Should base value for a 3A be higher? | Page 6 | Golden Skate

Should base value for a 3A be higher?

Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Thanks gkelly. I had forgotten about that triple-whammy Zayak problem.

I think Hurrah's post, number 97 above, sums things up nicely. The IJS is actually working pretty well -- until the inevitable next competition where something unexpected happens and we say, whoops -- is that how we really want it to work?
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
Thanks gkelly. I had forgotten about that triple-whammy Zayak problem.

Probably only a triple-whammy problem with downgraded quads if the skater was also doing triple of the same takeoff and repeating one or the other. Or, with triple axels now that double axels are limited to two in the junior and senior LP.

Since there's no limit on repeating non-axel doubles at the junior and senior levels, if anything having a triple downgraded to a double would in theory have given skaters the opportunity try an underrotated jump again if they thought they could rotate it better the next time. In practice, though, it would be rare that a skater would know for sure that an attempted triple was going to be called as a double, so trying again would have risked the later attempt not counting and thus waste a jump slot that could have been used on a different jump that wouldn't have Zayak rule issues.

I think Hurrah's post, number 97 above, sums things up nicely. The IJS is actually working pretty well -- until the inevitable next competition where something unexpected happens and we say, whoops -- is that how we really want it to work?

Yeah. No matter what rules they set, occasionally there will be some unintended or paradoxical consequences. If it's a fluke situation, we just have to live with it. If it's a pattern, or if the first occurrence uncovers a logical flaw that will lead to an undesirable pattern, then it's best to change the rule. But then they have to figure out what to change it to that wouldn't introduce even more undesirable consequences.
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Yeah, I mean it's not like a skater turning a quad into a 3T or 3S, for which the Zayak rule should apply for later in the program. An intended 4T, even if <<, should not negate the second of two later 3Ts. This would otherwise really discourage skaters from trying harder jumps as it makes more sense to rack up points with a clean 3T in combination then prevent that by doing a downgraded quad.

As far as this thread, I think the 3A should be a higher value. It's clearly a high risk element that has great potential for errors -- I would put it at a 9.0. Likewise, the 4T at 10.8 (instead of 10.3) and 4S at 11.1 (instead of 10.5), since those are even riskier maneuvers which have huge potential for under-rotation.

Skaters are being encouraged already in the PCS mark to improve their artistry, but they have to also be encouraged to try more technically demanding programs. It's great when skaters like Fernandez and Reynolds who don't have the best PCS do three quad programs and win because it shows that with risk you can be well rewarded - even if you don't have the best PCS - and thus, the sport progresses. Of course this is more of a problem in the ladies, since the men have clearly upped their technical game.

Perhaps increases to the BV of 3A and quads should be much higher for just the ladies?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Perhaps increases to the BV of 3A and quads should be much higher for just the ladies?

I always thought it was cool to have the same standards for men and for women. The only problem is that it creates those awkward .80 and 1.60 multipliers for ladies' PCS. Other than that -- well, the ladies do a lady-like Ch spiral sequence while the gentlemen do a manly romp-em-stomp-em step sequence, but that's about it.

I wonder how that works out for children. I don't think little boys are automatically more vigorous leapers than little girls of the same age, so presumably you could have unisex competitions. (My understanding is that if there is only one boy and a whole bunch of girls then the boy has the option of skating against the girls or skating by himself against a performance standard.)

The main problem I see is that the little boys would try to be chivalrous and let the girls win. :yes:
 

Cherryy

On the Ice
Joined
Aug 27, 2012
I think the reason that the ISU does not give an extra bonus to triple jumps in combination is that there is already a big bonus automatically built in. Namely, you get a whole extra jumping pass. Here is a simplified example. Skater A scores as many points in six passes as Skater B scores in seven.

Skater A

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

Skater B

3Lz+3T
3Lz
3F
3Lo
3S
2A+2T
7th pass

That may be the way they're thinking but logically, is 3Lz and 3T as hard as 3Lz+3T? Also, if the 3Lz and 3T get extremely positive GOE and the 3Lz-3T is UR or sth than the skater A may actually outscore the skater B on jumps so that the 7th pass becomes irrelevant.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Cherryy said:
That may be the way they're thinking but logically, is 3Lz and 3T as hard as 3Lz+3T? Also, if the 3Lz and 3T get extremely positive GOE and the 3Lz-3T is UR or sth than the skater A may actually outscore the skater B on jumps so that the 7th pass becomes irrelevant.

I wonder if that was part of whjat the ISU was thinking when they reduced the value of GOE on triple Jumps?

For instance, if Skater A got -1 Goe (= -0.7) on the very difficult 3Lz+3T, while Slater B got +2 on both the Lutz combo and the solo 3T, Skater A still comes out ahead even if she does nothing more than a plain double Axel in the seventh pass.

And if Skater B uses the extra pass for a 3F+2T, or a 3Lo+2Lo, that's a lot of extra points, even if Skater A presents a fuller jump card but with no triple-triple.
 

skatel80

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 12, 2012
About the 70% factor for under-rotation, that has a history, too. My memory is not perfect here, but I am pretty sure that in the first versions of the CoP there was no designation for under-rotations, just whatever negative GOE the individual judges wanted to apply.

Then the ISU went on a rampage against skaters who just threw any old thing up and called it a triple. The downgrade rule went into effect, where an under-rotated triple was downgraded to a double, then negative GOEs applied on top of that. This essentially took away the jump's entire score.

This was too draconian. A skater's entire fate lay in the hands of a whimsical caller who could utterly destroy the performance for errors that appeared to be minor to the audience, if the audience could perceived them at all. Meanwhile more visible errors like falls were given a pass, relatively speaking. So they moderated the penalty by coming up with the 70% rule for mild under-rotations. IMHO this has turned out to be a reasonable compromise.

They tried a similar approach with wrong edge take-offs for flips and Lutzes. Remember the ! and e? For some reason, unlike under-rotations, the idea of having the tech specialist call "mild bad edge" or "severe bad edge" didn't work out so well. They went back to the single call "e," allowing the judges to deal with it as each felt appropriate.
ITA, I was defending the 70% rotation rule in another thread a few days ago, I think it is one of the best rules the isu brought in in recent years. Remember the absolutely crappy downgrades people used to get like miki constantly used to get on her 3lz 3lo!
 
Top