- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
every FS commentator: the problem is figure skating is a math problem these days
ISU: good news, you’re skipping three grades and starting calculus next season
2018-2019 Season - New rules
- Thread starter enzofv
- Start date
every FS commentator: the problem is figure skating is a math problem these days
ISU: good news, you’re skipping three grades and starting calculus next season
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2017
Very useful for folks who hate taxes, ISU training will help them overcome tax problems.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
Seriously, I feel like Perelman trying to solve the Poincaré conjecture except it's simple text and I'm failing at it. Sigh.
I genuinely wonder if they gave up on the -40% BV, -50% BV because they are such large deductions.
In any case, I don't think we'll have both. So no 30% UR BV plus a BV cut for a fall. But just one deduction which is cumulative, so say 30% for a fall, plus another 10% for a UR.
But again, IDK the wording is off then. Especially with that little addendum of the way to calculate the plus will be a bit different. Someone please put us out of our collective misery.
One thing I can say for sure? Poor commentators. Imagine having to explain this mess to the general audience. Errr ummm, well see. <insert a triology the size of LoTR just to get through GOEs>
Meanwhile, everywhere else.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Also, I find it baffling, under the current scale of values, how sometimes attempting triples can give close to zero or even a net negative mark overall.
Examples:
1. SBS Triple Salchows: One partner doubles and the other falls on the triple. The element is worth 1.3 BV -0.6 GOE - 1 fall deduction = -0.3 points, which is worse than skipping the element altogether. Also, there is a hit on the PCS.
2. A fall on a downgraded triple jump (except the lutz which still would have a positive element value) or on a URed 3T or 3S.
I think these are too harsh. The second one is a more common case for lower ranked skaters at 4CC. I hope the new scale can fix this and not penalize skaters like them to attempt triples.
Examples:
1. SBS Triple Salchows: One partner doubles and the other falls on the triple. The element is worth 1.3 BV -0.6 GOE - 1 fall deduction = -0.3 points, which is worse than skipping the element altogether. Also, there is a hit on the PCS.
2. A fall on a downgraded triple jump (except the lutz which still would have a positive element value) or on a URed 3T or 3S.
I think these are too harsh. The second one is a more common case for lower ranked skaters at 4CC. I hope the new scale can fix this and not penalize skaters like them to attempt triples.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2014
Seriously, I feel like Perelman trying to solve the Poincaré conjecture except it's simple text and I'm failing at it. Sigh.
I don't think even the Chaos theory can be used to predict scores given by these ISU judges
.
Man I’m gonna pull something from my field of work and say that this is becoming like what happened in South Korea’s vocational training programs when its export-oriented industry switched from general merchandise to light industry to heavy industry in the span of 10 years. Instructors and vocational schools couldn’t keep up with the changing demands of skilled workers and created problems like poor instruction and outdated training programs.
How can the judges remain competent when they haven’t shown reliability in what they’ve been following AND when ISU keeps changing the scoring system. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the problem is not in the system as much as it is in whatever training judges have to undergo.
How can the judges remain competent when they haven’t shown reliability in what they’ve been following AND when ISU keeps changing the scoring system. As I’ve mentioned elsewhere, the problem is not in the system as much as it is in whatever training judges have to undergo.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
Seriously, I feel like Perelman trying to solve the Poincaré conjecture except it's simple text and I'm failing at it. Sigh.
I genuinely wonder if they gave up on the -40% BV, -50% BV because they are such large deductions.
In any case, I don't think we'll have both. So no 30% UR BV plus a BV cut for a fall. But just one deduction which is cumulative, so say 30% for a fall, plus another 10% for a UR.
But again, IDK the wording is off then. Especially with that little addendum of the way to calculate the plus will be a bit different. Someone please put us out of our collective misery.
One thing I can say for sure? Poor commentators. Imagine having to explain this mess to the general audience. Errr ummm, well see. <insert a triology the size of LoTR just to get through GOEs>
Meanwhile, everywhere else.
LMAO maybe Lakernik’s actual plan was to induce academia-related flashbacks so crippling we all retreated to the fetal position and accepted the new SoV without complaint. That’s actually my attempt at a unifying theory regarding all these changes. There was so much potential... and now... is this the end of the Hashtag Emergency Quad? [emoji22] Meme on, HEQ. Meme on.
