Ladies LP

[skatingbc]

Not consistently clean, I am betting.

IMO, there's so such thing as a consistently clean UR jump. But in this case, the problem is that they are consistently landed UR jumps, that I suppose would be clean otherwise.

If a skater needs an extra 1/2 of a rotation for their attempt at a Triple to be ratified, then it's not even an underrotated Triple. It is just an overrotated Double.

An underrotated Triple = missing 1/4 of rotation at most from what is considered to be a ratifiable Triple.

I mean 1/2 rotation from landing completely backwards. This 1/2-1/3 of a rotation includes the 1/4 rotation that is allowed for a jump to be ratified as a completely rotated triple, so I guess it's really just that extra 1/4 rotation that the skaters can have the most trouble with.

 

[Blades of Passion]

the problem is that they are consistently landed UR jumps, that I suppose would be clean otherwise.

If the landing is really consistently good enough that the skater wouldn't get -GOE for the jump, then they are capable of rotating the Triple sufficiently enough for it to not get downgraded. It means they are being safer in terms of trying to rotate so that they can feel more secure with the landing. They are scared of falling, so they pull less hard (or don't enter the jump with enough speed, or whatever it is they are holding back on).

Hopefully they can continue to work on the jump and start landing a complete Triple consistently. Otherwise, even if UR jumps were worth more, they would never reach the World Champion level that everyone dreams of.

 

[skate4ever]

at least an extra 1/2 rotation (which would be the minimum required for it to be defined as an UR Triple)

It looks like you really don't know what you want, so let me just ask you three questions:

According to your suggestion,

1) How would you score a jump with 2.6 rotations?

2) How would you score a jump with 2.4 rotations?

3) How would you score a jump with 2.2 rotations?

 

[i love to skate]

Actually, it is certainly part of this debate. A jump can take off at any given point. From wherever a jump takes off, it is going to rotate a certain amount of degrees in a circle.

Whatever point it starts at and whatever point it stops doesn't matter (it terms of geometry). If you draw a line from the top of a circle all the way around, you've traced 360 degrees. If you draw a line from the bottom of a circle all the way around, you've still traced 360 degrees.

Triples that are underrotated are still achieving a specific amount of rotation.

Untrue. You continue to ignore exact examples I've used and only argue within your own realm of theory.

So, I'll say it again...double-footed jumps give you points. Why is it then that we don't see skaters purposefully trying to double-foot jumps and thus give themselves more insurance on the landing?

Because you lose points in relation to what you could have gotten if you do such a thing. Which means you probably won't win. If skaters try to do underrotated jumps, they are simply going to keep losing to the skaters who fully rotate them.

In addition to that, if a skater doesn't have some ability to do the actual Triple, they aren't going to be able to try and underrotate a Triple but still land cleanly all the time. Other problems on the landing are likely to occur.

Only a skater who has a decent level of control over a Triple can actually land an underrotated version of that jump cleanly on a consistent basis. Which is what we see happen with top skaters when it comes to underrotating jumps - Miki Ando's 3Lutz-3Loop combination, for example. She doesn't try to underrotate the 3Loop. She is capable of doing the jump but sometimes her momentum isn't exactly correct, and thus the landing comes up a little short but the jump still exits cleanly on the landing.

If someone who has never landed a 3Lutz-3Loop in their life goes out there every competition and tries to do a 3Lutz into an underrotated 3Loop, they are likely going to have problems on their landings. Which means they are losing more points. Which means it is pointless to try and do a 3Lutz/ underrotated 3Loop combination and nobody would attempt it.

Also, it is uncomfortable to make mistakes. Skaters want to skate the best they can. They don't want to try and double-foot jumps or try and underrotate jumps (in competition at least...doing such a thing to practice and get a feel for the Triple is different). They want to land perfect Triple jumps.

That is incorrect. Skaters can get rotation if that is the only objective. It's not that hard to rotate a Triple (once you are at a certain level) if you don't have to think about the landing at all...you can just throw yourself into the rotation.

Coming up slightly short of rotation but completely controlling the landing shows a greater degree of skill.

----

Well, yes, because it shows that the skater is learning how to feel the jump and get a sense of the rotation.

Those skaters who are constantly falling on Triples would not be able to consistently land a clean, slightly underrotated version of the Triple, though.

