Toe jumps

[antmanb]

I guess Meissner toe-axled too. But by nemisis jump I mean a jump a skater leaves out because they can't do it or they fall on it. I think CoP as it has evolved has changed the calculations somewhat with the question being less "Can I land it?" to "Can I rotate it?"

IIRC Corwin did compete under CoP (at least when it was being beta-tested) in fact (drawing on my big store o' useless trivia) I'm pretty sure she was a surprise loser in the first ever senior CoP competition when the caller (Urmanov) downgraded most or all of her triples to doubles (the comp was won by .... Jennifer Don?)

I'm also drawing a blank on any skaters who couldn't do or regularly fell on the triple toe. Maybe some of the pairs skaters (Mandy Woetzel for example) but then for the pairs skaters that would have been their most difficult jump so it's a different thing altogether.

Or maybe John Baldwin since by all accounts he can do nearly all the triples but rarely if ever lands a triple toe SBS. Apparently he does land it solo fine it's just when he attempts it SBS with his partner that it goes wrong.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

While this may be a purely semantic argument, there is a difference in my opinion between heavily pre-rotating a toe loop jump and a toe axel. I believe the definition has always been the same, even in the pre-COP days when there may not have been a specific deduction for the error. Like flutzing, which was described in the rule book as deliberately changing to the back inside edge or making no attempt to be on a back outside edge, the same is true of the toe axel. This is when a skater deliberately turns forward BEFORE even putting the toe in the ice. Under the old system and this description, therefore, it could be said that someone like Michelle Kwan was actually attempting to hit the back outside edge, where as Nicole Bobek's or Tara Lipinski's technique was merely to do the jump off an inside edge. I've seen certain skaters attempt triple toe loops in practice from a standstill in which they use the take off as a pivot, turning on the ice to start the rotation. This is different from a toe axel even though the resultant pre-rotation may be the same. Whether good or bad, toe axeling or flutzing, the COP doesn't seem to care whether it's deliberate or not. If it's pre-rotated it's pre-rotated.

What a great post on Toe-axels and Flutzing. What I got out of your post was the controversy of whether these errors are ATTEMPTS or DELIBERATES. I am of the opinion that a jump has a definition and anything short of that definition on the Take-Off negates giving that jump a name. So a Toe-Axel or a Flutz does not have any official name to judge those jumps, and I would say giving those unnamed jumps, the modifier Attempts are wrong. The CoP judges what a skater does, and the skater who attempts did not do any specific jump to assess.

However, you are correct in deciding whether an attempt was made to do the correct toe-off or whether the jump was to get partial credit for the unnamed jump. Some fans believe the triple air turns, which are now in a better position to be executed along with the ensuing landings. The skater is now more comfortable with what the errors bring, and in many cases the penalty for the unnamed jump can be awarded partial credit with plus GoEs. You figure.

The only genuine attempt I could see was a take-off on the flat of the blade. This was Michelle's problem in many attempts, but for an old curmudgeon like me, it still wasn't a defined jump. I kind of like the Toe-Axel. It is somewhat balletic, but still not part of the Axel's definition.

I enjoyed reading your post but would prefer the youtube links to go slomo. Two dimentional displays can be misleading, imo.

 

[antmanb]

The skater is now more comfortable with what the errors bring, and in many cases the penalty for the unnamed jump can be awarded partial credit with plus GoEs.

No Joe you are wrong there - if a jump takes off from the wrong edge ("e") whether solo or in combination the entire jump must have an overall negative GOE - it cannot be given plus GOE overall. I can't seem to link the rules because I have a downloaded PDF with no web address on it.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^
None of this is clear, Ant, imo. I would love to see an official paper on what defines each jump.

btw, I am now beginning to think that a Toe-Axel is not an UR but a Wrong Edge Takeoff. There are still 3 rotations to make.before the landing and of course, the landing could be an UR but that would not be 'secret'.

 

[Mafke]

I would love to see an official paper on what defines each jump.

So would I. I somehow think the ISU will never do that because to actually define jumps would paint them into a corner they don't want to be in.

On the other hand, USFSA might actually define jumps somewhere or other.

My own preference is to distinguish approach and edge. Sarah Hughes (for example) never (AFAICT) did a lutz, she had two different approaches for the flip, one more conventional, one preceded by a BO to BI change of edge (the change of edge in her case always seemed completely deliberate).

For the record I'm fine with rewriting Zayak to count different approaches as different jumps (though in the context of CoP awarding the change of edge flip less points than a lutz).

