THE LONG PROGRAM - why it needs variety and what CoP can do.

[FlattFan]

FlattFan, stop double posting and stop wasting space in my thread with your misinformed posts.

There should be a homestead act for threads.

It's not silly at all. It's better for the entire skating World. When skaters are able to create programs more fluidly and more personally tailored, the skating becomes more interesting, more varied, and less predictable. That is what figure skating needs.

Less predictable? How about Miki have more jumps, Alissa have more spins, Caroline have more spins. It's not better, it's dividing skaters into two camps, the spinners and the jumpers. It's more predictable because everyone knows the path the skaters will pick.

Incorrect. First of all, spins (well executed) would be worth more points than they currently are. Second of all, skaters would be able to execute TWICE as many spins as they are currently allowed to, if they so desired.

I said "most people who watch figure skating only watch big events." Incorrect? Eh? You have other idea? First of all, spins aren't worth more points unless you're rewriting the entire base value for every single elements. Then that opens another can of worm. Why not give Alissa 100 points for her spin, too?

You make absolutely NO sense. The current rules only allow skaters to do 3 spins and forces every skater to attempt a total of 11 jumps (12 for Men) when you count all of the jumps done in combination. How does reducing the number of required jumps and allowing for more non-jump elements make it more of a jumping contest?!?

Which part did I not make sense? Most skaters will choose jumps over spins unless they have spectacular spins and can milk the points on spins. This crazy system will be the dead of 3x3. Everyone will attempt 7 triples LP without a single 3x3.
There's no logic to your system at all, not very well thought out, and I pointed out all the drawbacks. Why so defensive?

 

[gkelly]

I think GKelly was talking more about the whole gamut of skating competitions, not just the tiny handful of elite senior champions.

Yes.

Intermediates and novices, for instance, might be better off to show off their moves in the field and get points for it, rather than to fill up their jumping passes with double Salchows.

Well, intermediate is a US category that limits the number of double jumps that can be repeated, so we expect intermediates to do either one or two double salchows (except for the rare few who attempt triple salchows or who have problems with the salchow or prefer to load up on higher-point-value doubles instead), but they can't throw in more than two double sals. Single axels would make the same point, though.

Different countries have different names and rules for the comparable level.

For those who don't have double axels or any triples but can do 2-2 and 2-2-2 combos with ease, it's easy to fill up 5 jump slots with single axel and all the doubles they are able and allowed to do. They're allowed 6 jump slots but don't always need them all.

They are probably not good enough at anything to score more points than a double Salchows. . I rather see a nice double jump than a Level 1 footwork or ugly level 3 spiral.

Have you watched many intermediate or novice skaters? The best spinners among them can easily rival all but the best senior spinners, with +GOE on level 4 spins. You'd enjoy watching them, and they could earn more points with the spins than with another double jump.

Of course the worst spinners at those levels are worse than the worst you see among seniors, but you're not going to enjoy watching them whatever they do. And then there are the vast majority in between, at each level. The rules have to cover all the skaters.


I'm going to start another thread for folks to play around with designing programs for hypothetical mid-level senior skaters.

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

I'm not sure I agree that the BOPing the sport would introduce more variety and here's why

a) Any system that is points based is gonna have better ways to achieve points than others. Skaters will strive to fit into those molds.

b) Restrictions? Help or hinder? I don't know. I tend to think restrictions do help creativity in that they force any artist to stop relying on crutches and try something different (see the filmThe Five Obstructions for a fuller explanation of that thesis, or any film from the Dogme 95 series. Or imagine what Jaws would've been like if the robotic shark worked perfectly instead of screwing up all the time). But when the goal is to create a program that will get you the most points (that one can skate, of course. But that remains a secondary concern), you'll get programs that are skewed as much as possible to fit.

• Example: BoP has introduced a new Zayak rule (presuming the old one stays in place): Can only repeat one of the following jumps: 3A, 3Lz, 3F.
  • Now checking out the Men's FS at 2010 Worlds (top twelve) we see the following jumps being repeated w/ the number of skaters repeating them (skaters)
    
    4T: 1 (Joubert)
    3A: 10 (Takahashi, Chan, Brezina, Rippon, Abbott, Schlutheiss, Reynolds*, Fernandez, Contesti, Kozuka)
    3Lz: 5 (Chan, Joubert, Rippon, Schlutheiss, Kozuka)
    3F: 2 (Brezina, van de Perren*)
    3T: 4 (Abbott, Reynolds, van de Perren, Contesti)
    NUMBER OF SKATERS IN THE TOP TWELVE THAT DIDN'T DO ALL SIX JUMPS: 1 (Brezina - no 3-loop or 3-toe, though I suspect he meant to do a 3toe)
    • So of the top twelve, just under half repeat two jumps from the BOPed group (Chan, Brezina, Rippon, Sclutheiss, Kozuka). Six if you count Takahashi's ur'ed 4F. I don't because he didn't plan that.
    • Even skaters who have the difficult jump but don't always score the highest GOEs on it are inclined to go for it (3-Axel: Chan, Reynolds, Rippon)
    • So, the consequence of this rule on programs is twofold.
      1. I suspect we'd see a lot more quads this way. If you can only repeat one jump, might as well have that be the 3A (same as now), with a solo quad taking up another jump slot, so you can still maximize the points. OR
      2. More sequences/combinations w/ 3Ts at the end of them. Frankly, I'm not all that thrilled by that. Triple-loops as the first or second jumps in combination seem so rare that I can't imagine this rule encourage them
  • So essentially, I don't see the need for this change. It's not like a majority of skaters fit the cause (10/24 of the LP's at Worlds, and I included intended triples that were doubled/UR'ed; 1/12 didn't do a complete set of jumps).
  • And even if I did see the need for the change, I'm not convinced that this would provoke the variety that is the stated aim of this post.
    