I’m taking all GOE values as a work in progress until they’re up to vote. And I say that as someone who was initially “wait WTF” and had only just come to accept “okay, fall and lose half BV + presumably take 1 point deduction.” -40% isn’t meaningfully better. What I half-suspect is going on, outside the fall -4 GOE, is possible tinkering to allow for “-2 to -1” shenanigans, which might explain the odd wording? Step-outs were initially given as -3 GOE; I wonder if we won’t see some revision there (-3 for hand on ice, -2 for two-footing... in theory, but written so that we’ll still see skaters high-five the ice and get less than the full deduction and skaters who two-foot get max because reasons). Just a guess, but “clarity of language” and “ISU” go together about as well as “Patrick Chan” and “3A consistency.”
As for the positive levels, my guess is that either we’re getting an actual scale (so that adding the level five feature won’t help if you fail to satisfy the level three bullet) (pfft, I can dream, right? But it would stop tano abuse!) or it’s related to “no negative features for +4 and +5 GOEs” as already confirmed for ice dancing. One user who saw the system in action about six months ago reported that +4 was when a triple could outscore a quad, and given the language and prior announcements, “no negative features” would make sense... so I’m probably wrong. [emoji23]
But if 30-40% of current BV is being cut to adjust for the new GOE range, and quads take the extra 10% BV reduction as expected, it’s really going to come down to whether or not everyone starts at +3 GOE, I suppose. And what happens on the other side of the scale. UR call now equates to -3 GOE ... which makes me wonder if step-outs don’t get moved to -2 GOE, URs -3 GOE (half rotation or more downgrade would function the same as now?), and falls stay -4. I have no clue; I’m throwing darts, but I’m doing it while sober and ISU’s proposals... I hope they’re drunk. I want to be. [emoji478]
I combined Lakernik’s stupid quad limiter with the jump repetition restrictions already in place + mandatory 3/2A + 7 jumping passes + GOE threshold for a triple overtaking a quad and realised we’re resurrecting the Evan Lysacek era. So, um, yeah. I hope Nathan Chen’s Lysacek 2.0 is still in good condition... boot up the wayback machine. It’s going to be trippy.
The quad limiter proposal is too dumb to even bother articulating why. But I’m going to do it anyway. If you’re limiting quads to one rep, why not triples as well? They’re also dangerous and bad for the body and caused falls and programme interruptions when introduced. The case for limiting triples was identical to the case for limiting quads, so it’s a fair comparison, but we didn’t limit triples. But if we’re going to limit quad reps now, we should at least apply the same standards and concern for skaters’ health and programme artistry, as well as jump quality, and go ahead and limit those to exactly one rep as well.
It’s a stupid argument from a stupid man. Now, I am completely open to evidence — you know, actual research the ISU could fund? — on the Quad Arms Race and we could go from there, because there’s obviously a huge cost to the body. ISU could, I don’t know, perhaps do more on the safety front and require coaches to meet certain safety and disclosure standards. Oh, right: that costs money. But arbitrarily limiting quads to one rep does nothing for the sport, nothing to remedy any of its judging issues, and is based on nothing. mindless incoherent keyboard slam of agony.
(That was almost the GIF I went with. Except I can’t imagine any situation involving Lakernik and pizza.
)
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2017
New rules; old bs.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
Proposals have nothing to do with Lakernik, nor he is the one who introduced them or called them. The ones who are 'quilty' for new proposals are mens skaters themselves who on last couple of years made figure skating unwatchable. You can ask any person who was in Milano during mens free program how they felt watching that final group and you will maybe realize why... So, if you can put aside your obssesion with Lakernik, you will see that new proposals dont want to directly minimize number of quads, but just to minimize awards for not cleanly landed quads by awarding clean programs more. Cleanish 2 quads program will still win against no quads program.
