Men Flutzing??
- Thread starter Doggygirl
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2004
One reason women are singled out for flutzing more than men is that the lutz has been the benchmark jump for senior ladies since 92. Women need the 3z2t to be able to compete at the top level, and almost everyone can perform one, so the media have picked up on flutzing as a hot topic when covering big competitions like the Olympics. However, the ISU puts greater emphasis on exiting a jump cleanly and fully rotating the jump, while flawed entrances do not affect the scores. Recently skaters like Kostner and Ando have pushed the envelope by adding 3-3’s in the SP and the media buzz has centered on underrotating rather than flutzing. The media do not care if men flutz because the focus is on their 3a and quad combos.
Skaters who flutz are making a strategic decision to focus on aspects of their skating that judges reward rather than correcting the problem without getting credit in their scores. I imagine Sebestien and Volchkova would gladly trade their true lutzes for a world medal.
Skaters who flutz are making a strategic decision to focus on aspects of their skating that judges reward rather than correcting the problem without getting credit in their scores. I imagine Sebestien and Volchkova would gladly trade their true lutzes for a world medal.
Good news about figures...according to my friends that coach, more and more of them are being approach to teach "patch" (the standard name for skating figures). According to many of them, up and coming skaters are looking for the 'next edge' (no pun intended) in competition. With the CoP driving things now, skaters are looking for more edge control and flow to go with jumping/spinning abilities.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
I think it's interesting to note that when I was recently viewing my tape of the 1996 World Championships, Midori Ito actually performed a flutz (the only triple one she did was in the warm-up, but it did take off of an inside edge).
I think the flutz is probably one of the most interesting topics in all of skating, and even more so to ponder why women do it more than the men. I honestly think anyone can do a true lutz with proper training, and I'm not necessarily sure I believe that it comes from inherent differences between the anatomy of males and females. I don't know that I'd buy the excuse that women aren't as strong as men. There are so many different factors that can cause a flutz, and since some women are perfectly capable of performing a true luts and some men a flutz, it makes me believe it's more due to habit than anything. If anatomical differences are to be considered, then I think one to add to the list might be the difference between a man's hips and a woman's (perhaps the more correct term would be pelvis).
As far as the nomenclature goes, I'd have to agree with those saying that a flutz is a lutz that has started on an outside edge and has turned to an inside "accidentally." I remember reading a long time ago that deductions were taken for a blatant change of edge. To me a flutz has always be regarded as a jump in which the skater is clearly attempting to do a lutz, but changes edges on the take off.
I think the flutz is probably one of the most interesting topics in all of skating, and even more so to ponder why women do it more than the men. I honestly think anyone can do a true lutz with proper training, and I'm not necessarily sure I believe that it comes from inherent differences between the anatomy of males and females. I don't know that I'd buy the excuse that women aren't as strong as men. There are so many different factors that can cause a flutz, and since some women are perfectly capable of performing a true luts and some men a flutz, it makes me believe it's more due to habit than anything. If anatomical differences are to be considered, then I think one to add to the list might be the difference between a man's hips and a woman's (perhaps the more correct term would be pelvis).
As far as the nomenclature goes, I'd have to agree with those saying that a flutz is a lutz that has started on an outside edge and has turned to an inside "accidentally." I remember reading a long time ago that deductions were taken for a blatant change of edge. To me a flutz has always be regarded as a jump in which the skater is clearly attempting to do a lutz, but changes edges on the take off.
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2004
I always thought one of the major reasosn for "flutzing" in the ladies was because their center of gravity is on her hips, so when picking with the free leg it turns out to be more difficult to keep the leg stable, whereas the center of gravity in the men is on the shoulders. I could be wrong of course, and I agree with both MM and the poster (sorry I forgot the name!) that mention the torque in the movement of the lutz.
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
Lots of "accidents" with that lutz!!! Nothing about technique is there? skaters who have poor technique with the lutz should be forgiven year after year after year because it is just an "accident" year after tear after year. Nothing blatant, is there? The skater does not have to ever really do a true lutz? Am I correct?jeff goldblum said:
Unfortunately, these "accidents" are accepted and judged separately. A skater starts his long back outside edge and then the skater rocks over into a flip edge before jumping, so the deductions depend on how badly the legs were apart in the flip.
A skater can get full base points for the attempted lutz and if he turns it into a decent flip just a minus 1 GOE for the attempted-lutz/accidental-flip. Beats really learning the jump. Get high points and satisfy the Zayack rule at the same time.
Should coaches tell their students if you can't really do a true lutz then work on a good flutz? We could then eliminate the lutz as an element in figure skating and just have a flutz as an element. OK?
