The 3 Jump Combo -

Blades of Passion said:

Plushenko pioneered the 4Toe-3Toe-2Loop and there's a reason why he did that instead of a 4Toe-3Toe-2Toe: tacking a toeloop onto the end is simply repetitive and not worthwhile. Doing a 2Loop, however, looks special. It creates an extra tempo and an additional look for the combination.

Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect that the reason he did that was he was training a 4-3-3 combo that he wanted to make history with, 4T+3T+3Lo. He didn't plan 4T+3T+3T because he wanted either to save the 3T repeat for the back of his 3A or as a best case scenario to repeat the 4T and the 3A and not repeat the 3T, not so much because of "looks" of the combination.

Why put the loop at the end instead of as the middle jump? Because it's really really difficult to control the landing of a very difficult jump like a quad with the free leg in front to set up the loop. Much easier to do so from the landing of a 3T, although still very challenging to maintain enough speed and alignment to pull of the loop, especially 3Lo as opposed to 2Lo.

Nobody ever attempted to do a xxxx-3Toe-3Toe (or xxxx-2Toe-2Toe) combination in competition before CoP came about because such a combination is repetitive and doesn't really add anything to the program.

Click to expand...

Somebody did attempt a xxx-3Lo-2T, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQRXNj772s
Solves your repetition problem within the same combo, but that's kind of negated by the fact that she tried it twice in the same program (with different xxx). I think the main point was to include a little extra difficulty on an already difficult combo, regardless of aesthetics.

(If only she'd stuck to just the first attempt she likely would have won that event. Or if she'd actually pulled off the second one successfully.)

gkelly said:

Somebody did attempt a xxx-3Lo-2T, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQRXNj772s
Solves your repetition problem within the same combo, but that's kind of negated by the fact that she tried it twice in the same program (with different xxx). I think the main point was to include a little extra difficulty on an already difficult combo, regardless of aesthetics.

(If only she'd stuck to just the first attempt she likely would have won that event. Or if she'd actually pulled off the second one successfully.)

Click to expand...

Were a lot of Irina's xx-3Lo combos underrotated? Like in that video, even the first one might be underrotated, and the second one definitely was. Her ankle always does this wobbly thing and her skate comes around so most of her combos I always thought were severely underrotated.

burntBREAD said:

Were a lot of Irina's xx-3Lo combos underrotated? Like in that video, even the first one might be underrotated, and the second one definitely was.

Click to expand...

Oh, no question on the second one. No need for slow motion to see that one.

I think most 3Lo combos by anyone are underrotated. How often have Ando or Asada gotten full credit for them either? How many would Lipinski or Hughes, or Millot, have gotten credit for with IJS scrutiny?

Maybe the rotation standards should be a little laxer for loops than for toe loops at the ends of combinations. Or else give a multiplier to the base value of the last jump, at least on the occasions that it is ratified as rotated, to reward really actually doing that difficult combination cleanly.

The three jump combo as a requirement feels like another CoP mistake.

I have read some miss the required three spiral positions sequence from the Ladies - but I am glad to see it gone as again it felt like a CoP mistake that was created by people with very little or NO regard for the music and good choreographic expression.

Over regulating the LP will always feel like a mistake to me. Watching so many of these catch-foot spins is already a turnoff and hope the CoP will recognize that rewarding it is another mistake just like the boring 8 revolution spin requirement.

The levels on certain elements seem to be what I enjoy least about CoP programs.
I wish if necessary they might be used in the SP but really cut back in the LP.

Or, how about this - some levels for posture
OK, I guess that is too radical a thought and would kill several of the "contenders."

janetfan said:

The three jump combo as a requirement feels like another CoP mistake.

Click to expand...

It's not a requirement. It's an option. No penalty for not doing it except whatever points one could have added by tacking on a third jump, which can end up being nothing or negative if the execution suffers from the attempt.

On the other hand, doing some sort of axel or doing repeated jumps in combination at least once ARE requirements. There are penalties for leaving them out.

Watching so many of these catch-foot spins is already a turnoff and hope the CoP will recognize that rewarding it is another mistake just like the boring 8 revolution spin requirement.

Click to expand...

