2018-2019 Season - New rules

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

The big issue is judges watching the rest of the program while they're taking notes and inputting 6 or 7 data points per element (some of which barely take a couple of seconds to complete) in real time while the skater is already moving on to the next element which the technical panel may call immediately so that it shows up on the screen before the judge has finished inputting all those extra scores for the previous element.

And meanwhile they also need to be thinking about program components as well. Unless the judging panels get split further into GOE judges and PCS judges. Which might be feasible at ISU championship levels but cost prohibitive for large but less prestigious events held around the world.



It would be useful information, but it's not possible to record it all in real time. Would it be worth making judges input later for every single bullet point for every single element for every single skater after the fact?

Or would it be more efficient to let judges take shorthand notes and to give skaters a window of an hour or so after the event to study their protocols and have access to ask the judges to clarify any marks they don't understand?

If there's a roundtable discussion after the event, maybe the referee could take notes on what was said about specific notable elements (obviously not every single element in the event) and program components ditto and summarize in a press conference afterward.



While also watching and evaluating the spin that the skater went into right after the jump.

See my post 477 in this thread.

Can you design an interface that would allow judges to input multiple data points about the element that just finished or the one that's happening now depending how quickly they finished the previous one while not taking their eyes off the skater for more than a split second at a time?



With enough experience, judging thousands of jumps and spins every year or for some judges every week, it may become second nature to see a jump and tick off the bullet points in her head in real time, especially for elements that have a typical combination of criteria. E.g., you can think "big, flow, effortless, music" for a jump or "fast, centered, positions, rotations" for a spin in about half a second. And if you see those combinations of bullets frequently, you could just look at that element and think +2 without consciously saying the words to yourself.

Recording them all takes more time, though.





No one has yet developed a machine or program that measures and calculates exactly what needs to be measured and calculated, in real-world conditions for a skating competition in progress. The basic technological knowledge needed for each piece of the puzzle may already exist in the world now (but likely did not all exist 15 years ago when IJS was first implemented), but you still have to get someone or a dedicated group of people to bring together knowledge about all the relevant hardware and software and knowledge about skating qualities and figure out how to make them all work together to achieve better results than an experienced human eye.

I think we'll get there one of these days for some of these criteria. But the devil is in the details in terms of developing the technology that measures exactly what's needed for what skating wants to reward, in a cost-effective and efficient manner. Once the technology is perfected it can be more accurate than the human eye and brain. But it will take some doing to get there from here.

And ultimately, what many of us love about this sport is exactly the fact that it is qualitative and complex. So decisions about how good each aspect was and how to balance good and not-so-good aspects of the same element or component will always be subjective to some extent.

It's great to dream big about how skating could be evaluated more accurately -- and even better to offer solutions to the detailed requirements of designing and implementing a system that actually does what you want it to do. If you have the answers, go put together a prototype. And then no doubt other Golden Skaters will tear apart why it doesn't quite work the way we hoped it would.

Just thinking "It should be possible to do this" doesn't mean it will be easy.

Great post... and the one you linked to as well! While technology would be ideal, the costs and feasibility are significant barriers to create something that's timely and not crazy complex for judges to implement. Sometimes judges lack a brain, but we should keep in mind they've only got 2 eyes... and not the crazy Youtube rewinds and frame freezing time fans have to scrutinize every detail/transition/movement.

And yes, some of us love that skating is qualitative and based off subjectivity - even if it can make it frustrating because of all the politics in play.

 

[FreyaZz]

why the sarcasm? it's very unnecessary IMHO

it's extremely expensive to develop such systems... even with a sport like tennis, which is in a completely different world when it comes to finances from figure skating.... and on top of that, they only need simple technology (hawk-eye)... well they only have it for big tournaments and not always on all courts...

imagine for instance, a system that measures ice coverage... how to implement it? when should it be used? how many rinks would be able to have the technology available for them. would it be fair if some clubs could afford the technology to evaluate properly their skaters but not all? what kind of competitions would be equipped for such technology.... and that's one feature...

Think of it this way : the judges are volunteers... now you need data operators and equipment.

Dude, it's not a sarcasm. Rofl. My brain is really not functioning well. Now your sensitivity made me laugh. Hehe. Ofc money is a problem. When is it not? That's why my brain sucks. And you misuderstood. Lul.

