like the two quad idea for men. Why in the world should the rules prevent men from doing two quads if they are able to – or, for that matter, two quints?
 

Basics

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
I have a question for you wallylutz. As for 10% bonus thing, does it only apply to 3-3 or any jump combination?
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Allowing ladies to do the triple axel instead of double is good - why should they be limited to doubles when some are capable of triples? (not very many, but with this new rule, there might eventually be more).

In my opinion, no ladies actually land Triple Axel at this time. Mao Asada's is not really a Triple Axel, she is almost always on the borderline, even when she managed to get the benefits of the doubt, it's like 3.25 rotation, not 3.5 Even then, you got the whole panel of judges nervous as to: "Did she or didn't she?" everytime. Frankly, it's very hard to discern if her jump is truly a Triple Axel most of the time. I almost always come away with ??? in my head when I see her doing that jump, even in person at the rink. Her batting average on that jump is very low, in the past season, much lower than 50%. Excluding the Olympic Games, which had an unusually generous calls for everybody, her batting average on that jump is dismal in the 2009-2010 season. Using your logic, then we should also remove the restriction re: ladies not being able to do Quads in the SP. Where is the logic in such restriction, eh, you'd ask? For one thing, so that young girls are not put under completely unrealistic expectations and completely self-destruct? To me, that's a compelling reason not to allow this kind of pie in the sky. I am concerned a lot of young girls will hurt themselves or suffer catastrophic injuries similar to Yu-Na Kim's back injury by trying the Triple Axel. Nobody thought about luge track in Vancouver was unsafe until an athlete died, do we really need young girls breaking their backs or suffer similar fate on TV before waking up? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCXBoMQz75Y

I like the one step sequence thing as well. I don't think that jumps should be the be-all and end-all, but it was almost getting to the point at which step sequences were being rewarded so much more than jumps, it was kind of unfair. Ie. Chan's SP ahead of Joubert's at the World Championships.

Joubert's SP at the Torino Worlds was sloppy, including his jumps. Chan didn't beat Joubert because he had poor step sequences. Joubert dug himself in the hole because he was sloppy everywhere else, including the spins. Using the same misguided logic, Lysacek's win over Plushenko must be outrageous in your opinion but figure skating is not a sport for the obvious. It's a complex sport. Fairness stems from understanding and knowledge, not gimmicks.

The only thing I don't like is the all or nothing spiral sequence. Why is that happening, were the spiral sequences THAT bad the past seasons? lol.

Devil is in the detail. This and the 2nd step sequence for men on a fixed BV is new. I am not sure how that works. Both of this will represent a departure from the IJS framework as this seems to call for a focus on the GOE for this element. I will need to know more about how exactly this works before I can comment any further. At first glance, the requirements for the Spiral Sequence seems to have been relaxed a little. I am not sure if the change of edge is still required for instance. We'll find out shortly.
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I don't have a problem with the new rules except the "all or nothing" clause for spirals in the LP. I feel this requirement is a bit severe.

As I understand the proposal, it's approximately level 1 or nothing.

In order to get no credit at all, the skater would have to perform less than is currently required for level 1 in a long program.

So there's no reason to object on the grounds that skaters with good spirals would get no credit. That's not likely to happen. Even Yu-Na Kim's disastrous spiral sequence from this year's Worlds SP would qualify for the base mark.

What could be a problem is that large differences in quality won't be reflected with large differences in scores. E.g., in the 2010 Worlds SP, Kim's spiral sequence got the lowest scores of any of the ladies who qualified for the LP, more than a point and a half below the next-lowest skaters' except for that of Akiko Suzuki, who also struggled with that element, and almost 4 full points below those of Asada and Kostner, who earned the highest marks for that element. That difference consisted of the difference in base mark between level 1 and level 4 plus the difference in GOEs between mostly -2s and mostly +2s.

If everyone gets the same base mark, then the only distinctions in the scores for the element will be in the GOEs. So I would hope that they'll use the larger GOE increments currently used for the level 4 spiral sequences, and that judges will take into account the difficulty of what the skaters include in the element as well as the quality.

Of course, now that difficulty can be whatever the skater is good at, not whatever fits most clearly and reliably into the specified level features.

And the skaters will have the freedom to show more creativity and uniqueness in this element. They'll be able to design their spiral sequences better to fit the musical structure and program theme instead of designing them to earn the highest level.

I hope that judges would take those qualities into account when awarding the GOE, and that the spirals will contribute more positively to the PCS, especially Choreography.

Plus the fans won't have to watch every skater do the same three or four variations that are easiest to earn levels with over and over again and never get to see other variations that don't count as features or are too hard to consistently execute well enough to count.

From the point of view of fairly scoring differences in difficulty, I don't love this proposal.

But from the point of view of spirals being used to enhance the program as a whole rather than just for points, I think it could be positive.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
No spiral in sp? This I don't get it.

