My proposition is basically just a kind of Zayak limitation in terms of levels.
The equivalent of a Zayak limitation would be limiting the number of times the same feature can be used in the same program. Some such limitations already have been added.
It isn't really restrictive though because skaters CAN choose to continue doing whatever levels they please on every element they please.
Suppose we require a single jump in the long program and limit the number of triple axels and quads (men) or triple-triple combos (ladies) to maximum of one. If a skater does not perform a single jump, the last jump pass will be scored with the base mark of a single. If a male skater performs two triple axels or two quads or one of each, then the second such jump will be scored as a double axel or a triple of the same takeoff. If a female skater performs two triple-triple combinations or a triple axel and a triple-triple, then the axel or the last jump of the combination will be scored as a double even if it wasn't downgraded.
By your same logic isn't really restrictive because skaters CAN choose to continue doing as many revolutions as they please on whatever jumps they please.
If the added difficulty of extra revolutions adds to the program, then they will be rewarded for it in terms of the GOE and certain PCS marks.
If the added revolutions don't add to the program, then they shouldn't have been doing it in the first place.
This isn't a valid comparison, though.
Single jumps are not difficult and they never benefit a program...except for perhaps a delayed single axel that highlights a couple beats of music perfectly.
They are difficult if performed with difficult air positions, such as a delayed axel. Other examples I had in mind were tuck axel, tuck loop, split-flip or split-lutz, etc. They could also be performed with arm variations, other leg or full-body variations in the air, more difficult entries and exits than we see for doubles and triples, etc. Certainly the skaters who take this element seriously can earn +3 on those jumps and use them to enhance the program.
If we allowed single-single combinations or sequences to fill this requirement, we could also add a provision to give extra credit for jumping in both directions.
However, if you think single jumps with these kinds of enhancements are still too easy for senior-level competitors, then how about changing the requirement to a solo double jump other than double axel?
I'm not seriously proposing that we require this. (Instead, I'd like to offer the option of a "small-jump sequence" with levels 1-4 that would give credit for demonstrating several different skills using half, single, and 1.5 jumps. And to give a bonus for combos/sequences in both directions that might use double instead of single jumps.)
But to me, the logic is the same. Competitive skating is a sport, and the athletes are going to strategize their athletic content to maximize points. Some will choose to max out the points on jumps, some on spins, some on PCS, depending on their strengths. You want to take away point-earning opportunities from the best spinners/average jumpers who are in fact capable of level 4 spins that are both difficult athletic feats and beautiful enhancements to the program. But you don't want to take away any jump point opportunities from the best jumpers/average spinners who enhance the program with their beautiful jumps or encourage the weaker jumpers to plan at least one simpler jump that they should be able to execute attractively, in time with the music, and woven into the choreography.
Why do you want to treat jumps differently than spins? Is it because you think of jumps primarily as athletic feats and spins primarily as aesthetic elements?
Level 1 spins, spirals, and footwork that are performed brilliantly (+2, +3 GOE) are difficult, and often unique, however.
Yes, but how many skaters performed them brilliantly under the old system? For the most part, most of these elements were pleasant and unoffensive at best. The brilliant ones were the exceptions, regardless of difficulty level.
You've obviously put a lot of thought into your proposals. I have also thought through some systematic changes that I would like to see; some are the same as or compatible with yours, and some are opposed. I probably have more areas of agreement with your goals than with the unstated but inferrable goals of the current well-balanced program rules, for example.
I've talked to some coaches who have their own ideas of what rule changes they'd like to see. Other posters here also have some interesting suggestions.
We're not all going to agree on every solution. If an overhaul of the judging system is in order, it would be best accomplished by soliciting input from a variety of knowledgeable stakeholders, coaches probably most of all, and conceptualized in such a way as to apply fairly to all levels of competitors, not just those who get on TV.
That's why I think it's important to determine first what goals we want to accomplish with new rules and then brainstorm possible solutions. If there isn't agreement on the goals, then the solutions will be at cross purposes.
Last edited: