- Joined
- Dec 4, 2004
My wife made me ask this. I dropped out of Bio- physics in the third grade.....
"Why are jumps landed backwards? Could some jumps land forwards?"
"Why are jumps landed backwards? Could some jumps land forwards?"
Landing forward.
- Thread starter CoyoteChris
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2013
- Country
-
Only if you want to break yourself.
It's a momentum thing. If you landed forward, on your toe pick, you will keep going forward...which means you will fall over your toepick, crunch, ala Jeremy Abbott smashing himself against the boards in Sochi. It's an easy way to get very hurt, that's why so often you see downgraded jumps (which land forward or close to forward) ending in falls.
Whereas landing backwards gives the ability to roll down off the toe (for landing) onto the edge of the blade and ride the momentum out backwards.
- Joined
- Feb 22, 2014
- Country
-
Thanks for the explanation, I've wondered this myself and with my lack of scientific knowledge it never occurred to me.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
In addition how would the judges know if you did a terrible 3Lo<< or if they intended to do a 2.5Lo for example.
Backwards is easier to properly judge with revolutions, and also for combination jumps and positioning (in addition to the momentum either throwing you forwards or spinning around to backwards.
Otherwise everybody would be doing 3x+eu+2A or 3x+eu+3A instead of a sequence or solo axel.
Backwards is easier to properly judge with revolutions, and also for combination jumps and positioning (in addition to the momentum either throwing you forwards or spinning around to backwards.
Otherwise everybody would be doing 3x+eu+2A or 3x+eu+3A instead of a sequence or solo axel.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2006
- Country
-
Yes they can land forwards-kind of.
But It's not the opposite of landing on an edge backwards if that is what you're asking.
Back in the "olden days" skaters did 1/2 jumps and 1 1/2 jumps (flip was popular). However, they are not landed on one foot; a little "tap" is done and the skater pushes forward out of it.
Here's a link to a 1/2 flip being instructed. Forward to the 1:07 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xatxfeBfbto
In today's world of the multi-revolution jumps - no forward landings that I can think of.
But It's not the opposite of landing on an edge backwards if that is what you're asking.
Back in the "olden days" skaters did 1/2 jumps and 1 1/2 jumps (flip was popular). However, they are not landed on one foot; a little "tap" is done and the skater pushes forward out of it.
Here's a link to a 1/2 flip being instructed. Forward to the 1:07 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xatxfeBfbto
In today's world of the multi-revolution jumps - no forward landings that I can think of.
- Joined
- Mar 24, 2019
- Country
-
Split and stag jumps land forwards, at least with a little tap on the left toe and then onto the right blade. Landing multi-revolution jumps forwards just sounds like a fatality waiting to happen, though.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2014
This video has been posted on the forums before, and there's also stuff like this combination.
Of course, those are just singles, and from a competition perspective, they aren't valid jumps.
Of course, those are just singles, and from a competition perspective, they aren't valid jumps.
I want a baxel transition though!
You do still sometimes see half-flips, like in this step-sequence:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Shouldn't really matter about 3Lo<< or 2.5Lo, because there shouldn't be any inherent -GOE in the rules for underrotation calls anyway. The base value deduction is already the penalty. Landing errors can be assessed on their own, it's obvious to see if someone is doing a 3Lo<< and showing further issues on the landing, vs a controlled 2.5 where you are trying to come out of the rotation earlier.
If << (2.5) jumps were credited as slightly higher base value, instead of being fully downgraded, and if the GOE assessments were more accurate, I still don't think we would see people trying them in serious competition. Just not worth it.
It's not possible to do 3x+eu+2A btw, the euler means a back inside edge landing. You could do an underrotated single Loop to try for a three-jump axel combo, but it's way too hard to get momentum like that, even if you can rotate the 2A (definitely won't be doing a 3A like that) it would be sloppy.
2Axel<< landing on the inside edge + Inside Axel was something I did for fun on a few occasions. That combo still wouldn't be competitively viable, but the Inside Axel and One-Foot Axel both deserve to be worth more points. One-Foot Axel + 3Sal is especially nice and should be worth way more points than it currently is.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
The baxel is basically a < or << 2Euler, heh.
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2020
- Country
-
Wouldn't be an Euler, though. For a person who spins to the left, a baxel takes off the right outside edge (landing edge) and rotates to the left. It is neither a walley or an euler.
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2019
Axel is honestly so easy to do of Eu<< . You get much better momentum in my experience, and much easier than a normal axel (once you get the timing which takes 2hours of training ish).
Axel landing on the other foot isn't the same as forward landings and a different conversation, and in my experience (me and 2-3friends trying) its much easier to do it than +3T combo's after a few attempts (again due to the momentum).
In reality, I see nothing wrong with current element lists and requirements, but I'd remove +SEQ rule, and add extra values for +3Lo/+3F Dmitriev flip, and then turn +eu combo's into 2 jump combo's and have another requirement for 3 jump combos (I want to start seeing quad-quad+quad combo's, and in terms of scoring this is probably how it would original happen)
Since you brought it up in the other thread... has anyone tried to get the ISU to allow a mazurka between the first jump and axel as an "allowed step" to get it ratified as a combo instead of a sequence? Just seems kind of dumb to not allow it.
They used to allow it. In fact, early in IJS they required hops between the rotational jumps that counted in a sequence, and a simple step would invalidate the sequence.
I don't know why they changed that. Probably to make things more black-and-white for the tech panel, so they didn't have to debate what was an intentional hop and what was a mistake.
I don't know why they changed that. Probably to make things more black-and-white for the tech panel, so they didn't have to debate what was an intentional hop and what was a mistake.
I think it could just be like making euler an allowed step for turning the +3S into a legitimate combo. It used to just be a sequence, right? And we still debate if the euler was real or a step out. They should propose a rule that allows +Axels to be done off mazurkas exclusively - and then if you do it off a mazurka, it will count as a combo instead of a sequence.
@kolyadafan2002 I agree that eulers should just be two-jump combos. I have said as much on the website before I think! It's just an edge change, lol. (I mean, from RBO to LBI). Then we can get back the nice +2T+2Lo and the higher level versions of those. (And also would be cool to see a +3S, +3F, and +3T+3Lo all in the same layout!)
