Can Takahashi Close The Gap On Patrick Chan?

What would the results have been for ladies' competitions last year if zero point was given to a fallen jump? Here are the results:

2011 Worlds:
1. Miki ANDO (1) 195.79
2. Yuna KIM (2) 194.50
3. Alena LEONOVA (4) 183.92
4. Carolina KOSTNER (3) 184.68 -3.20 = 181.48
5. Alissa CZISNY (5) 182.25 – 3.9 = 178.35
6. Mao ASADA (6) 172.79
7. Kanako MURAKAMI (8) 167.10
8. Ksenia MAKAROVA (7) 167.22 – 0.86 = 166.36
9. Kiira KORPI (9) 164.80 – 2.0 -0.9 = 161.9
10. Sarah HECKEN (11) 155.83 – 0.9 = 154.93

2011 Skate America:
1. Carolina KOSTNER (2): 177.35
2. Alissa CZISNY (1): 177.48 – 0.9 = 176.58
3. Viktoria HELGESSON (3): 145.75
4. Haruka IMAI (4): 142.94 -2.0 = 140.44

2011 Skate Canada:
1. Elizaveta TUKTAMISHEVA (1): 177.38
2. Akiko SUZUKI (2): 172.26
3. Ashley WAGNER (3): 165.48 – 1.6 = 163.88
4. Alena LEONOVA (4): 152.22

2011 Cup of China
1. Carolina KOSTNER (1): 182.14
2. Mirai NAGASU (2): 173.22
3. Adelina SOTNIKOVA (3): 159.95 – 3.9 = 156.05
4. Kexin ZHANG (4): 153.32

2011 NHK
1. Akiko SUZUKI (1): 185.98
2. Mao ASADA (2): 184.19
3. Alena LEONOVA (3): 170.68
4. Ashley WAGNER (4): 165.65

2011 TEB
1. Elizaveta TUKTAMISHEVA (1): 182.89
2. Carolina KOSTNER (2): 179.32
3. Alissa CZISNY (3): 179.15
4. Kanako MURAKAMI (4): 161.31

2011 Cup of Russia
1. Mao ASADA (1): 183.25
2. Alena LEONOVA (2): 180.45 – 2.13 = 178.32
3. Sofia BIRYUKOVA (4): 166.07
4. Adelina SOTNIKOVA (3): 169.75 – 3.9 – 2.14 = 163.71

2011 GPF
1. Carolina KOSTNER (1): 187.48
2. Akiko SUZUKI (2): 179.76
3. Elizaveta TUKTAMISHEVA (4): 174.51
4. Alena LEONOVA (3): 176.42 – 3.90 = 172.52

2012 4CC
1. Ashley WAGNER (1): 192.41
2. Mao ASADA (2): 188.62
3. Caroline ZHANG (3): 176.18
4. Kanako MURAKAMI (4): 169.32
5. Kexin ZHANG (5): 162.59 – 3.90 – 1.97 = 156.72
6. Agnes ZAWADZKI (6): 157.23 – 2.0 = 155.23
7. Amelie LACOSTE (7): 147.65 – 2.13 = 145.52
8. Cynthia PHANEUF (8): 147.47 – 1.80 – 3.90 = 141.77

I prefer the "no-credit" system, which is easy for casual fans to comprehend.

Bluebonnet said:

Using your no-credit system (for Japanese Nationals):

1. Takahiko Kozuka
2. Yuzuru Hanyu
3. Daisuke Takahashi

So do you like it?

Click to expand...

1. Takahiko KOZUKA (2): 250.97-4.48 = 246.49 Most Consistent
2. Yuzuru HANYU (3): 241.91 Best LONG
3. Daisuke TAKAHASHI (1): 254.60-7.3-4.68 -1.97 = 240.65 Best Short

I like it.