Also for the record I'm less concerned about skaters that change edge just as they're taking off. I suspect that if you examined the tracings the great majority of skaters actually are on an inside edge at the moment of takeoff.

 

[antmanb]

^^^
None of this is clear, Ant, imo. I would love to see an official paper on what defines each jump.

btw, I am now beginning to think that a Toe-Axel is not an UR but a Wrong Edge Takeoff. There are still 3 rotations to make.before the landing and of course, the landing could be an UR but that would not be 'secret'.

Wouldn't that be a hoot! BUt i'm not sure it would really work for the toe-axel because there is no wrong edge - the RBO take of edge is correct - it's the fact the left picking foot has turned all the way to forwards before the pick goes in that causes the problem. And because of that on the "triple toe" that turns into a toe-axel there's only two and half revolutions required before the landing.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

For the record I'm fine with rewriting Zayak to count different approaches as different jumps (though in the context of CoP awarding the change of edge flip less points than a lutz)

I just can't buy that. An element is an element and jumps are very special in that field. If a jump directs the skater to take-off a certain way which gives the jump a name, then that has to happen, imo. Without that back outside takeoff what do you call that jump? A Flutz would be a perfect name, but the ISU will not recognize the Flutz; the definition would be a change-edge-takeoff, and base value to differentiate between the lutz and flip.

I'm just as bad with a Flying Camel or a Jump Camel??? Are there defintitions to distinguish these?

Also for the record I'm less concerned about skaters that change edge just as they're taking off. I suspect that if you examined the tracings the great majority of skaters actually are on an inside edge at the moment of takeoff.

I tend to agree with you here. There is that new way to approach a lutz in secret to avoid the Liashenko entry by cross over to a boe in a very mintzy manner so the Caller has trouble seeing the back outside edge takeoff under the guise of high level transition cross over. hmm. My opinion, Liashenko was right on to show the correct lutz take-off. It is possible, and most European skaters do proper lutzes. It's only the very young who are impatient in training to bother with the take-off and the flutz becomes a way of life to them. I say don't score the Flutz or make it legal.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Wouldn't that be a hoot! BUt i'm not sure it would really work for the toe-axel because there is no wrong edge - the RBO take of edge is correct - it's the fact the left picking foot has turned all the way to forwards before the pick goes in that causes the problem. And because of that on the "triple toe" that turns into a toe-axel there's only two and half revolutions required before the landing.Ant

It would be a hoot and a half. Using the real ballet term, pique just isn't in the skating vocabulary. But it is a wrong take-off more, imo, than an underrotation if the skater lands properly after rotating in the air 3 times.

 

[antmanb]

It would be a hoot and a half. Using the real ballet term, pique just isn't in the skating vocabulary. But it is a wrong take-off more, imo, than an underrotation if the skater lands properly after rotating in the air 3 times.

Joe can you describe what the ballet term pique means please? I have a less than beginner knowledge of ballet!

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^

I will try. A dancer when facing the audience will pique to the left (or right) that is place the toe on the stage then turn it slightly while the dancer lifts the other foot to face the west side of the stage These Pique Turns can be done in a series across the stage or in a circle around the stage. The ballarina after doing her variation will often do many pique turns and a final pique arabasque near the wing.

Maybe this will help: http://www.abt.org/education/dictionary/index.html

The boys seldom do piques but do Saute de Basques (axel like) around the stage increasing the rotations to doubles and finally ending in a triple to the knee. That gets the audience going.

 

[mskater93]

I'm just as bad with a Flying Camel or a Jump Camel??? Are there defintitions to distinguish these?

Yes - a flying camel has no spin (or shouldn't anyway) before the "fly" while a jump camel is a jump into a camel position in the middle of a spin.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Thank you. So they are not related but really two separate elements. I read somewhere on the Board that a Flying Camel should have 1.5 air rotations before landing into the spin. most of the time I just see a butterfly into the spin.

 

[antmanb]

Thank you. So they are not related but really two separate elements. I read somewhere on the Board that a Flying Camel should have 1.5 air rotations before landing into the spin. most of the time I just see a butterfly into the spin.

Just jumping in Joe because I think you might have been referring to a conversation we once had about the flying sit spin where I once said that the flying sit spin should have 1.5 rotations in the air before landing in the spin (a bit like Robin Cousin's tuck axel but landing in the spin). I think i was corrected that it wasn't an actual requirement of the flying sit to have the axel rotation but i think a lot of the "oldies" back in the day did it (and Petkevich a student of Lussi i'm sure states in his book that the flying sit needs that rotation, but then he also thinks the toe, sal and loop are half rotation jumps!).