 

[Miller]

With enough experience, judging thousands of jumps and spins every year or for some judges every week, it may become second nature to see a jump and tick off the bullet points in her head in real time, especially for elements that have a typical combination of criteria. E.g., you can think "big, flow, effortless, music" for a jump or "fast, centered, positions, rotations" for a spin in about half a second. And if you see those combinations of bullets frequently, you could just look at that element and think +2 without consciously saying the words to yourself.

Recording them all takes more time, though.

Yes, I hope the judges have been trained in these terms when it comes to the new system.

E.g. They first think in terms of does a jump match the main 3 criteria of very good height and distance, good take-off and landing, and effortless throughout. If so +4 and 5 is very much on the cards, and does it have any extra additional bullet points to give the final GOE. If not how many bullet points does it have overall, and remember not to give more than +3. Hopefully that's the way they'll do it, and hopefully for spins etc.

Re base values and GOE, these are the maximum possible points it was possible to get under the old system, the new system and the difference between them for all jumps from 2A through to 4A. Based on these you would say some tweaks should be required especially round the 3F/3Lz/3A area, similarly 4F/4Lz/4A, for example a BV of 13.0 for the 4A would give a max possible of 19.5, 0.9 up on the old max.

2A - old max 4.8, new max 4.95, diff +0.15
3T - old max 6.4, new max 6.3, diff - 0.10
3S - old max 6.5, new max 6.45, diff -0.05
3Lo - old max 7.2, new max 7.35, diff + 0.15
3F - old max 7.4, new max 7.95, diff + 0.55
3Lz - old max 8.1, new max 8.85, diff + 0.75
3A - old max 11.5, new max 12.0, diff + 0.50
4T - old max 13.3, new max 14.25, diff +0.95
4S - old max 13.5, new max 14.55, diff + 0.85
4Lo - old max 15.0, new max 15.75, diff +0.75
4F - old max 15.3, new max 16.50, diff + 1.20
4Lz - old max 16.6, new max 17.25, diff + 0.65
4A - old max 18.6, new max 18.75, diff + 0.15

 

[FreyaZz]

Yes, I hope the judges have been trained in these terms when it comes to the new system.

E.g. They first think in terms of does a jump match the main 3 criteria of very good height and distance, good take-off and landing, and effortless throughout. If so +4 and 5 is very much on the cards, and does it have any extra additional bullet points to give the final GOE. If not how many bullet points does it have overall, and remember not to give more than +3. Hopefully that's the way they'll do it, and hopefully for spins etc.

Re base values and GOE, these are the maximum possible points it was possible to get under the old system, the new system and the difference between them for all jumps from 2A through to 4A. Based on these you would say some tweaks should be required especially round the 3F/3Lz/3A area, similarly 4F/4Lz/4A, for example a BV of 13.0 for the 4A would give a max possible of 19.5, 0.9 up on the old max.

2A - old max 4.8, new max 4.95, diff +0.15
3T - old max 6.4, new max 6.3, diff - 0.10
3S - old max 6.5, new max 6.45, diff -0.05
3Lo - old max 7.2, new max 7.35, diff + 0.15
3F - old max 7.4, new max 7.95, diff + 0.55
3Lz - old max 8.1, new max 8.85, diff + 0.75
3A - old max 11.5, new max 12.0, diff + 0.50
4T - old max 13.3, new max 14.25, diff +0.95
4S - old max 13.5, new max 14.55, diff + 0.85
4Lo - old max 15.0, new max 15.75, diff +0.75
4F - old max 15.3, new max 16.50, diff + 1.20
4Lz - old max 16.6, new max 17.25, diff + 0.65
4A - old max 18.6, new max 18.75, diff + 0.15

Thanks for the list. It's a fact that quad axel got lowballed so much from this. But then there will be people coming out to complain about quad lutz again. =)

 

[BillNeal]

2A - old max 4.8, new max 4.95, diff +0.15
3T - old max 6.4, new max 6.3, diff - 0.10
3S - old max 6.5, new max 6.45, diff -0.05
3Lo - old max 7.2, new max 7.35, diff + 0.15
3F - old max 7.4, new max 7.95, diff + 0.55
3Lz - old max 8.1, new max 8.85, diff + 0.75
3A - old max 11.5, new max 12.0, diff + 0.50
4T - old max 13.3, new max 14.25, diff +0.95
4S - old max 13.5, new max 14.55, diff + 0.85
4Lo - old max 15.0, new max 15.75, diff +0.75
4F - old max 15.3, new max 16.50, diff + 1.20
4Lz - old max 16.6, new max 17.25, diff + 0.65
4A - old max 18.6, new max 18.75, diff + 0.15

Thanks!