c) To me, a great system is one that promotes and rewards excellence in ALL areas of figure skating, and I’m not convinced that this would do that in practice.

d) I LOVE Level four footwork. I need to get that out there. I love Chan’s footwork. I love how much ice coverage he gets. I love how particularly in character Takahashi’s footwork is. I wouldn’t give that up for the world. Indeed, when watching Yagudin’s OGM programs recently, I thought they would be better with more complicated/dynamic footwork. I don’t like restriction here (though I might take that back) because I don’t see how removing one tool that some skaters have to acquire points (through complicated footwork that gets high levels) promotes variety (because individual GOEs only help so much, and when we’re talking about footwork, the GOES aren’t huge as it is). And more than that, its zero sum time. If you privilege something a little less, you privilege the rest a little more. And I think the balance we have right now is actually quite good.

e) Ice dancing is also my favourite discipline, so what do I know?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Less predictable? How about Miki have more jumps, Alissa have more spins, Caroline have more spins. It's not better, it's dividing skaters into two camps, the spinners and the jumpers. It's more predictable because everyone knows the path the skaters will pick.

It's not about jumps vs. spins. It's about tailoring programs to the music and to each skater's best abilities. It's less predictable because you don't know exactly how many elements of each type a skater will perform. It provides more variety to skating because even if you do know a skater's exact layout beforehand, odds are the layouts will be much more varied than they currently are. You won't see everyone attempting ungainly 3-jump combinations. You won't see everyone doing the exact same quantity of footwork/spiral sequences. You won't see everyone doing the same quantity of spins or jumping passes.

Also, Miki wouldn't have more jumps. The amount of jumps skaters are currently doing is the absolute maximum that would be allowed under the new rules. If Miki wanted to do as many jumps as she currently does, which I'm sure she would, the Spiral Sequence would have to come out to make room for all of those jumps. And that's perfectly fine if she drops the Spiral Sequence. I don't think anyone really wants to see her grab her leg in a half-stretched position for 5+ seconds anyway.

First of all, spins aren't worth more points unless you're rewriting the entire base value for every single elements. Then that opens another can of worm. Why not give Alissa 100 points for her spin, too?

Don't misstate the points. Spins wouldn't be worth Quads or Triple Axels.

Base value and GOE values would certainly be adjusted, but it's not at all a can of worms. It has been talked about in the past in a very long thread. I didn't want to bring all of that other CoP talk into this thread, I wanted to save it for another thread, but I'll talk about it here since you are so uncooperative. These would be the new base values for jumps:

4Lutz - 12.6 (-2.6, +1.0 for GOE)
4Flip - 12.2 (-2.5, +1.0 for GOE)
4Loop - 11.8 (-2.4, +1.0 for GOE)
4Sal - 10.2 (-2.1, +1.0 for GOE)
4Toe - 9.8 (-2.0, +1.0 for GOE)

3Axel - 8.0 (-1.7, +1.0 for GOE)
3Lutz - 5.4 (-1.3, +.8 for GOE)
3Flip - 5.0 (-1.2, +.8 for GOE)
3Loop - 4.6 (-1.1, +.8 for GOE)
3Sal - 3.6 (-1, -1, -.9, +.7 for GOE)
3Toe - 3.4 (-1, -.9, -.9, +.7 for GOE)

2Axel - 2.5 (-.7, -.7, -.6, +.7 for GOE)
2Lutz - 1.5 (-.5, -.4, -.4, +.5 for GOE)
2Flip - 1.4 (-.4, +.5 for GOE)
2Loop - 1.3 (-.4, -.4, -.3 +.5 for GOE)
2Sal - 1.0 (.-3, -.3, -.2, +.5 for GOE)
2Toe - 1.0 (-.3, -.3, -.2, +.5 for GOE)

1Axel - .8 (-.2, +.5 for GOE)
1Lutz - .4 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Flip - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Loop - .3 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Sal - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)
1Toe - .2 (-.1, +.2 for GOE)

I'll leave the values for underrotated jumps out if it for now (and also the specifics about bonuses for combinations). Here are the new values for spins:

(the 4 point values listed for each type of spin reflect the 4 levels of difficulty)

*Spin in one position and no change of foot* - 1.2, 1.5, 1.8, 2.1 (-.4, +1 GOE for all levels)

*Flying spin with no change of foot or position* and *Change of foot spin with no change of position* - 1.6, 1.9, 2.2, 2.5 (-.5, +1 GOE for all levels)

For all of the types of spins listed so far, these are the base values for an upright spin. Add .1 to each base value for a Sit Spin, .3 for a Camel Spin, and .4 for a Layback Spin.

*Combination spin with no change of foot* - 1.8, 2.3, 2.6, 2.9 (-.5, +1 GOE for all levels)

*Combination spin with change of foot* - 2.2, 2.7, 3.0, 3.3 (-.5, +1 GOE for all levels)

These base values for spins aren't too different from the current values (my base values are actually slightly lower at the top ends). That would be a minor change. Much more important is the increased +GOE. Doing spins with great quality is very difficult. Even the best spinners don't get huge +GOE on all of their spins.

Which part did I not make sense? Most skaters will choose jumps over spins unless they have spectacular spins and can milk the points on spins. This crazy system will be the dead of 3x3. Everyone will attempt 7 triples LP without a single 3x3.

And here we come to your single-minded train of thought that makes you feel threatened. "OMG, Rachel Flatt's 3x3 might be in jeopardy, so I better argue without having any clue what I'm talking about."

