The Quadruple Jump for the Ladies in Sochi | Page 3 | Golden Skate

The Quadruple Jump for the Ladies in Sochi

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
If the SP is just a shorter version of the LP with a few less elements, why have it at all, why not just compete LP and declare the winner the winner? That would be a reason to have defined criteria in the SP (like it was when first enacted).
 

FlattFan

Match Penalty
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
The same reason they make athletes in other sports do the same run twice and get the combined score.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
I agree with mskater's criticism of the SP under CoP rules. With 6.0 the short program had a distinct purpose. It was like the semi-finals. You needed to do well in the SP in order to set yourself up for a run at the title in the LP.

Now it is like like playing the first period of a hockey game on Thursday, then coming back to play the second and third periods on Saturday.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Huh? So 3Lz-3T to 3T-3T or even 3F-2T or something like that is all apples to apples, but 2A to 3A is not?

If they wanted to revert back to the original "apples to apples" idea, they would require, say, a triple Lutz-double toe and a triple flip out of footwork (alternating the next year with with triple-flip double toe and triple loop out of footwork, etc.)

I think it was like this years ago. At the 1988 Olympics all the ladies had to do a double flip as their solo jump and the combination had to include a double loop. The idea was not how hard a jump you can do, but how well you can do an easy one. Of course the difficulty had to be held down so that the skaters who were not at the very top could at least compete. The best skaters would have to prove they were the best by executing the easier element better than their rivals.

So when did the top skaters get to strut their hardest stuff? The long program. ;)

I am not saying that this old-fashioned idea should be brought back, but at least it gave the short program a distinct purpose separate from that of the long. :yes:
 

gmyers

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
The SP is little more than housekeeping to set the order for the FS! The same thing could be established by world ranking as establishing order for the FS.
 

mskater93

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 22, 2005
gmyers, that was my point - why have the SP at all if it's a shorter version of the LP. :)
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Let's backup a little bit...

Krislite makes an interesting point. The purpose of the short program, as compared to the long, was that everyone would do the same elements, so the judges would have an opportunity to compare apples to apples.
My whole point, one that you agreed with, is that we are currently not comparing apples to apples anyway. So why arbitrarily set a ceiling, especially when that sort of defeats the purpose of sport/the Olympic motto: Faster, Higher, Stronger?

It hasn't just been abandoned in the IJS; Apples-to-Apples wasn't even being done under 6.0 in the 1990's. The same jumps and elements were not required so they weren't being done across all the elite skaters vying for top spots throughout the season. I think I have heard of it being done as Juniors, but not Seniors.

If the SP is just a shorter version of the LP with a few less elements, why have it at all, why not just compete LP and declare the winner the winner? That would be a reason to have defined criteria in the SP (like it was when first enacted).
Why are there 100m dashes, 200m sprints, 400m runs, 5000m runs, and marathons? It's the same thing, over and over again, at different lengths/times.

Or, to use a more pertinent winter example that's even more random than figure skating: short-track speed skating, where if one skater crashes into another and eliminates both from the event, the event isn't redone. It's just too bad, so sad. :cry: And repeated across different-length races.

I personally see no problem having two different skating events and awarding separate medals for them plus a "combined event" medal. Swimming has like, a gazillion different events for the same basic skill sets. (Ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but you get the idea.)

If they wanted to revert back to the original "apples to apples" idea, they would require, say, a triple Lutz-double toe and a triple flip out of footwork (alternating the next year with with triple-flip double toe and triple loop out of footwork, etc.)
EXACTLY. But they don't! So why only do it half-way and limit the athletic abilities of skaters who have stronger skills?

I think it was like this years ago. At the 1988 Olympics all the ladies had to do a double flip as their solo jump and the combination had to include a double loop. The idea was not how hard a jump you can do, but how well you can do an easy one. Of course the difficulty had to be held down so that the skaters who were not at the very top could at least compete. The best skaters would have to prove they were the best by executing the easier element better than their rivals.
The bold is a FARCE when skaters could get away by doing cheated/wrong-edge takeoff jumps under 6.0 and still be ranked at or near the top because they supposedly did these elements "well." :disapp:

I am not saying that this old-fashioned idea should be brought back, but at least it gave the short program a distinct purpose separate from that of the long. :yes:
Once again, I'm not convinced of the need to differentiate, but if one is going to want a differentiation, then I don't see why the SP requirements (at least for the Ladies) can't be something like:

- One Axel-type jump. Single, double, or triple, left up to the skater herself.
- One combination of any two jumps
- One solo jump out of steps
- all jumps must be of different types (!!!!!! Pretty important if you ask me since we don't require that in the Long Program anyway, and, is a good skill to be able to demonstrate.)