I think many of them will not go through. Let's just wait. lol

In case you missed it, most of these changes will not be voted on at all. These are being presented as Technical Rule Change, not Member Proposals. There is a big difference between the two. The Technical Committee can instruct these kind of changes virtually without opposition. While technically there is still a chance to object to these changes, the chance is pretty slim. Workshops are organized to sell these ideas to Members and the ISU will be aggressively pushing for those as they are. I have purposely excluded changes that are presented as Member Proposals in this summary as those are much less certain and would indeed require approval. The ones I summarized in post #1 DO NOT REQUIRE ANY FURTHER ACTION TO BECOME RULES. This is confusing I know, hopefully, it's a little clearer now.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
As I understand the proposal, it's approximately level 1 or nothing.

[...]

But from the point of view of spirals being used to enhance the program as a whole rather than just for points, I think it could be positive.

Again, the devil is in the detail. This concept is new, nothing like this has been presented under the IJS framework before. In a way, this is almost odd because all elements under IJS have Levels (if you think Jumps as having double, triple and Quad as their Levels for instance) but the concept of Level is being removed for this element, which is pretty uncharacteristic of this system. How much BV? What are the criteria for GOE? What else is required? I doubt the element would be as simple as holding the position for 6 seconds only without change of position or change of edge, which seems to be implied here because it would be way too easy. The value may be so low that it almost becomes pointless. Can the skater intergrate that as part of another elment or does it have to be performed separately. Too many questions to answer still. I will wait and see until I learn more.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
In my opinion, no ladies actually land Triple Axel at this time. Mao Asada's is not really a Triple Axel, she is almost always on the borderline, even when she managed to get the benefits of the doubt, it's like 3.25 rotation, not 3.5 Even then, you got the whole panel of judges nervous as to: "Did she or didn't she?" everytime....

Well, it is the responsibility of the technical panel and the judges to decided how to score Asada's performances. As I see this proposed rules change, it is not about what Mao Asada can or can't do but about the triple Axel. If supergirl of the future comes along, why should she be held back by short-sighted rules just because Mao Asada only landed 50% of her attempts way back in 2010?

About the safety feature, I don't think supergirl will be deterred from training a triple Axel just because she is forced also to do a double Axel in the short program.

wallyl;utz said:
- Moves in the field will now be given extra attention in order to reward transitions

Honestly, a vague clause like this will continued to be ignored in practice and someone like Plushenko will continue to receive outrageous transition marks inconsistent with his level of skating.

Maybe not. This could be a signal that the Joe Inmans have made their point: that skaters must do some recognizable steps, turns or moves in the field in order to get top scores in Transitions. I think it is the vagueness, rather, of the present rules on Transitions that allows the big jumpers to get away with weak in-betweens.(?)
 
Last edited:

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Allowing a 3A as the Axel jump in the ladies’ short program is just common sense. The short program is supposed to demonstrate your technical skills. If you do a triple Axel as your solo jump, what extra skill are you demonstrating if you are then required to do a double of the same jump?

Skater's choice, but potentially the ability to add a difficult entry, air position, and/or exit to the double axel after sweating through the triple.

Right now the ladies' SP jump requirements are essentially the same as the men's were 1989 through 1998. It wasn't until a substantial majority of the men were doing 3A combos in the short program and even more were including 3A in the long that the solo axel requirement was changed to allow a choice of double or triple. That's a decade of pretty much all the top guys and a good chunk of the middle-ranked guys doing both 3A combo and 2A in their SPs.

I do think that that choice will be available to women eventually, but I'm not sure that the state of women's jump content across the senior field is in a state right now that justifies it.

As for allowing at most two double Axels in the free skate, that is consistent with Zayak principles. If a skater wants to present a triple-triple and has only four triple jumps in her repertoire, she can still do it without penalty (3Lz+3T, 3F+2T, 3S, 3T, 3Lz, 2A+2Lo+2T, 2A – assuming the new rules allow two triple Axels plus two different triples repeated.)

The way the restrictions are currently worded and separated, yes, that would be legal.

What we don’t want is skaters throwing in a third double Axel gratuitously at the end just because she has run out anything else to do. (This happens in men’s programs a lot.)

Of course, it happens more for the men because they get an extra jump pass to work with. If they only had seven, many men would not bother with a third, second, or in some cases even first double axel.

I also like the two quad idea for men. Why in the world should the rules prevent men from doing two quads if they are able to – or, for that matter, two quints?

They're free to do that in the LP.

As for two different quads, that standard is at approximately the same level of development for men as triple axel for women. A handful of skaters have done it over the years, only one or two have done it consistently. We know that it's possible but it's far from commonplace. Is it time to allow it in the SP, or should it wait until it's more common in LPs? Is the SP the place for pushing the current limits of what's humanly possible? The answer should probably be the same for both those questions.