The 3x3 wouldn't be dead at all. 3x3 combinations would be MORE valuable, in fact. If you are a female skater and trying to do a standard 7 Triple program (no Triple Axel) without a 3x3, or without a 2Axel-Triple combination (or sequence, but it's not worth as much that way), that means you need 8 jumping passes. If you try to construct your program like that, it means you have no additional slots for other point-gaining moves. Doing a 3x3 and completing your 7 Triples + Double Axel in 7 jumping passes would not only gain a bigger combination bonus but also give you slots for other moves.

The system I proposed was specifically set up to promote non-jump technical elements with quality execution. You will get more points for extrodionary non-jump elements than you will for a Double Axel, or for tacking on double jumps in combination (doing a 2Loop on the end of a difficult combination, especially a Quad-Triple or 3Axel-Triple, is another story). It doesn't mean you can just ignore all of the necessary core jumps.

 

[gmyers]

How many quads did Yagudin do a competition? Three? It was a different time. When jump progression was important.

 

[FlattFan]

It's not about jumps vs. spins. It's about tailoring programs to the music and to each skater's best abilities. It's less predictable because you don't know exactly how many elements of each type a skater will perform. It provides more variety to skating because even if you do know a skater's exact layout beforehand, odds are the layouts will be much more varied than they currently are. You won't see everyone attempting ungainly 3-jump combinations. You won't see everyone doing the exact same quantity of footwork/spiral sequences. You won't see everyone doing the same quantity of spins or jumping passes.

Yes you will. Miki will do the maximum number of jumps. She will not leave out a jump for a spin.
Alissa will do the maximum number of spins and least # of jumps.
Are you suggesting skaters and choreographers cannot tailor programs to the music and to each skater's best abilities currently?
I'm very sure I can pinpoint the exact jumps and spins layout for most girls. They just focus on the things they can do better. You will see two group of girls doing the exact SAME things. Do you not see this very possibility?

Also, Miki wouldn't have more jumps. The amount of jumps skaters are currently doing is the absolute maximum that would be allowed under the new rules. If Miki wanted to do as many jumps as she currently does, which I'm sure she would, the Spiral Sequence would have to come out to make room for all of those jumps. And that's perfectly fine if she drops the Spiral Sequence. I don't think anyone really wants to see her grab her leg in a half-stretched position for 5+ seconds anyway.

Yes, something has to give. You'll have a group of girls who jump and jump and jump. Another group of girls who spin and spin and spin. Do you realize you'll get the SAME sameness?

Don't misstate the points. Spins wouldn't be worth Quads or Triple Axels.

Then Alissa will never beat Miki. That should answer janetfan's question which was my answer.

And here we come to your single-minded train of thought that makes you feel threatened. "OMG, Rachel Flatt's 3x3 might be in jeopardy, so I better argue without having any clue what I'm talking about."

The 3x3 wouldn't be dead at all. 3x3 combinations would be MORE valuable, in fact. If you are a female skater and trying to do a standard 7 Triple program (no Triple Axel) without a 3x3, or without a 2Axel-Triple combination (or sequence, but it's not worth as much that way), that means you need 8 jumping passes. If you try to construct your program like that, it means you have no additional slots for other point-gaining moves.

Yes, a lot of girls will opt for that. Look at how many 3x3 got downgraded. They would opt for 3x2, and another triple. That would be the best bet for the maximum number of points. Miki, Mao, Caroline all got their 3x3 downgraded to 3x2, on top of -GOE. Basic math would tell you it's better to just leave the 3x3 combination out all together.
3lz+2lp + GOE, and a separate 3loop + GOE would net you a higher score than 3lz+3lp<< - GOE, and a spin or footwork.
It will be the dead of 3x3.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Any system that is points based is gonna have better ways to achieve points than others. Skaters will strive to fit into those molds.

True, but people can only strive so far. Everyone has different natural abilities and they should be able to formulate their "Free Programs" to best present their abilities.

BoP has introduced an additional Zayak rule: Can only repeat one of the following jumps: 3A, 3Lz, 3F.

Now checking out the Men's FS at 2010 Worlds (top twelve) we see the following jumps being repeated: [I've deleted the list for the purposes of saving space in the quote]

So essentially, I don't see the need for this change.

The additional rule is only for female programs. Look at how many skaters have focused on those jumps at the expense of ignoring other Triples - Mao Asada, Fumie Suguri, Yukari Nakano, Emily Hughes, Bebe Liang, Julia Sebestyen, Mira Leung, Alissa Czisny, Elena Liashenko, Sarah Meier. Plenty of others I can't currently think of. Even Michelle Kwan during that last part of her competitive career...

Instead of a skater setting up yet another Lutz or Flip, and not attempting a more complete set of jumps in a program, I think the skater should instead have to repeat an easier jump (or only repeat 1 Triple in the program and do a non-jump element instead). That's the price for not trying a full set of Triples. I am also in favor of rewarding a bonus point to anyone who cleanly lands all of the different jumps (3Axel for Men, 2Axel for Women, and then a Triple or Quad of each other type of jump). Those reinforcements together would promote trying the full array of jumps.

To me, a great system is one that promotes and rewards excellence in ALL areas of figure skating, and I’m not convinced that this would do that in practice.

How does the current system better reward excellence in all areas of skating? It forces skaters to do a bunch of jumps. Remember, there even used to be 4 spins required in the "Freeskate" but then they cut it down to 3 because it took so much time to do all of these required jumps + spins + footwork. Why can a skater instead not choose to do more of one thing and less of another? Why should a 3-jump combination be a requirement, for example? To me, that's like telling every skater you MUST do a Beillmann spin or you MUST do a catch-foot Spiral or you MUST do a footwork sequence with only one foot. Give the skaters a more open minimum requirement and then let them choose from there what best suits the MUSIC of the program and their own personal abilities.

