The Underrotated Jumps of Evgenia Medvedeva

[ks777]

i don't have time to read through this whole thread. I can only say that i am already tired of the "green eye-shade" approach to judging skating. I don't want some other thing that is nearly invisible to the naked eye for judges to scrutinize in super slo-mo. I also think this gives the technical controller too much power. As someone said, facetiously, of course, before you had to bribe six judges; now you only have to bribe one.

ita.

 

[ks777]

Yes... but there's also accepting the fact that not every skater has the athletic/natural ability to execute jumps like they do. You can't teach 100% of skaters, 100% perfect technique. Satoko Miyahara isn't going to get the same spring as Carolina Kostner, and thus she has to execute her jumps as best she can.

It's like skaters who flutz, they can try to learn proper technique or rework their technique but whether it's habitual or the skater just can't figure it out, they might not be technically textbook. This isn't to say they shouldn't be called on technical flaws, but there needs to be some variation in what people consider textbook and dismissing anyone who doesn't have textbook technique. That's why 1/4 rotation on landings exist - because not everyone is able to land jumps fully rotated around.... even if the AIM of learning technique should be to have landings that are fully rotated a la Gold (and not within 1/4 on the landing).

I think there is no way of fixing them. Flutz, some people can fix it but this? I don't think so.

 

[largeman]

How Ironic. When Mao was younger, Yuna fans called Mao's jumps cheated because they had the so called pre-rotation compare to Yuna's jumps. Now her jumps are used as a good example.. I remember getting into arguments with the hard core Yuna bots. I was on Mao's side of course. It's weird. Mao's jump technique is very similar to Shoma's since they had the same coach growing up yet now it's being used as a good example.. ok.

I guess you missed the chapter of Mao's career when she lost her jumps and decided to relearn every jump from the very basics (starting with single jumps) with Coach Sato. By the 2012-13 season her jumping technique was completely revamped (she still flutzed but continues to work on it till this day and has made wonderous progress).

I don't see the need to defend Mao's triple toeloop because it is plain as day looking at the gif and any recent videos that it does not have excessive pre-rotation. And regardless of whether her jumping technique is a "good example," it is also plain as day comparing the two 3Ts that Mao's had just as much, if not more, rotation completed in the air but could not get the same BV under the system we have. That was the point of the comparison.

 

[Blades of Passion]

I think there is no way of fixing them. Flutz, some people can fix it but this? I don't think so.

It certainly can be fixed. Mao Asada was able to do it and others have as well. If you watch Mao as a Junior on her 3T, she had a bad toe-axel (pre-rotating not just the toe-pick foot, but also the skating foot on the jump). Then in one season of working with Arutunian, she had corrected the entrance, although her 3T combo still wasn't consistent in that first season of working on it. However, then in her second season of fixing the technique in 2007-2008, she was getting consistent at landing rotated 3F+3T's with correct entrances.

Anyone can be taught to make the change, it will simply make them less consistent (at least for 1 season), because it is more difficult. Cheating the entrance is the secret to why certain skaters are able to be so consistent on these jumps. They don't need to come out of the first jump of the combination with as much flow in order to do the second part of the combination, because they simply spin off the ice from a near-standstill. Some people are able to do 3T combos from a standstill with correct technique, but it takes more physical strength of actually jumping into the air in order to complete those rotations (which is why you'll see guys more frequently able to pull off such things).

If you make these skaters do it with correct technique, then they will likely start missing rotation at the end of the jump instead of at the start of the jump, yet to the naked eye it may still looked complete enough to most people (as it currently does when they cheat the entrance). The difference is the jumps will be bigger, because they are actually jumping them instead of spinning them. So right now we have a problem of more powerful jumps being punished because they sometimes lack a little bit of rotation at the end of the jump, such as with Riko Hongo or Alaine Chartrand or Mao Asada (on her 2A+3T), while the weaker jumps get full credit.

 

[ks777]

It certainly can be fixed. Mao Asada was able to do it and others have as well. If you watch Mao as a Junior on her 3T, she had a bad toe-axel (pre-rotating not just the toe-pick foot, but also the skating foot on the jump). Then in one season of working with Arutunian, she had corrected the entrance, although her 3T combo still wasn't consistent in that first season of working on it. However, then in her second season of fixing the technique in 2007-2008, she was getting consistent at landing rotated 3F+3T's with correct entrances.

