2.0 Bonus

[gio]

Three years ago I've already asked that question: "Was the 2.0 bonus point for unique, special and innovative elements ever given?"

Now 5 years have passed since the introduction of COP and it seems that this bonus was never given to anyone?

Neither for the pearl spin?

There are so many things a skater can do to receive that 2 points. A jump combo with a jump counterclockwise, the other clockwise, a double walley, a new spin variation, some innovative movement ...

But are the tech specialist, judges or whoever willing to give that 2.0 point bonus? Or is that rule just ignored?

 

[Spun Silver]

Mao should certainly have gotten it for the 3A too, or at a minimum the two-3A program.

 

[antmanb]

Mao should certainly have gotten it for the 3A too, or at a minimum the two-3A program.

But isn't the two point bonus for originality? I hardly think doing a listed jump would be conisdered original for the purposes of the bonus.

Ant

 

[Nigel]

But isn't the two point bonus for originality? I hardly think doing a listed jump would be conisdered original for the purposes of the bonus.

Ant

Not sure that 2.0 points is proper value for "originality"....maybe only 1.0 point
Also, wasn't there discussion for a bonus for a freestyle skater who demonstrates all the jumps (with no edge calls or at least a base mark on the jump) in a freeskate program? perhaps this would be worth 2.0 points?:scratch:

 

[Spun Silver]

I was going by Gio's wording, unique, special and innovative. Isn't 3A special and innovative for female skaters? Is it a "listed jump" for them?

 

[gkelly]

If it's in the scale of values, it's a listed jump.

That means quadruple axel is a listed jump, even though no one's ever attempted one in competition. If and when anyone ever does, they won't get a bonus for originality. (They will get 13.3 points of base mark if they rotate it, though, plus or minus GOE and fall deduction as applicable.)

 

[gsrossano]

The 2.0 bonus is for new and innovative elements/movements that have never previously existed.

The reality is, it was added when IJS was first presented to the public because some people complained that the point model for IJS did not include the possibility that someone might invent a completely new trick and there would be no points for it in the system if they did. It was added as an afterthought for purely political reasons to help sell IJS and get some critics of IJS off the ISU back. For that reason the bonus will probably never be awarded. It is there only for appearances.

 

[gkelly]

We're probably too far along in the development of the sport for anything completely new to be invented. Innovation now comes in variations of existing elements (e.g., variations of spin positions), adding revolutions to existing jumps, combining skills in new ways, and new styles of choreography. None of which would really qualify as unique, special, and innovative elements.

Anything totally different we can imagine has probably already been tried . . . either it has already been done in competition several times in the past but just never caught on, or else it was never attempted in competition because it proved to be impossible.

Now, if this kind of bonus had officially existed 70 or 100 years ago, there would have been a lot more opportunities to apply it.

 

[Okami]

Now 5 years have passed since the introduction of COP and it seems that this bonus was never given to anyone?

This bonus was given to an Australian skater Kayla for a spin called Kayla's catch (which actually looks like a variation of Mao's or Caroline's blade-to-face Biellman).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJk1TryI5QU

I think some Russian skater(s) also received this bonus during their Nationals, but I'm not sure.

Neither for the pearl spin?

Nathalie Krieg and Ji-Eun Choi did a similar spin before, so maybe ISU didn't consider it to be original enough..?

There are so many things a skater can do to receive that 2 points. A jump combo with a jump counterclockwise, the other clockwise

This would be probably called as an illegal element. I remember reading that some (non-elite) skater wanted to jump a clockwise lutz-counterclockwise lutz combination, but when he consulted the judges he was told that he can't do that in a competition. Both jumps in the combination must be done in the same direction, and only toe and loop can be used as a second/third jump.

 

[mskater93]

This would be probably called as an illegal element. I remember reading that some (non-elite) skater wanted to jump a clockwise lutz-counterclockwise lutz combination, but when he consulted the judges he was told that he can't do that in a competition. Both jumps in the combination must be done in the same direction, and only toe and loop can be used as a second/third jump.

That would have been Rohene Ward. He did a 2A in both directions but the CW one got negative GOE and he was told that a 3Lz-3Lz combo would probably receive negative GOE which made it not worth attempting for the amount of power and energy it would require. It's not illegal, just not worth it...

 

[gio]

I think gsrossano is right! The rule is there for political reasons. When Zhang did the pearl spin, she didn't receive a 2.0 bonus? Right?

gkelly, I still think that without COP skating would have taken another road on its evolution. IMO COP fixes ex ante what should be done. With the 6.0 it was more an ex post fixation of the rules. What I want to say is that before there were the skaters who defined the trends and then ISU intervened to correct some "distortions" (Zayak rule - very debatable, because the Toe-Loop and Toe-Walley are two different jumps). Now with COP it is the ISU who defines what to do and what not to do and the skaters obviously follow the rules.

We cannot know if there is room for innovation. We think that there is no room, we think that our sport has come to a high point in evolution, but this is just our impression. I cannot imagine which new elements can be added, which new trends can be followed, but this doesn't mean that cannot happen.

Maybe a skater in the 6.0 system (ala Rohene Ward) would do a 3Toe(counterclockwise)/1Lutz (clockwise) combo. Then another skater will take this further doing a 3Toe/2Lutz combo. And then another one even further will do a 3Toe/3Lutz combo.
Brian Orser said that mastering triples in both directions is something possible to achieve.
But I'm afraid we won't see this under COP.