Proposals have nothing to do with Lakernik, nor he is the one who introduced them or called them. The ones who are 'quilty' for new proposals are mens skaters themselves who on last couple of years made figure skating unwatchable. You can ask any person who was in Milano during mens free program how they felt watching that final group and you will maybe realize why... So, if you can put aside your obssesion with Lakernik, you will see that new proposals dont want to directly minimize number of quads, but just to minimize awards for not cleanly landed quads by awarding clean programs more. Cleanish 2 quads program will still win against no quads program.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
It’s a proposal to limit quad reps specifically, not quad quantity (the latter can be achieved without the former). Whether or not he’s the progenitor of said proposal, he’s the first source of it. That being said, I admit I am assigning the idea to Lakernik himself, and that’s unfair. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a fundamentally stupid idea, however, or that I don’t have a right to object to it on the grounds of hypocrisy. I’m all for an evidence-based medicine type approach when it comes to installing appropriate guardrails in high-risk activities. This is not that.
And it’s not even a good way to reward “quality” quads (that’s the entire point of the new GOE system, change in BVs, tipping point on well-executed triples overtaking bad quads, more severe punishments for falls, etc.). This is a direct limitation to repetition of a quad jump type, creating a standard that exists for no other jump, and said standard disproportionately effects some skaters more than others. Not everyone has two different types of quads. If a two quad programme will still beat a quadless one, assuming the quads are of sufficient quality, and a three quad one will beat a two quad one, limiting repetition doesn’t change incentive. It just encourages more men to potentially injure themselves chasing another type of quad so they can add it to their programme and move up the competitive TES ladder.
I don't wanna seem rude or anything, but I beg to differ. I don't really see how the skaters are the ones to fault at all. First of all, we are complaining that the rules (as of now) seem to be way confusing and hard to grasp, no way to fault skaters there. Second, and I'm getting into danger zone here no I'm not gonna give any names, the ones who have obvious faults in their skating and don't seem to be showing any desire to fix them are mostly the ones who get consistently overscored, so from the protocols, you couldn't even tell they have those faults. So that problem stems, again, from the judging and not just the skaters. And as a person who was in Milano and watched the men's FS, I can tell you that my feelings about the final group (minus Nathan) are that everyone was just tired after a long Olympic season. Also a lot of good skaters were missing. If you look at the season as a whole, you can't possibly claim that all men's events were "unwatchable", as you say. And that's despite the huge number of injuries. And yes, rewarding cleanly landed jumps more over bad ones is what everyone wants, I think. I'm just so far not convinced that the new rules will accompish that (and also that the rules will be applied fairly). But I'd love to be proven wrong on that.
ETA: by the new rules, I mean including the quad rep stuff.
ETA2: actually, I think the no repeating quads would achieve the exact opposite...
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2018
The proposal makes ... very little sense? Both in the intention behind the rules (no quad repetition would just encourage people to try out types of quads they are not familiar with --> splat = what we don't want in the first place) and the mathematics behind it.
As a former maths major I have to say, just give me the most abstract number theory problem over this B.S
As a former maths major I have to say, just give me the most abstract number theory problem over this B.S
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
^^^
Again, if you try to understand why and not immidiatly jump to criticize you will see that quad repetition is bring for two basic reasons: 1) because that is the rule in other sports - you can try element only once (you cant award skater who already failed first attempt) 2) one jump passes less in FP (not FS problem itself). Next - Changing the GOE is to dustinguish clean jumps from not clean ones a little bit more, Cause GOE became tied to BV, its not BV itself which is matter anymore but execution of BV... Proposals are very reasonable. The other thing is how it will work, and we can only wait to see. Again, nothing against men who are trying quads and failed, but nobody can convience me how program with two falls can be a good program and still win.That is something that doesn't exist in any current sport in the world.
Again, if you try to understand why and not immidiatly jump to criticize you will see that quad repetition is bring for two basic reasons: 1) because that is the rule in other sports - you can try element only once (you cant award skater who already failed first attempt) 2) one jump passes less in FP (not FS problem itself). Next - Changing the GOE is to dustinguish clean jumps from not clean ones a little bit more, Cause GOE became tied to BV, its not BV itself which is matter anymore but execution of BV... Proposals are very reasonable. The other thing is how it will work, and we can only wait to see. Again, nothing against men who are trying quads and failed, but nobody can convience me how program with two falls can be a good program and still win.That is something that doesn't exist in any current sport in the world.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2016
Somewhere I saw someone point out that a lot of European skaters only have one type of quad, so they thought the rule was pretty unlikely to pass. Even in Russia, their top guy only has one reliable quad. SO I guess we'll see.
