Who can defeat the Russian Women in 2021-22?

[wakuwaku]

The reason they have trouble with URs is because they're doing more rotation in the air.

No? They have trouble with URs because the so called 'good' technique do not help them rotate fast enough. Where that rotation happens - on ice or in air - doesn't matter. What matters is how strong is that initial rotation impulse. Classic technique helps to get height - and that's all it does. Everything else after that depends on skaters own legs strength. Exactly because of that typical classic technique users usually have strong build with muscled legs - because their own strength is heavily required to make this technique work. And even then they could jump first jumps in routine more or less properly - and in second half they become tired quickly and can't rotate jumps enough anymore. It's that strength-dependent.

Let's say you have skater 1 who has 270 degree pre-rotation but no underrotation and compare it with skater 2 who has 40 degree pre-rotation but 100 degree underrotation. Skater 2 is rotating a total of 140 degrees on the ice vs skater 1 rotating 270 degrees.

This is very artificial example which I've never seen in real life. With 270 degree of prerotation the jump is bound to be underrotated as well. Because it will lose initial lifting impulse - the jump will be very low as a result. Also, prerotation is not that simple as 'stealing' extra rotation on ice - it's very amateurish look on jumps physics. Prerotation is required not to 'steal' - and whether skater on ice or in air - doesn't make jump easier or harder. Prerotation is a mean to make strong enough torque to make very fast rotational speed as a result - which is impossible to get otherwise. Exactly because of that classical technique users usually have great height but slow rotational speed - and prerotated technique users have less height but very fast rotational speed. What matters is how early you can get maximum rotational speed and keep it throughout the jump. Prerotation allows it to be at max just after take off whereas classic technique gets max rotation speed when the skater begins to descend already.

The judging doesn't account for this because skater 1 will be rewarded with positive GOE for a smooth landing but skater 2 will be penalised despite having more rotation in the air.

Yes. Because rotation in the air doesn't matter. What matters is completion of the jump with any means available -and technique allowing it more easily should be praised. Well, I can understand aesthetic preference for classic technique - there is nothing wrong with it. ( Personally, however, I prefer prerotated one because I love fast rotation speed. For example, if we compare Shcherbakova's quad flip with Valieva's quad toe - I would prefer flip. Because it looks more powerful. Valieva's jump is higher and slower - but it's not making such impact on me. Because Scherbakova's 4F is insanely fast and very unexpected from such frail looking skater. It's like cannon shot.)
But to claim that it's better technique? Just because? In the end you could ask yourself directly - which technique is better and more impressive - that which allows to jump complex jumps only for people with very strong legs and muscles (basically they should be praised for their legs/or gender - not their technique) or that which allows to jump complex jumps for anybody without relying on body strength? And that will be your answer.

P.S.: maybe this post is better to be moved in topic about jumps, idk.

 

[spicymacaron]

What.
I just...
So you're claiming that technique doesn't even matter?

No? They have trouble with URs because the so called 'good' technique do not help them rotate fast enough. Where that rotation happens - on ice or in air - doesn't matter. What matters is how strong is that initial rotation impulse. Classic technique helps to get height - and that's all it does. Everything else after that depends on skaters own legs strength.

This is ridiculous, the strongest jumpers in both the men and women fields both use a more classic technique.

Exactly because of that typical classic technique users usually have strong build with muscled legs - because their own strength is heavily required to make this technique work. And even then they could jump first jumps in routine more or less properly - and in second half they become tired quickly and can't rotate jumps enough anymore. It's that strength-dependent.

This isn't even strength, it's stamina. Neither Nathan Chen nor Sasha Trusova have problems with stamina. Is Trusova consistent? No... but it's not because she doesn't have the strength, she barely looked winded after her worlds fp.

This is very artificial example which I've never seen in real life. With 270 degree of prerotation the jump is bound to be underrotated as well. Because it will lose initial lifting impulse - the jump will be very low as a result. Also, prerotation is not that simple as 'stealing' extra rotation on ice - it's very amateurish look on jumps physics. Prerotation is required not to 'steal' - and whether skater on ice or in air - doesn't make jump easier or harder. Prerotation is a mean to make strong enough torque to make very fast rotational speed as a result - which is impossible to get otherwise. Exactly because of that classical technique users usually have great height but slow rotational speed - and prerotated technique users have less height but very fast rotational speed. What matters is how early you can get maximum rotational speed and keep it throughout the jump. Prerotation allows it to be at max just after take off whereas classic technique gets max rotation speed when the skater begins to descend already.