Anyone can be taught to make the change, it will simply make them less consistent (at least for 1 season), because it is more difficult. Cheating the entrance is the secret to why certain skaters are able to be so consistent on these jumps. They don't need to come out of the first jump of the combination with as much flow in order to do the second part of the combination, because they simply spin off the ice from a near-standstill. Some people are able to do 3T combos from a standstill with correct technique, but it takes more physical strength of actually jumping into the air in order to complete those rotations (which is why you'll see guys more frequently able to pull off such things).

If you make these skaters do it with correct technique, then they will likely start missing rotation at the end of the jump instead of at the start of the jump, yet to the naked eye it may still looked complete enough to most people (as it currently does when they cheat the entrance). The difference is the jumps will be bigger, because they are actually jumping them instead of spinning them. So right now we have a problem of more powerful jumps being punished because they sometimes lack a little bit of rotation at the end of the jump, such as with Riko Hongo or Alaine Chartrand or Mao Asada (on her 2A+3T), while the weaker jumps get full credit.

Fixing the toe-axel is easier than fixing her flip or lutz jump. Even her sister was able to fix her toe-axel but not her flutz.

Yes I was a big fan of Mao so I am well aware of her fixing her jumps with Arunutian and Sato. I have been on the board a long time in case you didn't notice.
but you can still see her toe pick stays on ice 180 degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JgJtY4f70g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OYs7gOGyCE

Her jump technique on Flip is totally different but I don't see the difference as far as her toe pick turning 180 degrees on the ice before the take off. If you watch the end where they show the jump hightlights.. Well I am not arguing they should be panalized. I just don't see why the judges or tech callers should penalize these jumps. The only jump that I saw maybe should be penalized was one of Medvedeva's 3-3s, where she pre-rotate 360 degrees on her 3 toe.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Turning 180 degrees (1/2 turn) on the takeoff is fine, it's when people go further that it needs to start being deducted. Medvedeva does 3/4 of a turn on the ice on her toeloops, or even more sometimes. She often isn't landing perfectly backwards after doing that either. I don't want to be to ultra-strict about it, but it's simply unavoidable. You can't give full credit to a jump that has barely more than than 2 rotations in the air, such as on her 3S+3T combo. Give benefit of the doubt to her "good executions" even though they aren't textbook, sure, but don't give huge +GOE and don't ignore her blatantly flawed executions.

Other people have put a lot of hard work into their skating and are showing a better athletic display in their jumps, using their legs and the blade, not just by having ultra-slim bodies and dragging their toepick around to squeeze out somewhere between 2.1 to 2.2 rotations in the air and thinking it's actually a Triple jump.

 

[jenaj]

It's not invisible to the naked eye, though? You can see the skater twisting into it rather than vaulting up. The jump doesn't look like it should. I loved the poster who said it looks like the skater is doing the "Y" in the YMCA when they jump like this, then gave an example of how graceful and refined a jump of Michelle Kwan's was in comparison. In the modern days we see Tuktamysheva having that still upper body (and tons of amplitude) when she jumps. She is doing it correctly. If you can't do something correctly then you shouldn't be rewarded for it. That's all there is to it. Medvedeva can't jump as well as many others and she shouldn't be scored as if she is the best jumper in the World. She isn't.

Didn't get past your first sentence. I said nearly invisible to the naked eye. Of course the green eye shade people see these things (allegedly). But the rest of us with normal vision don't. There's already too much attention to minutiae in skating. At least leave some of these things in the hands of the judging panel, not the technical caller.

 

[ks777]

Turning 180 degrees (1/2 turn) on the takeoff is fine, it's when people go further that it needs to start being deducted. Medvedeva does 3/4 of a turn on the ice on her toeloops, or even more sometimes. She often isn't landing perfectly backwards after doing that either. I don't want to be to ultra-strict about it, but it's simply unavoidable. You can't give full credit to a jump that has barely more than than 2 rotations in the air, such as on her 3S+3T combo. Give benefit of the doubt to her "good executions" even though they aren't textbook, sure, but don't give huge +GOE and don't ignore her blatantly flawed executions.