The other problem - tacking a Double Loop onto the end of a Double Axel, and then doing a Spin worthy of +0 GOE, will give you more extra points right now than if you had instead done a Double Axel and followed it up with a spin worthy of +3 GOE. Clearly not an accurate representation of the varying difficulty between those to things.

I LOVE Level four footwork. I need to get that out there. I love Chan’s footwork. I love how much ice coverage he gets. I love how particularly in character Takahashi’s footwork is. I wouldn’t give that up for the world. I don’t like restriction here (though I might take that back) because I don’t see how removing one tool that some skaters have to acquire points (through complicated footwork that gets high levels) promotes variety

Skaters who do Level 4 footwork well would still be rewarded for it. The thing that should change is ALL footwork should receive the same +1 point per GOE mark, not just Level 4 footwork. Look at the Footwork sequences of Takahashi and Chan that get called as Level 4 vs. their Footwork sequences that get called as Level 3. There isn't much of a difference (the Level 3 footwork is actually sometimes more appealing...compare Chan's "Level 3" footwork to his "Level 4 footwork"). Why should one be worth far more points than the other?

Most definitely, though, footwork sequences should not travel all over the place. They should move continuously in the direction of the pattern. Minor deviations from that pattern for a flourish is okay, but significantly backtracking or going askew is not good. That's not called ice coverage, it's called messy. Better ice coverage would mean increasing the size of the pattern - a larger serpentine, a larger circle/oval, or starting a straightline sequence at one of the corners of the rink and moving diagonally across the rink all the way to the other corner.

Being able to include all of the various steps and turns into a clear, clean pattern is more difficult. Being able to perform "less complicated" footwork with excellent, continuous speed and crisp movements is also a worthwhile skill that should not be lost in the sport.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Miki will do the maximum number of jumps. She will not leave out a jump for a spin. Alissa will do the maximum number of spins and least # of jumps.

You don't know that for sure. Excellent non-jump elements would be worth more than tacking on double jumps in combination. It might make Miki work harder and include an extra step sequence in the program or, yes, even a spin. Alissa might do multiple Spiral Sequences instead of the maximum number of spins. She might include a footwork sequence. It depends on the program. Allowing the skaters the choice means we won't know for sure beforehand.

Are you suggesting skaters and choreographers cannot tailor programs to the music and to each skater's best abilities currently?

That is correct. Choreographers and skaters can do the best they can within the limitations provided, but there is definitely a range of artistry that is being lost with the current rules.

Something has to give. You'll have a group of girls who jump and jump and jump. Another group of girls who spin and spin and spin. Do you realize you'll get the SAME sameness?

You've pointed out 2 different program layouts right here. 2 is more than 1, last time I did the math. Currently every skater has to do the exact same general technical structure - 1 option. You're of course being horribly reductive because you've only pointed out 2 possible options my rules would allow - maximizing jumps or maximizing spins. I pointed out 4 very different program structures in my opening post and there are MANY more different ones to choose from. In total, there would be 100+ exact technical program structures skaters could pick from when you look at all of the different possible combinations of extra spins, extra footwork, extra spiral sequences, extra jumping passes, and extra combination jumps.

Then Alissa will never beat Miki. That should answer janetfan's question which was my answer.

This assumes that the skater who is the much stronger jumper always skates their best. It also assumes that the skaters' programs and performances are equally good. If Miki did all of those jumps but her program was awful and her performance was uninspired, then she could still lose to a 5-Triple program from Alissa, given that Alissa nails her spins and has an excellent program and delivers an inspired performance.

Yes, a lot of girls will opt for that. Look at how many 3x3 got downgraded. They would opt for 3x2, and another triple. That would be the best bet for the maximum number of points. Miki, Mao, Caroline all got their 3x3 downgraded to 3x2, on top of -GOE. Basic math would tell you it's better to just leave the 3x3 combination out all together.
3lz+2lp + GOE, and a separate 3loop + GOE would net you a higher score than 3lz+3lp<< - GOE, and a spin or footwork. It will be the dead of 3x3.

If your 3-3 is SO badly underrotated that it is fully downgraded to a double, you deserve to get less points overall. That's generally not what happens, though. Furthermore, you need to read exactly what I've written. A skater can not add in 2 extra jumping passes (therefore giving a female 8 jumping passes and allowing them to do 7 Triples + a Double Axel without a 3x3) without extra penalty being incurred.

 

[janetfan]

Skaters who do Level 4 footwork well would still be rewarded for it. The thing that should change is ALL footwork should receive the same +1 point per GOE mark, not just Level 4 footwork. Look at the Footwork sequences of Takahashi and Chan that get called as Level 4 vs. their Footwork sequences that get called as Level 3. There isn't much of a difference (the Level 3 footwork is actually sometimes more appealing...compare Chan's "Level 3" footwork to his "Level 4 footwork"). Why should one be worth far more points than the other?

Most definitely, though, footwork sequences should not travel all over the place. They should move continuously in the direction of the pattern. Minor deviations from that pattern for a flourish is okay, but significantly backtracking or going askew is not good. That's not called ice coverage, it's called messy. Better ice coverage would mean increasing the size of the pattern - a larger serpentine, a larger circle/oval, or starting a straightline sequence at one of the corners of the rink and moving diagonally across the rink all the way to the other corner.

Being able to include all of the various steps and turns into a clear, clean pattern is more difficult. Being able to perform "less complicated" footwork with excellent, continuous speed and crisp movements is also a worthwhile skill that should not be lost in the sport.