Just limiting the difficult seems wrong to me, especially in a SPORT.
 

Krislite

Medalist
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
And how many were able to do 3Lz-3T? So is it the Kim Rule?
So silly. It's a competition, you bring your best.

It's called Short Program, not Technical program where you do the same technical elements.

It's called what is ("Mao rule") because of when and how it was passed, not just because it concerns the 3Axel. Allowing 3/3's in the SP didn't just happen when Yuna got real consistent with her 3/3's. If it did, then it would have been blatantly obvious to whose advantage it was passed.

Considering the originator of the 3A rule, its timing and the field of ladies skaters it affected, it's indisputable as to why and for whom it was passed. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was unfair. One could argue, as many have already done, that the prior restriction itself was unfair.

But again, I ask, if it's unfair to limit the Axel in the SP, then why have any limits in the SP at all? Why must there be a 2-jump combo? why must there be an Axel jump? Why must ladies be required to do a layback spin? Why must the solo triple be out of steps? And so forth...

If we shouldn't limit SP difficulty in the name of "sports", why limit skaters to just 3 jumping passes? Or for that matter ONE triple Axel? Why not let them do TWO triple Axels in the SP? Why not simply let them do the most difficult combination of elements they can muster?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Let's backup a little bit...

IMHO you still haven't presented an argument for having a short program at all. Yes, it's a sport so skaters should be rewarded for doing a bunch of hard jumps. Well, they can jump to their heart's content in the long program. What does the short bring to the table?

I guess the answer is, it makes the season less boring for the skaters than it would be if they just ran through one program over and over all year long in practice.

We can't turn back the clock, but I think it would be cool if somehow or other the skaters would have to face two different tests instead of the same test twice. Max Aaron plans two quads in the short and three in the long. For me, I think I would be better satisfied if he did three quads in the long and something else in the short (been there, done that).

One good thing, though, is that nowadays skaters and their choreographers do try to present two different but somehow complementary musical styles. Jeremy Abbott is a good example. This at least gives two distinct "second mark" experiences, although "first mark" considerations have a lot of redundancy between the two programs.

What about this? Patrick Chan does his Elegy exhibition program :love: for the short program, The program is judged on artistic merit. Only ordinals are carried forward into the long program. In the long he does 4T-3T, 4T, 3A, 3Lz-3T, 3S-Lo-3F, etc., etc., etc., outpointing his rivals and winning the long. Combined with his first-place ordinal from Artistic Program, he wins the gold medal. Everyone goes home happy.
 

gourry

Final Flight
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Just like tracks and swimming, maybe figure skating should have something like 2 min, 4 min, 6 min, or even 10 min programs. Or we could do relay? 4 skaters should relay 8 min program as a whole seamlessly. I remember many complained there are not enough medals for figure skating anyway. :p
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Or we could do relay? 4 skaters should relay 8 min program as a whole seamlessly. I remember many complained there are not enough medals for figure skating anyway. :p

That is actually a great idea for the Olympic team event. The problem with the "team" competition as currently envisioned is that there is no team. Four people skate individually, doing the same programs that they will be doing a week later in the individual competitions. Where's the team?
 

FSGMT

Record Breaker
Joined
Sep 10, 2012
Just like tracks and swimming, maybe figure skating should have something like 2 min, 4 min, 6 min, or even 10 min programs. Or we could do relay? 4 skaters should relay 8 min program as a whole seamlessly. I remember many complained there are not enough medals for figure skating anyway. :p
:yes:
 

CanadianSkaterGuy

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
That is actually a great idea for the Olympic team event. The problem with the "team" competition as currently envisioned is that there is no team. Four people skate individually, doing the same programs that they will be doing a week later in the individual competitions. Where's the team?

To be fair, with any team sport that is judged (save for like Synchro skating/swimming), the results are based off of individual results that are aggregated into a team score. I guess the difference in, say, gymnastics is that the country only competes 2 members in that event... and so of a group of 5 gymnasts they submit their 2 best gymnasts... although then you get a team member who is a vault specialist or a rings specialist who does just one event and then gets the same medal as a teammate who does 3 events. In figure skating, there aren't different apparatuses or different swim strokes... so it's hard to have a competition where each team member simultaneously contributes, i.e. a "team" competition.

Imagine the judges having to score a relay of 4 performances back to back!
 

pohatta

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 15, 2005
I have often thought that figure skaters could have a diving-type competition with jumps and combinations. Then another competition like LP nowadays but less emphasis on jumps.

