Flutzing

[ImaginaryPogue]

GOOD! You can be imaginative. For a system as nitty gritty as the CoP which recognizes the strict judgement of Under Rotations whether or not they disrupt the Flow of skating, to be so lenient when it comes to an element's definition shows a lack of understanding in the Sport.

They could amend this to have automatic deductions in many cases, URs for one. But if the name of a jump comes from its Takeoff, then that's what should be shown in a competition otherwise that intended jump never happened, if indeed, it was intended. Who knows? One should be judged on what is seen, not intended. Isn't that an axiom of the CoP?

That's the basic difficulty with COP. It can't go all the way, but it is structured to do so. So you end up with a hobgoblin of a system that pleases very few. And the thing is, to please the most, it can't be COP. Period.

 

[antmanb]

I stand by my belief, there is no such thing as a Wrong Edge Takeoff. The name of every jump comes from its Takeoff!

A Flutz is not a legal jump, but it could have possibilities: if the Takeoff was from the flat of the blade, but it could not and should not be call a Lutz which has its own definition. An appropriate base value would be 3 for the air turns and solid landings.

If an intended lutz takes off on a back inside edge, it is a FLIP by definition, and should be scored as such - Zayak Rule included!

I simply will not believe it unless it is written even bigger...and possibly in another colour. Then it will almost certainly be irrefutably true with no returnsies.

Ant

 

[seniorita]

I simply will not believe it unless it is written even bigger...and possibly in another colour. Then it will almost certainly be irrefutably true with no returnsies.

Ant

I still see the text black.
And you are not well informed. Mr Benjamin Flutz was German and if it was not for his Austrian cousin, he would have introduced the flutz earlier than the lutz. He performed it first time in 1932 Olympic Games and didnt got an edge call.
Mrs Helena Lip was from Peru and performed the double lip first time at Worlds 1900 where she won the bronze medal. She never was credited the bronze medalist title neither the jump because ladies were not allowed and now wikipedia quotes in her place no other competitors.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

So if a skater pops an axel but can he say the intended jump was a 3A?

 

[Mathman]

That's the basic difficulty with COP. It can't go all the way, but it is structured to do so. So you end up with a hobgoblin of a system that pleases very few. And the thing is, to please the most, it can't be COP. Period.

This is a perfect description of the problem. :yes: As in all human endeavor, it is impossible to construct a system for figure skating judging that is logically self-consistent but at the same time sufficiently robust to accommodate the full range of possible actions.

 

[Mathman]

So if a skater pops an axel but can he say the intended jump was a 3A?

No, it would be scored as a "0-Axel" with 0 base points.

Is this logically consistent with the way the CoP treats flutzes? No.

That's the point. The CoP is not logically consistent. In this respect, it is like everything else in the world.

Logic is highly over-rated, IMHO. Sometimes you just have to grab for the brass ring, logic be derned.

 

[antmanb]

So if a skater pops an axel but can he say the intended jump was a 3A?

Yawn. We have said everything that can be said on this topic Joe and we simply don't agree which is fine.

I was making a comment about the fact you felt the need to express your opinion in giant letters! Big or small, it doesn't make anyone's opinion fact, and on the internet large font is akin to shouting. Similarly shouting an opinion does not magically turn it into fact either.

Seniorita - are you trying to derail a thread again?!

Ant

 

[mskater93]

No, it would be scored as a "0-Axel" with 0 base points.

Actually, it's scored as "A" and gets a "-" for base points

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

No, it would be scored as a "0-Axel" with 0 base points.

Is this logically consistent with the way the CoP treats flutzes? No.

That's the point. The CoP is not logically consistent.

If the system is not consistent in part, can it not be fixed so that it applies to the whole?

Without getting into your distaste for logic, which I believe is only in the case of figure skating, can we not say that a Flutz is an intended Lutz and should be treated as a Lutz and not a Flip?

There are skaters who can not do a Lutz and probably never will so they would like the exception but for flutzing only - not any other jump which we believe they can do.

btw, is the word intended actually in the Rules of Figure Skating?

 

[Mathman]

If the system is not consistent in part, can it not be fixed so that it applies to the whole?

I do not believe that all of the parts can be made consistent with one another. Imaginary Pogee said it best a few posts back. The problem with the CoP is that it is impossible to do both of the following things at the same time:

(a) attain logical consistency, and

(b) be the CoP.

