How much is a triple Axel really worth?

[merrybari]

Thanks, Mathman, for the Zayak clarification. That's a lot of information for the competitors to process, IMHO. Once they get it all factored into their programs, they'd better not make any changes on the fly, so to speak. If they make a mistake and try to add something to make up for it and have lost count of what they've already done it could cost them big time

I suspect training muscle memory is the best way to go - to quote Scott Hamilton, "don't think, just do." That's where the training comes in.

 

[Mathman]

Once they get it all factored into their programs, they'd better not make any changes on the fly, so to speak. If they make a mistake and try to add something to make up for it and have lost count of what they've already done it could cost them big time.

That's for sure. Two years ago Nobunari Oda lost the Japanese Championship because he put in an extra sequence. Only three are allowed, so when he did a successful triple jump near the end of the program, then tacked a double toe onto it for good measure, he lost credit for the whole thing. In fact, they originally declared Oda the winner, then had to go back and revise his score and give the title to Takahashi.

Then at Worlds he did the exact same thing, and it cost him the bronze medal.

At one competition I saw, Kimmie Meissner had a bad landing on her opening element, which was supposed to be a triple Lutz / triple toe. The Lutz was downgraded to a double and she did not attempt the second jump at all.

Then in the second half of the program she had planned a solo triple Lutz, which she landed well enough that she could have tacked at least a double toe onto it. It seemed to me that the wheels were just spinning in her head -- let's see, can I turn this into a combo or not? It sure looked like she had a notion -- but by then it was too late, so she just went on with her program, taking the 20% deduction for the "+SEQ".

Michelle Kwan, on the other hand, sometimes prepared and practiced two different endings to her program. If she hit her triple toe / triple toe at the beginning, then she did a split jump at the end . If she missed the triple / triple (doing only a triple toe / double toe), then she put an extra triple toe at the end.

So what do we get at the end of the evening? A best skater that night? or a best planner of programs that night?

That was kind of the question I was trying to raise.

If you plan two triple Lutzes and two triple flips, on paper, that's 23 points right there.

But if your average scores on these elements in actual competition are only 2.89 for each Lutz attempt and 2.59 for each flip attempt, maybe you would do better by replacing these elements with a beautiful loop or a double Axel.

 

[Bennett]

How much increase?

If the base values for 3A and a quad increases, what would be an adequate range of increase? My vote goes for +1.5 to both.

 

[Mathman]

If the base values for 3A and a quad increases, what would be an adequate range of increase? My vote goes for +1.5 to both.

Would that be the same for both men and ladies? Allmost all of the top men can do a triple Axel, and it's the quad that separates the men from the boys.

For ladies, only two competitors in the world can do it, Asada and Nakano

 

[Bennett]

Would that be the same for both men and ladies? Allmost all of the top men can do a triple Axel, and it's the quad that separates the men from the boys.

For ladies, only two competitors in the world can do it, Asada and Nakano

I think that the value should be the same for both.

 

[mizu_iro]

I don't think that the triple axel's base value needs to be increased. Considering how many splats and injuries we're already seeing, what would happen if the triple axel became the end-all move for the ladies? The benefits in base values that can be achieved by including a triple axel (as Mathman pointed out) are enough, I think. The reason that neither Mao nor Yukari can take full advantage is because Mao has no salchow, a largely untested toe loop and a flutz (as of now) and Yukari has the wrap and a toe-axel, which realistically prevent her from doing a triple-triple.

Now, if Miki started to put the quad in...she could become untouchable technically, even if the values remain as they are. Replacing the triple salchow with the quad in her recent Nationals layout and the final 2A with a 3S would result in:
3Z-3R, 4S, 3F, 3R*, 3Z*, 3T-2R-2R*, 3S-2R*
Base Value: 52.4

That is pretty close to untouchable if clean. Scary thing is, it's not unrealistic for her. Certainly more realistic than fixing Yukari's leg wrap, and probably more realistic than fixing Mao's flutz. So the base values are fine the way they are. If a skater like Miki, who has good technique on every single jump, lands the quad consistently, she would be rewarded richly.

 

[Bennett]

Allmost all of the top men can do a triple Axel, and it's the quad that separates the men from the boys.

Not really. Many have some troubles with 3A. I think it a big jump for both men and women.

 

[Bennett]

The benefits in base values that can be achieved by including a triple axel (as Mathman pointed out) are enough, I think.

