I agree that MK had the most wonderful ride-outs from her jumps. It showed such blade mastery and balance--and she was fourteen at the time. This is not a kid who depended on being small and immature to rotate her jumps. She depended on knowing how to jump.
Quality vs. Quantity?
- Thread starter Mrs. P
- Start date
I agree that MK had the most wonderful ride-outs from her jumps. It showed such blade mastery and balance--and she was fourteen at the time. This is not a kid who depended on being small and immature to rotate her jumps. She depended on knowing how to jump.
3Lutz and 3T-2T-2T can be done together. It's not an either or situation.
A girl with only 3T-2T-2T is still going to be at a disadvantage with a girl with 3Lutz and 3T-2T-2T. The system designed to have 7 jumping passes, you can pick your 3T-2T-2T as the highest base value element, but that wouldn't put you at any advantage over some girl who has a real Lutz. And 3 jumps combo should score higher. You only get to do it ONE time in both programs.
Quite a fallacy you got there.
But a solo jump and a three-jump combination don't fill the same "slot" in the program.
We could also say that doing a level 4 step sequence is harder than doing a triple toe loop, based on the number of singles skaters who have succeeded in doing either, but scale of values says otherwise. Ultimately it doesn't matter, though, because a skater is perfectly free to do both and would never replace one with the other.
A skater might replace a 3T+2T+2T with a solo 3Lz, but that would either be a conscious choice not to use all the jumps allowed in the program or else an error based on inability to add double toes at the end of the lutz or some other jump.
I suspect a skater like Oksana Baiul who had trouble adding combinations would find the 3Lz easier than the combo.
We could also say that doing a level 4 step sequence is harder than doing a triple toe loop, based on the number of singles skaters who have succeeded in doing either, but scale of values says otherwise. Ultimately it doesn't matter, though, because a skater is perfectly free to do both and would never replace one with the other.
A skater might replace a 3T+2T+2T with a solo 3Lz, but that would either be a conscious choice not to use all the jumps allowed in the program or else an error based on inability to add double toes at the end of the lutz or some other jump.
I suspect a skater like Oksana Baiul who had trouble adding combinations would find the 3Lz easier than the combo.
now that is +goe worthyA real 3Lutz is harder than a 3T2T2T. And you can do 3 of those in two programs. You can't do 3 3-combo in two programs. IJS says the opposite with a giant footnote, YOU CAN ONLY DO IT ONCE. So I don't see any case at all. There's no preference either way because quantity is 1.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
Imagine if a skater doesn't do a 3-jump combination in a program. They do a Triple Lutz and forget to add a couple double toeloops onto the end of it. Another skater doesn't have a Triple Lutz in their program at all, but adds two double toeloops onto the end of a Triple Toe.
The scoring system says that the skater who did 3Toe-2Toe-2Toe won the competition (if all else is equal). The program with the Triple Lutz was more difficult, but it received less points.
The scoring system says that the skater who did 3Toe-2Toe-2Toe won the competition (if all else is equal). The program with the Triple Lutz was more difficult, but it received less points.
I would agree if the program only allows one jumping pass and for the only jumping pass, some girl elects to do 3Lutz vs. 3T2T2T.
However, there are 6 other jumping passes. Why didn't they add the combo into any of the jumps? Then you get back to the same reason why Plush lost to Lysacek because he didn't do his 3 jumps combo.
In any event, if you have 7 jumping passes and you didn't do 3 jump combo, then maybe you don't deserve to win.
However, there are 6 other jumping passes. Why didn't they add the combo into any of the jumps? Then you get back to the same reason why Plush lost to Lysacek because he didn't do his 3 jumps combo.
In any event, if you have 7 jumping passes and you didn't do 3 jump combo, then maybe you don't deserve to win.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
It doesn't matter why the person forgot to do the double toeloops. The fact is their program is still harder than the other skater's program, but the system gives them less points.
3-jump combinations shouldn't be a required element to begin with, but that's another argument.
3-jump combinations shouldn't be a required element to begin with, but that's another argument.
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2010
In weighting which program deserves more points technically, the proper method is to consider the entire set of passes and then order them by difficulty. It doesn't make sense to consider the most difficult element in isolation.
Certainly, if two skaters had exactly the same layout except for the passes under consideration, this would be a fair complaint: e.g., if skater 1 has a 3Lz+3T and 2A, while skater 2 has 3Lz and 2A+3T, all others equal.
I agree with you, of course, that CoP doesn't properly reward difficulty, but I'm not sure about your example.
