Ladies Jumping Passes - GOE

I was recently watching some old videos of the ladies who have successfully landed the triple axel and I have to say Tonya Harding had the most powerful jumps in history. Her jumps were high and traveled across the ice, not just up and down with a fast rotation like Mao Asadas. I believe that a GOE of +3 should only be awarded to skaters who could perform the jumps as Tonya has done. Powerful, covers a lot of ice surface and great complete rotation. Kaetlyn Osmond is one of the skaters who I think deserves a +3 on some of her jumps. Satoko Miaharas jumps are so tiny that I think only a 0 to +1 should be awarded. Evgenia Medvedeva's jumps between a +1 or +2 but not a +3, especially when there are faults in some of her jumping passes and pre rotations, but that is another topic. What other ladies skaters do you think deserve a real +3 GOE for their jumps?

fredtx121 said:

What other ladies skaters do you think deserve a real +3 GOE for their jumps?

Click to expand...

anyone from Eteri girls

Well, for me personally:

#1 Must have an interesting as well as difficult entry and also a difficult and aesthetically pleasing exit.
#2 Must be done with proper technique and have a good height / distance.
#3 Very good flow and speed in and out, including during the transitions.

That's about it... I doubt it's exactly how ISU would rate them, though.

"Proper technique" rules out numerous girls for Lutz, especially. And #1 rules out some skaters with actually proper technique like Kostner.

I don't think any lady in the world would earn +3 GOE for a Lutz(or even Flip) from me currently. For the other jumps, there are some candidates. Medvedeva, Kostornaia have some entries and exits I really like.


By the way, giving +3 just for having good height and distance is pretty lenient to me. It's not nearly enough.

I think it's important to be strict. If perfect scores are currently readily achievable(Like +3s now are awarded almost for just showing up), that stops progress. Give the skaters indicative to push the sport forward. You don't have to choose between an exit with beautiful flow and an exit with a difficult transition. I truly believe it's possible to accomplish both, even if no lady currently does so.

Since we seem to be giving our "personal" criteria for a +3:

- Interesting/difficult entry or exit. You don't need both. (I think too many difficult exits in particular can really ruin the impact of a great landing.)
- Excellent height and distance + correct technique
- Flow and speed on landing with nice extension on the free leg
- Overall impression of effortlessness

I also, totally subjectively, think that even a jump without the transitions in or out should be capable of earning +3 if the other criteria are met at a high level. Look at Liza's lutz!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huGupjwIuS8 Clear outside edge, the height and distance, the beautiful landing with the free leg (she is not a flexible lady or particularly aesthetically great in terms of using her limbs, but her landing positions are ), the ride-out she gets on the edge.

I have a lot of respect for the difficult transitions and arm variations that Alina and Evgenia do - I think Evgenia has very nice flow and fluidity in her jumps, and Alina's seem pretty effortless (Evgenia's look a little more effortful to me - something about using her upper body too much) - but Liza makes them both look like Satoko.

(I'm not even being very hyperbolic; after watching several Liza jumps, I went and watched Alina and Evgenia for comparison, and their jumps suddenly looked tiny! I never really think of them as small jumpers, though.)

I clearly have my own subjective preferences when it comes to jumps.

By definition, a +3 GOE should be very rare for all jumps, men or women. The current GOE guidelines bullet points 1 and 2 have significant overlaps and are also doubly rewarded in TR along with the creative exit interpretation of point 5. Point 8 on it being matched to the musical structure is also rewarded in the IN component. Since it is a jump, I personally will think that delayed rotation, varied air position, good height + distance and good flow into and out of jumps are the basic requirement. The effortless throughout to me is the most difficult to achieve as few skaters can get their jumps to look effortless - Hanyu’s 3A and Liza Tuks/ Yuna Kim’s 3 Lz comes closest. Right now, I can think of Karen Chen, Liza Tuks and Gracie Gold being able to get good jump basics, tight rotations and good ht and ice coverage and flow out but they are also not the most consistent. As such, a +3 is something that is and should be rare. Too bad that high GOEs are given out like candies too often.

I don't want to comment on scoring but for me, I value the jump itself most when it comes to a jump pass. That is, a jump with minimal preparation time, nice clear edge, good height and distance (delayed rotations is a plus), steady landing with good free leg position, and no excessive pre-rotations.