I like your views on footwork. As to Pogue's points about Patrick and Dai - they will score well on steps regardless of the system for obvious reasons. Pogue did not mention Evan's level four steps but I assume he loves them as well since he loves Cop level four steps.

Your last sentence brought to mind skaters like Yuka Sato - whose footwork I typically preferred over most of today's Ladies.
But Yuka would have flourished under the CoP but even more so under BOP's system since she would be able to keep the superior flow and musicality too often missing from today's Ladies.

Seeing skaters like Evan and Plushy thrash about trying to reach a level is not anything I love watching.
Watching skaters like Yagudin and Browning doing steps that highlight not just the music but the theme of the program was something I did like very much.

A level achieved just for points that sacrifices the cohesiveness of the program does not make skating more fun or exciting to watch.
I feel the same way about spins and spirals.

 

[silverlake22]

I don't even get why people are comparing Miki and Alissa? Isn't it clear that under the current system Miki is much better? Her international results are much more impressive, she makes the GPF pretty much every year and won silver last year, medaled at every GP event she's been in since 2006 with the exception of 08 NHK Trophy where she was 4th, has been 1st, 3rd, and 4th at the three Worlds she's attended since her Olympic meltdown in 06, was 5th at this year's Olympics, is consistently on the podium at Japanese nationals except for this year when she was 4th probably because she had already qualified for the Olympics, and won bronze at the 08 4CC which was a deep field.

Most of Alissa's success was pre-2006, so to compare her with Ando directly in the 2006-present period, she has won 2 GP medals (no golds), has not qualified for the GPF since 2005, won 2 medals at US nationals - a gold and a bronze, but finished 9th and 10th in the years she didn't medal, went to Worlds twice and finished 15th and 11th, finished 5th and 9th at the two 4CCs she's attended. I mean I guess she won gold at Nebelhorn twice.

Basically, Miki is a very strong jumper and Alissa is not, implying:
JUMPS MATTER MORE THAN SPINS AND SPIRALS AND ALWAYS WILL.

If they didn't, no way would Yuna have won Olympic Gold by a margin of 23 points over Mao Asada and no way would Rachael Flatt be the 2010 US Champion over Mirai Nagasu.

 

[prettykeys]

There is little to pick out that I have major issues with. I support the idea of a freer Free Skate. The increased technical flexibility should open up opportunities for superior artistic interpretations as well as higher appreciation for other skating elements besides jumps.

However, I do wonder about this:

*Additional addendum to the Zayak rule: from this group of jumps -- Triple Axel / Triple Lutz / Triple Flip -- Females are only allowed to repeat one of them in a program. Why? Because we've seen too many female programs try and load up on these jumps under CoP at the cost of ignoring other Triple jumps. Well-rounded technique should be encouraged.

I don't understand how a skater repeating two other jumps--say, doing two 3Salchows and two 3Toeloops in the FS--shows more well-roundedness than someone who, by contrast, does two 3Axels and two 3Flips.

I can imagine why you might make that argument between a Lutz and a Flip (Mathman's Combined Edge Jump notion), but it just makes me :scratch: why you made this extra Zayak restriction on these three jumps and not the other three (toe loop, loop, salchow.) Repeating a jump is repeating a jump.

Also, in response to a freer Free Skate, do any of you think that the Short Program should go back to being a little more standardized and regulated, or no?

 

[Blades of Passion]

I don't even get why people are comparing Miki and Alissa? Isn't it clear that under the current system Miki is much better? Her international results are much more impressive.

I don't get why you keep posting about completely unrelated topics? The point of the thread is to look at ways the sport can be improved. Miki and Alissa are skaters who would likely take totally opposite approaches to their technical layouts, if the rules allowed more flexibility. That's why I brought them up as examples and why people are talking about it.

I don't understand how a skater repeating two other jumps--say, doing two 3Salchows and two 3Toeloops in the FS--shows more well-roundedness than someone who, by contrast, does two 3Axels and two 3Flips.

If a skater repeats both the Salchow and Toeloop, that means they are getting less points. It's not a problem. When a skater focuses on higher point gaining jumps and ignores other ones, though, it becomes comparatively easier to gain points with those jumps because they can just focus on that technique and not worry about the technique of the other type of jump(s) they are leaving out.

The most important thing would be to make the "free skate" unified again. No more splitting it in half as current rules do creating two free skates. Just one 4 minute free skate for ladies and 4 and a half minute free skate for men and pairs. Dance has one free dance. No splitting of the free dance in half.

I've been thinking about this a lot. On the one hand, skaters being too aware of the bonuses received by putting jumps in later means they will think too much about choreographing the program for technical points rather than pure creativity. On the other hand, difficult jumps late in the program DO deserve extra credit.

For now I propose the time frame should be moved back more. Instead of giving a bonus starting at 50% of the way through the program, it should be at 60% of the way through. Especially difficult jumping passes (3-3's, Triple Axels, Quads) should get a higher bonus as well, not the same flat rate as everything else. The last jump of the program, if placed 90%+ of the way through the program (ie - the very end), should also get an additional bonus (with the same preferential treatment to truly difficult jumps). That way more skaters would save a hard jump for the end, rather than the same old -- Spin + Footwork Sequence + Spin -- which seems to have become the most common way to end a program.

There could also be a new bullet point for GOE scores, with judges being mindful of the jumps that are placed very deep into the program and not just right at the start of the "bonus" section.