You know it would be a lot easier to have a discussion about this if your posts weren't filled with statements such as "you are confused" "this is untrue" or "this is incorrect". I have over twenty years of skating experience so I think I have a certain understanding of jumps, technique, and errors. If you don't think skaters try and underrotate a jump I don't know what to tell you. It is easier to do so they continue doing the same technique and cross their fingers that it won't get downgraded.

I am not confused about an underrotated jump being done (yes even when it is 1/4underrotated I can tell) and I also know it is easier to underrotate a jump than to fully rotate one (I've done both).

 

[prettykeys]

Without getting into the details of this heavy debate, I just would like to point out that it's important to separate motivation from execution in judgment.

To me, arguing that "skaters will have less motivation to fix and do a completely rotated 3 jump" is not a good argument for disproportionately high penalties. I BELIEVE this statement is true. I believe it is much more difficult to consistently execute a fully rotated, clean triple jump than it is to consistently execute an underrotated clean almost-triple jump. Some skaters might accept the smaller deductions on underrotated jumps (if they were instated) and prefer to work on other elements of their technique/presentation...or even just wait and hope that a favourite falters. I believe some incidences of underrotation are unintended; and I believe some are deliberate because the skaters are scared to push that far (because they aren't able to do the full triple cleanly--consistently, or at all.)

I believe rewards and penalties should be dealt according to fairness and impartial judgment based on what is seen, not looking into whether the specific skater intentionally did something or as a deterrant/incentive for future outlooks.

(I know now all people will agree with me on this but the reason I suggest this is because I don't believe anyone is telepathic or has the gift of psychic foresight.)

I also believe that lesser penalties on clean underrotated 3jumps will not remove all incentives to strive for the fully rotated (no one was arguing that, anyway).

In any case, motivation to fix underrotation should be huge right now, which is well and good, although I do not think the current penalties are fair as applied to underrotation. If a skater is scared or unable to do the full rotation, then let them cut their losses in points. Spectators can still enjoy the overall presentation.

 

[Blades of Passion]

It looks like you really don't know what you want, so let me just ask you three questions:

According to your suggestion,

1) How would you score a jump with 2.6 rotations?

2) How would you score a jump with 2.4 rotations?

3) How would you score a jump with 2.2 rotations?

Oh, I know exactly what I want. Perhaps I have not clarified myself enough.

Before I answer your question, though, we need to talk about rotation. Rotation should be counted from the point that a jump leaves the ice. It is standard for a jump to pre-rotate on the ice up to 1/2 turn before leaving the ice. For the sake of what you are asking, I will assume the rotation you are counting is rotations from the point that the skater "started" the jump (not left the ice), and that the jump left the ice 1/2 of a rotation into the jump.

Which would mean:

1.) This would be marked as an underrotated Triple

2.) This would be marked as a Double

3.) This would be marked as a Double

 

[Blades of Passion]

You know it would be a lot easier to have a discussion about this

It would be much easier to have a discussion if you didn't ignore the points that were being made. You continue disregard everything that proves you are wrong. Sometimes, we have to realize there are no Weapons of Mass Destruction.

If you don't think skaters try and underrotate a jump I don't know what to tell you. It is easier to do so they continue doing the same technique and cross their fingers that it won't get downgraded.

If the skater isn't being downgraded every time then clearly they aren't trying to underrotate and are actually achieving a sufficient amount of rotation at times.

If they are being downgraded every time, then they need to work harder. Even with underrotated jumps being worth more, they will likely just lose to good skaters who fully rotate their jumps.

I am not confused about an underrotated jump being done (yes even when it is 1/4underrotated I can tell)

Ah, but this is the other problem. You can't always tell exactly when a jump is underrotated or not. Nobody can. Sometimes it takes slow-motion replay to know for sure and even then there will be disagreements about whether or not it should be downgraded.

It is NOT good for the sport when skaters are losing a massive amount of points on the whim of the tech specialist.

and I also know it is easier to underrotate a jump than to fully rotate one (I've done both).

Of course it is easier to underrotate than fully rotate.

It is not easier to underrotate and land cleanly than it is to rotate slightly more and not even try to land, however.

Again, throwing yourself into a jump and only trying to get rotation is not the most difficult thing once you have reached a certain level of skill. Landing is the harder part. Every top male skater has rotated a Quad at some point during their practices.

 

[skate4ever]

1) How would you score a jump with 2.6 rotations?
2) How would you score a jump with 2.4 rotations?
3) How would you score a jump with 2.2 rotations?

