Cohen and Weiss like the CoP | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Cohen and Weiss like the CoP

registered

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Mathman said:

What I liked about Sasha's comment was the attitude that "people" (i.e., the caller), because of lack of experience with the system, didn't yet fully appreciate the qualities of her spiral.

Mathman

This was not Sasha's point. Her program constructed to get maximum number of points under COP. She was most likely told that a sequence she does: spiral - fan - spiral - skid - Charlotte, would worth more, than just a COE spiral, she did last year.

Same thing with the footwork, Tarasova have changed her straight line steps to serpentine one, after they've got a feedback, that serpentine footwork would bring more points. But the system is new, and every judge seems to have his own set of requirements. Sasha and TT got into trouble of changing program, but it didn't help to boost up the scores (at least, not at TL) -- that's the point.

In regard to spiral, maybe this element should be viewed only under level 1 and 2 categories, but since they do have level 3, if Sasha's spiral cannot be considered worthy of it, than who's would? I can't think of a skater who's able to perform the same difficult spiral sequence (anywhere as good as Sasha), I mentioned above.
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Mathman said:
The caller does not make the decision as to whether it was an attempted (but failed) combo. The caller just calls "triple Lutz" and the computer adds the "+ combo" automatically if the skater already got credit for this jump. The rules, bizarre as it seems, are very clear on this. That's why I wasn't joking when I said that all they have to do is come up with a new computer-generated word for this, instead of refering to it as a combo when it wasn't.

Am I correct to think then, that in Sasha's case, since she already was credited with a lutz despite the fact that it was an intended combo, the next lutz was also credited because the computer recognized that the first attempt was not an attempt since the computer did not know this, but it did expect the second attempt to be combo which allows a repeat of the jump.

This is automatic. The caller does not have to say whether this was supposed to be a combination or not. Yes, this is a deliberate waiver of the Zayak rule, and intended to be just that. The Zayak rule no longer says what it used to say.[/b]

The Zayak rule was always clear and I can't remember any infraction of the rule in recent times. However, if a combo is not a combo when not completed, then I think the Zayak rule should come into play. Credits for two the same jumps, imo, are a no no.

Joe

BTW, Good transitions and good choreography are very subjective elements. That's not just my opinion; that's fact.
 

dorispulaski

Wicked Yankee Girl
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Country
United-States
Count me among those that would like the criteria for 1,2,3 on spirals and steps and spins worked on.

However, the fact that Sasha ends up on a flat; wouldn't that be a GOE issue, not a level issue? I thought the caller identified the attempt, not the quality?

I would guess the crossovers have something to do with the level though.

dpp
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Registered, I just can't slip anything by you, LOL. The instant I hit the "send" button I thought, uh oh. I will retreat to my original position:
Hmm. If Sasha's spiral is only judged as a "level two" I wonder what in the world you have to do to get a "level three?" -- Mathman
Seriously, are there any published rules about what qualifies as a "level 1," "level 2," or "level 3" spiral? Is it the caller's responsibility to make the judgment about that?
"Am I correct to think then, that in Sasha's case, since she already was credited with a lutz despite the fact that it was an intended combo, the next lutz was also credited because the computer recognized that the first attempt was not an attempt since the computer did not know this, but it did expect the second attempt to be combo which allows a repeat of the jump." -- Joe
Well, that sounds like a pretty silly way to go about it, but, yes I think that's right.:\ I might be wrong about this, but I think that the skater's "intentions" have nothing to do with it. It's what they do that counts (properly so) not what they intended to do or planned to do or put down on their jump card. But the computer is programmed automatically to violate the Zayak rule by "cheating" for the skater and pretending that the second jump was a combination, even though it wasn't.

As I said, if the ISU really wants it to be this way, they could just change the designation (to "3L/Zayak," for instance), give credit for the jump and take off a -3 Zayak deduction instead of a GOE deduction for a failed combo. This would more honestly reflect the intent of the rule change, IMO.
However, the fact that Sasha ends up on a flat; wouldn't that be a GOE issue, not a level issue? I thought the caller identified the attempt, not the quality? -- Doris
That's a good question, and a slippery slope, IMO. The caller cannot reasonably be expected to identify what the skater is "attempting," only what the skater actually does. Sasha may "attempt" to stay on edge, but if that is the difference between a level 2 and a level 3, what then?