Other people have put a lot of hard work into their skating and are showing a better athletic display in their jumps, using their legs and the blade, not just by having ultra-slim bodies and dragging their toepick around to squeeze out somewhere between 2.1 to 2.2 rotations in the air and thinking it's actually a Triple jump.

but why is 180 degree is fine? according to who? a fan?

 

[Blades of Passion]

Hmm, it is still in the hands of the judges though? They are giving her huge +GOE for flawed technique. In 6.0 days something like Medvedeva's less graceful form would have been criticized, so file that under whatever corresponding PCS/GOE category these days. Regardless of not being able to ascertain the exact rotation in real time, you can see how she is clenching her fists for the jump and hunching forward and torquing her body in order to make the jump happen.

 

[andromache]

Two programs of nearly equal weight:

1. Technical program: TES has more weight than PCS, with jumps being heavily scrutinized and scored based on rotation, technique, etc. 4-5 spin levels able to be reached, with the more difficult spins worth more. Footwork judged as is now. Perhaps there would even be a scoring incentive for including both lutz and flip, considering how most skaters good at one are good at the other.

2. "Artistic" program: TES and PCS are weighed about the same. Jump BVs same as now / same as in the TP. However jump scores beyond the BV are up to the judges - as they were under 6.0. So major jump errors get penalized, smaller errors that might be invisible to the naked eye are up to the discretion of each individual judge. 3 spin levels - obviously more difficult spins are worth more, but this way, a more aesthetically appealing spin might have the same BV of an uglier, more difficult one because there are simply more spins to choose from at each level. Two footwork levels capable of being reached for differing BVs, and the rest is GOE.

~5 jumps required in each program, only jumps that may be repeated are toe loops in a T-T combination.

Probably a terrible idea, but just one I thought of in light of this debate.

 

[UnChosen]

What's the big fuss we are making here? It's the unfair scoring when two skaters have the same amount of revolutions in the air, but one gets full BV plus +GOE for all the nice qualities of the jump, while the other gets 0.7*BV and an automatic -1 to -2 GOE. This occurs as a result of only looking at the ending point of the rotation, but not the starting point.

Even without a UR call textbook big jumpers still have to deal with the higher risk of falling or losing GoE due to "heavy" landings. It is also harder for skaters to do transitions into jumps with good technique because they have to get themselves into the optimal position to muscle their jumps up instead of just spinning their jumps off the ice.

 

[Blades of Passion]

but why is 180 degree is fine?

That's the mechanics of how jumps work. It's simply the natural way of how the skate turns on the ice into the trajectory of the jump. Certainly for Loop/Salchow/Toeloop, 180 degree turn on the ice during the takeoff is just normal, even if it's possible to do it with less. Lutz/Flip and even Axel is more debatable, but on all of those a 1/2 turn on the ice can also be normal.

 

[largeman]

but why is 180 degree is fine? according to who? a fan?

That's the mechanics of how jumps work. It's simply the natural way of how the skate turns on the ice into the trajectory of the jump. Certainly for Loop/Salchow/Toeloop, 180 degree turn on the ice during the takeoff is just normal, even if it's possible to do it with less. Lutz/Flip and even Axel is more debatable, but on all of those a 1/2 turn on the ice can also be normal.

It's definitely an important question. What's allowable/acceptable needs to be defined and has to be reasonable.

Why is 180 degrees acceptable? Not being a skater myself, when I started looking into jump mechanics and specifically the topic of pre-rotation, I found these posts quite helpful (posts by Components). In the end, various resources helped me reach the view that 180 degree turn on the ice during takeoff is standard for loop/salchow/toeloop (as BoP described) and is acceptable/normal for lutz/flip.

If we look at the top 20 ladies at 2016 Worlds, all of them took off forwards on their 3Lz/3F, with the lone exception of Alaine Chartrand (who is in the league of Carolina Kostner with her backwards "power takeoff"). Caro/Yuna/Liza/Alaine may be the gold standard but I'm not advocating applying a penalty to anything less than gold standard, but just drawing a reasonable line somewhere.

 

[ks777]

That's the mechanics of how jumps work. It's simply the natural way of how the skate turns on the ice into the trajectory of the jump. Certainly for Loop/Salchow/Toeloop, 180 degree turn on the ice during the takeoff is just normal, even if it's possible to do it with less. Lutz/Flip and even Axel is more debatable, but on all of those a 1/2 turn on the ice can also be normal.