By the way, at 2010 Olympics, Takahashi, Kozuka, and Weir all placed a difficult jump element (Triple Axel or 3-3 combination) within that later benchmark of 60% of the way through their program, rather than only 50% of the way through. The two top podium finishers in the eyes of the judges/system both frontloaded all of their most difficult elements, although one of them got more credit for his frontloading (Lysacek) than the other.

 

[Krislite]

I don't get why you keep posting about completely [...]
If a skater repeats both the Salchow and Toeloop, that means they are getting less points. It's not a problem. When a skater focuses on higher point gaining jumps and ignores other ones, though, it becomes comparatively easier to gain points with those jumps because they can just focus on that technique and not worry about the technique of the other type of jump(s) they are leaving out.
[...]

Whenever you have elements of higher and lower values, there is always the incentive to prefer or repeat the one with higher value. This is true for jumps and spins and all elements of disparate values. This additional restriction to the Zayak rule you add is I think excessive and to the detriment of technical difficulty with no benefit towards artistry or creativity. Why is it more any more creative or artistic to repeat a salchow or toe loop as opposed to a lutz?

If you're worried about skaters omitting or ignoring lower-valued jumps, why not just add a bonus for a complete set of triples or conversely a penalty for not doing at least one of each kind of jump? This to me allows more creative freedom in the long program since it gives skaters the option to present a complete or incomplete set of jumps and take the given bonus/cost of such options.

I think that in general utilizing bonus/penalty system rather than outright bans or restrictions would be far more productive of creativity and artistry. It would, in fact, allow for an even greater variability in the structure of programs.

My initial proposal for a modified Zayak rule is the following: If a skater omits ONE of the following jumps--3T, 3S, 3L, 3F or 3Lz---in her program, then she may repeat a maximum of ONE triple of any kind. If she omits two kinds of triples, she is allowed NO repetition. If she attempts a complete set of triple jumps, she may repeat a maximum of TWO triples of any kind. As before, no triple jump can be done twice as solo jumps, and this modified Zayak rule only applies to the attempted jumps (downgrades notwithstanding).

 

[Blades of Passion]

Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.

Only one of those jumps would be repeated and then other repeat would always be a Toeloop or a Salchow or a Loop. The Toeloop/Salchow/Loop can be repeated more naturally within programs because they can be done on the back end of a combination (well, the Triple Flip theoretically could as well, but it's extraordinarily difficult and barely even possible for the best male jumpers) or they can be incorporated into the choreography more smoothly.

How often do we ever see a split jump into a Triple Toeloop under CoP? Never. I would rather see that kind of movement than repeating another Lutz or Flip - jumps which take long setup times and become repetitive.

Mao Asada's layout of repeating the 3Axel + 3Flip is perhaps not as bad as repeating the Lutz + Flip, because the Axel has a more separate look, but it's still a jump that needs to be stalked. Instead of repeating a jump yet again that has a long setup time, I think the skaters should have to focus on doing an "easier" Triple as part of a difficult jump combination, or make it more difficult by incorporating it into the program by itself with an interesting, unexpected setup.

I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.

My initial proposal for a modified Zayak rule is the following: If a skater omits ONE of the following jumps--3T, 3S, 3L, 3F or 3Lz---in her program, then she may repeat a maximum of ONE triple of any kind. If she omits two kinds of triples, she is allowed NO repetition.

This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons:

1. Some skaters don't have all of the difficult jumps to begin with. It's not fair to deny them being able to repeat 2 of the easier jumps just because they can't do one of the harder jumpers.

2. There's no way to account for jumps being doubled. If a skater plans one 3Lutz, one 3Flip, one 3Loop, two 3Salchows, and two 3Toeloops, for example, and then doubles their 3Lutz in the performance, it's not fair to say "okay now you can only repeat one of the Salchow or Toeloop."

3. If the skater attempts all of the different jumps and, regardless of the amount of rotation they eventually end up getting, you use that as a way to say - "okay, you attempted the Triple, so you can repeat any two Triple jumps" - it doesn't stop the problem of skaters repeating the 3Lutz + 3Flip and not even training the 3Loop. The skater can just plan to do a 2Loop in combination and say "see, I tried the 3Loop, but I just ended up doubling it, so that means I'm allowed to repeat the Lutz and Flip now."

 

[Krislite]

Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.

Only one of those jumps would be repeated and then other repeat would always be a Toeloop or a Salchow or a Loop. The Toeloop/Salchow/Loop can be repeated more naturally within programs because they can be done on the back end of a combination (well, the Triple Flip theoretically could as well, but it's extraordinarily difficult and barely even possible for the best male jumpers) or they can be incorporated into the choreography more smoothly.

How often do we ever see a split jump into a Triple Toeloop under CoP? Never. I would rather see that kind of movement than repeating another Lutz or Flip - jumps which take long setup times and become repetitive.

Mao Asada's layout of repeating the 3Axel + 3Flip is perhaps not as bad as repeating the Lutz + Flip, because the Axel has a more separate look, but it's still a jump that needs to be stalked. Instead of repeating a jump yet again that has a long setup time, I think the skaters should have to focus on doing an "easier" Triple as part of a difficult jump combination, or make it more difficult by incorporating it into the program by itself with an interesting, unexpected setup.

I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.



This wouldn't work for a variety of reasons:

1. Some skaters don't have all of the difficult jumps to begin with. It's not fair to deny them being able to repeat 2 of the easier jumps just because they can't do one of the harder jumpers.

2. There's no way to account for jumps being doubled. If a skater plans one 3Lutz, one 3Flip, one 3Loop, two 3Salchows, and two 3Toeloops, for example, and then doubles their 3Lutz in the performance, it's not fair to say "okay now you can only repeat one of the Salchow or Toeloop."