Yes. Because rotation in the air doesn't matter. What matters is completion of the jump with any means available -and technique allowing it more easily should be praised. Well, I can understand aesthetic preference for classic technique - there is nothing wrong with it. ( Personally, however, I prefer prerotated one because I love fast rotation speed. For example, if we compare Shcherbakova's quad flip with Valieva's quad toe - I would prefer flip. Because it looks more powerful. Valieva's jump is higher and slower - but it's not making such impact on me. Because Scherbakova's 4F is insanely fast and very unexpected from such frail looking skater. It's like cannon shot.)

Trust me, the only one claiming that it's better technique is the ISU handbook. Excessive prerotation is supposed to be penalized according to the rules of the sport.

I mean, you're claiming that Shcherbakova's technique is not worse because it is "prettier" and who cares if it's done correctly, right?

But to claim that it's better technique? Just because? In the end you could ask yourself directly - which technique is better and more impressive - that which allows to jump complex jumps only for people with very strong legs and muscles (basically they should be praised for their legs/or gender - not their technique) or that which allows to jump complex jumps for anybody without relying on body strength? And that will be your answer.

Technique is not a matter of opinion. There are literally dictated guidelines that judges are supposed to follow.

Your technique is just as, if not more reliant on body type. It relies on fast rotation and a small body type. No women post-puberty has been able to land quads with that technique, unless we're counting Lilbet, whose the size of a 10 year old.(but you're claiming that body type doesn't matter for that)

What's the point of having a judged sport if it isn't judged correctly? You may as well just turn every competition into an exhibition.

 

[Zora]

Personally, I find it puzzling that the judging system has been sending such different signals during the last 10-15 years. In the Mao-Yuna-Carolina era, perfect technique was everything and skaters like Yuna Kim, Joannie Rochette, at times Miki Ando, even someone like Laura Lepistö benefited from their perfect technique, while Mao Asada, Mirai Nagasu etc. suffered from having a Flutz and underrotating some jumps. The jumps also needed really good height to gather +GOEs. And just a few years later it all doesn't seem that important anymore, it's about quantity instead of quality. I'm not even talking about what's actually better, just that the sport itself doesn't seem to know it.

 

[drivingmissdaisy]

Personally, I find it puzzling that the judging system has been sending such different signals during the last 10-15 years. In the Mao-Yuna-Carolina era, perfect technique was everything and skaters like Yuna Kim, Joannie Rochette, at times Miki Ando, even someone like Laura Lepistö benefited from their perfect technique, while Mao Asada, Mirai Nagasu etc. suffered from having a Flutz and underrotating some jumps. The jumps also needed really good height to gather +GOEs. And just a few years later it all doesn't seem that important anymore, it's about quantity instead of quality. I'm not even talking about what's actually better, just that the sport itself doesn't seem to know it.

It's just that the system and the skaters are evolving. Big jumps still get rewarded, but skaters are now also doing arm variations and difficult entries and exits to accrue those points, too. The GOE criteria reflect that, in which excelling at just one attribute like height isn't enough to get top scores. I also think the panels are still looking closely at lutz/flip take-offs and under rotations like they did before, which means favorites and those without a reputation for rotation problems often get the benefit of close calls when others don't.

 

[wakuwaku]

What.
I just...
So you're claiming that technique doesn't even matter?

No? Where I claimed that?

the strongest jumpers in both the men and women fields both use a more classic technique.

Depends on what you mean by 'strongest'. If you meant physical strength - I agree with you.

This isn't even strength, it's stamina. Neither Nathan Chen nor Sasha Trusova have problems with stamina. Is Trusova consistent? No... but it's not because she doesn't have the strength, she barely looked winded after her worlds fp.

Ok, stamina. Which influences heavily strength of take off. Why first jumps in a routine is usually getting the highest GOEs? Because the skater isn't tired and can use his strength fully - resulting in a higher jump, more quality jump. For example.

Excessive prerotation is supposed to be penalized according to the rules of the sport.