BTW, running competitions are not all the same. For example 400m and 800m races have very different tactics. Only a few runners do well in both.
 

drivingmissdaisy

Record Breaker
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Considering the originator of the 3A rule, its timing and the field of ladies skaters it affected, it's indisputable as to why and for whom it was passed. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was unfair. One could argue, as many have already done, that the prior restriction itself was unfair.

I think it is indisputable that the change was done primarily because of Mao. However, another motivating factor could be to encourage more women to train the 3A. Since total score across the short and long programs determines your placement, a woman who has mastered the jump can attempt it three times instead of only twice.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
To be fair, with any team sport that is judged (save for like Synchro skating/swimming), the results are based off of individual results that are aggregated into a team score...

Imagine the judges having to score a relay of 4 performances back to back!

In a relay race, it is true that the team that has the four fastest runners usually wins. But there is also the passing of the baton -- which has cost many a ream the victory. Likewise, in Hockey a team might get caught out in a line change.

A skating relay would go something like this. Each of the four skaters/teams would perform for one-and-a-half minutes, with an additional choreographed free-for-all (like a four-ring circus) at the end. The whole race would last seven-and-a-half minutes. The technical elements would be scored continuously (possibly with a factor to prevent the men from dominating the scoring). For the second mark things like "passing the baton" would be weighed in. Like, the dancers swirl off into the corner with a rotational dance lift, to be replaced with the entry of the pairs in a ta-da star lift (all supported by the music, of course). The lady would glide off in an Ina Bauer just as the man leaped onto the ice with a triple Axel. The finale would be like a "choreograph sequence" in that the elements wouldn't be scored per se but rather just with respect to their contribution to the whole.

It would still be the case that the team whose individual members did the hardest jumps would have the advantage. But what if they dropped the baton? ;)
 

hohoho

On the Ice
Joined
Nov 20, 2010
What about this? Patrick Chan does his Elegy exhibition program :love: for the short program, The program is judged on artistic merit. Only ordinals are carried forward into the long program. In the long he does 4T-3T, 4T, 3A, 3Lz-3T, 3S-Lo-3F, etc., etc., etc., outpointing his rivals and winning the long. Combined with his first-place ordinal from Artistic Program, he wins the gold medal. Everyone goes home happy.

I like the idea of ordinals for the short and long program. The accumulation of points carried over from the short program to the long program just isn't working. Skaters with a mistake in the short sometimes have no chance of catching a skater ahead of them because of point difference.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I like the idea of ordinals for the short and long program.

I think you mean "factored placements" -- not ordinals.

The accumulation of points carried over from the short program to the long program just isn't working. Skaters with a mistake in the short sometimes have no chance of catching a skater ahead of them because of point difference.

With factored placements, often a skater with a mistake in the short had no chance of catching a skater ahead of them unless the other skaters finished in just the right order. Which means that the skater did not "control her own destiny" and "needed help" to pass the leader. Potentially it can also lead to paradoxes if other skaters withdraw or are disqualified.

Personally, I prefer that skater E knows that if she's 10 points behind skater A going into the free program, all she has to do to win is beat A by 10 points in the freeskate, without worrying how B, C, D, and F place in the free, which is inevitable with factored placements.

There is another consideration that 10 points (for example) is a lot to make up in the freeskate if A has a harder program planned than E, has stronger skating skills (valid skating-related reasons why A deserved a large lead in the short and will be difficult to catch in the free), and/or benefits in PCS and maybe GOEs from reputation expectations and skate order effects (regrettable but often unavoidable effects of the fact that these decisions are made by human beings and not machines).

Should there be a way to adjust the relative weighting of the actual scores in the short and free programs so that mistakes in the free are more costly than those in the short or to otherwise make it easier for skaters to come from behind on their own merits?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Should there be a way to adjust the relative weighting of the actual scores in the short and free programs so that mistakes in the free are more costly than those in the short or to otherwise make it easier for skaters to come from behind on their own merits?

In my opinion the goal should be a scoring system that requires two good, solid programs to win the championship. It cannot be guaranteed that this will always happen, but when it doesn't, there are controversies and dissatisfaction all around.

IMHO, if a skater wins by scoring twenty points more than anyone else in the short program, then falling apart in the long -- that is an unsatisfactory competition. So is the opposite -- the guy who falls all over the place place in the short, but he wins by doing a solid LP while his opponents crumble.

Again, sometimes this will happen no matter what the scoring system is, but the virtue of factored placements was -- well, just that. Except in unusual cases a skater could not win if he gave a bad short program and he could not win if he gave a bad long program. To win, a competitor must skate well enough in the short to position himself for a run at the championship, then in the LP he had to seize the day.
 
Top