Major Changes Expected in Single Skating in 2010-2011

[Dodhiyel]

....I just want to say they are both difficult jumps, and you can't just argue which one is harder. It just depends on each skater.

I agree that the difficulty of moves, in general, varies according to a particular skater's gifts.

Here are examples. The lutz is considered to be a difficult jump, but Michael Weiss appeared to find it easier than some other jumps. Timothy Goebel mastered quads, but had trouble coping with the triple axel. I remember that, in his prime, Chengjiang Li said that he found the lutz really hard to do, although Chengjiang did other jumps with great aplomb back then, including quads.

Generalizations for scoring purposes have to be made about the difficulty of various moves, but, in the end, what is extremely difficult for one person, may be much easier for another.

 

[wallylutz]

In the SP, assuming Mao Asada goes for the following layout:

- 3F+3Lo
- 3A
- 3Lz

Her total BV, including the 10% bonus on the combo, would be 25.75 for jumps

Yu-Na Kim's usual format:

- 3Lz+3T
- 3F
- 2A

Will only score 20 points, including the bonus on the jump combo.

The net difference, 25.72 - 20.00 = 5.75 of advantage for Mao Asada, which is very significant. With the loss of Spiral Sequence in the SP, it also means the proportional weight of jumps go up as a whole vs. previous years. In other words, the 5.75 difference in the upcoming season worths more than the same amount of points in past seasons because the total TES would start off at a lower level than before as there are now fewer non-jump elements for anyone, including Kim, to try to overcome Asada's advantage in jumps. Assuming Kim's normal TES in the SP is about 43 points and she gets about 5.4 points form the Spiral (3.4 + 2), the new total TES without the Spiral is about 37.6 Divided 5.75 by 37.6/43 = 6.58 The actual advantage of Asada in the SP due to the Triple Axel being allowed is actually 6.58 points under today's value in order to compare the points on a 1 to 1 basis. Given that Asada, in the seasons past, have chosen the 3F+3Lo and 3Lz as her other jumping elements in the SP, it is illogical to assume an ambitious young woman like her would simply go for 3F+2T and 3Lo. The latter and simpler layout has NEVER been used by Asada in her senior competition so it's even further pointless that she would revert back to something as simple as those.

 

[wallylutz]

I agree that the difficulty of moves, in general, varies according to a particular skater's gifts.

Here are examples. The lutz is considered to be a difficult jump, but Michael Weiss appeared to find it easier than some other jumps. Timothy Goebel mastered quads, but had trouble coping with the triple axel. I remember that, in his prime, Chengjiang Li said that he found the lutz really hard to do, although Chengjiang did other jumps with great aplomb back then, including quads.

Generalizations for scoring purposes have to be made about the difficulty of various moves, but, in the end, what is extremely difficult for one person, may be much easier for another.

Yes, that's absolutely correct, to my chagrains actually.

 

[Mathman]

In the SP, assuming Mao Asada goes for the following layout:

- 3F+3Lo
- 3A
- 3Lz

Her total BV, including the 10% bonus on the combo, would be 25.75 for jumps
Yu-Na Kim's usual format:

- 3Lz+3T
- 3F
- 2A

Will only score 20 points, including the bonus on the jump combo.

The net difference, 25.72 - 20.00 = 5.75 of advantage for Mao Asada, which is very significant...

And?

If skater A does 3F+3Lo, 3A, 3Lz and skater B does 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A, then skater B has done very well but skater A has hit a home run. She deserves to be way out in front heading into the LP.

Actually, I feel sorry for the poor ISU technical committee. If no one except Mao Asada ever does a triple Axel, then the committee will be accused of cheating on behalf of one skater at the expense of her rival.

But if in the future lots of girls are inspired to attempt the triple Axel, then the committee is guilty of jeopardizing the well-being of children.

On the third hand, if they withdraw the new rule then they are old sticks-in-the-mud holding back progress.

They can't win.

I'm not sure if the changes are advantageous for particular skaters yet, but do you think all these changes will sell at the box office or enable FS to regain its former position on TV?

I doubt that any sort of tinkering with the scoring system will affect the popularity of the sport one way of the other. JMO.