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Just jumping in Joe because I think you might have been referring to a conversation we once had about the flying sit spin where I once said that the flying sit spin should have 1.5 rotations in the air before landing in the spin (a bit like Robin Cousin's tuck axel but landing in the spin). I think i was corrected that it wasn't an actual requirement of the flying sit to have the axel rotation but i think a lot of the "oldies" back in the day did it (and Petkevich a student of Lussi i'm sure states in his book that the flying sit needs that rotation, but then he also thinks the toe, sal and loop are half rotation jumps!). Ant

Yes, that was it. It would be very difficult to position the Butterfly for 1.5 turns into a spin, but a simple axel-like jump could do it. I like both approaches. the simple jump to spin should be very high. The Butterfly to spin with an arched back should be distinguished between the acrobatic and the spin.

 

[jeff goldblum]

There have been many good posts in this thread, and as a whole tend to point to why I think the stringency in marking UR jumps needs to go. Here's the plain and simple truth: toe-loop jumps leave the ice facing forwards, as do almost all jumps except the axel, which really leaves the ice at some point in between. The problem is, if a toe loop inherently takes off going forward, whether executed perfectly or poorly, how do we distinguish when it is correct and when it is an error? (Since I've pointed out that most jumps actually leave the ice facing forward, it is important to note that a toe-axel may include more than exactly 1/2 rotation on the ice before takeoff, but probably not much). All triple toe-loops rotate at most 2 1/2 turns in the air, so it's not really an issue of completing the rotations. But I see this as translating into questions of clean landings as well. Few skaters land jumps purely backwards, because physically, in order to check the rotation on the landing, it becomes necessary to use some friction between the blade and ice at the end of the rotations. I know I am not the first one to complain about the seeming unfairness of UR calls in the past seasons, but I think my argument is exactly the opposite of what tends to be the norm. In my opinion it is not a black or white issue. It is subjective, and I know I can't explain why, but there are times in which a skater's blade is in contact with the ice for more than 1/4 of the last rotation that the jump should be considered clean, and others when it shouldn't. It has so much to do with overall technique of the jump than simply whether the blade hits the ice a few degrees too soon.

As an example I present Miki Ando's Grand Prix Final LP from this season, in which the double axel-triple toe was downgraded on the second jump. I simply don't care about the slow motion footage, the jump I saw in the program was a clean one with good technique.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs1yhvyA_tk

I also wanted to mention that the last I knew, the USFSA rule book that is published and updated yearly has descriptions of all the jumps as well as drawings of what the tracings should roughly look like on the ice, describing the edges and toe placements as applicable. I believe that is where I read the description of flutzes being judged based on whether the true edge was actually attempted or not.

I also think it's odd that flying camels have come up in this discussion where we've also been talking about Salchows. And it makes me think more about the subjectivity or objectivity of deductions in the new system. A common error on the flying camel is known as something like a flying Salchow, in which the skater takes off of a back inside edge. A flying camel, regardless of rotations in the air must take off from a forward edge, the takeoff hitting the toe-pick and looking like a very curled axel takeoff. Ideally, the skater will then land on the other side, the outside of that first edge, where she will then center the spin. In the flying Salchow, the skater rotates too much on the ice almost performing a three turn before taking off. This is a mistake, and I want to know whether there is a distinct deduction if a skater performs this element or if it simply comes off the GOE. Why do certain errors call for a specific deduction and others not?

 

[mskater93]

Yes, that was it. It would be very difficult to position the Butterfly for 1.5 turns into a spin, but a simple axel-like jump could do it. I like both approaches. the simple jump to spin should be very high. The Butterfly to spin with an arched back should be distinguished between the acrobatic and the spin.

Ant is referencing a reverse Axel-sit spin with his 1.5 rotations in tuck position versus a flying camel which jumps around itself, a flying forward sit (which jumps up in a tuck position and lands on the take off foot and spins) and a flying reverse sit (aka death drop) which jumps sort of like a fly camel and then collapses into a back sit position. There is also the jump camel (which I defined earlier with the easiest being a forward camel jumping to a back camel. I saw a beautiful one last year at a local competition where the skater jumped from a back sit to a FORWARD camel - YIKES!) and the jump sit (which is typically from back spin to front sit or front spin to back sit in the middle of a combination spin - easiest typically being back camel position to front sit).