Again, these are options, not requirements. Not all skaters do catchfoots for features (although many do even if it hurts the execution), and not all attempt the 8-revolution feature.

ETA: 8 revolutions total are required in short program spins on one foot and have been for more than 15 years. Before that, the requirement was 6 revolutions total, which then became the case for long programs. But when the skaters started changing variation and changing edge all the time to get features for levels in the IJS, then the spins started to look too busy and rushed, so option of holding one variation for a whole 8 revs to achieve a feature was introduced.

Or, how about this - some levels for posture

Click to expand...

How would that work?
Levels apply only to elements, not to pervasive qualities of the whole performance.
And they are based on features that either are achieved according to requirements or not. The skaters execute the features along a continuum of quality, but the rules and the tech specialists draw a firm line to answer yes or no, did the skater achieve the feature or not? If not quite, they don't get credit for the feature and don't get the level they hoped for.

Posture is a big part of the Performance/Execution component. It also affects GOEs on some elements and can influence some of the other components as well.

I don't see how it could be turned into an element with a series of yes/no features to define levels.

So I suspect that you don't really mean "levels" in the sense that the word is used in the rules for this judging system. Maybe you're just throwing around a jargon term divorced from its meaning to joke about how important posture is or isn't to the judging? Yeah, I get the joke, haha.

gkelly said:

It's not a requirement. It's an option. No penalty for not doing it except whatever points one could have added by tacking on a third jump, which can end up being nothing or negative if the execution suffers from the attempt.

On the other hand, doing some sort of axel or doing repeated jumps in combination at least once ARE requirements. There are penalties for leaving them out.



Again, these are options, not requirements. Not all skaters do catchfoots for features (although many do even if it hurts the execution), and not all attempt the 8-revolution feature.

ETA: 8 revolutions total are required in short program spins on one foot and have been for more than 15 years. Before that, the requirement was 6 revolutions total, which then became the case for long programs. But when the skaters started changing variation and changing edge all the time to get features for levels in the IJS, then the spins started to look too busy and rushed, so option of holding one variation for a whole 8 revs to achieve a feature was introduced.



How would that work?
Levels apply only to elements, not to pervasive qualities of the whole performance.
And they are based on features that either are achieved according to requirements or not. The skaters execute the features along a continuum of quality, but the rules and the tech specialists draw a firm line to answer yes or no, did the skater achieve the feature or not? If not quite, they don't get credit for the feature and don't get the level they hoped for.

Posture is a big part of the Performance/Execution component. It also affects GOEs on some elements and can influence some of the other components as well.

I don't see how it could be turned into an element with a series of yes/no features to define levels.

So I suspect that you don't really mean "levels" in the sense that the word is used in the rules for this judging system. Maybe you're just throwing around a jargon term divorced from its meaning to joke about how important posture is or isn't to the judging? Yeah, I get the joke, haha.

Click to expand...

Thanks for filling me in on rules gkelly. I have seen so many underwhelming 3 jump combos from the Ladies I thought it was a requirement. As an option I have no problem with it but still don't think it adds much to a majority of the programs.
Kanako does a three jump combo in an exhibition that actually works for me as it goes with the music very well and adds some excitement.

Wacthing Mirai's opening jump combo in her LP....... I am a fan of her skating but that opening combo does nothing for me. Would rather see more flow on the first two jumps and nix the third jump. But then she would lose points ........
So yes, we see the CoP dictating less attractive skating in the race for points.

I feel like I am seeing too many unattractive spins - many too slow and with no relationship to the music at all.
It is true as you pointed out that I did not like all of the choppy looking spins either.

Yes, I was kidding about posture - but think it is important. Weak positions that reach a required technical level are not acceptable in gymnastics or Dance. And strong posture is a requirement at all times
It seems the CoP is more lenient.

Some might say skating is not dancing. But why use the music then?

3 jump combo is, I believe, a chance for a few extra points which come in handy when the scoring is close.

There can not be a 'bonus' in Figure Skating scoring per se, because there is no base value for anything beyond the present accepted Regulations. How could one be given a 'bonus' for something extraordinary when it doesn't exist in the scheme of things, and who would deem it extraordinary?

We already have the 'extra points' with repeated jumps in the last minute of the Program.