Joe
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
That's not what I said at all. I said I believe anyone can do a true lutz, so there's really no need for all this talk of women not having enough strength in their upper bodies, and whatever else was said. I also never mentioned anything about whether skaters should be able to "get away" with doing a flutz, but only mentioned how the USFSA was grading jumps in terms of how much of a deduction should be taken. I think a skater like Sasha Cohen or Jenny Kirk should be penalized for the error. They are two skaters who clearly do not make any attempt to stay on the back outside edge, but merely want to complete the jump. There are other skaters who clearly take off from a back inside edge but are not blatantly just letting that edge roll over. I think the term blatant has a lot to do with whether or not a skater is trying to stay on that back outside edge or disguise that the flutzing is going on.
I'd like to believe that a reputable coach would instill good technique on this jump and not allow any of his students to do a flutz, as well as correct bad technique taught by previous coaches. But unfortunately, like you said, skaters will just routinely do a flutz because it is still counted as an attempt at a lutz. But don't you think the deductions given are fair? How much should they really be deducting for such a mistake? There aren't really any other consistently made errors in the execution of another element in skating with which to compare. The one I thought was always distracting was skaters doing back sit spins on inside edges, but now under CoP that's actually considered more difficult.
I'd like to believe that a reputable coach would instill good technique on this jump and not allow any of his students to do a flutz, as well as correct bad technique taught by previous coaches. But unfortunately, like you said, skaters will just routinely do a flutz because it is still counted as an attempt at a lutz. But don't you think the deductions given are fair? How much should they really be deducting for such a mistake? There aren't really any other consistently made errors in the execution of another element in skating with which to compare. The one I thought was always distracting was skaters doing back sit spins on inside edges, but now under CoP that's actually considered more difficult.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2005
On the word blatant, dictionary.com explains that "blatant emphasizes the failure to conceal the act."
Jeff..I like your analysis a lot....but maybe that's becuase I like any analysis that moves away from the simplistic and easily disproved "inherent difference between men and women"....and with the Lutz, you are probably right that there are numerous factors that go into LEARNING good technique and executing it when it counts.
Joe, do you think that the overlooked/not penalized flutz was MORE of a problem under 6 and not penalized enough, but somewhat more than before, under CoP. Or do you see the problem as equally bad (in terms of allowing bad technique) under both systems (at least so far)?
I agree with you - I think - that whether it is traveling on spins, or flutzing, underrotating jumps or spins, etc. that judging should JUDGE this; meaning good technique (proper) should be rewarded and bad technique penalized. I just have NO idea how much penalty....so like Jeff...I would love to know your opinion on how much deduction for a Flutz. Also, do you know of anycases where a flutz was so obviously a flip (not flat but inside edge), that the Zayak rule came into effect? Could this happen under the new rules?
Joe, do you think that the overlooked/not penalized flutz was MORE of a problem under 6 and not penalized enough, but somewhat more than before, under CoP. Or do you see the problem as equally bad (in terms of allowing bad technique) under both systems (at least so far)?
I agree with you - I think - that whether it is traveling on spins, or flutzing, underrotating jumps or spins, etc. that judging should JUDGE this; meaning good technique (proper) should be rewarded and bad technique penalized. I just have NO idea how much penalty....so like Jeff...I would love to know your opinion on how much deduction for a Flutz. Also, do you know of anycases where a flutz was so obviously a flip (not flat but inside edge), that the Zayak rule came into effect? Could this happen under the new rules?
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
emma said:
Jeff, I second what Emma said, and I too am interested in further opinions about whether the "current" penalties for flutzes.
Since Sasha is on the "flutz offender" list, I looked at her score sheets for the QR, SP and LP at Worlds. She did one (f)lutz per program - her 3/2/2 in her QR/LP and her 3/2 in the SP. I'd have to look a the videos as I don't recall if she had other issues with these jumps beyond the flutzing. What's interesting is that the majority of the judges gave 0 GOE, and a few judges gave her -1 or -2 GOE. My guess is that the judges who gave -1 or -2 GOE were closer to getting it "right" than those who gave 0 GOE. (and the only judges giving her - GOE in the LP gave -1. The few -2's were in the QR and SP)
If the powers that be decide to start cracking down on flutzes that are so bad they are really flips, the role of the technical caller will become interesting. I bet a couple of unexpected Zyak violations would create a little chaos at the rinks and on the boards!
DG
Well, I think that most people, if they have at least normal physical ability, can with a year or two of skating training learn to do a proper single lutz, although for some it's harder than others (e.g., I could do a more correct axel takeoff than lutz takeoff on my singles).
However, when it comes to triples, even most people who take up skating as children and train seriously for up to ten years will NEVER land a triple lutz, or even a triple flutz. It's a very difficult jump, especially to do correctly.
There are at most a couple hundred skaters in the whole world who can manage it, but because a significant number of senior and junior ladies can do it, those who want to be competitive at the top levels need to try, although many have to cheat the takeoff (flutz) to achieve the rotations and landing, even if they are able to manage a correct single or double.