On every suggestion on modifying the COP with the purpose of dislodging Patrick from his high perch, I always say, "Bring it on! Somebody else will pay the price." The no credit scheme is discredited as a means to discredit Patrick's wins, (note to Mathman: I do not mean that this is your reason for promoting it), so try progressively severe deductions for falls, and if that doesn't do it, try one-fall-and-you're-out and see who suffers most, if not retroactively, then in the new season. Patrick has already proven to be the quickest and smartest in adapting to or overcoming any new rule.

skatinginbc, I understand "casual fans" will find it easier to understand the results and they probably will enjoy it even more if the no credit system were in place because skaters would be extra cautious and risk adverse resulting in prettier cleaner programs. The sport, however, will regress with skaters playing it safe and cutting down on the most difficult and risky elements. Most would not risk putting out and practicing a new high risk jump in competitive situation and so might never attempt them.

eta. On second thought, I don't see how "casual fans" would understand/accept the results better since there are hardly any changes in the placements. If they don't understand or accept current placements now, the no-cigar system would not change that, but will deter skaters from attempting the most difficult jumps.

skatinginbc said:

2011 Skate America
1. Michal BREZINA (1): 216.00 – 2.52 = 213.48
2. Kevin VAN DER PERREN (2): 212.48

Click to expand...

Is there any way to tweak the system to give KVDP 1.01 more points?

gkelly said:

The jump after the half loop will be double or triple salchow or flip.
The first jump can be anything. The women are more likely to use a double axel or easier triple; the top men are more likely to use a harder triple.

At lower levels, the jumps will be doubles, or single axel. When I skated in the 1970s, I remember seeing single axel-half loop-double salchow from skaters around intermediate level.

Or did you mean sequences with other intervening jumps other than half loop? Those would still receive the 0.8 multiplier under the IJS rules.

Click to expand...

gkelly is right, Flip and Sal get full credit if they are the jump after the 1/2 loop as there is no intervening steps/hops, but I believe someone (Max Aaron?) did 3Lz+1Lo+3Lo+Seq this season as well (where the 1Lo was a 1/2 loop, he put the R foot down on the ice and jumped a 3Lo). He also had 3Lz+1Lo+3S in the SAME program (Mids?).

1A+1Lo+2S was popular at the Prejuvenile, Juvenile and Adult Masters Intermediate/Novice levels in 2011 season. It's a good way to free up a pass for something easier (like 1F+1Lo in Masters I/N) or to "use up" your 1A and 2S if you can't do a 2A in Juve and fill the other 4 passes with Lz, Lo and F. Now that only 2 jump jump combos are "legal" in Juv and Prejuv it's changing again.

SkateFiguring said:

The no credit scheme is discredited as a means to discredit Patrick's wins.....

Click to expand...

Come on. Do you think that "no credit for a fallen jump" is mainly to discredit Patrick's wins? If so, I would not have posted my findings. I am not stupid, you know. Have you thought about the possibility that people discuss these issues because they truly care about fairness of the sport?
If you look deep into my findings, the "no-credit" system will not affect those who have a high success rate in a difficult jump (e.g., Chan's 4T). Nan SONG, for instance, would have won the gold at Cup of China with his jumps. It may discourage people like Adelina SOTNIKOVA, who does not have a good 3Lz but strategically puts in there to get partial credits even if she falls or receives an edge call. In two GP competitions, she attempted a total of five Lutzes, out of which one was a 1Lz, four received an edge call, and two ended up with a fall. Yet if lucky, she could rack up huge points (about 9.40) with her flawed 3LzLp even after having -2 or -3 GOEs across the board!!!
The system would have placed Oda in the 4th place in 2011 Worlds. He skated two outstanding programs and missed the podium due to his "counting" ability, not skating ability. He deserved the "4th" more than the "6th". It convinced me greatly that the recommended system seems more valid in that regard.
"Fall = no credit" enables TV commentators to convey with ease to the average fans. It's conceptually simple and logical. Even if you don't buy it, please don't put a generic label onto others' motives. It is when you do so, people start to wonder about your personal agenda.

Come on. Do you think my post was aiming at you, the one who did the work to show the consequences of such a proposed system? I even specify Mathman, the most ardent proponent as not having such an agenda. However, yes, I perceive many proposals of changes to the scoring system as reactions to Chan's winning and my reaction has always been "Bring it on" with warning of unintended consequences.

As for my oft cited personal agenda, I need enlightening as to what it is. I'm puzzled if anything is alluded to my power of influence on anything skating related.