I also believe that the min. side should be considered for a more complete picture. Even though the -1 fall deduction is accounted for in the total score and not directly in an element's score, I considered it in the old minimum element score for more accurate comparison because it's likely that the -1 fall deduction will be removed from the new system after voting in Congress:

Minimum Scores for Jumps

Old New Diff. Jump
0.80 1.65 0.85 2A
1.20 2.10 0.90 3T
1.30 2.15 0.85 3S
2.00 2.45 0.45 3Lo
2.20 2.65 0.45 3F
2.90 2.95 0.05 3Lz

Old New Diff. Jump
4.50 4.00 -0.50 3A
5.30 4.75 -0.55 4T
5.50 4.85 -0.65 4S
7.00 5.25 -1.75 4Lo
7.30 5.50 -1.80 4F
8.60 5.75 -2.85 4Lz
10.00 6.25 -3.75 4A

Before there was too much incentive to place a quad in a program, even though a skater had a low success rate (eg. falling on a 4Lz was still better than a perfect 3Lz under the old SOV). However, now they are punishing quads that are poorly executed much more to lower the incentive while proportionally giving greater incentive to perform triples when the quads aren't ready.

 

[Baron Vladimir]

^^^
Yeah, and i think those new values for succeeded/failed jumps are much better than the old ones. Im not sure we will see much of +5 tho, but im sure it will be a lot of +3 and +4 for jumps of top skaters.

 

[gkelly]

I'm expecting fewer +2s (equivalent of old +1) for the non-top skaters. There are fewer bullet points available and some of them should now be harder to achieve with the new wording.

 

[4everchan]

Dude, it's not a sarcasm. Rofl. My brain is really not functioning well. Now your sensitivity made me laugh. Hehe. Ofc money is a problem. When is it not? That's why my brain sucks. And you misuderstood. Lul.

glad i have made you laugh... let's just say we are not used down here to people with the brilliance to accept their own limits.

 

[xeyra]

2A - old max 4.8, new max 4.95, diff +0.15
3T - old max 6.4, new max 6.3, diff - 0.10
3S - old max 6.5, new max 6.45, diff -0.05
3Lo - old max 7.2, new max 7.35, diff + 0.15
3F - old max 7.4, new max 7.95, diff + 0.55
3Lz - old max 8.1, new max 8.85, diff + 0.75
3A - old max 11.5, new max 12.0, diff + 0.50
4T - old max 13.3, new max 14.25, diff +0.95
4S - old max 13.5, new max 14.55, diff + 0.85
4Lo - old max 15.0, new max 15.75, diff +0.75
4F - old max 15.3, new max 16.50, diff + 1.20
4Lz - old max 16.6, new max 17.25, diff + 0.65
4A - old max 18.6, new max 18.75, diff + 0.15

4F got a lot of love comparatively.

 

[Shanshani]

My thoughts on the proposed changes:

4A BV:
Not really sure why they hit this one so hard, 4A definitely seems like it ought to deserve more than 1 point over the 4Lz. Given how iffy a lot of men's 3As are, and the fact that no footage exists of anyone landing a clean 4A, whereas at this point many people, including girls, have landed 4Lzs in practice or competition, there should be a bigger BV difference. It especially doesn't make much sense that a 3A is worth 2.1 more points than a 3Lz, but a 4A is only worth 1 more point than a 4Lz. If they don't want skaters to attempt it because it's too dangerous or whatever, they should just ban it, since skaters are still going to try to land it with reduced BV because they want to make history being the first to land the jump.