No? According to the rules of the sport cheated take off is supposed to be penalized. Which has nothing to do with prerotation - else toeloops (which is directly quoted in that rule as an example of illegal 180 degree take off) all would be penalized - with each and every skater. Which isn't the case at all in real life.

I mean, you're claiming that Shcherbakova's technique is not worse because it is "prettier" and who cares if it's done correctly, right?

No, not right. I said that I personally like it more because it's prettier. For me. However I claimed it's better technique because it actually helps rotate the jump much more with much less physical strength required whereas classic technique is basically just skaters legs own strength. It's exact reason why, I believe, women's quads were considered as impossible until recently.

There are literally dictated guidelines that judges are supposed to follow.

There is nothing about jumps technique in ISU rule book. There aren't even basic definition of jumps. As for jumps 'examples' in ISU training videocourse - they are very old, artificial and there is nothing about that they are only possible way to jump or that they are 100% perfect with +5GOE. Moreover there is nothing about examples of bad jumps with negative GOEs - and it's very critical if we talk about videotraining credibility.

Your technique is just as, if not more reliant on body type. It relies on fast rotation and a small body type.

Well, Trusova is not that small anymore. Which isn't obstacle to jump her prerotated quad lutzes. I agree that this technique is reliant on very fit body type though. As it should - complex jumps is not meant for 'big' people. It's true even for classic technique. However there are people who loves to lie that classic technique is perfect for normal adult body type. Where in fact normal adults are not meant for modern figure skating at all, with any technique (see Samarin, Krasnozhon, Boeng Jin). Yuzuru is extremely thin, Kagiyama is extremely short etc. Why in women it should be different with quadsters?

No women post-puberty has been able to land quads with that technique

There is only couple of months remain to refute it )

 

[yume]

Which makes you wonder why it's considered 'weak' in the first place. Do you know that many women skaters with quads with any type of technique? No. From that angle any technique allowing jumping quads more or less consistently (i.e. getting massive scores) should be considered strong. After all, quadsters are rarely have troubles with triples - it has positive effect on a less difficult jumps in terms of consistency. Which majority of skaters without quads but with 'strong' technique on triples - can't boast about. Efficiency is what matters the most in sport and any legal means of getting results should be called good. Why it's not the case in figure skating community - I don't understand. It's just illogical.

Nope. Not in my book.
Otherwise, Tuktamysheva, Kostner, Kim (Yes even her since she wasn't iron consistent as many think) have weak techniques. You use the term legal. Her technique is "legal". You think that since it's legal and give her results, it's a strong technique. That's a way to see things, i can understand. You think that it's illogical to think that her technique is weak. Nope Dear. What i find illogical it's the fact the skaters who do the most rotations in air are considered the ones with the weakest technique, since the jugdes give them lower scores than to the skaters with less rotations

To rotate on ice is more legal than to rotate in the air. What's the point of jumping? Being in the air or nah?

I mean, if they both underrotate, during the picking or landing, they should be at least considered equal. You can't give full points to someone who does almost a full turn on ice and punish someone who almost just pick and vault but is slightly under at the landing.

 

[kolyadafan2002]

By in fact - it's not truth? If we look at some 'good technique' athletes such as Polina Tsurskaya or Karolina Kostner - we can see that they had huge problems with URs and health.

Kostner was born in 1987, and competed and got a bronze medal in 2014 (age 27). She began skating in about 1990, and started her senior career at 2003. That's great longevity for a female skater, so perhaps not the best example.

Although I get your point.
Diet, strength, flexibility, height, bone density, training workloads, training methods, luck etc all effect longevity more than technique (to an extent). Especially prerotation - if you use leg strength with prerotatuon as opposed to heavy use of upper body, you can achieve longevity (Plushenko prerotated and arguably had one of the longest careers in men's figure skating). However without the leg strength, it can get very dangerous.

 

[silveruskate]

I don't want to contribute too much on this, but let's remember what the definition of a Jump is shall we? Single Jump, Double Jump, Triple Jump, Quad Jump. You can absolutely rotate on the ice to your heart's content doing spins.

Not even about pre-rotation being bad or good, but rotating more in the air being weaker? No way, in my view.

 

[AxelLover]

What's the point of jumping? Being in the air or nah?