The reality is that there has never been a time when “no fall = no credit”. Even under 6.0, skaters who attempted quads and 3/3’s and/or the highest level jumps were given higher marks and/or placements than skaters who only did the “lesser triples”. For example, Plushenko placed higher in the SP at the 2002 Olympics after falling on the 3A than Abt or Li, both of whom landed quads and skated clean. Is Plushenko a better skater than either of these men – absolutely yes, but he fell and they didn’t.

On the women’s side, skaters who at least attempted the 3Z/2T, and 3F in their SP’s whether successful or not, would be placed higher than skaters who did clean 3T and 3S programs. Under 6.0, a jump which was rotated but not completed was called a “creditable attempt” and while, in theory, the skater got no credit for it, in practice they absolutely did get credit.

Dragonlady said:

Plushenko placed higher in the SP at the 2002 Olympics after falling on the 3A than Abt or Li, both of whom landed quads and skated clean. Is Plushenko a better skater than either of these men – absolutely yes, but he fell and they didn’t.

Click to expand...

No credit for Plushenko's fallen 3A probably will not place him behind Abt, who had shaky landing on 3A, traveling entrance into the first spin, slower speed in general, under-rotated/downgraded 3L, etc. I think Plushenko had enough cushion even if his 3A was not counted.

skatinginbc said:

What would the podium results have been for men's competitions last year if zero point was given to a fallen jump? Here are the results:

2011 Cup of China
1. Nan SONG (3): 226.75
2. Nobunari ODA (2): 227.11 – 1.60 = 225.51
3. Jeremy ABBOTT (1): 228.49 – 7.30 = 221.19
4. Artur GACHINSKI (5): 222.54 – 7.30 = 215.24

So, do you like the partial-credit system better or the no-credit system better?

Click to expand...

First of all, thanks to skatinginbc for making the lists, so the discussion is made much easier!

So one of the most affected skaters by no-partial-credit is Jeremy Abbott. It would have been the best for Jeremy to omit the quad and do a 3A-3T which would have given him 12.60 points on BV. And this jump would have been a lot more consistant for Jeremy than a quad. You see, especially Mathman, if no partial credit for a quad with a fall, skaters like Abbott would have been much safer to go with no quad jumps. That's what I, for one, don't want to see.

In the 2002 Olympics SP Plushenko fell on an underrotated quad attempt; his 3A was just fine.

But suppose skater A lands a good 4T+3T combo and a solo 3Lz but falls on a rotated 3A intended to fill the solo axel requirement.
And skater B lands a 4T+3T combo and a solo 3Lz but falls on a 2A intended to fill the solo axel requirement

Under 6.0, skater A would have started with a higher base mark, all else being approximately equal, on account of the more difficult solo axel jump. And then both skaters would have earned 0.4 deduction for the fall, and skater A would come out ahead of skater B. How they each compared to other skaters who did not fall would depend on what the other skaters did and how well.

Under IJS as it now stands, skater A would get several points of positive TES for his 3A attempt with fall, and skater B would get only a couple tenths of points after accounting for the fall deduction. So the effect is similar to what it would have been under 6.0 short program judging.

(With IJS, there is much less difference in the way short and free programs are scored than with 6.0)

If fall = no points for the jump, then skater A and skater B above would earn the same amount of points (i.e., none) for their axel attempts


Maybe these were fluke falls, so the results would have no effect on the skaters' future strategy.

But if skater A often struggles with 3A, maybe he will just plan always to do a 2A in the short program, skate clean and take positive GOE, maybe add some extra choreography around it -- why bother with the risk element?

If skater B often struggles with the 2A, maybe he will decide just to do a single axel in his short program and take the -3 GOE off a low-value jump, or a waltz jump and take no value for it but at least not have to deal with disruption of falling.

Dragonlady said:

The reality is that there has never been a time when “no fall = no credit”. Even under 6.0, skaters who attempted quads and 3/3’s and/or the highest level jumps were given higher marks and/or placements than skaters who only did the “lesser triples”.

Click to expand...

The suggestion is not necessarily to go backward (that train has sailed) to a 6.0 system that gave favorable consideration to "creditable attempts." But what would you think of going forward to a new system that was unlike both 6.0 and the current CoP in that regard?