Other quads' relative BV:
I kind of agree with hitting 4Lzs relatively hard with the BV reduction stick. It's the 3rd most common quad after 4T and 4S, and while that might be partly due to BV incentivizing training 4Lz, it seems entirely plausible to me that 4Lz might be relatively easier to land than 4F or 4Lo, even if lower-rotation lutzes are harder than flips and loops. I'm not sure why the relative difficulty of various jumps would necessarily stay the same as you go up in number of rotations. It seems entirely possible that the counter-rotation of the lutz makes it easier to control the landing, and controlling the landing may be a bigger challenge for quads than lower-rotation jumps, since you have to jump higher to do a quad. On the flip side, perhaps 4Lo is relatively harder, because it's harder to get good height on loops (I'm pretty sure that if you look at jump height statistics, loops do actually have significantly lower height than other jumps), and that becomes a big problem for 4Lo in a way it isn't for 3Lo and lower. If we use relative number of quads landed, 4Lz certainly appears easier than 4Lo and 4F.

I do agree that the inconsistency of 4F, 4Lo, 4S, 4T fall > 3F, 3Lo, 3S, 3T 0 GOE but 4Lz fall < 3Lz 0 GOE is dumb though. Surely there's a way to re-jigger the numbers so that this inconsistency disappears but there is still less of a difference between 4Lz and other quads? Tbh, right now it kinda looks like whoever made the SOV just arbitrarily decided that there would be a difference of 0.5 BV between 4Lo, 4F, 4Lz, and 1 BV between 4Lz and 4A because those are nice, pretty, easy to remember numbers.

e/<:
Not really sure why this one is controversial. In no case will an underrotated/wrong edge version of a jump score higher than the rotated version of the same jump. I guess I can see an argument that UR/wrong edge should be hit with the full force of negative GOE based on original BV (if the skater also gets negative GOE on the underrotation), but I don't really see why they need to be punished that hard, especially since the flip side of that is positive GOE UR/wrong edge being getting GOE based on the original BV of the attempted jump, which I don't want to see happen. The latter seems like a bigger issue to me than more harshly punishing negative GOE UR/edge, even if positive GOE UR/edge are uncommon. (But if everything else about the jump is good, why not?)

+REP
As far as I understand it, +REP deduction is only going to be applied to the BV while GOE is based off original BV. I don't know how I feel about this, since it results in +REP fall being punished more harshly than < fall when I wouldn't consider one a worse error than the other, though I suppose the flip side is that a good +REP jump will receive non-reduced GOE points, which does make sense to me as there's nothing wrong with the jump itself. But I suspect +REP with negative GOE is much more common than +REP with positive GOE, so in effect, +REP will be more harshly punished than UR, which I don't like.

Quad repetition rule:
Don't have feelings one way or another about this, but I don't really understand the argument that it benefits Nathan Chen at the expense of other men. Let's compare Nathan to Yuzu, since that's the rivalry that seems to be driving the controversy. Nathan has 4T, 4S, 4F, 4Lz, and an iffy 4Lo, whereas Yuzu has 4T, 4S, 4Lo, and an iffy 4Lz. With the quad repetition rule, it seems that Nathan has a 1 quad advantage over Yuzu, whereas without the quad repetition rule, Nathan has...a 1 to 2 quad advantage over Yuzu depending on which layouts we want to compare. I guess you could argue that Yuzu's 4Lo is iffy at this point too, but you can also argue that Nathan's 4S is iffy, so eh. Plus, with the quad repetition rule, men will want to repeat 3A to maximize their layout, and Yuzu's 3A is significantly better and more reliable than Nathan's.

Non-jump GOEs:
This sucks, I don't get why ISU values the consistency of the GOE rules across elements (except ChSeq, for some reason) over actually rewarding good spins and step sequences. Spins and step sequences take up a significant amount of time in a program, and I personally don't want to watch subpar spins that result from skaters not spending as much time training spins because there's no point when you could be training jumps instead due to the SOV. Some top skaters' spins are already pretty mediocre relatively speaking, especially on the men's side--don't encourage spin neglect further! On the flip side, while I don't like her jumps very much, Satoko Miyahara's spins are excellent and it's a pity she will continue not to be rewarded for them.

On who the changes as a whole help/hurt, at least in men's:
Not really sure why there seems to be paranoia among some of Yuzuru Hanyu's fans that the new rules are targeted at reducing his chances of winning. The only thing that would suggest that to me is the 4A base value, since he's probably the closest of anyone to landing it. But he hasn't even attempted that in competition yet, so it's only a hypothetical issue at this point. On the other hand, if the larger GOE range helps anyone, it helps Yuzu, because Yuzu's elements receive very high GOE in comparison to basically everyone else in the men's field. Even if you think Nathan Chen or whomever is overscored in GOE (I agree with this!), he still doesn't get as high GOEs as Yuzu, so Yuzu still benefits more. And like I said earlier, quad repetition rule is, imo, at worse a wash, and even possibly beneficial to Yuzu.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

4F got a lot of love comparatively.