I understand that. Like I said I have bee on this board for many years. My point was if 180 degrees is ok, Why not 181 degrees? also who are you to say 180 degrees are fine but 190 degrees are not? I am assuming you are a figure skater. I am not.

 

[ks777]

It's definitely an important question. What's allowable/acceptable needs to be defined and has to be reasonable.

Why is 180 degrees acceptable? Not being a skater myself, when I started looking into jump mechanics and specifically the topic of pre-rotation, I found these posts quite helpful (posts by Components). In the end, various resources helped me reach the view that 180 degree turn on the ice during takeoff is standard for loop/salchow/toeloop (as BoP described) and is acceptable/normal for lutz/flip.

If we look at the top 20 ladies at 2016 Worlds, all of them took off forwards on their 3Lz/3F, with the lone exception of Alaine Chartrand (who is in the league of Carolina Kostner with her backwards "power takeoff"). Caro/Yuna/Liza/Alaine may be the gold standard but I'm not advocating applying a penalty to anything less than gold standard, but just drawing a reasonable line somewhere.

yep I agree. I want to get to the bottom of it. I am not a figure skater either but play ice hockey growing up and took skating lessons from figure skating coach... but didn't learn jumps.

 

[UnChosen]

Once they increase the possible GOE past +3 they just need to make height/distance worth more and the problem will solve itself, since the severely pre-rotated jumps all have the common trait of being small. The reason why it is a big problem now is because the bullet point system value jump height exactly the same as tano or footwork, and they cannot make it worth more because there is not enough room within 3 points to do so.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Hmm, it is still in the hands of the judges though? They are giving her huge +GOE for flawed technique. In 6.0 days something like Medvedeva's less graceful form would have been criticized, so file that under whatever corresponding PCS/GOE category these days. Regardless of not being able to ascertain the exact rotation in real time, you can see how she is clenching her fists for the jump and hunching forward and torquing her body in order to make the jump happen.

But why is 6.0 relevant? Arguably there are a ton of 6.0 skaters who would have been flayed for technical flaws, and that's not even under the IJS requirements. Somebody like even Kwan would have been called out more on her occasional URs and flutzes and while Evgenia wouldn't have gotten as high artistic scores, she would have Tara Lipinski'ed the system with her technical ability - which of course, under 6.0 wasn't under such scrutiny.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

It certainly can be fixed. Mao Asada was able to do it and others have as well. If you watch Mao as a Junior on her 3T, she had a bad toe-axel (pre-rotating not just the toe-pick foot, but also the skating foot on the jump). Then in one season of working with Arutunian, she had corrected the entrance, although her 3T combo still wasn't consistent in that first season of working on it. However, then in her second season of fixing the technique in 2007-2008, she was getting consistent at landing rotated 3F+3T's with correct entrances.

Anyone can be taught to make the change, it will simply make them less consistent (at least for 1 season), because it is more difficult. Cheating the entrance is the secret to why certain skaters are able to be so consistent on these jumps. They don't need to come out of the first jump of the combination with as much flow in order to do the second part of the combination, because they simply spin off the ice from a near-standstill. Some people are able to do 3T combos from a standstill with correct technique, but it takes more physical strength of actually jumping into the air in order to complete those rotations (which is why you'll see guys more frequently able to pull off such things).

If you make these skaters do it with correct technique, then they will likely start missing rotation at the end of the jump instead of at the start of the jump, yet to the naked eye it may still looked complete enough to most people (as it currently does when they cheat the entrance). The difference is the jumps will be bigger, because they are actually jumping them instead of spinning them. So right now we have a problem of more powerful jumps being punished because they sometimes lack a little bit of rotation at the end of the jump, such as with Riko Hongo or Alaine Chartrand or Mao Asada (on her 2A+3T), while the weaker jumps get full credit.

Why on earth would any skater rework their pre-rotation (which isn't particularly scrutinized) at the expense of the rotation on the landing (which is heavily scrutinized and can make or break a skater)? They are still trying to win. Not everyone is an Asada who has won most things and can afford to try to breakdown and rejig her technique in an effort to improve herself.