In my opinion, under the gestalt approach of ordinal judging it was easier to justify giving favorable consideration to some unsuccessful efforts than it is under the CoP. The CoP purports to give points for each thing that the skater does, rather than for one's overall impression of the quality of the performance. So the debate boils down to, "have you done a triple flip.

The CoP says, if you take off from the proper edge, rotate three times in the air, then, yes, you have done a triple flip. There is no maybe, no halfway about it. It is right there in the protocols: fall or no fall, yes you did a triple flip. That is the part that I cannot get comfortable with.

From who I've talked to, much of the push toward partial credit and higher margins for difficult jumps comes from skaters and coaches rather than spectators. Spectators obviously want clean programs at the highest difficulty level possible. For skaters, however, performing a jump in competition is different than performing it in a controlled environment in training. There are a lot of factors in competition that are difficult to replicate in training.

You see a lot of skaters performing great jumps in practice and warmup. However, they may fall in competition due to their body tensing up or shaking in the moments leading up to the judge. In 2011 NHK Trophy, Daisuke, who landed a quad flip in warmup, attributed his fall on it in competition due to his body becoming rigid before the jump. A jump rhythm that works in practice may not work be as effective when spectators are loud, the lighting is bright, and the pressure is on. A harsh enough penalty discourages skaters from experimenting in and adapting to a competitive environment. This a rule meant for encouraging experimentation and innovation among skaters rather than encouraging clean programs.

Dragonlady said:

The reality is that there has never been a time when “no fall = no credit”. Even under 6.0, skaters who attempted quads and 3/3’s and/or the highest level jumps were given higher marks and/or placements than skaters who only did the “lesser triples”. For example, Plushenko placed higher in the SP at the 2002 Olympics after falling on the 3A than Abt or Li, both of whom landed quads and skated clean. Is Plushenko a better skater than either of these men – absolutely yes, but he fell and they didn’t.

On the women’s side, skaters who at least attempted the 3Z/2T, and 3F in their SP’s whether successful or not, would be placed higher than skaters who did clean 3T and 3S programs. Under 6.0, a jump which was rotated but not completed was called a “creditable attempt” and while, in theory, the skater got no credit for it, in practice they absolutely did get credit.

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Plushenko under-rotated and fell on his opening quad at Salt Lake City rather than his triple axel. For that matter, he didn't do the required combination element in his short program. At least the Bulgarian judge loved him.

gkelly said:

But suppose skater A lands a good 4T+3T combo and a solo 3Lz but falls on a rotated 3A intended to fill the solo axel requirement.

And skater B lands a 4T+3T combo and a solo 3Lz but falls on a 2A intended to fill the solo axel requirement.

Click to expand...

IMHMO (in my humble minority opinion) both skaters did 4T+3T and 3Lz. They are tied.

If a third skater did 4T+3T, 3Lz, and an attempted headstand, but he fell over -- that skater would be tied with the other two. (The winner would come down to PCSs. :yes: )

Srin Odessa said:

You see a lot of skaters performing great jumps in practice and warmup. However, they may fall in competition due to their body tensing up or shaking in the moments leading up to the judge.

Click to expand...

This is true in every sport -- indeed, in every human endeavor.

I don't like to be mean but, if you want the gold medal, fish or cut bait.

Mathman said:

This is true in every sport -- indeed, in every human endeavor.

I don't like to be mean but, if you want the gold medal, fish or cut bait.

Click to expand...

Well, the path to the gold is paved with pops, step-outs, and falls in competition. And a split skull for the woman in Pairs skating.

Bluebonnet said:

So one of the most affected skaters by no-partial-credit is Jeremy Abbott. It would have been the best for Jeremy to omit the quad and do a 3A-3T which would have given him 12.60 points on BV.

Click to expand...

He did try a 3A+3T. Unfortunately instead of getting 12.60 points he popped it into a single and got only 1.21 points for it. Ice is slippery.

He would have been better off not by omitting the quad, but by landing it.

Here is how I see it. Let's say you can do a triple loop for sure and get 5.1 points. That's money in the bank.

Now someone comes along and offers you a deal. Double or nothing. Give back the 5.1 points and do a quad instead. If it works you get 10.3 points. If it fails you get zero. Double or nothing.

Remember, you're a champion. What is your decision?

First question:
Are skating jumps dichotomous variables? Success or failure, yes or no, only two possible scores for the attempt?