 

[gkelly]

Women skater in the past who did 3/3, like who were able to consistently do 3/3? Tara had consitent 3l/3l, Kwan had Ok success with 3t/3t, Irina? hit and miss, Sarah Hughes? hit and miss, Arakawa? I don't remember any consisitent 3/3 from her, definitely not Cohen. So far I have covered most of the olys and world medalists. So, it still seems like the current rule is benefiting one specific skiater Yuna

Just for historical perspective, the 3-3 option was added to the ladies' short program beginning with the 1996-97 season.

The biggest beneficiaries were Krisztina Czako and Lenka Kulovana, who medaled at 1997 Europeans largely on the strength of their short program placements, achieved with 3T-3T combinations.

Amber Corwin, Surya Bonaly, and occasionally Laetitia Hubert also took advantage of doing 3T-3T in short programs.

Michelle Kwan had been doing 3T+3T and Irina Slutskaya and Tara Lipinski had been doing 3S+3Lo (Lipinski switched to 3Lo+3Lo in 1997) in their long programs but didn't plan triple-triples in the short, perhaps in the belief that judges wanted to see lutz combinations, or in the belief that they would be more consistent at landing a telegraphed lutz combo plus 3T, 3Lo, or 3F from preceding steps than doing the a 3-3 combo and 3Lz from steps. With today's explicit point values, the latter option would seem more attractive -- or 3F from steps if the skater consistently got edge calls on the lutz.

Elena Ivanova, the 1996 World Junior champion, had been doing 3Lz+3T and/or 3F+3T in her long programs, but she mostly stayed in junior competition internationally for the 1997 and 98 seasons, where 3-3 combo was not allowed in the short, so I don't know if she ever tried one in a senior short program the few times she competed as a senior before retiring ca. 1999.

Others who had landed 3-3 combinations in long programs in the past but were either retired or no longer up to that standard as of 1997 included Midori Ito, Debi Thomas, Nancy Kerrigan, Tonya Harding, Kristi Yamaguchi, Lu Chen, probably a couple others I'm forgetting or not aware of. Ito and Yamaguchi had landed more difficult 3-3s such as 3Lz+3T at least once.

Anyway, the point is that by the time 3-3 combo was allowed in the ladies' SP, there were plenty more ladies doing some sort of 3-3 combos than have done 3A in the past 2O+ years.

Actually how about change the rules to require a triple loop at least one in both programs, since most ladies can do it, and it is not even the most difficult jump, it is just a middle of the difficult jumps.

So how would you write that rule and how would you keep track across both programs? Although I'm sure everyone who planned 3Lo in only one program or the other would choose to do it in the LP.

How would you penalize skaters who don't attempt it? Would there be the same penalty if a skater just didn't plan a 3Lo at all in either program or if they obviously planned one with a long telegraphed entry in the LP but ended up doubling it or worse? How about if it's severely underrotated and not landed on one foot -- give full credit for trying and just penalize the errors the same as if they happened on any other triple?

If the idea is just to show variety of takeoffs, why forget the requirement but give an explicit incentive for including all takeoffs, including double jumps.

If the idea is to reward the loop specifically in the belief that the BO edge takeoff is equally important to show mastery of as the FO axel required takeoff, how requiring either double or triple loop?

Or give more incentive to 3Lo by raising the base value to equal that of 3F -- if more skaters are leaving out 3Lo and including 3F than vice versa, that implies that either the 3F is not really more difficult for almost all skaters or else that skaters are choosing to conserve time by training only one or the other and for obvious reasons choosing the one with the higher point value.

 

[Mathman]

Just for historical perspective,...

There seems to be a tension based on different visions of what the short program is supposed to accomplish. Should it comprise the “basic skills” that we expect all elite skaters to have in their repertoires? In this case the winner will be the skater who shows greatest mastery of these skills.

Or – is it a free-for-all where each skater struts his stuff. The winner is the last survivor of a “can you top this?” contest.

It seems to me that the current rules have elements of both perspectives.

If a lady did a quad out of footwork in the short program – just to thumb her nose at the rules – how would it be scored? Zero credit (like Surya Bonaly’s backflip at the 1998 Olympics)? Could she count it as a triple, only with an over-rotated landing (-1 GOE). If she were short on the landing (4S<), now would it be OK?

This whole triple Axel debate just seems ludicrous to me. I announce to you, I really enjoy seeing Axel jumps; if you do a double Axel for me i will give you a prize. So you do a triple. Get out of town, no prize for you!

 

[gkelly]

There seems to be a tension based on different visions of what the short program is supposed to accomplish. Should it comprise the “basic skills” that we expect all elite skaters to have in their repertoires? In this case the winner will be the skater who shows greatest mastery of these skills.