I don't think so. That advantage is earned by the other jumps, rather than the difficult jump per se. It's different from getting credit for succeeding a very difficult jump. I think it more straightforwrard to get credit for the difficult jump itself.

 

[mizu_iro]

I don't think so. That advantage is earned by the other jumps, rather than the difficult jump per se. It's different from getting credit for succeeding a very difficult jump. I think it more straightforwrard to get credit for the difficult jump itself.

But I think that's going too far. It is more straightforward to reward the jump directly, but it would be too much of an advantage once you add that to the existing Zayak rule benefits. If that became the base, everyone would start to attempt triple axels and the result of that would probably be injuries and even more falls than we're already seeing. As I said before, Mao could completely dominate solely based on her base value, even with the current rules...if only she had a salchow and a true lutz.

 

[skatergirl45]

If we increase the triple axel too much, it might be worth more to so a VERY under-rotated triple than a nice clean double........... and that is no good........

 

[Bennett]

If that became the base, everyone would start to attempt triple axels and the result of that would probably be injuries and even more falls than we're already seeing.

Yes, I do personally feel concerned about ppl trying too difficult jumps beyond their capacity. But that concern doesn't keep me from acknowledging those who actually succeed in extremely difficult jumps. I think that they should be more fully rewarded.

 

[gkelly]

If we increase the triple axel too much, it might be worth more to so a VERY under-rotated triple than a nice clean double........... and that is no good........

That wouldn't happen because if it's underrotated even 91 degrees (which is not VERY underrotated), it would be scored as a bad double.

However, currently a triple axel that is rotated but ends in a fall nets the same score (base mark 7.5 minus 3.0 GOE for 4.5 total for the element, and minus 1.0 fall deduction = 3.5 points net value) as a just adequate double axel (3.5 base value).

If the base value of the triple were increased, then it would be worth more to fall on a rotated triple than to land an adequate double. Already it's worth more to fall on a rotated quad than to land a just adequate triple of the same takeoff.

Personally I think the solution is to make the negative GOEs for triple axels and quads larger than 1.0 for each minus, so that even without a fall deduction a difficult jump that's flawed enough to earn -3 GOE would end up being worth the same as or less than an adequate jump of the same takeoff and one fewer rotation. That could be done whether the base value of these difficult jumps remains as is or is increased further.

The question is whether the system should be rewarding risk or rewarding quality. There are advocates on both sides of that debate when it comes to difficult jumps. Obviously the ones who want to increase their base values are on the side of rewarding risk.

 

[Bennett]

The question is whether the system should be rewarding risk or rewarding quality. There are advocates on both sides of that debate when it comes to difficult jumps. Obviously the ones who want to increase their base values are on the side of rewarding risk.

I am on the side of increasing the base values. My thinking behind it is to reward difficulty, rather than to reward risk. I think that 3A and quads are simply so much more difficult than other triples.

Personally I think the solution is to make the negative GOEs for triple axels and quads larger than 1.0 for each minus, so that even without a fall deduction a difficult jump that's flawed enough to earn -3 GOE would end up being worth the same as or less than an adequate jump of the same takeoff and one fewer rotation. That could be done whether the base value of these difficult jumps remains as is or is increased further.

That's a good idea. But if we do so, I think that the rule should be applied to every trick, i.e., the deduction for every fall should be proportinately determined relative to the base value of whatever trick you are doing.

 

[gkelly]

That's a good idea. But if we do so, I think that the rule should be applied to every trick, i.e., the deduction for every fall should be proportinately determined relative to the base value of whatever trick you are doing.

I'm not talking about fall deductions, but about the GOE reductions.

Triple axel is currently worth 7.5, and double axel is worth 3.5 (base value).

The negative GOEs for double axels are now prorated as 0.8 for -1, 1.6 for -2, and 2.5 for -3. So if you rotate a double axel and fall, the -3 GOE is 2.5, leaving a total of 1.0. After the additional deduction for the fall from the total score, the net contribution of the element to the final score is 0, as if you just hadn't tried the element at all. If you make enough other mistakes but don't fall and don't underrotate enough to have the jump downgraded, the net score will be 1.0, or just slightly more than the 0.8 base mark for a single axel.

The negative GOEs for all triple and higher jumps are in multiples of 1.0, so -3 GOE subtracts 3.0 from the base mark.
If you rotate a triple axel and fall, the -3 GOE takes the value of the element down to 4.5. After a fall deduction from the total score, the net contribution of the attempt is 3.5, same as for an adequate double axel.