Difficult entries and exits, arm raising etc. is lovely when the jump itself is great. A tano/rippon meh-jump does not impress me as much as a big beautiful plain jump.

alvina9894 said:

I don't want to comment on scoring but for me, I value the jump itself most when it comes to a jump pass. That is, a jump with minimal preparation time, nice clear edge, good height and distance (delayed rotations is a plus), steady landing with good free leg position, and no excessive pre-rotations.

Difficult entries and exits, arm raising etc. is lovely when the jump itself is great. A tano/rippon meh-jump does not impress me as much as a big beautiful plain jump.

Click to expand...

That's something I also considered.

How would such a change be, that it'd be impossible to earn any extra GOE for a jump if the jump itself isn't of good quality? So you'd need to actually tick that GOE box before you could tick any others like arm variation, entry and exit etc. ? No one wants to watch low quality jumps with transitions and tanos that the jumper can't handle.

I don't have much to add about who specifically should receive +3's on their jumps but I will say that while I do think +3's are being given out a lot more and I don't necessarily agree with/like it (this has been mentioned a lot on other threads recently too), I do think that a +3 should be somewhat achievable.

No one liked their teachers in school who refused to give out 100's or A+'s because "nothing could ever be perfect."

The GOE criteria are somewhat subjective, but if there is a general consensus that a jump meets all of those criteria, the +3 is deserved IMO.

Makkachin said:

I don't have much to add about who specifically should receive +3's on their jumps but I will say that while I do think +3's are being given out a lot more and I don't necessarily agree with/like it (this has been mentioned a lot on other threads recently too), I do think that a +3 should be somewhat achievable.

No one liked their teachers in school who refused to give out 100's or A+'s because "nothing could ever be perfect."

Click to expand...

Well, that's quite different. It could well be possible but it also could simultaneously be something no one has done before.

I wouldn't mind it if max was increased to +5 and then +5 was very difficult to achieve. But I don't think that half the top ladies' jumps should get max GOEs when they clearly could be improved in various ways. That just stagnates development.

Shayuki said:

Well, that's quite different. It could well be possible but it also could simultaneously be something no one has done before.

I wouldn't mind it if max was increased to +5 and then +5 was very difficult to achieve. But I don't think that half the top ladies' jumps should get max GOEs when they clearly could be improved in various ways. That just stagnates development.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind that, either. Follow-up question: Would you then change the criteria, or keep the GOE criteria the same and reserve +4 and +5 for meeting all the criteria with exceptional quality? Or would that become too subjective (everything we're discussing here is somewhat subjective of course but seeing as the criteria are IJS's attempt at making evaluating GOE more objective)

Makkachin said:

I wouldn't mind that, either. Follow-up question: Would you then change the criteria, or keep the GOE criteria the same and reserve +4 and +5 for meeting all the criteria with exceptional quality? Or would that become too subjective (everything we're discussing here is somewhat subjective of course but seeing as the criteria are IJS's attempt at making evaluating GOE more objective)

Click to expand...

Personally, I think +5 GOE should be for jumps meeting all criteria with exceptional quality. But to me it's important that a max GOE jump clearly ticks all the boxes(Except varied arm position, IMO it's very debatable whether that's a feature worth giving points for). I don't agree with the logic that you can get max GOE for jumps that clearly lack some of the features. Some will disagree with me. The current state with any random clean jump by any top skater getting +3 GOE isn't OK.

All bullets are made equal, which can be an issue with GOE attribution: landing a jump on the music counts as much as it having good height and distance, if you're just going through the bullets list. Ordinarily, I'd give more weight to some bullets over others. I wonder if the new -5/+5 scale will deal with this, considering they'll have to change the way bullets for GOE are met.

fredtx121 said:

What other ladies skaters do you think deserve a real +3 GOE for their jumps?

Click to expand...

Karen Chen, Elizaveta Tuktamysheva, Gracie Gold, Carolina Kostner and of retired skaters, Midori Ito & Yuna Kim

xeyra said:

All bullets are made equal, which can be an issue with GOE attribution: landing a jump on the music counts as much as it having good height and distance, if you're just going through the bullets list. Ordinarily, I'd give more weight to some bullets over others. I wonder if the new -5/+5 scale will deal with this, considering they'll have to change the way bullets for GOE are met.

Click to expand...

There's no way to force the judges to adhere strictly to a bullet-based system, regardless of what the rules say. (And we are better off for it.) Should "good height and distance" count for less bullets than "extraordinary height and distance"? Should a decent complex entry count for more bullets than a gorgeous complex entry? Should the incredible height and distance on Kolyada's 3Lz be worth the same as Alina or Evgenia's difficult transitions in and out of the jump?