Or – is it a free-for-all where each skater struts his stuff. The winner is the last survivor of a “can you top this?” contest.

It seems to me that the current rules have elements of both perspectives.

Well, the SP has definitely never been a free-for-all the way the LP used to be. It started out being very much about specific elements. Since 1989 there has been a lot more freedom in the choice of elements.

And then with the IJS there is still the same amount of freedom in the SP for choice of elements but more restrictions on what constitutes a spiral sequence (until/unless that gets deleted next month) and heavy incentives to include certain kinds of features in spins and steps. And meanwhile the LP has become a lot more restricted in its construction, so that there is no longer much difference in the degree of freedom allowed between the two programs.

However, there is still some difference. If there is to be no difference except the length of the programs and number of elements, why not just make one-phase event with long program only? Or two long programs, so skaters would have plenty of opportunity to show all of their skills that might not fit into one LP?

If a lady did a quad out of footwork in the short program – just to thumb her nose at the rules – how would it be scored? Zero credit (like Surya Bonaly’s backflip at the 1998 Olympics)? Could she count it as a triple, only with an over-rotated landing (-1 GOE). If she were short on the landing (4S<), now would it be OK?

Under the current rules, I expect that as long as the tech panel called it as a 4S or 4S<, the computer would not accept it as a valid element for a ladies' SP and it would earn no value. Which would be a huge loss of points compared to just doing a 3S or 3F in that slot instead.

Now, I can give an example of something similar happening under the 6.0 system.

The US holds a collegiate national championship (junior and senior levels) for skaters who are enrolled in college programs. Some of the entrants are also national-level competitors; others are more recreational skaters who tested as far as they could during high school and probably cut back on their training while in college.

Therefore, the jump requirements for the short programs at these events are lower than for standard junior and senior competitions. E.g., juniors are allowed to do single axels as the solo axel, seniors are allowed to do double-double combinations and solo double out of steps, and senior men are not allowed to do quads or triple axel as the solo axel.

Braden Overett competed (and won) in 2003, and I remember reading reports at the time that he did a quad in his short program there. I'm sure he wasn't thumbing his nose but rather practicing a skill that he was trying to add to his programs to be used in regular senior competitions.

Looks like some judges took a large deduction for an incorrect element according to the special rules for that event, and a few forgot that the rules were different for that event and only took small deductions for minor technical errors.
http://www.usfigureskating.org/even...content/events/200304/ncc/seniormen-short.htm

Under IJS, we could see the same kind of discrepancy in judges' GOEs, but whether the element counts or not would be determined by the technical panel.

This whole triple Axel debate just seems ludicrous to me. I announce to you, I really enjoy seeing Axel jumps; if you do a double Axel for me i will give you a prize. So you do a triple. Get out of town, no prize for you!

Let me rephrase that with some examples of other restrictions in the short program.

I announce to you, I really enjoy seeing combination spins: if you do a combination spin with one change of foot and three different basic positions I will give you a prize. So you do a combination spin with three changes of foot and two basic positions. Get out of town, no prize for you!

I announce to you, I really enjoy seeing jump combinations; if you do two jumps in a row for me I will give you a prize; at least one of them must be a triple. So you do a jump sequence with a half-loop in between two triple jumps. Get out of town, no prize for you!

Again, both of those elements would be perfectly legal and earn points in a long program.

 

[Phoenix347]

There seems to be a tension based on different visions of what the short program is supposed to accomplish. Should it comprise the “basic skills” that we expect all elite skaters to have in their repertoires? In this case the winner will be the skater who shows greatest mastery of these skills.

Or – is it a free-for-all where each skater struts his stuff. The winner is the last survivor of a “can you top this?” contest.

It seems to me that the current rules have elements of both perspectives.

If a lady did a quad out of footwork in the short program – just to thumb her nose at the rules – how would it be scored? Zero credit (like Surya Bonaly’s backflip at the 1998 Olympics)? Could she count it as a triple, only with an over-rotated landing (-1 GOE). If she were short on the landing (4S<), now would it be OK?

This whole triple Axel debate just seems ludicrous to me. I announce to you, I really enjoy seeing Axel jumps; if you do a double Axel for me i will give you a prize. So you do a triple. Get out of town, no prize for you!