And of course if they rushed into learning the double with an incorrect takeoff to be competitive with the thousands of other juvenile girls at that age, it will be that much harder to correct the takeoff when they get to the triple.
However, when it comes to triples, even most people who take up skating as children and train seriously for up to ten years will NEVER land a triple lutz, or even a triple flutz. It's a very difficult jump, especially to do correctly.
There are at most a couple hundred skaters in the whole world who can manage it, but because a significant number of senior and junior ladies can do it, those who want to be competitive at the top levels need to try, although many have to cheat the takeoff (flutz) to achieve the rotations and landing, even if they are able to manage a correct single or double.
And of course if they rushed into learning the double with an incorrect takeoff to be competitive with the thousands of other juvenile girls at that age, it will be that much harder to correct the takeoff when they get to the triple.
Doggygirl said:
DG...thanks again for taking the time to look this up....I love knowing this; and like you, this is the part of CoP that i truly love. It really would be interesting to see how that plays out with the technical caller...GOD, I can't wait for next season!
Jeff...I hope you know that I wasn't implying that everyone can do a triple Lutz if they just try....some people, women/girls and men/boys will never ever learn one regardless of how hard they try, how good their training is, their diet etc...and for those that do learn, it will come easier for some than others. And to the extent that upper body strength, leg strength, and pelvic width impact this ability to learn (among other factors too, like strategic choices in what to practice or not), then that 'right combination of those' are a factor (but my point is that it is just one factor, well 3 sort of, and it is not at all clear which genes/how many of them, and in what combination with environment, and how these may or may not be related to sex, will bring that successful combination about...and clearly, there are both men and women who because of that right combination or IN SPITE OF the wrong one have learned).
But I do appreciate your point about just how HARD this is, and how few people in the entire world master it...and since I can barely sustain an edge skating backwards, can't do more than one back cross over without stopping, fear for my life when I do forward cross overs to the right..etc, I really love learning more about just how hard it is to do these 'tricks' even for the skaters that skate all their lives, since childhood, and make what they do look sooooo easy.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2003
emma said:
If there is any sort of a crack down in the works (and I have no reason to believe there is...just sheer imagination here) I hope they start it at the beginning of the season - and not wait until Olys to Zayak somebody. LOL, maybe the safe bet for the most notorious of the flutzers would be to only have one Flip and one (f)Lutz in the program to stay on the safe side. Not that I think any of the above will happen, even though it probably should.
And I'm right there on the edge of my arm chair with you Emma waiting for next season!!
DG
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
jeff - sorry if I misinterpreted your post. The word 'accident' grabbed me. It gives the impression that the skater has no problem whatsoever doing the lutz at practice but somehow during competitions there is a constant accident.jeff goldblum said:
emma - I think during the 6.0 time judges were less attentive to details of the elements and more attentive to the 'whole package' concept. I believe when two or more skaters showed the whole package (without falls), the judges would make a final decision on the one skater, in his opinion, had the least technical errors. The CoP includes the 'whole package concept" (PCS scores) in addition to following some sort of rules on the technical scores not all of which I agree with. I believe the CoP has to really understand repetitive Bielmans at such a high level while the beautiful straight leg spiral (regardless how high it is) is downgraded to an easy move.
However, the topic is about the Lutz, the Flutz and the Flip and ever the train is meeting and it shouldn't. There is no element called flutz in the makeup of the CoP. It should not be considered at all.
gkelly Well, I think that most people, if they have at least normal physical ability, can with a year or two of skating training learn to do a proper single lutz, although for some it's harder than others (e.g., I could do a more correct axel takeoff than lutz takeoff on my singles).
I agree and so what if they can not do a triple. How many skaters can not do a Bielman because of the way they are built and very early training
As a long time ago skater, I had an easier time with the lutz than the flip. People are diffierent. As to women, one look at the Russian gals and there does not seem to be a true lutz problem even when there are triple air turns.
Joe
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Joe, it's true that the word "flutz" is not used in the official CoP documents. But they do talk very specifically about the penalties for "changing edges" on Lutz and flip attempts.
On the explanation of GOE for jumps, the rules list specifically:
"Severe change of edge on take-off for flip and Lutz" under the crireria for a -3 GOE;
"Moderate change of edge" under -2 GOE (same deduction as for a two-footed landing); and
"Short change of edge" under -1 GOE (same deduction as for a "long entry phase (telegraphing)").
So I think your campaign to call a flip a flip and a Lutz a Lutz has pretty much been thrown out by the ISU.
Mathman
On the explanation of GOE for jumps, the rules list specifically:
"Severe change of edge on take-off for flip and Lutz" under the crireria for a -3 GOE;
"Moderate change of edge" under -2 GOE (same deduction as for a two-footed landing); and
"Short change of edge" under -1 GOE (same deduction as for a "long entry phase (telegraphing)").