1.) This would be marked as an underrotated Triple
2.) This would be marked as a Double
3.) This would be marked as a Double

But according to your reasoning,
a jump with 2.4 rotations deserves more points than a double,
because the former requires more "skill" than the latter, no?

 

[Blades of Passion]

There have to be boundaries.

The qualification of Double, underrotated Triple, and Triple is enough.

The difference between a Double jump (2 "rotations") and an overrotated Double jump (possibly 2.4 "rotations") is not enough to make a distinction. If the skater is getting between 2.5 to 2.75 "rotations", though, that shows a very clear attempt at a Triple and should be scored on a higher level. With that amount of rotation, the skater is at least getting past the half-way point of the circle.

**Btw, it really bothers me to talk about rotation in the terms you are using. The base line of a Triple jump is really 2.25 rotations in the air.

 

[prettykeys]

It is not easier to underrotate and land cleanly than it is to rotate slightly more and not even try to land, however.

Again, throwing yourself into a jump and only trying to get rotation is not the most difficult thing once you have reached a certain level of skill. Landing is the harder part. Every top male skater has rotated a Quad at some point during their practices.

But does any skater truly do that? Does anyone really try to do only the rotations and say "to hell with the landing"?

To use a similar argument you are using, every skater has incentive to still try to land a jump even if they have barely managed to do the required number of rotations (just as you argue that penalizing underrotated jumps less wouldn't remove incentive to still try for the full rotation and landing.)

What if a skater who is frequently underrotating jumps that are being landed cleanly would, more often than not, fall on a fully rotated triple? Then it becomes a trade-off, and a decision has to be made about which is (or should be) valued more.

**Btw, it really bothers me to talk about rotation in the terms you are using. The base line of a Triple jump is really 2.25 rotations in the air.

I am curious to see where this guideline is written. Could you show me an ISU guideline concerning this? I'm not challenging you, but I guess I would like to see the rule for myself.

 

[mskater93]

But does any skater truly do that? Does anyone really try to do only the rotations and say "to hell with the landing"?

I am curious to see where this guideline is written. Could you show me an ISU guideline concerning this? I'm not challenging you, but I guess I would like to see the rule for myself.

For your first question, Jeff Buttle at the 06 Olympics is a case in point to this. He KNEW there was no way on God's green earth he was going to land the quad attempt, but he threw it out there hoping to get enough points with the fall to make the podium.

Minimum of 2.25 rotations in the air comes from the prerotation of 1/2 a turn (look at any loop take off or sal, toe loop) and a 1/4 turn allowable on the landing.

 

[prettykeys]

For your first question, Jeff Buttle at the 06 Olympics is a case in point to this. He KNEW there was no way on God's green earth he was going to land the quad attempt, but he threw it out there hoping to get enough points with the fall to make the podium.

Minimum of 2.25 rotations in the air comes from the prerotation of 1/2 a turn (look at any loop take off or sal, toe loop) and a 1/4 turn allowable on the landing.

I know about the 1/4 turn underrotation that is allowable; but is the 1/2 turn allowable on take-off a standard rule? Also, is it distinctly made clear that these two rules can be combined? Because these two rules, it seems to me, can be made applicable on separate counts and not necessarily together.

I'm not a skater or an expert on ISU rules, which is why I'm confused.

 

[Mathman]

I for one don't get the uproar over Blades of Passion's rather mild proposal for revising the penalties for underrotation.

A year after the ISU came out with the "e" call, they decided to scale it a little by adding the "!" So a clear and ergregious wrong edge gets the full penalty, and a slight or questionable wrong edge gets a somewhat smaller penalty.

Now Blades of Passion is advocating a severe penalty for underrotating by more than 180 degrees, and a not-so-severe penalty for underrotating between 90 and 180 degrees. What's so bad about that?

 

[prettykeys]

Seriously, I just want to see the reference. I believe that the 1/4 underrotation is allowed, but I want to see exactly where this (and the other rules) are officially covered.

2.25 revolutions in the air for a triple jump sounds excessively low.:think:

 

[Blades of Passion]

I am curious to see where this guideline is written. Could you show me an ISU guideline concerning this? I'm not challenging you, but I guess I would like to see the rule for myself.

This is one of the problems - there isn't a rule.