I would prefer a system where 2T and 2L have zero base values, don't take up a jump slot and are simply used to comply with the Zayak rule. For examle, if skater 1 does 3Lz+2T and 3Lz, while a skater 2 does two solo 3Lz, base values should be the same while the second skater incurs a Zayak penalty. Only back-end triple jumps should have base value (say 110% of their solo base value).
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
Yes that's what I'm saying. Here's another example - let's look at one of Michelle Kwan's standard 6-Triple jump layouts in 6.0 scoring:
3Loop
3Lutz-2Toe
3Flip
2Axel
3Sal
3Toe-2Toe
3Lutz
^ This program has two Triple Lutzes, including one that comes right near the end of the program. It also has all 5 different Triples. Now compare that to:
3Flip-2Toe
3Loop-2Toe
3Flip
3Loop
3Toe-2Toe-2Toe
3Sal
2Axel
This program has no Triple Lutzes, no difficult combinations, and doesn't put any difficult jumps near the end of the program...but it's worth more points under the current CoP rules.
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2003
One of the best ever "what do you think of that?" moves after a jump:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk_IXnlbd1U&feature=player_detailpage#t=57s
(stay with it till Dick says "Look at this"
Assuming both skaters put the last three jump elements in the second-half bonus period, then the difference in base value between the two programs is 38.16 for the former vs. 39.02 for the latter, or 0.86.
The latter skater, if incapable of a triple lutz (or loop combination, or putting the harder jumps later, or other jump skills that would be more difficult than those in this program), has chosen to maximize all opportunities to earn points given her skills and the rules.
The former skater has failed to take advantage of all opportunities available, both by not doing a three-jump combination and by not doing a third combination at all. Even one more double toe, as a third jump on one of the existing combinations or as a second jump on the end of one of the other solo jumps, would have given her the win.
Was that a deliberate choice -- she disdains combinations in general as well as three-jump combinations specifically on principle and would rather pass up easy points than compromise her principles? That's bad strategy, unless she can maximize her own points by make them up in GOEs or components or harder non-jump elements, in which case all else is not equal. If she's really a better skater or better jumper, any of those opportunities should be available to her. If she's not, if the only thing she can do that the other skater can't is a triple lutz with the same GOE as the easier jumps, then she hasn't shown winning superiority overall, just on that one skill which is not by definition decisive.
Or else she just was not able to add even one more double toe -- she knows that two combinations with double toe as the second jump is the limit of her jump combination ability in the course of the program and didn't plan any more, or she was unable on this particular occasion to skate her program as planned, but when she does she'll earn more points than the non-lutz girl.
Everyone needs to strategize how to maximize their own point-earning potential given their own skill set. Base marks of the jumps is not the only place to do it. But a skater who can do all triples including the lutz has the potential to earn more points on jump base mark than a skater who doesn't have that skill. If she fails to earn those points, that was her mistake -- either a mistake of strategy or a mistake of execution.
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2012
:agree: In fact, Michelle was an excellent skater, so she was actually able to land a 3-jumps combo with the loop as the third jump and 3 combos in the FS (look at her 2005 Worlds FS layout) after so many years of FSs with just one or two combos and no 3-jumps combo, so you're completely right: the changes in the rules that CoP introduced didn't affect the best skaters: performing a 3Lo, 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, 3S+2T, 3T+2T+2Lo, 3Lz program is not significantly more difficult than a 3Lo, 3Lz+2T, 3F, 2A, 3S, 3T+2T, 3Lz program, since the triples are the same, it's just the strategy that changes but the BV is higher; and adjusting a FS to these rules for a top-level skater is something that he/she can do even in a very short time...
Under 6.0 rules, originally it was allowable to do as many jumps of whatever kinds as wanted as many times as one wanted -- the only limits were the skater's own skills and stamina.
Then we got the Zayak rule, then well-balanced program rules requiring at least one combination or sequence, limiting the total number of sequences or combinations to 3 per freeskate. But it would be up to each judge to decide for him- or herself whether to give more credit for "difficulty" to doing the hardest jumps or the most total jumps, how much more credit for combinations of which jump with which other jump, how to factor in temporal layout over the course of the program, etc.
And then the scoring system changed to a system of adding up base marks for points.
Well, then it was no longer feasible to allow skaters to just do as many of whatever jumps they wanted and easily rack up points on quantity regardless of difficulty or quality. So limits were introduced on the number of jump passes allowed and on the number of jumps allowed within a combination -- the limit on three combinations/sequences total was retained.
That means that there's an upper limit to the number of jumps a skater can do.
It's not necessary to max out the number of jumps -- some skaters may choose to give up some points in jump content if that helps them earn more points elsewhere. The jump limits actually help these skaters because they prevent other skaters from throwing in an unlimited number of easy jumps to rack up points.