So I think your campaign to call a flip a flip and a Lutz a Lutz has pretty much been thrown out by the ISU.
Mathman
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2003
MM - You are a math genius in a perfect science. You've learned all your basic rules for algebra and geometric theorms, and you wouldn't dare change them! Yet with the rules in figure skating you seem to just accept as gospel. OK, I think most fans do so as not to irritate the skating status quo.
For me, though, a definition of a flip is jump which takes off from a toepick on a back inside edge. Whether the jump is executed from a spread eagle, a mohawk turn, a series of chenne turns, or a change of edge from a forward outside edge 3 turn to a back inside edge or a rock over from a back outside edge to a back inside edge, the jump is by definition a flip. Not even the CoP rules will use the term flutz. If it did it would break the definition of a flip.
Somewhere along the line the word "intent" crept into the vocabulary but I have not seen that in the rules per se. If we accept the term "intent" then we open a whole can of worms on what exactly had the skater intended to do before he made a mistake on any element. e.g., I wanted to do a triple axel but I couldn't finish the last 1/3d of the air rotation. I landed it though! so there was an intent.
Would you buy that example? Isn't that the same as I wanted to do a lutz but I couldn't hold the back outside edge, so I rocked over to a back inside edge?
The rules as you stated are clearly accepting a flutz although they won't define it, and they judge the disparity in the flutz as a poorly executed flip without saying it was not a lutz.
I don't expect any changes of killing the flutz attitude but it doesn't mean I'll buy any rationale for it. a flutz is a flip is a flutz. the european ladies have a true lutz. there is no reason why the american ladies do not.
Joe
For me, though, a definition of a flip is jump which takes off from a toepick on a back inside edge. Whether the jump is executed from a spread eagle, a mohawk turn, a series of chenne turns, or a change of edge from a forward outside edge 3 turn to a back inside edge or a rock over from a back outside edge to a back inside edge, the jump is by definition a flip. Not even the CoP rules will use the term flutz. If it did it would break the definition of a flip.
Somewhere along the line the word "intent" crept into the vocabulary but I have not seen that in the rules per se. If we accept the term "intent" then we open a whole can of worms on what exactly had the skater intended to do before he made a mistake on any element. e.g., I wanted to do a triple axel but I couldn't finish the last 1/3d of the air rotation. I landed it though! so there was an intent.
Would you buy that example? Isn't that the same as I wanted to do a lutz but I couldn't hold the back outside edge, so I rocked over to a back inside edge?
The rules as you stated are clearly accepting a flutz although they won't define it, and they judge the disparity in the flutz as a poorly executed flip without saying it was not a lutz.
I don't expect any changes of killing the flutz attitude but it doesn't mean I'll buy any rationale for it. a flutz is a flip is a flutz. the european ladies have a true lutz. there is no reason why the american ladies do not.
Joe
Last edited:
well...here's hoping to a technical caller calling an inside edge take off a flip...and possibly as a result, having to invoke Zayak rule....and a take off on a flat that started first from the outside as a Lutz with negative GOE (would that be more or less a recognition of what you are saying joe?).
Although...I have to say that Mathman's explanation of the rules, where yes 'intent' comes in (and I get why that bothers you) is interesting to me because jumping is edging and timing, and I can imagine someone just messing up...planning to do a lutz, say, having bad timing and rocking onto a flat...and it being as clear as it can be to someone NOT IN THE JUMPERS HEAD that a lutz was attempted, and executed poorly (hence negative GOE's are called for). Does that open the door for 'cheaters' who always have bad technique? sure...but if its always penalized that should be motivation to change, right?
Now, my real pet peeve is when Dick, Peggy etc. on announcers don't conistently point these things out...(ignore a notorious flutzers 80 millionieth flutz but insist on reminding us once again that so and so telegraphs jumps...i would like annoucers to always point these things out for everyone -- bag the fluff/gush and narrate elements as performed).
Although...I have to say that Mathman's explanation of the rules, where yes 'intent' comes in (and I get why that bothers you) is interesting to me because jumping is edging and timing, and I can imagine someone just messing up...planning to do a lutz, say, having bad timing and rocking onto a flat...and it being as clear as it can be to someone NOT IN THE JUMPERS HEAD that a lutz was attempted, and executed poorly (hence negative GOE's are called for). Does that open the door for 'cheaters' who always have bad technique? sure...but if its always penalized that should be motivation to change, right?
Now, my real pet peeve is when Dick, Peggy etc. on announcers don't conistently point these things out...(ignore a notorious flutzers 80 millionieth flutz but insist on reminding us once again that so and so telegraphs jumps...i would like annoucers to always point these things out for everyone -- bag the fluff/gush and narrate elements as performed).
Similar threads