Well, like the 4Z, I'd say the 4F was undervalued in the former SOV. It should have been something like 12.5 or 12.6 instead of 12.3. It would still be a considerable increase but I think that it's making up for the 4F being (IMO) too underscored to begin with. While we expect everything to be proportional to the last system, the ISU might assess jumps differently from how you or I do. For example some people swear that a loop is easier than a flip... some find a quad toe way easier than a 3A. Can't keep everyone happy.

I don't think it'll matter anyways because there aren't many skaters who can do a 4F well. Nevertheless, other skaters who don't do a 4F are also more than welcome to learn it.

 

[oatmella]

As far I know, only one or two skaters can currently do a 4F well.

It must be very difficult - I have seen that jump named as one that certain skaters won’t even be attempting

 

[halulupu]

ok, only 1 pt difference between 4lz and 4a is not very logical. however, 4a is the most irrelevant jump of all, since it is a very theoretical one. so please don`t overreact! much more relevant is the fact that they lowballed stepseq. It actually doesn`t make any sense at all and effects all skaters with good skating skills!

 

[moriel]

ok, only 1 pt difference between 4lz and 4a is not very logical. however, 4a is the most irrelevant jump of all, since it is a very theoretical one. so please don`t overreact! much more relevant is the fact that they lowballed stepseq. It actually doesn`t make any sense at all and effects all skaters with good skating skills!

Actually, people are so unhappy with 4A value because, while it is a theoretical one right now, it could soon become a practical one.
I mean, look at the top men's quads - the competition on top is getting tighter, and with old scoring, it would be a matter of a season or two until we start seeing 4A tries.
With new scoring, it is not worth the risk, because the scores are too low.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Actually, people are so unhappy with 4A value because, while it is a theoretical one right now, it could soon become a practical one.
I mean, look at the top men's quads - the competition on top is getting tighter, and with old scoring, it would be a matter of a season or two until we start seeing 4A tries.
With new scoring, it is not worth the risk, because the scores are too low.

I don't think 4A attempts will be avoided because a skater gets 12.5 points instead of 15 points. They will attempt it because of the achievement. Even with 4-5 points more that isn't worth the risk.

 

[BillNeal]

Actually, people are so unhappy with 4A value because, while it is a theoretical one right now, it could soon become a practical one.
I mean, look at the top men's quads - the competition on top is getting tighter, and with old scoring, it would be a matter of a season or two until we start seeing 4A tries.
With new scoring, it is not worth the risk, because the scores are too low.

Which I think is exactly what they are going for. As seen from the max and min scores calculated, they are only making the new max score for 4A slightly higher than the old max but severely punishing poor attempts. They are also punishing poor attempts for all other quads more severely and rather have skaters do triples, if they are not ready to perform well-executed quads. They generally want to emphasize quality over quantity. Gone are the days where quad falls can outscore well executed triples (this was always true for 4Lz). They are generally discouraging quad splatfests and this is the way they are choosing to do it.

They are lowering the risk/reward ratio for 4A the most. By adopting this cautious approach, they are doing their part to discourage skaters from trying this jump without causing the outcry that would follow with an extreme measure as banning a jump. And for those saying there will still be select skaters that won't feel discouraged by the new risk/reward ratio and will do it to be the first one to land it, then it would be on those skaters but the ISU can say they put in the measures through scoring.

 

[Scout]

I don't think 4A attempts will be avoided because a skater gets 12.5 points instead of 15 points. They will attempt it because of the achievement. Even with 4-5 points more that isn't worth the risk.

Like Yuzu!

 

[lichi]

As far I know, only one or two skaters can currently do a 4F well.

It must be very difficult - I have seen that jump named as one that certain skaters won’t even be attempting

I'm not sure what you mean by "very difficult", but "certain skaters" who aren't attempting the 4F would probably rather shoot for 4Lz which gave more points, not because of the difficultly. It's a bit unlike the scenario with the 4Lo, where skaters (even the ones with good edge jumps) are avoiding it because of rotation issues.

