Huh? So 3Lz-3T to 3T-3T or even 3F-2T or something like that is all apples to apples, but 2A to 3A is not?
gmyers, that was my point - why have the SP at all if it's a shorter version of the LP.
My whole point, one that you agreed with, is that we are currently not comparing apples to apples anyway. So why arbitrarily set a ceiling, especially when that sort of defeats the purpose of sport/the Olympic motto: Faster, Higher, Stronger?Krislite makes an interesting point. The purpose of the short program, as compared to the long, was that everyone would do the same elements, so the judges would have an opportunity to compare apples to apples.
Why are there 100m dashes, 200m sprints, 400m runs, 5000m runs, and marathons? It's the same thing, over and over again, at different lengths/times.If the SP is just a shorter version of the LP with a few less elements, why have it at all, why not just compete LP and declare the winner the winner? That would be a reason to have defined criteria in the SP (like it was when first enacted).
EXACTLY. But they don't! So why only do it half-way and limit the athletic abilities of skaters who have stronger skills?If they wanted to revert back to the original "apples to apples" idea, they would require, say, a triple Lutz-double toe and a triple flip out of footwork (alternating the next year with with triple-flip double toe and triple loop out of footwork, etc.)
The bold is a FARCE when skaters could get away by doing cheated/wrong-edge takeoff jumps under 6.0 and still be ranked at or near the top because they supposedly did these elements "well." :disapp:I think it was like this years ago. At the 1988 Olympics all the ladies had to do a double flip as their solo jump and the combination had to include a double loop. The idea was not how hard a jump you can do, but how well you can do an easy one. Of course the difficulty had to be held down so that the skaters who were not at the very top could at least compete. The best skaters would have to prove they were the best by executing the easier element better than their rivals.
Once again, I'm not convinced of the need to differentiate, but if one is going to want a differentiation, then I don't see why the SP requirements (at least for the Ladies) can't be something like:I am not saying that this old-fashioned idea should be brought back, but at least it gave the short program a distinct purpose separate from that of the long. :yes:
And how many were able to do 3Lz-3T? So is it the Kim Rule?
So silly. It's a competition, you bring your best.
It's called Short Program, not Technical program where you do the same technical elements.
Let's backup a little bit...
Or we could do relay? 4 skaters should relay 8 min program as a whole seamlessly. I remember many complained there are not enough medals for figure skating anyway.
:yes:Just like tracks and swimming, maybe figure skating should have something like 2 min, 4 min, 6 min, or even 10 min programs. Or we could do relay? 4 skaters should relay 8 min program as a whole seamlessly. I remember many complained there are not enough medals for figure skating anyway.
That is actually a great idea for the Olympic team event. The problem with the "team" competition as currently envisioned is that there is no team. Four people skate individually, doing the same programs that they will be doing a week later in the individual competitions. Where's the team?
Considering the originator of the 3A rule, its timing and the field of ladies skaters it affected, it's indisputable as to why and for whom it was passed. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean it was unfair. One could argue, as many have already done, that the prior restriction itself was unfair.
To be fair, with any team sport that is judged (save for like Synchro skating/swimming), the results are based off of individual results that are aggregated into a team score...
Imagine the judges having to score a relay of 4 performances back to back!
What about this? Patrick Chan does his Elegy exhibition program for the short program, The program is judged on artistic merit. Only ordinals are carried forward into the long program. In the long he does 4T-3T, 4T, 3A, 3Lz-3T, 3S-Lo-3F, etc., etc., etc., outpointing his rivals and winning the long. Combined with his first-place ordinal from Artistic Program, he wins the gold medal. Everyone goes home happy.
I like the idea of ordinals for the short and long program.
The accumulation of points carried over from the short program to the long program just isn't working. Skaters with a mistake in the short sometimes have no chance of catching a skater ahead of them because of point difference.
Should there be a way to adjust the relative weighting of the actual scores in the short and free programs so that mistakes in the free are more costly than those in the short or to otherwise make it easier for skaters to come from behind on their own merits?