Mathman
 
Joined
Jul 11, 2003
Imo, flat skating is a serious defect in figure skating.

Tara did the entire routine on the flat but she had that joie de vivre in her style that won over the judges. I think in Sasha's case her routine is so dynamic that her style wins over the judges. It's still a subjective sport, imo.

Joe
 
Last edited:

registered

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 17, 2003
Joesitz said:
Imo, flat skating is a serious defect in figure skating.

Tara did the entire routine on the flat but she had that joie de vivre in her style that won over the judges. I think in Sasha's case her routine is so dynamic that her style wins over the judges. It's still a subjective sport, imo.

Joe
I guess it is subjective, and personally, I don't see Sasha doing "flat skating." Considering, that she's scoring the highest in skating skills, transitions and execution, different panels of judges tend to agree with old clowns -- Dick and Peggy, on the question of quality of Sasha's skating technique. If anything, code of points had to clarify the debate on edges, and if it is to reward "quality skaters," it has shown element by element, who has the best skills, edges notwithstanding.
 

hockeyfan228

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:
Sasha may "attempt" to stay on edge, but if that is the difference between a level 2 and a level 3, what then?

Mathman
According to ISU Communication 1224, the difference between a Level 2 and a Level 3 spiral is:

Level 2: Element includes three of the following features:

*Sequences use variety of spiral positions -- plus inclusion of extra position or variety/creativity on minimum of two positions

*Difficult acceleration steps between spiral position

*Spirals curve mainly in one direction, but at least one uses the opposite curve, different edge combinations

*Use of upper body to increase difficulty of spirals and connecting steps

Level 3: Element includes three of the following features:

*Sequence uses variety of spiral positions -- required spirals plus inclusion of extra unsupported positions (no holding of the free leg) or variety on more than two positions.

*Minimum number of steps between spirals and steps enhance difficulty

*Spirals curve equally in both directions with unsupported change of edges

*Use of upper body and/or varied positions to increase difficulty of spirals and steps throughout the sequence
 

PrincessLeppard

~ Evgeni's Sex Bomb ~
Final Flight
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Okay, going from that, Sasha is not a level 3. Let's look at the criteria (and I'm going from memory, so please correct me if I'm wrong about any of this)

*Sequence uses variety of spiral positions -- required spirals plus inclusion of extra unsupported positions (no holding of the free leg) or variety on more than two positions.

I believe she holds her leg twice and has it free twice.

*Difficult acceleration steps between spiral position

To the best of my knowledge, crossovers would not be considered "difficult" nor does she seem to accelrate as the spiral goes on, it seems to slow down

*Spirals curve equally in both directions with unsupported change of edges

In her SP, I don't think there's an unsupported change of edge at all, she changes edges after the crossovers. Not sure about the FS.

*Use of upper body and/or varied positions to increase difficulty of spirals and steps throughout the sequence

This is the only place I can see it being level 3, in that her extension is so high.

What do y'all think?

Laura :)
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Mathman said:
Here are a couple of quotes that I found interesting.

It seems like any skater who can manage three and a half revolutions before falling down should pack his program with "quads."


Three and three-quarters. If it's underrotated by more than a quarter rotation, it will be called as a triple.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Thanks for the correction, gkelly. Your posts are always very informative. I look forward to them.

Mathman
 

mpal2

Final Flight
Joined
Jul 27, 2003
Laura,

I would have to agree with your analysis on Sasha's spirals qualifying as Level 2. Although I am going by memory as well.

To get a level 3, she would at least have to change one of her positions to an unsupported free leg (which she is perfectly capable of). She would also have to change the crossovers between her spirals to something more difficult. I think that along with the final criteria of "use of upper body and/or varied positions" (which she already has) would get her to a Level 3.

I'm not so sure if her change/edge spiral has enough curve in both directions to include it for a Level 3. Or that could be a GOE markdown, I'm not sure.
 
Top