But suppose you do a triple axel with a badly skidded takeoff, sloppy air position, step out of the landing, and put your hand(s) on the ice. That will get -3 reduction from the GOE, but no fall deduction. So the attempt ends up netting 4.5, which is 1.0 more than a decent double. I'm suggesting that maybe a triple axel that badly flawed should not be worth more than a clean double.

If you work out the numbers for quads, the value of the seriously flawed quad, with or especially without a fall, ends up being notably higher than the value for an adequate or even a good (+1) triple of the same takeoff.

I would suggest increasing the penalties in the GOE so that a badly flawed quad is not worth more than a good triple, even if there is no fall. If there is a fall, then there would be the additional fall deduction off the total score.

The GOE reductions are already prorated such that -1 < 1.0 off/-3 < 3.0 for lower value elements; I'm just suggesting that the reductions for jumps ery high-value elements be prorated in the other direction so that -1 > 1.0 off/-3 > 3.0 off.

I'm not proposing prorating the fall deduction based on the value of the element, because some falls do not occur on elements. Would that mean no deduction for those falls?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

After all my years complaining about the scoring of the Flutz (a non entity in the figure skating vocabulary) they finally came up with a name: Wrong Edge Takeoff. Praise to be. It's a step in the direction of fairness to all skaters. How well it's enforced is another topic.

Now if the ISU could come up with a Score by Definition and throw out this notion there was an attempt, we could start seeing better execution of the elements without gratuities.

Personally, I would do away with the plus GoEs. The Base Value should be enough to credit the element as properly executed. Any special positive additions to that element could be credited in the PCS scores.

The minus GoEs do serve a purpose. The definition was achieved but did not show any requirements before the take-off, and the landings with hands down, hook edges, step outs, etc. should reflect -goes.

Falls caused by elements should not get any credit in Base Values.

Joe

 

[merrybari]

Personally, I would do away with the plus GoEs. The Base Value should be enough to credit the element as properly executed. Any special positive additions to that element could be credited in the PCS scores.
Joe

Makes sense to me. :agree:

 

[kandidy]

Thanks for your amazing data, but I think it is worth and more encouraging to try the difficult jumps in CoP than in 6.0?
At least until last year when the edge take off calling was not strictly watched like this year.

 

[gkelly]

I disagree with every word of Joesitz's last post.

Now if the ISU could come up with a Score by Definition and throw out this notion there was an attempt, we could start seeing better execution of the elements without gratuities.

How does defining a difficult element more precisely make it any easier for skaters who have trouble with that element to execute it correctly?

If you start giving no credit for elements that come up short just slightly in meeting the definition, I expect that what would happen is that fewer skaters would even attempt the element -- they would just replace it with something they know they can get credit for.

 

[hockeyfan228]

After all my years complaining about the scoring of the Flutz (a non entity in the figure skating vocabulary) they finally came up with a name: Wrong Edge Takeoff.

Perhaps they finally came up with a name, but from the first version of CoP, there were defined deductions from GOE for Wrong. Edge. Takeoff, depending on the severity of the error. It was only this year that the ISU put power in the technical panel to call a wrong edge takeoff, which requires the judges to deduct the flaw from GOE.

 

[Mathman]

I disagree with every word of Joesitz's last post.

But tell us what you really think...

...fewer skaters would even attempt the element -- they would just replace it with something they know they can get credit for.

In a way, that's kind of what this thread is about. Whatever the scoring system, would it be better for a skater to attempt a risky element like a flip (average value 2.59) or to replace it with a safer element like a Salchow (average value 3.21)?

I think it is worth and more encouraging to try the difficult jumps in CoP than in 6.0?

At least until last year when the edge take off calling was not strictly watched like this year.

I'm not sure. Every time I think I know the answer to a question like that, posters more knowledgeable than I, like gkelly and Hockeyfan, jump in to remind me that "it was like that under 6.0 judging, too."

Under ordinal judging, clean programs were appreciated, falls were frowned upon, doing lots of hard jumps was rewarded, and wrong edge take-offs, underrotations, off-balance landings, travelling spins, weak transitions and everything else were taken into account by the judges, just like now. The main difference is that now we can break down the contribution, pro and con, of each aspect of the skater's performance a little better than before.