Then why have rules at all for the short program?? Why not just let each skater do whatever the heck they want. Maybe then you'll see Mao doing triple Axels after triple Axels until time runs out since no other single element done by the ladies garner more points except for the quad Salchow Ando did way back when. Ah, yes that would have Ando doing quad attempt after quad attempts with no transitions. Then we might as well call this sport figure jumping.

 

[tarotx]

The short program is a test of elements in a short period of time. The long program is a test of elements in a longer period of time. Time adds it's own different pressures. I want the ladies and men to have the same rule structure and this is a step in that direction. So is the removal of the spiral and 2nd step sequences.

And this proposed rule change will stop us from seeing Mao do two Axel jumps in the short. That doesn't showcase us anything. I eventually want to see 4 different jumps in the short be the rule. I also want to see an Axel jump, a toe jump and a edge jump be required. I want all 3 spins to be significantly different. All in an interesting program that showcases the personality of the individual skater.

 

[gkelly]

I want the ladies and men to have the same rule structure and this is a step in that direction. So is the removal of the spiral and 2nd step sequences.

So should men be required to do layback spins?

Or should the non-combo, non-flying spin requirement in the SP be redefined as a spin in one basic position, with or without change of foot, for both sexes, same as in the LP?

 

[tarotx]

I think of it has a layback/sideways/upright spin and yes the men should be able to do it too. I don't want a required layback-just a requirement of the flying spin, the one position spin and the combo spin be significantly different.

 

[Mathman]

If there is to be no difference except the length of the programs and number of elements, why not just make one-phase event with long program only? Or two long programs, so skaters would have plenty of opportunity to show all of their skills that might not fit into one LP?

Before I started reading Golden Skate I was "just a fan." (Now I am "just a fan who reads Golden Skate." ) I did not notice that there was anything different about the short program and the long program except the length.The length, and a certain very attractive tightness of composition in the SP. For some reason. short programs seemed to me to be more coherently choreographed, while LPs were more helter-skelter. I wrote that off to the difficulty of maintaining the character of the music for four whole minutes, and of weaving together different musical themes for the "fast part" and the "slow part."

What was especially cool to me was when the SP and the LP complemented each other, like showing two opposite faces of a single theme. I thought the programs that Lori Nichol did for Michelle Kwan were like that.

But what was most exciting was the one-third/two-thirds format. To win (I wasn't too much interested in whether a skater moved up from fifteenth to twelfth) -- to win, typically a skater had to make the top three int he SP, then win the LP. I thought this made for really exciting contests. Yay, Michelle is in the lead after the short program, but Slutskaya and Butyrskaya are right behind! Or -- Oh oh, Sasha forged into the lead, but that's OK. Michelle is is right there -- win the long, win the gold! Or -- oh no, Michelle messed up and is only fourth. Now someone else, in addition to Michelle, will have to beat Tara to let Michelle win. Go Angela Nikodinov!

I like that better than the point total method that we have now, and better than either of the two suggestions above -- the isea of just a long program, and the idea of two LPs of equal weight.

 

[wallylutz]

And?

If skater A does 3F+3Lo, 3A, 3Lz and skater B does 3Lz+3T, 3F, 2A, then skater B has done very well but skater A has hit a home run. She deserves to be way out in front heading into the LP.

This: http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...g-in-2010-2011&p=500181&viewfull=1#post500181

^ This rule change does not really benefit Mao Asada very much at all.

Care to reconcile the change in your position?

 

[Mathman]

Care to reconcile the change in your position?

I don't think Mao can do 3F+3Lo, 3Lz, 3A, so the rule change does not benefit her as much as this example suggests it theoretically could.

But if some supergirl of the future comes along (call her Skater A) who can do this jump layout, more power to her.

 

[janetfan]

With so much discussion over the new "Mao rules" I was wondering about the Men and the step sequence change.

Is there anything proposed to takes it's place or will this be the official time for posing, pelvic thrusts and crossovers ?
Are these new "Joubshenko rules" likely to be disputed?

 

[wallylutz]

I don't think Mao can do 3F+3Lo, 3Lz, 3A, so the rule change does not benefit her as much as this example suggests it theoretically could.

But if some supergirl of the future comes along (call her Skater A) who can do this jump layout, more power to her.

Have you forgot this already?