3. If the skater attempts all of the different jumps and, regardless of the amount of rotation they eventually end up getting, you use that as a way to say - "okay, you attempted the Triple, so you can repeat any two Triple jumps" - it doesn't stop the problem of skaters repeating the 3Lutz + 3Flip and not even training the 3Loop. The skater can just plan to do a 2Loop in combination and say "see, I tried the 3Loop, and I just ended up doubling it, so that means I'm allowed to repeat the Lutz and Flip now."

I think you're misunderstanding my meaning of "attempt". Purposefully doubling a jump does NOT constitute attempting a triple. Attempting a triple is actually doing three revolutions in a jump, even though the third revolution may be underrotated.

There's three distinctions actually: 1) PLANNING a triple 2) ATTEMPTING a triple and 3) EXECUTING a triple. Before a skater even takes the ice she already has a program with a jump layout planned, and even as she's PREPARING for the jump it's still only planned. At the moment the skater takes off for a jump, what is happening is an attempt at that kind of jump. If she does one revolution (regardless whether underrotated in the air), she has attempted a single jump. If she does two revolutions (regardless whether the second is underrotated in the air), she has attempted a double jump. And if she does three revolutions (regardless whether the third is underrotated in the air), she has attempted a triple jump. The attempt is successful if the last revolution is fully rotated.

As for repeating both the lutz and the flip in the same program, i don't see that as inherently problematic or excessive repetition, and even then it's pretty rare among the ladies. The only time I've seen it attempted in recent memory is in Rachel Flatt's 09-10 program. (Maybe that's why you find it so distasteful? ) Perhaps I haven't seen as many programs as you have but again it seems so rare I don't see the need to add a stringent restriction for it, considering there may be cases in which such repetition might actually be done well (such as the 3jump+half loop+3Flip example you gave).

 

[gkelly]

Whenever you have elements of higher and lower values, there is always the incentive to prefer or repeat the one with higher value. This is true for jumps and spins and all elements of disparate values.

True.

This discussion is now focusing on micromanaging the jump content, which I'm much less interested in.

But it started out as looking at ways to give more options to the skaters in how many of each kind of elements they choose to do.

Suppose a skater completes a full complement of all the triples she can do, plus a double axel, within six jumping passes. That might be because she does two triple-triple combinations or it might be because she never had all the different triples to begin with -- i.e., the exceptional jumpers and the below-world class-average jumpers.

She's also completed her three required spins and step sequence and (choreo) spiral sequence.

There's one more element slot left.

Should she be required to fill it with another jump, most likely another double axel (or double of whatever takeoff she doesn't have a triple of)? Or should she have the option of using the slot for another type of element

Double axel and level 4 spin or step sequence all have approximately the same base value. So the incentive would be for the skater to use the slot for what she can do best among those kinds of elements. I'd like to see more possible kinds of elements also available, with similar base mark potential, and again let the skater choose how to allocate her elements to earn the best points she personally is capable of, after she's already filled the basic requirements as best she can.

The points for 2A and level 4 (or other and lower level elements) are comparable, so the incentive to do a jump vs. a spin or sequence there is not built in to the point structure -- flexibility is built in and we'd see more variety of program layouts.

For skaters who need all the jump slots to fit in all their triples including the allowed repeats, then using the jump slot for another triple would be preferable. Unless they're really good at one of the other types of elements and likely to get +GOE, and inconsistent enough on the triples that there's more chance of losing points (falling on downgraded jumps) than gaining many with another attempt.

Basic requirements CANNOT BE five different triples, because so many of the middle- and lower-level senior ladies are not capable of attempting all the different kinds. Even the top ladies often have one takeoff that's a problem for them and that they rarely if ever complete successfully. Plus, anyone can make a mistake on any jump, even her usually most reliable one, in any given performance. If it happens to be a pop of a triple that wasn't planned to be repeated, that may prevent three rotations from that takeoff being executed in that performance. The skater has already lost points for missing that jump. If there were some kind of reward built in for attempting all takeoffs, depending on the nature of the error she may lose that reward. But there doesn't seem to be a good reason to also penalize her for the other jumps that she does successfully.

If you're worried about skaters omitting or ignoring lower-valued jumps, why not just add a bonus for a complete set of triples or conversely a penalty for not doing at least one of each kind of jump? This to me allows more creative freedom in the long program since it gives skaters the option to present a complete or incomplete set of jumps and take the given bonus/cost of such options.

That makes more sense to me, but I would include double jumps in a lesser version of the bonus, both to cover unintentional doublings and to encourage skaters who don't have all the triples to include the full variety of jump takeoffs nevertheless rather than ignoring the takeoffs they can't do triples from.

Before CoP, no female program ever had 2 Lutzes and 2 Flips. Ever.

You know when you post an absolute statement like that you're begging for a counterexample.
Will this do?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkypCyLCj8

I believe the only way a female program should be able to repeat two of those more laborious Triple jumps in a program is if they can do a [jump]-half loop-Triple Flip combination. THAT would be worthy.

So you're taking away options, based on your preferences of what has worked well for you in the past and what hasn't. I thought the idea was to give skaters more options?

 

[ImaginaryPogue]

Simple stuff first.