Quints are not allowed in the SP and won't be until and unless several skaters are doing them in the LPs.
Given the downgrade penalties, I don't think that will happen until there are significant changes in boot/blade technology, ice technology, and/or gravity -- i.e., something that allows skaters to stay in the air for more than a full second just by jumping.


At first glance, the requirements for the Spiral Sequence seems to have been relaxed a little. I am not sure if the change of edge is still required for instance. We'll find out shortly.

They've been relaxed a lot, as I understand the proposal.

And change of edge was never required. It's a cheap way to get a feature, which is why almost everyone chooses to do it.
 
Last edited:

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Plushenko did simple crossovers a lot. Some judges have him 5's in the trasnitions marks others gave him 8's. As long as transitions have no fixed value but are judged from 1 to 10 in PCS you will have major differences between judges.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Here is why I like both of the proposed Axel rules.

Allowing a 3A as the Axel jump in the ladies’ short program is just common sense. The short program is supposed to demonstrate your technical skills. If you do a triple Axel as your solo jump, what extra skill are you demonstrating if you are then required to do a double of the same jump?

Because that's not the purpose of a short program. Long story short, and gkelly does a much better job in summarizing the essence of skating history than I do - SP has always had restrictions so that the focus is on the precision aspect of the skating. When Midori Ito was landing Triple Axel in competitions, she was still required to do Doubles in her SP.

To me, it makes a lot more sense to do, say, 3A, 3Lz+3T, 3Lo out of footwork (“balanced program”) than to do 3A out of footwork, 3Lz+3T, 2A.

It doesn't make sense if no skater can actually do it.

As for allowing at most two double Axels in the free skate, that is consistent with Zayak principles. If a skater wants to present a triple-triple and has only four triple jumps in her repertoire, she can still do it without penalty (3Lz+3T, 3F+2T, 3S, 3T, 3Lz, 2A+2Lo+2T, 2A – assuming the new rules allow two triple Axels plus two different triples repeated.)

What we don’t want is skaters throwing in a third double Axel gratuitously at the end just because she has run out anything else to do. (This happens in men’s programs a lot.)

Then they are leaving a lot of points on the table, so they suffer a penalty in the form of opportunity cost, which is not very smart if they are capable of doing more than a Double Axel.

I also like the two quad idea for men. Why in the world should the rules prevent men from doing two quads if they are able to – or, for that matter, two quints?

First, because there is not actually a point table for Quints, it simply doesn't exist. The majority of Quads landed by men over the years has been overwhelmingly Quad toe and only Quad toe. But men have evolved to a point where loosening the restriction on Quads in SP makes sense because several men at the world level have demonstrated capability of landing them. The same cannot be said about ladies and Triple Axel however.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
Well, it is the responsibility of the technical panel and the judges to decided how to score Asada's performances. As I see this proposed rules change, it is not about what Mao Asada can or can't do but about the triple Axel. If supergirl of the future comes along, why should she be held back by short-sighted rules just because Mao Asada only landed 50% of her attempts way back in 2010?

About the safety feature, I don't think supergirl will be deterred from training a triple Axel just because she is forced also to do a double Axel in the short program.

Let me state this bluntly as a question. How many lives of little girls are you willing to risk and destroy before such imaginary Midori Ito #2 appears in say, another 20 years?

Maybe not. This could be a signal that the Joe Inmans have made their point: that skaters must do some recognizable steps, turns or moves in the field in order to get top scores in Transitions. I think it is the vagueness, rather, of the present rules on Transitions that allows the big jumpers to get away with weak in-betweens.(?)

I hope so but I won't hold my breath.
 

wallylutz

Medalist
Joined
Mar 23, 2010
I do think that that choice will be available to women eventually, but I'm not sure that the state of women's jump content across the senior field is in a state right now that justifies it.

It doesn't justify such change at all. This is completely inconsistent with the way ISU functioned in the modern era when it comes to the evolution of SP jump requirements. I hope this particular change will be aggressively questioned in Barcelona but I suspect the politicking involved where many Members have their own proposals which require Japan's support means that it would be futile to fight for this change.

And change of edge was never required. It's a cheap way to get a feature, which is why almost everyone chooses to do it.

I stand corrected, I am accustomed to think of the change of edge as a requirement because by default, it almost always is in order to receive Level 3 or higher.

This new element seems to be completely different animal however. What's the point of such element? I could probably hold a spiral for 6 seconds and I am a guy and no longer young. This thing is a little odd. Also, why would the 2nd step sequence in Men's FS be automatically assumed to be of fixed value and graded like the Spiral in Ladies' FS. What's the point of doing that? To me, these two changes will require a fair amount of education on the part of the ISU because a lot of Members are probably going to be scratching their heads with these two changes. :think:
 
Top