Scoring in many other sports does rely on those kinds of either/or decisions. Either the ball went in the basket or it didn't. No points for circling the rim and then falling outside.

But skating has always been a qualititative rather than an either/or sport. It has always asked, about all its elements, not only what did you do but also how well did you do it, on a scale of 0 to 6 (for school figures, which were the only "elements" scored in isolation in the old system) or a scale of -3 to +3.

With IJS, we acknowledge partial credit for fulfilling most of the definition of the element, as well as extra credit for going beyond the minimum standard of success.

So we do acknowledge the principle of partial credit for partial success.

The question is, where do we draw a line and say that an element is so flawed, or so outside the definition of what was required, that it deserves no points at all, or negative points?
Do we draw the line at different places for different kinds of elements (jumps vs. spins)? For different levels of difficulty in the same kind of element (doubles vs. quads)? For different program formats (short vs. long) or competitions level (novice vs. senior)?

The answers aren't always easy and different stakeholders want to see different answers.

Do we want to encourage this type of experimentation and innovation:

In two GP competitions, Adelina SOTNIKOVA attempted a total of five Lutzes, out of which one was a 1Lz, four received an edge call, and two ended up with a fall. Yet if lucky, she could rack up huge points (about 9.40) with her flawed 3LzLp even after having -2 or -3 GOEs across the board!!!

Click to expand...

The no-credit system would have taken away the bronze medal from Adelina SOTNIKOVA at Cup of Russia. The logic is simple: If she gambles with a flawed technique, then it should be a gamble. No luck, no glory.

Bluebonnet said:

So one of the most affected skaters by no-partial-credit is Jeremy Abbott.

Click to expand...

Not only Jeremy, but also Dai, Kozuka and those who don't have a dependable quad would be affected by it. I don't think that it will discourage world medalists like Dai and Kozuka though. Their goals are to win, and to be competitive with Chan, who can gain a huge lead with his quads and everything else, one has to gamble on luck from above. Jeremy might be different. He has never earned a world medal, so he might become conservative in that regard. I don't mind. If he can skate two clean programs like Jeffrey Buttle did at 2008 Worlds, that would be a great, beautiful moment in skating history.

I'm a partial credit backer. Thanks skatinginbc for all your excellent leg work - it's interesting to look at.

My opinion isn't about how a scoring change would affect skaters I like though. It just has to do with the idea that there is more then one level of failure - to me it's gradation, not a simple yes/no answer.

If in the example above the skater that fell on the triple axel fully completed three and half revolutions (or at least three and a quarter) s/he should get more points and be placed ahead of a skater that fell on a fully rotated double axel. If I third skater pops a their axel into a single (looking at lp here - not worrying about satisfying the double or better axel rule in a short program), but doesn't fall, I would place that skater behind the 3A fall and about even with the 2A fall - maybe the popped jump slightly behind the fallen 2A.

Srin Odessa said:

I'm pretty sure Plushenko under-rotated and fell on his opening quad at Salt Lake City rather than his triple axel. For that matter, he didn't do the required combination element in his short program. At least the Bulgarian judge loved him.

Click to expand...

Question, was it in 6.0 system to switch the combos? Could X skater have added a toe on his 3 lutz to make it a combo since he lost the quad combo?

gkelly said:

2A+1Lo+3S
2A+1Lo+2F
3T+1Lo+3S
3A+1Lo+3F

The jump after the half loop will be double or triple salchow or flip.
The first jump can be anything. The women are more likely to use a double axel or easier triple; the top men are more likely to use a harder triple.

At lower levels, the jumps will be doubles, or single axel. When I skated in the 1970s, I remember seeing single axel-half loop-double salchow from skaters around intermediate level.

Or did you mean sequences with other intervening jumps other than half loop? Those would still receive the 0.8 multiplier under the IJS rules.

Click to expand...

Thank you for the vids! Last one doesnt work for me but I think I know who has done this combo

Especially Midori Ito video was so awesome, I want to see this kind of skate again. She was flying.

Yes I firstly meant if there can be a combo when the middle jump can be something else other than loop. Or only with the 1Loop it counts as a combo otherwise it is a Seq?
Is there ever a case when the third jump is a lutz?