I just curious on why if an individual T.Toe has a base point of 4.0 while a T.Toe-T.Toe sequence has base value of 7.04, why not just do a two T.Toe;s and recieve more points. Wouldn't it be more correct to award a T.Toe-T.Toe combo 8.50 or 9 points, and T.Toe-T.Toe Sequence 8.0-8.3 points? Just doesn't seem right...
Two T.Toes vs T.Toe-T.Toe Seq
- Thread starter TtonyV7
- Start date
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
Any "sequence" counts only 80% of the base value of the two jumps separately. The reason that a 3T/3T SEQ got 7.04 is because it was done in the second half of the program, so it got the extra 10% bonus. (4.0 + 4.0) x 1.10 x .80 = 7.04.
Sequences get lower marks than combos because they are easier -- so that part of the scoring is OK.
I think where the question comes up is, should jumps done in combination get an extra bonus compared to the same jumps done separately?
I think the reason that the ISU says "no" is because the skater already gets kind of a bonus because by doing a triple-triple (combo or sequence) you can squeeze an extra triple into your seven jumping passes.
Sasha, for instance, did
3Lz+2T
3F
3Lo
3F+2T
3T+3S seq
2A
3S
She lost 20% on her 3T+3S sequence, but still came out ahead because without it she could not have done 7 triples.
Sequences get lower marks than combos because they are easier -- so that part of the scoring is OK.
I think where the question comes up is, should jumps done in combination get an extra bonus compared to the same jumps done separately?
I think the reason that the ISU says "no" is because the skater already gets kind of a bonus because by doing a triple-triple (combo or sequence) you can squeeze an extra triple into your seven jumping passes.
Sasha, for instance, did
3Lz+2T
3F
3Lo
3F+2T
3T+3S seq
2A
3S
She lost 20% on her 3T+3S sequence, but still came out ahead because without it she could not have done 7 triples.
Others, however, disagree. I (and many coaches) think that the scoring of combinations and sequences is not correct. That is, does not correctly reward those elements. There are proposals circulating to change the scoring of combinations and sequences.
Doing two jumps with turns and steps with the rhythm and continuity required to be called a sequence is not easier than doing those two jumps as two completely separate items. At a minimum the sequence should receive as many points as the two jumps alone.
Doing two jumps in combination is more difficult than doing those two jumps alone, and should be worth more than the sum of the points for those two jumps alone.
If I correctly understood comments Alexander Lakernik made at a meeting on IJS in Dortmund, it was decided to limit combinations to the sum of the points of the jumps, because the number of points earned by jumps in total was getting worrisomely large. Then, since sequences are easier than combinations they had to get fewer points, hence the 0.8. Thus, there was a conscious choice early on to undervalue the combinations, which dragged down the sequences with them. (In other words, it was earier to undervalue the combinations and sequences at that point than to revamp the entire point structure to get it right!)
Doing two jumps with turns and steps with the rhythm and continuity required to be called a sequence is not easier than doing those two jumps as two completely separate items. At a minimum the sequence should receive as many points as the two jumps alone.
Doing two jumps in combination is more difficult than doing those two jumps alone, and should be worth more than the sum of the points for those two jumps alone.
If I correctly understood comments Alexander Lakernik made at a meeting on IJS in Dortmund, it was decided to limit combinations to the sum of the points of the jumps, because the number of points earned by jumps in total was getting worrisomely large. Then, since sequences are easier than combinations they had to get fewer points, hence the 0.8. Thus, there was a conscious choice early on to undervalue the combinations, which dragged down the sequences with them. (In other words, it was earier to undervalue the combinations and sequences at that point than to revamp the entire point structure to get it right!)
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2006
i think that the second jump's base value should go up, wether it is part of a sequence or combonation. more points of course for a combonation.
If Cohen did a Solo T.Toe, and did a second Triple Salchow-d.toe, that would have been 3 combinations, covering all seven triples allowed. She would have earn more points that way, rather than doing the more difficult T.Toe-T.Salchow Sequence for less points.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
No, I don't think so. If she did a extra 3S-2T it would have to take the place of one of her other jumps, like the double Axel. I think the base points would work out something like this:
3T+3S sequence = 8.5 X .80 = 6.8
2A = 3.3
Total = 10.1
3T = 4.0
3S+2T = 4.5+1.3 = 5.8
Total = 9.8
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
That's very interesting. That was certainly true for the top unior ladies, where they can way outjump their PCSs. I suppose that with senior ladies thinking about triple Axels, 3Lz/3T and 3F/3Lo all in the same program the ISU will have to revisit the issue.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2004
And of course don't forget that if she got rid of the doble axel - the final jump would not count because she would have to have at least one axel jump.
Ant