Or doing innovative sequences. The trend was started with Plushenko doing a 3A/half loop/3F. Who knows maybe Mao could do this. But not under COP, because it's not worth it!

There is room for innovation, but it's very difficult under COP, where everything is already defined.

 

[gio]

That would have been Rohene Ward. He did a 2A in both directions but the CW one got negative GOE and he was told that a 3Lz-3Lz combo would probably receive negative GOE which made it not worth attempting for the amount of power and energy it would require. It's not illegal, just not worth it...

Oh, I didn't know that! Poor Rohene Ward! I'm so sorry for him. I know that he worked so hard to achieve jumping in both directions. Trying to be innovative is just something that isn't worth it. ISU rules are so idiotic.

Ottavio Cinquanta really gets on my nerves! He doesn't love figure skating. :disagree:

Some Italians are so happy that an Italian guides the ISU. They don't realize the harm he did and still does and unfortunately will continue to do to FS.

 

[gkelly]

gkelly, I still think that without COP skating would have taken another road on its evolution. IMO COP fixes ex ante what should be done.

I agree that this is true to a large extent. But it's useful to look at the specifics.

First, I think there are some areas in which some programs or types of elements have shown more innovation in the IJS era than under 6.0, and because the 6.0 system was used for such a long time we see more innovation in some eras under that system than under others.

Second, we also have to look at the specific rules about what elements are allowed to be included in a program at all or how many of them are allowed or required to be included. Those rules have changed at different times over the years and decades and even within the 5 years or so that the new system has been in use.

I think that to a large degree the designers of the new system do want to standardize elements so they can compare apples to apples . . . much like the short program 1973-1988 and in junior and pair short programs more recently.

So, for example, largely because of the way the required elements have been defined but also because of what's rewarded, we see much more variety in senior singles short program jumps and spins today than we did in the 1980s. It's true that we don't see as many flying camels or change-foot camels (always a minority but now a much smaller minority) in the men's short program now than we did 1995-2004, but as far as combination spins, the women's other spins, the kinds of sitspins from the men, and the jump content I think we see more variety now than during 1995-2004. Some of that is due to what rule changes about required elements are allowed, some to the natural evolution of technical content, and some specifically to the new judging system.

We see less variety now than +/- 10 years ago in step sequences and spiral sequences because of the ways the levels are defined and rewarded.

We see less variety between skaters in the way long programs are constructed. That's largely because of the well-balanced program rules. Already in the early 2000s there was more homogenization of program content thanks to stricter well-balanced program rules under the old system.

I believe that it would be easy enough to tweak the rules so that long programs especially would have more room for variety and innovation while still offering a fair comparison between skaters with different strengths. In fact, I think the new system has the potential to do this more fairly than the old system. It would just take a decision on the part of the rule makers to actively encourage a wider variety of possibilities.

I've mentioned a lot of my suggestions here in various threads. I'll think I'll start a new one to break make several posts about different tweaks that could encourage innovation and variety in different ways.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

It's difficult for Figure Skating to invent a new element. Much of figure skating are borrowed tricks from acrobatics. I do not expect to see anything really innovative.

There could be choreography with innovative steps but that would never get any kind of bonus.

 

[jaejang2001]

Mao should certainly have gotten it for the 3A too, or at a minimum the two-3A program.

First of all

Mao must fix the jump problems and get the basic skill

 

[mskater93]

A 3A is on the scale of values. If you would like her SS mark increased a smidge because of it, OK. It's not innovative or unique.

If she did a 3A in each direction, sure!

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

If she did a 3A in each direction, sure!

That's not innovative. It's still on the scale whatever direction it goes in. From what I understand it would count the same points as a combo jump despite the fact it is very difficult to jump in both directions. Sorry no extrra points. Best to leave out difficult moves.

 

[gkelly]

It's important to distinguish between innovation in general and the kinds of innovation that would earn this special 2.0 bonus. That's only supposed to be for entirely new kinds of elements, which we're not likely to see at this late date.

Maybe some highly skilled skater playing around on the ice will come up with something completely different one of these days, put it in a program, and earn the bonus. But whatever it is, we probably can't imagine it in advance. If we can imagine it, it almost certainly has already been tried.

 

[skatingbc]

It's important to distinguish between innovation in general and the kinds of innovation that would earn this special 2.0 bonus. That's only supposed to be for entirely new kinds of elements, which we're not likely to see at this late date.

Maybe some highly skilled skater playing around on the ice will come up with something completely different one of these days, put it in a program, and earn the bonus. But whatever it is, we probably can't imagine it in advance. If we can imagine it, it almost certainly has already been tried.

It depends what your definition of "highly skilled" is. This past summer, I worked for my skating club and also watched a lot of the senior (Juvenile and up) sessions. The things those kids do when they're supposed to be working! Honestly, I think goofing around and playing with different movements is how things get invented in the first place. They actually came up with some pretty cool spin positions!

Completely different? Maybe not, but it's still cool to see young kids trying to push the envelope and come up with something new!

 

[gkelly]

Oh, I agree. And there's a girl at my rink who had an unusual enough spin position in her program that I understand some judges were discussing whether she qualified for the bonus. But it never showed up on her protocols.