That's it. Personally, what I (as a viewer) primarily want from jumps in figure skating is to have as many rotations in the air as possible. I remember how disappointed I was when I noticed for the first time (watching some slow-mo shots of quads) that a clean 4T or 4S usually has only somewhere between 3.25 and 3.5 rotations in the air.

But I totally understand that other viewers may find this "number of rotations in the air" stuff irrelevant since you can't really see it in normal speed.

 

[Amei]

Kostner was born in 1987, and competed and got a bronze medal in 2014 (age 27). She began skating in about 1990, and started her senior career at 2003. That's great longevity for a female skater, so perhaps not the best example.

Although I get your point.
Diet, strength, flexibility, height, bone density, training workloads, training methods, luck etc all effect longevity more than technique (to an extent). Especially prerotation - if you use leg strength with prerotatuon as opposed to heavy use of upper body, you can achieve longevity (Plushenko prerotated and arguably had one of the longest careers in men's figure skating). However without the leg strength, it can get very dangerous.

And how many people really think about kostner as a technician? She's thought of as an artistic skater.

 

[kolyadafan2002]

And how many people really think about kostner as a technician? She's thought of as an artistic skater.

Many people saw her as both. For me she is no less a technician than Yuna Kim. She does beautiful jumps, especially during the years when she managed to sort underrotation issues.

Notwithstanding, I was replying that Kostner was a bad example given her longevity, regardless of if she was considered a technician or not.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

Many people saw her as both. For me she is no less a technician than Yuna Kim. She does beautiful jumps, especially during the years when she managed to sort underrotation issues.

Notwithstanding, I was replying that Kostner was a bad example given her longevity, regardless of if she was considered a technician or not.

The great irony is that Kostner won a world championship with 5 triples and nothing higher than a 3F and two doubled jumps. It was arguably the weakest technical showing of a World champion in the IJS era. Kostner to me is known for picture-perfect technique when she hits her jumps (her loop with running 3s, her 3F when she hits it are glorious), but it's her artistry that distinguishes her. No shade to the rest of Europe but there aren't many artistically sound skaters in that continent in terms of Kostner's contemporaries. Kostornaia is probably the most artistically sound skater to come out of Europe since Kostner. And not to get into the YuNa vs. Adelina drama but the tea is that Kostner should have won 2014. But she also denied Pogorilaya her first World medal and got a ton of freebies in her career too. I think with Kostner I just look past the mixed results/favouritism and just appreciate the longevity and beautiful artistry. I hope at least one Russian won't burnout and artistically progress to a point where they possess Kostner's artistry and also blistering technical firepower.

 

[Amei]

Many people saw her as both. For me she is no less a technician than Yuna Kim. She does beautiful jumps, especially during the years when she managed to sort underrotation issues.

Notwithstanding, I was replying that Kostner was a bad example given her longevity, regardless of if she was considered a technician or not.

Well in terms of her longevity you can't deny that she was fortunate to be in a country with pretty much 0 competition; I took a look at Italian Nationals under IJS most of her victories were around 30 points or more.

 

[flanker]

As for Carolina's longevity, never forget that the italian team is in a completely different situation than let's say the russian team (and not just russian). She did not have a rival in her own country that could keep up with her even with her weaker technique compared not just to the Russians. She gained medals at worlds but she could also afford to finish 12th (two times). Most of the time she had nearly 100% probablility she would pass the nationals and be appointed to the team. That's the luxury a skater from a country with strong and wide field can hardly afford.

 

[Dr. Jenn]

As for Carolina's longevity, never forget that the italian team is in a completely different situation than let's say the russian team (and not just russian). She did not have a rival in her own country that could keep up with her even with her weaker technique compared not just to the Russians. She gained medals at worlds but she could also afford to finish 12th (two times). Most of the time she had nearly 100% probablility she would pass the nationals and be appointed to the team. That's the luxury a skater from a country with strong and wide field can hardly afford.

Although it's certainly true that Carolina had little competition within Italy throughout her career, she also was internationally competitive for many years, medalling at GPs/Europeans/etc. every season that she competed from 2003-2004 to 2017/2018.

I don't feel that "weaker technique" is an accurate phrase. Her technique is sound; rather, her level of difficulty is lower.

 

[yume]

Although it's certainly true that Carolina had little competition within Italy throughout her career, she also was internationally competitive for many years, medalling at GPs/Europeans/etc. every season that she competed from 2003-2004 to 2017/2018.