As for the rule itself, I always took it to mean that a skater is allowed to do only one combo/sequenmce with more than two jumps, and none with four or more.

In other words, that it is a Zayak-type restriction to prevent skaters from racking up points by doing a 2T-2T-2T-2T-2T_2T combo (7.8 point base value. )

Michelle Kwan once had a COI routine where she did four double Axels in a row, with a step in between.

Mathman said:

Michelle Kwan once had a COI routine where she did four double Axels in a row, with a step in between.

Click to expand...

4 Axels?that beats the 3-3-2-2-2-2 of Plush in wow terms

seniorita said:

4 Axels?that beats the 3-3-2-2-2-2 of Plush in wow terms

Click to expand...

Michelle's run out edge of her 2axels is the very best, IMO

Mathman said:

Michelle Kwan once had a COI routine where she did four double Axels in a row, with a step in between.

Click to expand...

Kurt Browning did that in several of his pro programs, she stole the idea from him.

Multiple jumps in a routine are very effective chorogralphically and crowd pleasing if they are done to the music. However, CoP has no use for Free Style Skating as the 6.0 system had.

Scott Hamilton used to do 4 double axels in a row also. Not sure if he first did it before or after Browning.

Again, these were all in show programs, not competition programs under 6.0. Although 4 double axels in the same free program was legal under 6.0, it probably wouldn't have been highly rewarded, not even if they were all in a row, because of the repetitiveness factor.

I also find it anticlimactic because the fourth one in a row is likely to be smaller than the first. I'd rather see a buildup to a climax, like waltz jump, single axel, double axel, then triple axel if you've got one.

Which is why from an aesthetic point of view I don't love three-jump combinations starting with a quad or triple and ending with double. Double-triple-quad, or even single-double-triple, would be much more exciting. But much much more difficult and under the current rules wouldn't earn any more credit, so not worth attempting.

If you felt that the music called for four jumps in a row, there are probably ways to make it work and also earn decent points.

For example, for a flurry of jumps at the end of a free program by a strong jumper, how about something like 3T+1Lo+3S (under this year's rules the half-loop now making that sequence count as a three-jump combo with full base value), then two or three steps to establish a separate jumping pass without slowing the momentum, and then double axel-double toe combo or double axel-double axel sequence, whichever fits the rhythm of the music better or whichever the skater is likely to score higher on considering both base value and execution?

Or for a really strong jumper who got quad combination and solo quad (or 3A combo) and 3Lz-3Lo combo out of the way in the first half of the program, how about this early in the second half of the program, as five solo jumps?
3A, hop step turn, 3F, turn turn step, 3Lo, step step turn, 3S, hop turn, 3T?

Really tough to pull off aerobically. But if the skater can successfully manage to cram five triple jumps into 20 seconds or so, that leaves him lots more time for choreography to rack up the component scores as well.

Maybe a female skater could do it with a double axel replacing the triple (at the beginning or end of the sequence).

As long as hard jumps win competitions, the skaters will plan the hardest content they have a good chance of pulling off successfully and plan the music to fit the jumps. It has ever been thus.

In show programs, they'll plan the jumps to fit the music. Apples and oranges.

gkelly said:

Somebody did attempt a xxx-3Lo-2T, however: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKQRXNj772s
Solves your repetition problem within the same combo, but that's kind of negated by the fact that she tried it twice in the same program (with different xxx). I think the main point was to include a little extra difficulty on an already difficult combo, regardless of aesthetics.

Click to expand...

Yeah and that combo looks stupid. There was no need for her to tack on 2T. All it did was ruin the flow out of the second jump. She also performed a 3Sal-2Loop-half loop-2Sal at the Olympics which looked like crap. I realize she was trying to do a 3Sal as the last part in order to become the first person to do a Triple-Double-Triple combination, but even with a Triple it wouldn't have looked the best. A 3Sal-half loop-3Sal-2Loop would be more appealing because then the combo would end with that pop of the loop rather than the drawn out look of hopping from the second jump in a half-loop and going for more.

If you're going to do a 3-jump combination, the last jump should be a Loop. Plain and simple. Anything else looks mechanical and/or ungainly.

One time I tried to do a combination of all 6 different types of jumps in a row:

2Lutz-2Toe-half loop-2Salchow-2Loop-half loop-1.5Flip(landed on the forward outside of my left foot)-Axel.