Also, Mao Asada didn't quite fix her flutz so much as make it less obviously a definite flutz. Let's not pretend like she's had any stretch of consistently ratified lutz edges since those started being scrutinized by tech specialists. A better example would maybe be Rochette. But even still neither of these skaters are exhibiting textbook technique and few skaters do on all jumps.

 

[jenm]

Why on earth would any skater rework their pre-rotation (which isn't particularly scrutinized) at the expense of the rotation on the landing (which is heavily scrutinized and can make or break a skater)?

Isn't that exactly the problem people are discussing here and other threads?
Because that's the fault of the current scoring system (and how judges/tech panel use it) that people are having issues with.
Skaters will try to work around the current rules (or lack thereof) to win. And as a result, we have skaters with less than ideal technique being rewarded equally or more than those who have better/more correct technique.

After Sochi, there was so much debate about Flutzes and Lips. I remember that edge call deductions became harsher after the Olympics that skaters avoided Lutzes and Flips and instead, tried other 3-3 combos to avoid big deduction. I believe when excessive pre-rotation is given an appropriate deduction, skaters and their team will try to fix it. And skaters with better technique will be rewarded more as they should be.

 

[Blades of Passion]

But why is 6.0 relevant?

Because the same principles about great skating are supposed to hold true. The GOE and PCS are supposed to be detailed accounts of what judges always thought anyway, yet with a universal objective basis (aka, everyone's jumps and spins and such get a set value that everyone knows). Form, elegance, and audience connection used to be very important and now these things are just vague concepts that are secondary to putting as much movement as possible into a program. The judges don't necessarily get to choose how to specifically rank the skaters anymore and there is no concrete "second mark" that automatically holds sway over the technical mark.

Evgenia wouldn't have gotten as high artistic scores, she would have Tara Lipinski'ed the system with her technical ability - which of course, under 6.0 wasn't under such scrutiny.

Look at the result of 1997 Worlds Long Program. Michelle did 6 Triples and beat Tara who did 7. Slutskaya with 6 Triples received higher tech marks than Lipinski from some judges because of how much bigger her jumps were in comparison.

It was the same with Sarah Hughes when she came along, even if there were also political reasons to hold her down. Sarah could frequently do a 6 or 7 Triple program but was criticized for sticking her butt out on the landings and would get scored lower even when Kwan had less tech. That aspect Sarah Hughes had of "sticking her butt out" on the landings was actually because all of her jumps were short on rotation to some degree and that's how she needed to land in order to pull the jump out. So people weren't talking much about the underrotations of Hughes back then, except on the completely obvious cases of a cheated landing, but it could be inherently FELT by watching her skating that the technique wasn't as good.

Why on earth would any skater rework their pre-rotation (which isn't particularly scrutinized) at the expense of the rotation on the landing (which is heavily scrutinized and can make or break a skater)?

Because if the rules rewarded bigger jumps and DID scrutinize pre-rotations, then it would be better to train a more correct technique. And obviously the IDEAL would be to land jumps that aren't underrotated, without excessive pre-rotation. Sometimes people would be able to do it and sometimes they wouldn't. But because the rules would in fact enforce that technique, most people would train that technique and take the occasional underrotation hits, because they would know the GOE would be worth more and also that they would NEED to be able to jump like that in order to beat other skaters who are able to skate clean programs with this content.

It's the same concept as the Quad race in the Men's event right now. How frequently will people ever do a perfectly clean 3-quad program like Hanyu last season? Not very often, but people will still keep training that layout, because the THREAT of their competitor doing it is there and they know that they need to match it in order to have a chance of beating them in those instances (and also because making mistakes on Quads is still worth a lot of points, but that's a different issue).

Also, Mao Asada didn't quite fix her flutz so much as make it less obviously a definite flutz. Let's not pretend like she's had any stretch of consistently ratified lutz edges since those started being scrutinized by tech specialists.

In the 2008-2009 season she did do some legit Lutzes that were ratified. It was just never comfortable for her, particularly doing it out of footwork as the required solo jump in the Short Program. So she gave up on it after that season, but then tried to go back and work on it again starting in the 2010-2011 season. She hasn't been able to master the correct edge since then, perhaps because there so many other things to work on at the same time and ultimately having a "!" lutz is good enough anyway when you are doing a Triple Axel.