The problem is not any one particular thing. The inherent contradiction lies in the premise that it is possible to assign a fixed absolute number of points to every aspect of a figure skating performance that we value.

Without getting into your distaste for logic, which I believe is only in the case of figure skating,...

I find very little logic in anything. I do not see any logic in politics. I do not see any logic in economics. I do not see any logic in religion, or in art.

I like all of these aspects of life and find them interesting. I just don't think that they are governed by any discernible rules of logical inference.

...can we not say that a Flutz is an intended Lutz and should be treated as a Lutz and not a Flip?...

It would be fine with me if the ISU followed your suggestion and scored every jump off an inside back edge as a flip, and every jump off an outside back edge as a Lutz, period.

I not not, however, think that this would solve all the scoring problems. What if a skater attempted a flip out of three-turns, accidentally slipped over to a shallow outside edge at the last moment but did not achieve any counter-rotation.

Would this skater deserve to get credit for the higher-rated jump, a true Lutz. (Note that there is nothing in the definition of a Lutz that requires counter-rotation -- we just know that it is supposed to be that way.)

This skater has achieved extra positive points for messing up his entry.

btw, is the word intended actually in the Rules of Figure Skating?

You gave a good example of "intentions" in your last post. Suppose a skater "intends" to do a triple Axel, but totally pops it, just skating through the element. If the technical specialist decrees that this was an "attempt" at an Axel jump (even though in fact it was no jump at all), then the jump is scored as an Axel, it fills the Axel box so you can't get a do-over, and you get zero points.

So in this case, yes, if you "attempt" an Axel, you get zero points, but if the technical specialist rules that there was no attempt, then you can throw an Axel into the program later and get points for it.

In other words an "attempt" counts, but it counts in a negative way. You actually lose points for attempting something but not doing it.

Just another little foible of the CoP.

 

[seniorita]

I m really so many people in this thread can skate , let alone jump 3lutzes
I thought going forward without hugging the boards or someone else was enough one year progress by me. By the way in Leuven were the rink is more of a sports rink than the one at Brussels, I ve noticed how the little kids learn the single jumps, and always the first one is the salcow, is there a reason?

 

[antmanb]

I m really so many people in this thread can skate , let alone jump 3lutzes
I thought going forward without hugging the boards or someone else was enough one year progress by me. By the way in Leuven were the rink is more of a sports rink than the one at Brussels, I ve noticed how the little kids learn the single jumps, and always the first one is the salcow, is there a reason?

The first rotational jump most people learn is the waltz jump (or three jump in the UK). FO edge half a turn in the air land on the opposite foot. A natural progression to that jump is the salchow often described in those first few lessons as "a waltz jump from backwards", it has a similar kick-through with the free leg to help get you off the ice and thinking of it as a waltz jump from backwards helps to teach you the jump.

I practice I think the salchow and toe-loop are taught more or less simultaneously. My coach taught me the toe-loop before the salchow but it was only a couple of weeks apart and for a very long time niether were "jumps" in the true sense - they barely left the ice!

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Would this skater deserve to get credit for the higher-rated jump, a true Lutz. (Note that there is nothing in the definition of a Lutz that requires counter-rotation -- we just know that it is supposed to be that way.)

It's implied because it is obvious.

You gave a good example of "intentions" in your last post. Suppose a skater "intends" to do a triple Axel, but totally pops it, just skating through the element. If the technical specialist decrees that this was an "attempt" at an Axel jump (even though in fact it was no jump at all), then the jump is scored as an Axel, it fills the Axel box so you can't get a do-over, and you get zero points.

The Tech Spec is part of the whole foible you speak of. Every skater knows as much as he does but they are not in the Ruling Class, and you are only interested in the Ruling Class. Not a protester?

Just another little foible of the CoP.[/QUOTE]
MM, you are a Rulesman. Foibles do not play in Sports. You know when the Rule is wrong but you stick by it anyway. The term Wrong Edge Takeoff is in the Regulations and that is your rationale even though you know it is wrong, if the definition of an element means anything.

btw - It only applies to an "attempted" lutz. (maybe a lip, too) All other jumps must be executed according to their definition. Correct?
I can't buy it. I'm too much into Sport which should not pamper the athletes regardless of official acceptance. It gets no respect from Sportsmen outside figure skating. c'est la vie.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I m really so many people in this thread can skate , let alone jump 3lutzes
I thought going forward without hugging the boards or someone else was enough one year progress by me. By the way in Leuven were the rink is more of a sports rink than the one at Brussels, I ve noticed how the little kids learn the single jumps, and always the first one is the salcow, is there a reason?