Rotation is not defined in the ISU guidelines. The only thing it says is that a jump which is more than 1/4 turn short shall be downgraded.

However, factually, it is standard for all jumps to take off from the ice up to 1/2 rotation after the jump started.

Hence a "Triple" is really 2.25 rotations in the air, at minimum.

A "Quad" is really 3.25 rotations in the air, at minimum.

 

[hellcat]

While I agree most of the skaters don't do full 3 rotations, I don't agree with your interpretation.

Unless it is noted in the rule, it should be taken as it is written.

If nobody makes it 2.75 turns in the air, nobody should take the full credit for it.

But in fact, I believe there are skaters who do 2.75 or more rotations in the air.

There're many male skaters with delayed rotations who do that.

Look at this examples of 3lutz and 2A, going thru frame by frame, her rotation seems to be within that 1/4 margin or better.

(the following 2 are animated gifs so I changed it to be downloadable from inserted images as they're a bit too big for inserts - 3 & 5 MB)

http://www.box.net/shared/06os5kfkj3

http://www.box.net/shared/oktge6arog

Isn't this 3A?

http://www.box.net/shared/static/4y2u61sa8a.gif

Also, check out this beautiful jump by Peggy Fleming.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdPKgg8SGys

This is one of the problems - there isn't a rule.

Rotation is not defined in the ISU guidelines. The only thing it says is that a jump which is more than 1/4 turn short shall be downgraded.

However, factually, it is standard for all jumps to take off from the ice up to 1/2 rotation after the jump started.

Hence a "Triple" is really 2.25 rotations in the air, at minimum.

A "Quad" is really 3.25 rotations in the air, at minimum.

 

[prettykeys]

While I agree most of the skaters don't do full 3 rotations, I don't agree with your interpretation.

Unless it is noted in the rule, it should be taken as it is written.

If nobody makes it 2.75 turns in the air, nobody should take the full credit for it.

But in fact, I believe there are skaters who do 2.75 or more rotations in the air.

Yes, exactly. I do not agree with the 2.25 air rotation = triple jump analysis. It's far too little.

I'll accept 2.5 total air rotations at minimum. A skater can pre-rotate 1/4 and then underrotate 1/4. Or they can (if it is so standard, but I'd imagine it'd look REALLY weird) pre-rotate 1/2, but they'd better fully rotate on the landing.

 

[prettykeys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlEx48jE4rw

Vaughn Chipeur, not even a top male competitor. He's doing (what looks to me) less than 3 rotations in the air, but more than 2.5.

 

[prettykeys]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixweBf9qFY

Stephen Carriere seems to be doing a 3axel with 3 rotations in the air (making it 0.5 off the target 3.5 rotations required, so consistent with the standard I'd like--I have no idea why it says 'quad' as a tag)

 

[Blades of Passion]

If nobody makes it 2.75 turns in the air, nobody should take the full credit for it.

Unless it is noted in the rule, it should be taken as it is written.

That's the problem, though...there isn't anything written.

Nobody does 2.75 rotations in the air for the Loop, Salchow, and Toeloop.

For the Lutz and Flip it is different, the technique varies a lot more on those, but (especially among Ladies) 2.75 rotations isn't at all the norm for those jumps either.

---

Yes, exactly. I do not agree with the 2.25 air rotation = triple jump analysis. It's far too little.

You can't "not agree" with it. That's simply how jumps are done.

2.25 rotations is not ideal, but that is the minimum amount (1/4 turn short) needed to be considered a Triple jump.

I'll accept 2.5 total air rotations at minimum. A skater can pre-rotate 1/4 and then underrotate 1/4. Or they can (if it is so standard, but I'd imagine it'd look REALLY weird) pre-rotate 1/2, but they'd better fully rotate on the landing.

Look at the slow-motion for almost any Loop, Salchow, or Toeloop. 1/2 turn of pre-rotation is universally the norm for those jumps. It's not "weird", that's just how they work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aixweBf9qFY

Stephen Carriere seems to be doing a 3axel with 3 rotations in the air (making it 0.5 off the target 3.5 rotations required, so consistent with the standard I'd like--I have no idea why it says 'quad' as a tag)

No Triple Axel in the history of the sport has ever rotated 3.5 times in the air.

Alexei Yagudin has pretty much the best Triple Axel ever (as seen in the animated gif posted by hellcat) and he gets 3.25 rotations in the air at best.