On point 1), I don't think it being the case for other sports means that it will necessarily work for figure skating. And I do think that the GOE changes, if done well, for which we will indeed need to wait and see, could be good, if confusing. I'm really only strongly disagreeing with the quad rep stuff (and cutting the 30 seconds, but that looks to be a done deal, so there's really no point in being bitter, I'll just wait to see how it plays out). So far you haven't really provided any logical arguments to convince me otherwise, so I stand by what I said.
And for the record, I am by no means critisizing you or anyone else. Or most of the rule chages, since we have so little info about them so far. I'm trying to have a discussion. The fact that I have a different opinion doesn't mean I'm trying to be mean to you. I do apoligize if my wording made it sound that way. And I do not think a 2-fall program is a good one. I do ultimately want to see the same results as you (rewarding quality on jumps). I just think that limiting quad rep is not a way to accomplish that (for reasons I've already explained enough, I think). If you feel I'm attacking you personally, again, that is not my intention and I apologize if I made you think that.
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2018
I have no special insight, but if my admittedly insomnia-fueled reading of ISU’s constitution is correct, it’s a two-thirds majority for passage (or closest value to two-thirds in case of absences), 50% majority needed for a sustained objection, and no weighted voting... which means there are enough “small” players to push this over the top if they vote as a bloc? Would European bloc voting (it’s a strange day when I’m rooting for European Bloc Voting...) have the numbers? I assume Japan, North America, Canada, China, and Russia would also vote against. Korea should, but Korea is borrowing China’s UNSC “Club of One” title, I think, based on their votes on transparency in judging. Model ISU would have been a lot more fun than Model UN....
To be honest, at this point, I just bet on tail end outcomes. That way, when something crazy doesn’t happen, I’m pleasantly surprised, and when we jump into alternate continuities and Kolyada makes the podium (
), I can smugly claim I “called it.” [emoji23]None of your arguments support restricting quad repetition. There are already rules in place that restrict skaters from receiving credit for elements performed beyond the allotted total in a given category, rules on jump repetition that are applied uniformly across all jumps regardless of the number of revolutions, and the new GOE scale and reduced BV for quads make it more advantageous to execute a clean triple than a shaky quad, as BV plummets for falls and bad landings. That has nothing to do with reducing the number of times a 4S, for example, can be repeated, to once, whereas a 3S can be done twice.
You have yet to address this point. Quality is already being incentivized via the new GOE scale. That has no bearing on singling out quads for a more stringent repetition rule, nor have you responded to my answer to your own argument: if two quads beats no quads, that doesn’t mean better quality quads. It means anyone with one quad is under pressure to learn a second very quickly in order to maintain competitive TES. That’s not rewarding “quality” nor showing an interest in skaters’ health; the proposal would create the exact opposite effect.
To flip your own argument around: why is this proposal necessary? Why can’t we let the new GOE scale and other changes go into effect before proposing such a rule? We need to see how they play out over the course of a season or two before doing something so drastic.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
- - - Updated - - -
^^^
With one jump passes less and repeating the quad, you are not showing versatility in your skating or variations in program. I mean, you can find a lot of other reasons instead the one i already wrote and which works as logic in other sports. Its just a variation of zayak rule, nothing more
^^^
With one jump passes less and repeating the quad, you are not showing versatility in your skating or variations in program. I mean, you can find a lot of other reasons instead the one i already wrote and which works as logic in other sports. Its just a variation of zayak rule, nothing more
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2015
That doesn't make sense though.
If you do have more than one quad, you're rewarded by increased BV anyway. 'Versatility' in skating has never been the kinds of quads you have. Nobody is preventing people from using different quads, and scoring more if they do.
On the other hand, those who have just the one solid quad should be able to repeat that one if they so choose.
Sorry, but quality over quantity. Always and forever.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I already wrote a lot. If you dont get it, you dont get it...The truth is - in more than 60% of cases, skaters who repeated the quad failed to do one of them and they still got a lot of points in their program because of just 50% success in performance of that one element. I guess that was the reason behind that. So, if you dont think this is a solution, what would be?
I would like to know where you got that statistic. Also, the solution could be the other proposed rule changes (the +-5 GOE). That is to make quality more important than quantity. Provided the criteria make sense, which we don't know yet.