These things cannot be quantified and compared to each other in a 100% objective way. Judges score GOE very quickly and have to go with their gut.

I'm not sure how the +5 GOEs will work, assuming whatever the specific proposal for the GOE changes will pass next year. We can debate those rules after the specifics are revealed.

Under the current rules, I'm fine with the guidelines for two bullet points per GOE, with the recognition that any place it says "good," an "excellent/outstanding" example could count double.

I would be OK with combining the first two bullet points into one. There are examples of entries that are unexpected or difficult or including recognizable steps/freeskating movements immediately preceding the jump, but only one of the above, so if a jump only fulfills one of the above it would only be one bullet point and need something else to bump it up to +1. But if there are two or more of those attributes on the same entry, it could count double. And there would still need to be the reminder that the mere presence of preceding steps does not count for the SP solo jump.

I'd also be OK with separating "good height" and "good distance" into two separate bullet points, so that jumps that excel at one or the other could get some reward and those that excel at both could be rewarded more.

It could also be worth separating "varied position in the air" and "delay in rotation" to two separate points, so that a jump that does both at once can be doubly rewarded.

Or should there be a distinction between "varied position in the air" just for the sake of variety, vs. "difficult variation of air position" to reward both variety and difficulty? Separate bullet points, or a footnote to the existing one?

If variety and creativity are part of the point for rewarding varied positions, should there be a guideline/footnote encouraging judges to reward the same variation only once or twice in a program but to give full credit for any new variations shown later in the program?

I wonder if there's a way to write a bullet point for maintaining the arc of the takeoff curve on the landing (not narrowing the circle or turning a corner on the landing). Is that already covered by "good extension on landing" or "good flow from entry to exit"?

andromache said:

These things cannot be quantified and compared to each other in a 100% objective way. Judges score GOE very quickly and have to go with their gut.

Click to expand...

Considering some of the GOEs I've seen in the various disciplines, especially ladies and men, I don't doubt at all judges just wing it most of the times.

gkelly said:

Or should there be a distinction between "varied position in the air" just for the sake of variety, vs. "difficult variation of air position" to reward both variety and difficulty? Separate bullet points, or a footnote to the existing one?

If variety and creativity are part of the point for rewarding varied positions, should there be a guideline/footnote encouraging judges to reward the same variation only once or twice in a program but to give full credit for any new variations shown later in the program?

Click to expand...

Something does need to be done about the "varied position in the air," which I also said in another thread but I think Tano/Rippon is getting to the point of the Biellmann spin from ~10 years ago, overused and not necessarily increasing the difficulty or quality of the jump. Twice in a program is fair. Skaters should be encouraged to try other challenging features besides just those. I don't mind seeing them repeatedly from an aesthetic point of view, but not sure it's worth awarding points repeatedly.

Makkachin said:

Something does need to be done about the "varied position in the air," which I also said in another thread but I think Tano/Rippon is getting to the point of the Biellmann spin from ~10 years ago, overused and not necessarily increasing the difficulty or quality of the jump. Twice in a program is fair. Skaters should be encouraged to try other challenging features besides just those. I don't mind seeing them repeatedly from an aesthetic point of view, but not sure it's worth awarding points repeatedly.

Click to expand...

Why put limitations on it though? If a judge feels it increases the quality of a jump they should be allowed and even encouraged to reward it. They aren’t required to reward GOE now and if they find them annoying they can just stop rewarding the GOE and even lower the PCS. I swear Masha is losing points in PCS but of course we can’t know. The same argument could be made of all bullets that skaters hit every time too. The judges need latitude to judge quality.

Instead of removing the skaters freedom we should be encouraging it. I’d be alright with introducing a “disruptive repetition” guideline that a judge could use to reduce -1 from the final positive GOE (max +2) if they are so annoyed to the point that they need to do something. I wonder though if we’d see skaters with no tanos get nailed for it too :think:

Lol Ladies. Here I was ready with a list of Yuzu's jumps haha.

The first one that comes to mind where +3s should be awarded across the board is Daleman's 3T3T. The one in her FS at 2017 Worlds comes to mind. I also do remember a comment in a competition thread stating that she got all +3s at a comp last year too.

CanadianSkaterGuy said:

I think a huge jump even if a bit telegraphed should be arguably worthy of +3.

Click to expand...

That’s a tough sell honestly but the guidelines do not prevent a judge from weighting one bullet massively and then shooting the moon. Personaly I wouldn’t overlook the stalking but I tend to weight my negatives for stalking higher than I tend award my bullet for height