My coach said "what the hell are you doing, you look like an idiot."

It predates Kurt-
It was part of a 1976 team competition (World Skate Challenge?) with Ken Shelley, Toller Cranston, JoJo Starbuck and some others. Each team had to top the number of double axels the other team did. Someone (Toller I think?) could do umpteen in a row and finally they just stopped him. AFAIR, anyway.

The clip exists somewhere.

gkelly said:

Double-triple-quad...

Click to expand...

I was training that this season, but I decided to upgrade to triple-quad-quint.

But that's a great point about combos going out with a whimper instead of a bang. 3Lz+2T is very common for the top ladies in the short program. Often the 2T is small and awkward and just detracts from a solid Lutz.

The best idea I've read in these discussion is your proposal of a "small jump sequence." That would allow substantial variety and originality, and could be adapted to music in a lot of cool ways.

Scoring question. If a skater (Nobunari Oda for instance) lost count and did a four-jump sequence where his three-jump sequence was supposed to go, would he lose credit for the entire element, or would the fourth jump just be ignored in the scoring.

Another scoring question. Wjen a skater accidentally does a fourth combo, which receives no credit, does that fill a jumping box, or can he -- realizing his mistake -- throw in an extra jumping pass at the end.?

gkelly might just have explained to me why i almost always love 2axel triple two jumps in women's...hmmm.

I have a really uninformed questions about the rules - do we still have the rule that allows three jump combos in the LP if and only if one of the combos is a three jump combo (meaning if not, then only two combos are permitted). thanks!

Mathman said:

Scoring question. If a skater (Nobunari Oda for instance) lost count and did a four-jump sequence where his three-jump sequence was supposed to go, would he lose credit for the entire element, or would the fourth jump just be ignored in the scoring.

Click to expand...

My understanding is that if it's a 4-jump combo (4 jumps in a row each from the landing of the previous jump, no hops in between -- and half-loop would now count as a jump rather than a hop in that context), then it's an illegal element and the whole thing gets thrown out.

But if it's a 4-jump sequence (intervening hops included), then the element count and is scored as the base values of the two highest-value jumps times 0.8. So it would score something, but a lot less than the value of all four jumps if they're all doubles or triples.

Another scoring question. Wjen a skater accidentally does a fourth combo, which receives no credit, does that fill a jumping box, or can he -- realizing his mistake -- throw in an extra jumping pass at the end.?

Click to expand...

It fills a jumping box.

emma said:

I have a really uninformed questions about the rules - do we still have the rule that allows three jump combos in the LP if and only if one of the combos is a three jump combo (meaning if not, then only two combos are permitted). thanks!

Click to expand...

No, that's not what the rule is nor ever has been.

IIRC, in 2004-05 only two combos or sequences were allowed.

But ever since then, three combos or sequences have always been allowed. They can each have exactly two jumps. Or one and only one combo can have three jumps. Sequences can have as many jumps as you like, but only the two hardest ones count, and they only count for 80% of their value.


Oh, btw, another way to get a flurry of jumps into a program to fit the music with today's rules would be to use walleys and inside axels and other nonlisted (single or half) jumps leading into a triple jump. That would only get credit for the triple as a solo jump, so the skater could still do three combos or sequences elsewhere in the program.

Of course that could be a lot of jumping energy to expend on jumps with no base value. Only worth it for the very well trained skater, who also happens to have the necessary skills to do those jumps. If the triple at the end is landed well, that should bump up the GOE and also the Transitions component. On the other hand if expending all that energy on nonlisted jumps leads to a failure of the triple at the end and other moves later in the program, then more would be lost than gained.

10 double axels in a row by US National senior competitor Craig Heath,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=307BWkQ1pUU

Thanks for the Plushy 3-3-2-2-2-2 clip, I've been looking for it for ages!!

bibi24 said:

10 double axels in a row by US National senior competitor Craig Heath,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=307BWkQ1pUU

Click to expand...

Midori Ito did 10 Double Axels as well when she 10 years old and jumped higher than most men, including Craig Heath, whose jumps seem small compared to Ito even as a 10 year-old girl.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sns1G0OdtBo&NR=1