The additional rule is only for female programs

All right. Let’s tackle the femmes, using the Olympic Free Skate as our guideline (presumption that all solo jumps are intended to be triples – except axels, of course, but that’ll be noted)

Number of Skaters that Repeated two triple jumps: 22 - (Kim, Asada, Rochette, Nagasu, Ando, Lepisto, Flatt, Suzuki, Leonova, Makarova, Phaneuf, Kwak, Gedevanishvili, Meier, Sebestyn, Hecken, Liu, Lee, Glebova, Lafuente, Gimazetdinova, Karademir)
Number of Skaters that repeated one triple jump: 2 - (Korpi, Kostner)
Number of Skaters that repeated no triple jumps

Number of Skaters that repeated both jumps from the BOP group: 2 - (Asada, Flatt)

So really, I don’t see how this rule encourages a complete set of triples. A bonus definitely would and I support that, but limiting the types of jumps one can repeat doesn’t seem like it would change much. The majority of skaters who don’t have a complete set of triples aren’t specifically skilled enough or don’t feel confident enough to repeat their two most difficult jumps

How does the current system better reward excellence in all areas of skating? It forces skaters to do a bunch of jumps

Good question. The COP men’s champions: Lambiel, Plushenko, Joubert, Buttle, Lysacek and Takahashi. I feel comfortable in labelling Lambiel, Buttle and Takahashi complete skaters in that on the night in question, they delivered good jumps, strong spins and footwork, good choreography and presentation skills. The COP women’s champions: Slutskaya, Arakawa, Meissner, Ando, Asada, Kim. Okay, less confident here. Asada and Kim are clearly the crème-de-la-creme. But I think all around skating excellence is rewarded, and when it isn’t (Ando/Joubert) it’s justified within the competition

Skaters who do Level 4 footwork well would still be rewarded for it. The thing that should change is ALL footwork should receive the same +1 point per GOE mark, not just Level 4 footwork. Look at the Footwork sequences of Takahashi and Chan that get called as Level 4 vs. their Footwork sequences that get called as Level 3. There isn't much of a difference (the Level 3 footwork is actually sometimes more appealing...compare Chan's "Level 3" footwork to his "Level 4 footwork"). Why should one be worth far more points than the other?

The same reason was a GOE of +1 on a triple loop is greater than on a double loop. Though I do think the difference in points should be handled a little better. It’s wierd that the GOE for a level 1/2/3 is the exact same but doubles upon level four.

Most definitely, though, footwork sequences should not travel all over the place. They should move continuously in the direction of the pattern. Minor deviations from that pattern for a flourish is okay, but significantly backtracking or going askew is not good

Can you give me an example of level four footwork that has too much major deviations for you?

Pogue did not mention Evan's level four steps but I assume he loves them as well since he loves Cop level four steps.

Lysacek is the exception that proves the rule.

--==--

That said, a closer reading of the suggestions w/ the scoring makes me a little more optimistic that a Bladed-COP could be intriguing.

 

[Mathman]

Basic requirements CANNOT BE five different triples, because so many of the middle- and lower-level senior ladies are not capable of attempting all the different kinds...

(A bonus for doing all five different jumps) makes more sense to me, but I would include double jumps in a lesser version of the bonus, both to cover unintentional doublings and to encourage skaters who don't have all the triples to include the full variety of jump takeoffs nevertheless rather than ignoring the takeoffs they can't do triples from.

This would be an intriguing possibility. To reward a demonstration of a complete range of skating skills, as opposed to repetitions the hardest elements only. A skater could decide whether to do a second triple Lutz (big points) or show a double loop (big bonus), if that happened to be her nemesis element.

Another idea -- this is something that Joesitz has argued vigorously for -- is to restructure the Short Program to require a demonstration of all the different jumps, plus all the basic spin positions, steps and turns in footwork, etc. De-emphasize choreography and presentation.

Then -- having gotten that out of the way -- the free program could be truly free.

Will this do?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnkypCyLCj8

Just an aside, but how do you find these examples? Every question that comes up, you can find a video from the 1973 Eastern sectionals that settles the matter.

Or did you just search on You-tube under "two Lutzes and two flips?"

Ann patrice was an exceptional talent. A shame that she lost interest in the sport. (Stuff happens, I guess.)

 

[gkelly]

Another idea -- this is something that Joesitz has argued vigorously for -- is to restructure the Short Program to require a demonstration of all the different jumps, plus all the basic spin positions, steps and turns in footwork, etc.

Still, it wouldn't be very short if it had to include six different jumps.

Then -- having gotten that out of the way -- the free program could be truly free.

No well-balanced rules/guidelines at all? Do we want to make sure we're at least comparing apples and oranges, not apples and bicycles?

Just an aside, but how do you find these examples? Every question that comes up, you can find a video from the 1973 Eastern sectionals that settles the matter.

Or did you just search on You-tube under "two Lutzes and two flips?"

Heh. I thought about skaters from the 1990s and early 2000s who I remembered as being good at lutzes and flips, not so good at one or more easier triples and not attempting both 3F+3T and 3Lz+3T (in which case they'd be repeating the toe loop), and then searched a few of them until I found a relevant example.

 

[Mathman]

Still, it wouldn't be very short if it had to include six different jumps.

We could change the name from the "short program" to the "technical program" and make it longer (and more technical).

I think Joe's idea went so far as to throw out music and choreography altogether and just do a list of jumps and spins, earning points under a system like that used in diving. The judges would give a "quality mark" muliplied by a "difficulty factor" for each "dive."

No well-balanced rules/guidelines at all? Do we want to make sure we're at least comparing apples and oranges, not apples and bicycles?

I haven't really thought about this. The proposal would be that (somehow) musical interpretation and the construction and presentation of the program would be critically judged. You would get better marks for doing a beautiful triple loop that is timed to a musical highlight and supports the choreographic theme, than for a telegraphed triple Lutz that has no rhyme or reason and may actually detract from the program.

Many quad attempts by men are like this. I guess the idea is that if they already showed that they can do a quad in the technical program, then they could show their softer side in the free and do a gorgeous triple Axel instead.