But a skater who chooses not to use all the jumps allowed up to the limit is making a strategic choice. Just leaving out allowed content without making up the omission elsewhere is poor strategy.
Now, a skater might decide "After filling 6 of my allowed 7 jump slots with a double axel and all the other triples I can do, I have room for a triple toe loop or second triple lutz, with or without combination. I, personally, can do a 3T+2T+2T combination, but when I do it I usually lose a lot of speed, sometimes underrotate one or both of the double toes, and/or wobble onto the wrong edge. I'm likely to end up with -1 or at best 0 GOE and I might even credit in the base mark for a 2T<. Plus a sloppy-looking combination won't have a good effect on the PCS and might have a bad one. It's not a good choice for my skill set. If I do a solo 3T instead, I can hold out the landing with a beautiful position and time the whole element more precisely to the music and expect to earn +1 and maybe even +2 GOE. If I do 3Lz late in the program, I can probably expect 0 or maybe +1 GOE. I'm better off not doing the combination." That's wise strategy.
If she thinks "I could do 3T+2T+2T toward the end of the program and probably earn around 0 GOE. I could also do a solo 3T or 3Lz toward the end of the program and earn around 0 GOE. I don't like combos, so I don't wanna do another one. I'll just do the harder solo jump and count on the fact that the jump is more difficult to give me the win." That's poor strategy.
Meanwhile, if another skater is more skilled at maintaining flow through a combination and can earn +1 for the combination, then that skater deserves to earn more points for the combination. It shows another kind of skill that the former skater has declined to exhibit, perhaps because she is incapable of it.
Or look at it another way, under a 6.0 mindset.
Lesley can do all the triple jumps, including triple axel, but she needs a lot of time to set them up and she also has a lot of non-jump skills she wants to demonstrate during the program. She decides to do one 3A, one 3Lz, and one 3F, and then several double jumps, including 2A, 2T, 2S, and 2Lo, in combinations or sequences with each other or with intricate steps, and a delayed 1A.
Susie can do triple toe with ease, triple salchow fairly consistently, and can usually squeak out a triple loop. She chooses to do a 2Lz+3T, 3T, 3S, 3S+2Lo, 3Lo, 2A+2T+2Lo, and 2F. If there are no limits on the number of jump passes she might throw in another double or two.
Is the jump content going to be the determining factor here?
Some judges might say Lesley should have the edge on jumps because the three triples she did are the hardest ones available and most skaters can't do them at all. Other judges might say Lesley did three triples, Susie did five. Even if we count the triple axel as worth more than just another triple, Susie still did more triples, more jump passes that required high energy expenditure. So then the jump content might end up being a wash and other aspects of the programs would determine the results.
If Lesley ends up losing to Susie, it's easy to see what her strategy should be: add another easy triple or two.
Then we got the Zayak rule, then well-balanced program rules requiring at least one combination or sequence, limiting the total number of sequences or combinations to 3 per freeskate. But it would be up to each judge to decide for him- or herself whether to give more credit for "difficulty" to doing the hardest jumps or the most total jumps, how much more credit for combinations of which jump with which other jump, how to factor in temporal layout over the course of the program, etc.
And then the scoring system changed to a system of adding up base marks for points.
Well, then it was no longer feasible to allow skaters to just do as many of whatever jumps they wanted and easily rack up points on quantity regardless of difficulty or quality. So limits were introduced on the number of jump passes allowed and on the number of jumps allowed within a combination -- the limit on three combinations/sequences total was retained.
That means that there's an upper limit to the number of jumps a skater can do.
It's not necessary to max out the number of jumps -- some skaters may choose to give up some points in jump content if that helps them earn more points elsewhere. The jump limits actually help these skaters because they prevent other skaters from throwing in an unlimited number of easy jumps to rack up points.
But a skater who chooses not to use all the jumps allowed up to the limit is making a strategic choice. Just leaving out allowed content without making up the omission elsewhere is poor strategy.
Now, a skater might decide "After filling 6 of my allowed 7 jump slots with a double axel and all the other triples I can do, I have room for a triple toe loop or second triple lutz, with or without combination. I, personally, can do a 3T+2T+2T combination, but when I do it I usually lose a lot of speed, sometimes underrotate one or both of the double toes, and/or wobble onto the wrong edge. I'm likely to end up with -1 or at best 0 GOE and I might even credit in the base mark for a 2T<. Plus a sloppy-looking combination won't have a good effect on the PCS and might have a bad one. It's not a good choice for my skill set. If I do a solo 3T instead, I can hold out the landing with a beautiful position and time the whole element more precisely to the music and expect to earn +1 and maybe even +2 GOE. If I do 3Lz late in the program, I can probably expect 0 or maybe +1 GOE. I'm better off not doing the combination." That's wise strategy.