Also, IMO, the difficultly level should go: 4T < 4S < Gap < 4F < 4Lz < Gap < 4Lo

 

[Miller]

On who the changes as a whole help/hurt, at least in men's:
Don't have feelings one way or another about this, but I don't really understand the argument that it benefits Nathan Chen at the expense of other men. Let's compare Nathan to Yuzu, since that's the rivalry that seems to be driving the controversy. Nathan has 4T, 4S, 4F, 4Lz, and an iffy 4Lo, whereas Yuzu has 4T, 4S, 4Lo, and an iffy 4Lz. With the quad repetition rule, it seems that Nathan has a 1 quad advantage over Yuzu, whereas without the quad repetition rule, Nathan has...a 1 to 2 quad advantage over Yuzu depending on which layouts we want to compare. I guess you could argue that Yuzu's 4Lo is iffy at this point too, but you can also argue that Nathan's 4S is iffy, so eh. Plus, with the quad repetition rule, men will want to repeat 3A to maximize their layout, and Yuzu's 3A is significantly better and more reliable than Nathan's.

Non-jump GOEs:
On who the changes as a whole help/hurt, at least in men's:
Not really sure why there seems to be paranoia among some of Yuzuru Hanyu's fans that the new rules are targeted at reducing his chances of winning. The only thing that would suggest that to me is the 4A base value, since he's probably the closest of anyone to landing it. But he hasn't even attempted that in competition yet, so it's only a hypothetical issue at this point. On the other hand, if the larger GOE range helps anyone, it helps Yuzu, because Yuzu's elements receive very high GOE in comparison to basically everyone else in the men's field. Even if you think Nathan Chen or whomever is overscored in GOE (I agree with this!), he still doesn't get as high GOEs as Yuzu, so Yuzu still benefits more. And like I said earlier, quad repetition rule is, imo, at worse a wash, and even possibly beneficial to Yuzu.

Another thing to bear in mind when it comes to the changes is the effect on combinations. For example Nathan currently does 6 quads, a 3A and a 3F-1Lo-3S combination. However will he still be able to do the -1Lo-3S combination in a 7 jumping pass world (quad repetition allowed), as he would either have to do it after a quad or the 3A which is not his best jump. OTOH, Yazuru would drop his 3Lo as his lowest value triple he's currently doing, but may have scope to bring it back instead of his -2T combination - he could do something like drop his 4T-2T, do a 2nd 3A, and then do either 3Lz-3Lo or 3F-3Lo. This would gain him a couple of points relative to Nathan, whereas I wouldn't have thought any sort of -3Lo combination was a possibility for Nathan.

If the no quads repetition rule is passed it's a bit more complicated, but it should still favour Yazuru. Both will drop 2 quads based on their Olympic programs, but Yazuru's 3A, which would effectively be the jump that replaces the 2 dropped quads, is stronger than Nathan's. Also they've got equal chances of upgrading via doing things like 4Lo's and 3Lz-3Lo's. However once Nathan does this he's going to hit problems with his -1Lo-3S again. For example if he's doing 5 different quads will he be able to do a -1Lo-3S after his 5 quads plus 2 3As, and a -3Lo combination would appear out of the question. However Yazuru's layout before upgrades of 4S 4T 3A 3A 3Lz 3Lz 3F would appear to be more conducive to doing both a 4Lo, and still do a 3Lz/3F-3Lo combo (and still do his 3A-1Lo-3S).

One final thing. If the judges follow the new guidelines for PCS's for programs with falls/serious errors Yazuru may be more affected than Nathan. If these guidelines are followed the highest scores for PCS should be 46.5/93.0 for men and 37.2/74.4 for women. Yazuru’s PCS's are typically higher than these even with mistakes (he got 96 at the Olympics and I would have thought his 2 errors would have counted as serious errors), whereas Nathan's are still typically in the high 80s from what I remember. Hence there's more scope for a Nathan program with a serious error to score as high or nearly as high as it used to before.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Like Yuzu!

Yes, like Yuzu or any of the other men who have been training a 4A or any who may have aspirations to attempt it. Who knows, Nathan might attempt it at some point because he's the only guy to have landed everything there is to land.