I don't feel that "weaker technique" is an accurate phrase. Her technique is sound; rather, her level of difficulty is lower.

The difference is that others would have been as competitive if given the chance to.

Getting automatic GPs, euros, worlds spots every season; ending out of top 10 of big competitions but still getting fed support; afford to jump only the easiest triples during many seasons so sparing your body ; having the bonus of getting generous scoring, could have changed many careers. I don't even just talk about Russians or current skaters.

Make Kostner in her prime compete with girls who compete now at a national level and that changes many things. But those girls will be mocked for retiring at 18yo and not having the legendary longevity of Kostner.

 

[flanker]

Although it's certainly true that Carolina had little competition within Italy throughout her career, she also was internationally competitive for many years, medalling at GPs/Europeans/etc. every season that she competed from 2003-2004 to 2017/2018.

I don't feel that "weaker technique" is an accurate phrase. Her technique is sound; rather, her level of difficulty is lower.

As was said above, many of those who are marked as "done" would achieve the same or higher positions as well. Being "the one" and being "one of many" is a cardinal difference. Alena Leonova, for instance, remained in a competitive skating for a long time, could be called a skater with longevity, but was mostly overshadowed by others as for the results. Longevity does not have to mean medal longevity.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

As was said above, many of those who are marked as "done" would achieve the same or higher positions as well. Being "the one" and being "one of many" is a cardinal difference. Alena Leonova, for instance, remained in a competitive skating for a long time, could be called a skater with longevity, but was mostly overshadowed by others as for the results. Longevity does not have to mean medal longevity.

Yup, I was going to say that Alena Leonova is a wonderful example of a skater who sticks with it even in arguably the most competitive country. Akiko Suzuki is another one. Or someone who stuck around even if they didn't get the same results (like Suguri). While competitiveness in one's country yielding opportunities is a huge factor in countries like Russia, there is something to be said about a skater still being able to reel off 3-3 combos in their mid-20s, and motivation plays a huge role in that. Let's also not forget that Kostner was banned for 16 months, after having been to Worlds 12 times by then including a championship... most skaters wouldn't return let alone do well (5th at the Olympics, 4th at 2018 Worlds — including a PB/1st place after the SP). That's not a Russia/Italy thing - that's a Carolina Kostner thing. She would have still likely been a mainstay on the World/Olympic team even in more competitive countries in her career (if anything, she might have been even more of a favourite if she had been pushed by greater competition nationally).

Even if her own country wasn't competitive she still beat out folks from the more competitive countries. In the Olympics, she beat Russia's #3, Japan's #2, and all 3 Americans - and at 2018 Worlds she was edged out by the Japanese but still beat all 3 Russians and all 3 Americans. At the age of 31.

 

[flanker]

Yup, I was going to say that Alena Leonova is a wonderful example of a skater who sticks with it even in arguably the most competitive country. Akiko Suzuki is another one. Or someone who stuck around even if they didn't get the same results (like Suguri). While competitiveness in one's country yielding opportunities is a huge factor in countries like Russia, there is something to be said about a skater still being able to reel off 3-3 combos in their mid-20s, and motivation plays a huge role in that. Let's also not forget that Kostner was banned for 16 months, after having been to Worlds 12 times by then including a championship... most skaters wouldn't return let alone do well (5th at the Olympics, 4th at 2018 Worlds — including a PB/1st place after the SP). That's not a Russia/Italy thing - that's a Carolina Kostner thing. She would have still likely been a mainstay on the World/Olympic team even in more competitive countries in her career (if anything, she might have been even more of a favourite if she had been pushed by greater competition nationally).

Even if her own country wasn't competitive she still beat out folks from the more competitive countries. In the Olympics, she beat Russia's #3, Japan's #2, and all 3 Americans - and at 2018 Worlds she was edged out by the Japanese but still beat all 3 Russians and all 3 Americans. At the age of 31.