If she thinks "I could do 3T+2T+2T toward the end of the program and probably earn around 0 GOE. I could also do a solo 3T or 3Lz toward the end of the program and earn around 0 GOE. I don't like combos, so I don't wanna do another one. I'll just do the harder solo jump and count on the fact that the jump is more difficult to give me the win." That's poor strategy.
Meanwhile, if another skater is more skilled at maintaining flow through a combination and can earn +1 for the combination, then that skater deserves to earn more points for the combination. It shows another kind of skill that the former skater has declined to exhibit, perhaps because she is incapable of it.
Or look at it another way, under a 6.0 mindset.
Lesley can do all the triple jumps, including triple axel, but she needs a lot of time to set them up and she also has a lot of non-jump skills she wants to demonstrate during the program. She decides to do one 3A, one 3Lz, and one 3F, and then several double jumps, including 2A, 2T, 2S, and 2Lo, in combinations or sequences with each other or with intricate steps, and a delayed 1A.
Susie can do triple toe with ease, triple salchow fairly consistently, and can usually squeak out a triple loop. She chooses to do a 2Lz+3T, 3T, 3S, 3S+2Lo, 3Lo, 2A+2T+2Lo, and 2F. If there are no limits on the number of jump passes she might throw in another double or two.
Is the jump content going to be the determining factor here?
Some judges might say Lesley should have the edge on jumps because the three triples she did are the hardest ones available and most skaters can't do them at all. Other judges might say Lesley did three triples, Susie did five. Even if we count the triple axel as worth more than just another triple, Susie still did more triples, more jump passes that required high energy expenditure. So then the jump content might end up being a wash and other aspects of the programs would determine the results.
If Lesley ends up losing to Susie, it's easy to see what her strategy should be: add another easy triple or two.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
You're missing the point. And you really must learn to condense your posts. The whole reason for a precisely mathematical scoring system, like CoP, is to measure exactly what a skater did on the ice.
It doesn't matter WHY the skater left out the 3-jump combination. The fact is that their program was considerably more difficult than the program with no Triple Lutz, but the scoring system instead says the opposite. That is wrong. The system is flawed.
It doesn't matter WHY the skater left out the 3-jump combination. The fact is that their program was considerably more difficult than the program with no Triple Lutz, but the scoring system instead says the opposite. That is wrong. The system is flawed.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2003
I'm extremely enjoying gkelly's posts but I was lost with this. Are you talking now about gkelly's example (Lesley and Susie)?
Some will argue that 5 Triples > 3 Triples. I thoroughly enjoyed gkelly's thoughtful explanations on why that may be so.
>> back to lurking
No, the purpose is to measure exactly what the skater did on the ice within the parameters allowed. A program with three triple lutzes would be more difficult than a program with two triple lutzes. A program with seven triple jumps and seven double jumps would be more difficult than a program with seven triple jumps and four double jumps. But the system is designed not to allow the former layouts. The more difficult program will not always deserve more points according to the rules.
Similarly, there are features that can make elements more difficult -- including, for example, jumping in both directions -- that are not captured by the current rules. So a skater could do something that's more difficult and get no extra credit for it -- or no credit at all.
A senior lady in 2013 could do the equivalent of a level 4 spiral sequence and later a level 4 step sequence and get no credit for either under the 2013 rules, whereas a skater who does a simple choreo sequence after a level B step sequence will at least get some points. Still, everyone knows the former skater did more difficult sequences. Doing the sequences in the wrong order than the rules require is bad strategy.
Yes, it's true that the program you described with the two triple lutzes does not exceed what's allowed. But it doesn't fill what's allowed either. It left out some allowed parts of elements.
Now, the rules can be changed to capture areas of difficulty that are not currently covered and to give more flexibility in the kinds of elements and features and the kinds of temporal sequences with full credit for what was attempted, and the scale of values can be adjusted to give so much credit for difficult jump Q that doing it solo would always be worth more than doing easier jump P in combination with an even easier jump.
You and I agree that the current well-balanced program rules, level rules, and values in the scale of values are not the best possible examples of what they could be. We disagree on many aspects of what alternatives we think would be better.
But even the best possible rules will still need to have caps on certain kinds of skills, with limited opportunities to earn points for each type of skill. If the goal is earning points for elements, skaters need to choose their elements from each category to make the most of their skills within the element slots allowed.
There's no way to have a level playing field without some limits on number of elements, even if we disagree on exactly what those limits should be.
Similar threads