There is the Bunny Hop which teaches kids to land forward from a Split Jump. Then the waltz jump; then a loop jump as I remember.
Usin the toe offs you change a salchow to a flip and a loop jump to a toeloop. The toeoffs prevent pre-rotation. Edge Jumps have a tendency to pre-rotate, and are more difficult to do perfectly. I saw one gal in the GPs do a complete circle on the ice then jump in the air for a rotation. That was a double loop jump. :sheesh:

 

[mskater93]

There is the Bunny Hop which teaches kids to land forward from a Split Jump. Then the waltz jump; then a loop jump as I remember.
Usin the toe offs you change a salchow to a flip and a loop jump to a toeloop. The toeoffs prevent pre-rotation. Edge Jumps have a tendency to pre-rotate, and are more difficult to do perfectly. I saw one gal in the GPs do a complete circle on the ice then jump in the air for a rotation. That was a double loop jump. :sheesh:

Actually, a bunny hop is not a "split jump". It teaches a skater to reach up to their toe pick on the take off and to kick the free leg through straight (like a Waltz jump and Axel-type jumps)

Jump progression is:
Waltz jump
Toe loop/Salchow (either order, typically taught together)
Loop
Flip
Lutz
Axel
2S/2T
2Lo
2F
2Lz
2A

If you think there's no pre-rotation on a flip and a toe loop, you are sadly mistaken. The same "check mark" should occur on the end of the take off for the salchow and the pick mark for the toe loop. The "flag" at the end of the loop take off will match the pick mark for the flip.

 

[Mathman]

It's implied because it is obvious.

Ah. I see. "Implied."

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Ah. I see. "Implied."

Well, Real Lutzers do counter rotate, but if you mean Flutzers, then they can turn any which way they want and takeoff any which way they want under the Intent Rule but not for all jumps just the intended lutz.

 

[Mathman]

I just think we are headed down a slippery slope when we start going by what the definition implies rather than what the definition says.

The question I have is, what if you manage to take off from a very shallow and wobbly outside back edge, but do not achieve any counter-rotation. Does that satisfy the definition of a Lutz jump?

 

[herro]

There is the Bunny Hop which teaches kids to land forward from a Split Jump. Then the waltz jump; then a loop jump as I remember.
Usin the toe offs you change a salchow to a flip and a loop jump to a toeloop. The toeoffs prevent pre-rotation. Edge Jumps have a tendency to pre-rotate, and are more difficult to do perfectly. I saw one gal in the GPs do a complete circle on the ice then jump in the air for a rotation. That was a double loop jump. :sheesh:

I actually never officially "learned" how to do a bunny hop. I'd been skating on my own (doing my own versions of waltz jumps and scratch spins during public sessions - LOL) before being contacted by a coach, so I just went right into waltz jumps.

I learned my jumps in exactly the order mskater93 mentioned (salchow before toe loop though) except that I started "working" on the 2A simultaneously with some other doubles (the 2Lo, 2F, and 2Lz) - which I now know was the perfect thing to do because the 2A takes so long to master.

Anyways, back to my point. I see what people mean when they talk about "pre-rotation" for edge jumps but I don't get why it's such a big deal. It's the nature of edge jumps to have this "pre-rotation" that people talk about. For example, to get a lot of height on the loop jump, you have to really "sit-in" on the back outside edge and start tracing out a circle on the ice to get the momentum to jump. You simply can't do edge jumps (well, triples anyway) without having this "pre-rotation." The degree to which one "pre-rotates" is really different from skater to skater (I mean, I don't know anyone who measures that when training edge jumps... I guess you could go back and examine the ice after you jump?). As long as it's not like a full rotation or something on the ice, I think it's fine.

Not meaning to single you out at all Joesitz, but I've noticed that ever since Yuna and Mao came on the scene, a lot of new fans (you know the fans I'm talking about... with the crazy youtube videos) who didn't know that much about skating started to talk about pre-rotation and it really bugged me... I especially LOL'd for a really long time when I saw those ridiculous videos with actual measurements of pre-rotation.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Well, too much pre-rotation is bad technique. Most commonly on the toeloop, with skaters using the toepick to pull themselves around into the jump rather than getting solidly into the ice and springing UP.