Mao's 3F+3Lo in SP, NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m10s

Mao's 3Lz in SP. NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m33s

There is no need for an imaginary supergirl. The change to allow 3A in lieu of 2A is custom designed for Mao Asada. Expect her to re-introduce the above mentioned jump combo and solo jump in the 2010-2011 season. Why? Because she is Japanese. That means, she will go for what it is the theoretical maximum with very little regard to the risk and this change in the rule is to allow her to include the 3A without having to sacrifice either the 3F+3Lo or the 3Lz.

 

[gkelly]

Before I started reading Golden Skate I was "just a fan." (Now I am "just a fan who reads Golden Skate." ) I did not notice that there was anything different about the short program and the long program except the length.

So you would prefer a format that appeals to your "just a fan" understanding of the differences between the programs?

Many just fans can't tell the difference between different triple jumps. Some even think that "triple axel" is another word for "triple jump."

So should skating allow, say, long programs to consist of 8 triple jumps with no distinctions, so that a program with 8 successful triple toes, some of them in combination, would be worth more than a program with 2 triple axels (fall on one of them), 2 triple lutzes, and 1 each of triple flip, loop, salchow, and toe loop?

Of course not. But many just-a-fans couldn't tell the difference, at least not without informative commentary.

If there are reasons for the way things are done, and we think they should be done differently, we should be able to give better reasons in support of the change. "I liked the way things were when I didn't know much about what I was watching" is not a good reason for a change.

 

[Mathman]

There is no need for an imaginary supergirl. The change to allow 3A in lieu of 2A is custom designed for Mao Asada. Expect her to re-introduce the above mentioned jump combo and solo jump in the 2010-2011 season. Why? Because she is Japanese. That means, she will go for what it is the theoretical maximum with very little regard to the risk and this change in the rule is to allow her to include the 3A without having to sacrifice either the 3F+3Lo or the 3Lz.

Well, I guess we will see next year whether Asada can step up to the plate or not. If she does, good for her. For myself, as a Rachael Flatt fan, I do not fear the Japanese-ness of it all.

Maybe in the future a non-Japanese champion will arise who, too, will go for the maximum, little heeding the cannon to the left of her, cannon to the right.

 

[wallylutz]

Of course not. But many just-a-fans couldn't tell the difference, at least not without informative commentary.

If there are reasons for the way things are done, and we think they should be done differently, we should be able to give better reasons in support of the change. "I liked the way things were when I didn't know much about what I was watching" is not a good reason for a change.

Every fiber in my body tells me this change is a "custom designed" deal. The benefit to Mao Asada of being able to do the 3A in lieu of 2A is not limited to just the base value differential of 8.2 - 3.5. More than that, it allowed her to include the 3A without having to choose between the 3F+3Lo and the 3Lz vs. the need to have a 3A somewhere in the SP. Since she did the 3A+2T, she only has one slot for a Triple left as a the solo jump, therefore, she was forced to choose between the 3F and the 3Lz. But the 3A+2T worked fine against ladies doing 3Lz+2T, as evidenced by her lead over Joannie Rochette in the Olympic SP, which is roughly equal to 3A - 3Lz, just not against someone like Yu-Na Kim who has a 3Lz+3T.

The public statement made by the JSF a month ago, the inconsistency with historical precedents within ISU, the obvious and only beneficiary of such change at this time, all these evidences add up to a pretty convincing picture. If we have to put this on trial, there is probably enough evidence for a conviction. Not to mention, ladies are still prohibited to do Quads in the SP - undercutting yet again the change was allowed for some imaginative supergirls to explore their potential to the maximum. This makes it very difficult to believe the change was brought about for the good of the sport.

 

[janetfan]

Have you forgot this already?

Mao's 3F+3Lo in SP, NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m10s

Mao's 3Lz in SP. NHK 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBZxCG8Hl8U#t=1m33s

There is no need for an imaginary supergirl. The change to allow 3A in lieu of 2A is custom designed for Mao Asada. Expect her to re-introduce the above mentioned jump combo and solo jump in the 2010-2011 season. Why? Because she is Japanese. That means, she will go for what it is the theoretical maximum with very little regard to the risk and this change in the rule is to allow her to include the 3A without having to sacrifice either the 3F+3Lo or the 3Lz.

The change is not only custom designed for Mao's potential benefit - but how can we overlook that they also reduced Yuna's pet point maker the 2A?

Again - a coincidence?

This is so transparent that even casual fans can see it a mile away.

Perhaps it was a stroke of genius to do it this way as it really is too obvious for anybody to be crying conspiracy.