I agree, I just think that most of the skaters who recently retired young/are not currently competing do not have problems with 3+3 combos in general (did not have in time when retired). I think it's more about other aspects. Part of those skaters already gained the highest results, whether it was a gold medal or just another metal, and many of them could surely continue like Leonova. But:
1. money - staying in the national team is difficult and without position in it the costs for training.
2. motivation - being on one hand "longevity skater" but on the other hand placing let's say 5th, 6th at one or two GP stages with occational chance for a medal (you know that every year new ladies technically better come) doesn't motivate some of them just for the feeling of "being there". Some rather choose to study and enjoy other aspects of life can be very strong. You can see that many of those retired skaters (and not just skaters) established a family relatively quickly after retiring, because they achieved what they could in their career and now they see the meaning of their life in that.
Of course there are others like Tuktamysheva, who is dedicated to skating enough that she overcame her weaker seasons and was able to return among the top, but I think that such athletes are rather minority not just in Russia. And I also think that one of the aspects of her remaining in the sport is that she missed two olympics already and will try her chance at least once. In case she would qualify for Sochi or Peyongchang maybe she would also consider retiring.

 

[wakuwaku]

To rotate on ice is more legal than to rotate in the air. What's the point of jumping? Being in the air or nah?

Point is - to land beautifully. If rotations in the air are that important - why judges do not count them in slo mo to determine UR instead of guessing how much landing track on ice is curved every time? Actually it's even more easy to do. However, if we look at jump's GOE criterias - we will see what jumps traits are given priority - and rotations in the air are not among them.

You can't give full points to someone who does almost a full turn on ice and punish someone who almost just pick and vault but is slightly under at the landing.

But that is like judging works in real life. Do you really think that judges are this stupid? Focus on landing is made for a reason. Landing is most important thing in the jump - it determines its quality visually. Because URed (on landing) jump looks ugly with any technique whereas what happens at take off do not affect jump visually since it's invisible to naked eye.

I don't want to contribute too much on this, but let's remember what the definition of a Jump is shall we? Single Jump, Double Jump, Triple Jump, Quad Jump.

No, no, no, what are you talking about? if you mean any jump - you couldn't ignore atleast half of existing jump types which are Zero Jump, Single Jump, Double Jump, Triple Jump (0.25, 1.25, 2.25, 3.25 rotations in air - loops, salchovs, toeloops).

Not even about pre-rotation being bad or good, but rotating more in the air being weaker? No way, in my view.

Because it makes the jump that less consistent. What is better technique to make money on gambling - doing bets with large coefficients or with small? I am not talking about beauty of one single jump. I am talking about technique efficiency on the long distance.

That's it. Personally, what I (as a viewer) primarily want from jumps in figure skating is to have as many rotations in the air as possible.

Why, I wonder? You can't see them without slo-mo anyway, can you? Do you judge whether people beautiful or not in photo with ultra-zoom only, analyzing every pore on their skin?

I remember how disappointed I was when I noticed for the first time (watching some slow-mo shots of quads) that a clean 4T or 4S usually has only somewhere between 3.25 and 3.5 rotations in the air.

Exactly. Judging by your logic - every salchov, loop, toeloop should be downgraded by default and counted as having one rotation less. Rotations in the air is most important, isn't it? And what difference in base value between loop and flip is, do you remember? It's mere 0.5 point or less - despite having almost whole rotation difference (if we doing flip by classic technique). Why is that so? Does it mean even ISU technical commitee members do not consider rotations in the air that important?
I believe that rules should be based on real life - not on abstract theory on paper. In real life people doing jumps almost one rotation less than declared - it's just works like this. You shouldn't be dissapointed by this - there isn't any reason to.

Make Kostner in her prime compete with girls who compete now at a national level and that changes many things. But those girls will be mocked for retiring at 18yo and not having the legendary longevity of Kostner.

This! It's one of the reasons I am strongly against all that 'raising age' narration. It has nothing to do with 'preserving' longevity or health - at all. Main reason for short careers is insane competition level inside country. All that new generation's stars are not going to miraculously vanish - and number of national team available spots is not going to miraculously increase. All that raising will do - is delaying that new generation wave (but it's unavoidable anyway because there is whole system working to produce it - and sooner or later there will be new stronger skaters each year every year) and delaying progress, decieving spectators of WC by making them believe that it is the best in the world figure skating can show (with new age limit there still wouldn't be any women quadsters at WC2021, for example). And that's all it will do - keeping length of careers the same at best (and realistically it will become even shorter for majority of skaters - because start of adult career will be shortened by one or two year - which doesn't give any gurantee to stay in competitive sport for the same number of years longer).