Typically a skater learns the flying camel first usually around the same time as a back camel. If a skater struggles with the flying camel, a coach may teach camel-jump-camel. Then a skater typically learns the death drop and/or flying (forward) sit spin.

 

[Mathman]

***Jeff Goldblum's whole post, but especially...

...I know I can't explain why, but there are times in which a skater's blade is in contact with the ice for more than 1/4 of the last rotation that the jump should be considered clean, and others when it isn't. It has so much to do with overall technique of the jump then simply whether the blade hits the ice a few degrees too soon....

That is just the way I feel about it, but as a non-skater I was afraid to say so. I do not think the CoP has succeeded in its goal of matching up points with the quality of the skating.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^
Thank you Jeff G for the informative post. Can a fan order of copy of the USFS's Rule Book?

I'm trying to visualize a Flying Salchow into a spin. I can see a 3 turn into the normal salchow, but can't quite get the Flying part.

Your take on Miki's combo is noteworthy. What the caller sees in his monitor is not shared with public or skater, and he is the rule of law. We have to live with that.

I have no problems with the general deductions of the general skating, but I wonder about the major errors in jumping, i.e., Fall, URs, WETs.

The Fall disrupts a program and I feel there should be a heavy penalty;
An Underrotation does not necessarily disrupt the program and the penalty is too severe.
The Wrong Edge Takeoff cancels out the jumps and also shows sloppy technique and should be considered a no-jump or a very severe penalty.

IMO, those three errors need a renewed look at what their penalties should be.
also the word attempt needs clarification.

btw, It's not easy to see a UR.

Check out if you have time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVNW8hA-R8

Melissa did not disrupt her program with that attempt. If skaters can fall on their attempted quads and get partial credit, why drag the skaters with a UR to a whole level below?

 

[gkelly]

^^^
Thank you Jeff G for the informative post. Can a fan order of copy of the USFS's Rule Book?

Yes.
As of this year the rulebook is available online: http://www.usfigureskating.org/New_Judging.asp?id=361
There's a link there to the order form.

The list of jumps (p. 36 of the "Tests Book w/o Diagrams" document) does not include the little diagrams of takeoffs and landing edges that jeff goldblum referred to, so I wouldn't count on them being in the printed version either. You might need to get an earlier year's rulebook to see them.

I'm trying to visualize a Flying Salchow into a spin. I can see a 3 turn into the normal salchow, but can't quite get the Flying part.

It will look more like a regular flying camel than like a regular salchow jump, except the blade will turn on the ice before the skater is completely airborne, and the flight will probably be weaker than the average flying camel.

btw, It's not easy to see a UR.

Check out if you have time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uVNW8hA-R8

Melissa did not disrupt her program with that attempt. If skaters can fall on their attempted quads and get partial credit, why drag the skaters with a UR to a whole level below?

It's not easy to see the underrotation on the video, I agree. It was more obvious live.

I can see an argument that a jump shouldn't be downgraded to the lower base value if it's short by just over 90 degrees -- maybe the cutoff should be 135 or even 180 degrees.

A skater gets

-partial credit for a jump that's rotated with a fall (base value of the attempted jump, minus -3 GOE and 1.00 fall deduction) -- if the fall is disruptive, it will also have a negative effect on some of the PCS

-partial credit for a jump that's underrotated without a fall (base value of the jump of the same takeoff with one fewer rotations, probably with negative GOE) -- this may add up to more or less than the point value of the rotated jump with the fall depending on the difference in the specific base values of the jumps, and if the error is not disruptive it should have no effect on the PCS -- for an exciting attempt like a lady's triple axel it might have a positive effect

-the least amount partial credit for a jump that's underrotated with a fall (lower base value, -3 GOE, and 1.00 fall deduction, and possible lower PCS effect of disruptive fall)

As of this year, the judges are no longer informed whether a jump is downgraded. They are no longer required to reduce the GOE for a downgraded jump if they don't see the underrotation, and they're no longer required to give a final negative GOE even if they do see it but also see other positive aspects of the jump that would compensate.

So the skater would lose points for the base value but they'll only get the double penalty of also earning negative GOE if most judges see the underrotation in real time and there aren't multiple other strengths of the element to hold the GOE up at 0 or on the positive side.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

^^^
Thank you, gkelly, for the additional information. It seems scoring does change a lot from year to year, and my head cannot keep up with it. :think: