Why do "full rotations" matter?

[Anna K.]

How would you explain this to a first-time viewer who becomes irritated by the commentator's rotation talks and goes like this: "It looks all the same to me. Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I have a few ideas but I'd prefer to know what people who actually skate say

 

[lariko]

When runners run, it also all look the same. However, it matters that distance they travel is the same, and the winner is whoever is the fastest. In figure skating precision of a technical element is the measure, and underrotated jump is an equivalent of a runner who stopped a meter or three short of the finish line, but still claims to have the same running time.

Most people can't/won't be able to see q, but on the actually underrotated jumps, the 'hook' when the skater rotate the foot to put the blade in the position that allows them to exit the jump is fairly obvious.

 

[Isk]

How would you explain this to a first-time viewer who becomes irritated by the commentator's rotation talks and goes like this: "It looks all the same to me. Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I have a few ideas but I'd prefer to know what people who actually skate say

I don't care frankly. But since people stake months of training on the rules, they'd better be followed.
It doesn't bother me if the commentators discuss URs during replay, but also it's nice to hear about other aspects, like speed, which you can't see on the screen.

 

[Anna K.]

When runners run, it also all look the same. However, it matters that distance they travel is the same, and the winner is whoever is the fastest. In figure skating precision of a technical element is the measure, and underrotated jump is an equivalent of a runner who stopped a meter or three short of the finish line, but still claims to have the same running time.

Most people can't/won't be able to see q, but on the actually underrotated jumps, the 'hook' when the skater rotate the foot to put the blade in the position that allows them to exit the jump is fairly obvious.

This is rather close to what I actually said

This is "a sport has rules" perspective.
Here, I'm more interested in what the arguments against "this is a stupid rule" could be
Talking about which, a rule probably may look "stupid" or not depending on the viewer's expectancy. So, even a first time viewer would expect a runner to run and assume that the speed and traveled distance matters. As for figure skating, it's a bit problematic. Figures are not skated any more or, if it is called "artistic skating" like it is in Latvian and several other languages, then it can cause expectancy that something "artistic" is rewarded. Which is not always the case.

 

[Mathman]

"Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I wonder if new-to-skating fans would actually say that. A new-to-polevauting fan would not question why the guy who cleared the bar won the prize and the guy who was an inch short didn't'.

I do, however, understand the view, "rotations, schmotations -- that was a gorgeous performance."

 

[Cryovolcano]

If underrotations were not called and addressed in the rules, then I think jumps would be less meaningful and impressive to me. I would also know less about what athletes are or are not achieving.

Part of the wonder and the awesomeness of jumps comes from knowing how much skaters are able to rotate in the air. Not just seeing a beautiful jump, but the knowledge itself of how far the jump went around. Because fully rotating jumps takes a lot of power and finesse. That gives me a sense of awe, and something to look up to. And the numbers are important to me. I need some kind of numerical standard to reference. If a jump is not marked with something, like a < or q, I want to feel assured that the jump met a certain standard of rotation. Otherwise, I don't have a standard telling me how much the athlete achieved in that jump, with regards to rotation.

 

[4everchan]

Well... they are factored in the Code of points so they matter, and thus, they need to be fairly applied.

If the ISU didn't want them there, they could have left it to the judges in terms of GOE only but they reinforced the concept in the COP.

Do they matter to the viewers ? Not all of them. Some are, depending on the camera angle, very hard to spot. But others are obvious, even for the neophyte. It's more than just the hook on the landing that indicates that the skater is finishing the rotation on the ice. There are various problems in competitions, for instance, landing forward instead of backwards- which is very ugly.... etc

So if one is going to penalize the "ugly" URs, well they should also accept that "less perceptible or distracting" URs are also judged. In a code of points, equity needs to be assured otherwise, its whole purpose is defeated.

In that sense, the ISU has already tampered the rules with the Q (not removing BV but removing GOE). The Q addresses less perceptible under-rotations.

Now to answer the question directly : why do they matter : because simply it's a question of equity. If you say you are going to deliver a triple lutz, it is expected that a triple lutz gets jumped. Edge and rotations define the jump so to be equitable, they both need to be evaluated.

 

[el henry]

I have been watching skating for over 50 years (sweet baby Jesus did I have to count that up)

I didn't care about rotations then, I don't care now. I don't care when I am rinkside, I don't care when I watch on TV. Many times, I can't even tell the difference between three and four rotations in real time, let alone URs.

But that's me and not the ISU

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

For a casual viewer full rotations don't matter, but they do matter for those who watch the sport from a technical aspect. It's like in gymnastics or diving - many a casual viewer probably only looks at if the gymnast sticks the dismount or if a diver brings up any splash. But if you look at the technical aspects like air position and rotation, which more trained people/people who have been watching the sport know to look for, then you can understand why a gymnast that stuck their dismount or a diver who had no splash may only get 8.00 execution.

It's certainly better than the 6.0 system where skaters were very rarely awarded for having fully rotated jumps, or deducted for underrotated jumps and it was more like "Oh they didn't fall, and did x number of triples, so give them high marks". It used to be very rudimentary assessment where judges basically just counted triples... "Skater A DID 6 triples" but "Skater B only DID 5 triples - didn't matter if Skater A's were short of rotation or lacked height/flow, had edge/takeoff issues, or transitions and Skater B's were clearly rotated, had transitions, had height/flow, etc.

Under the current system, now jumps are graded on their execution, which compels skaters to have better features and execution - including rotations that are more full. i.e. now skaters can't "get away" as much with technical deficiencies because of replays and greater scrutiny.

Full rotations matter because it is indicative of good technique and execution, and should be what separates skaters who are the best of the best from those who are competing but lacking strong or ideal technique.

 

[Mathman]

I think that this issue is not so difficult to explain to younger fans, They are used to sports like snowboarding, skateboarding, skiing aerials. hot-dogging on bicycles, etc., where you better get complete rotations or else.

I would imagine that new fans are not so much into, oh isn't that pretty, like us old-timers are.

 

[el henry]

I think that this issue is not so difficult to explain to younger fans, They are used to sports like snowboarding, skateboarding, skiing aerials. hot-dogging on bicycles, etc., where you better get complete rotations or else.

I would imagine that new fans are not so much into, oh isn't that pretty, like us old-timers are.

I might disagree with this for reasons that you have pointed out in the past.

If the younger generation wants to watch a sport where you get to count rotations and go yippee look at those rotations, there are many sports to choose from. None of which involve wearing a costume and skating to music.

I think the younger generation that is attracted to skating is attracted because of what makes it different than other sports and not what makes it similar. If skating tries to compete with the X Games under the rubric of this is a sport too, gosh darn it, I believe it will become even more niche than it already is. But that is only my belief.

 

[Blades of Passion]

Part of the wonder and the awesomeness of jumps comes from knowing how much skaters are able to rotate in the air.

Indeed, which is a large reason why the judging has been so bad - people are getting scored very high for cheating jump entrances and rotating less in the air, or are not using the ideal jump technique of trying to break out of the rotation above the ice.

The best jumps explode off the ice, THEN rotate, and try to slow down before landing to create an airy quality.

But these days you get rewarded for excessively twisting on the ice into the jump and continuing to rotate fast until the skate hits the ice.

 

[CanadianSkaterGuy]

I think that this issue is not so difficult to explain to younger fans, They are used to sports like snowboarding, skateboarding, skiing aerials. hot-dogging on bicycles, etc., where you better get complete rotations or else.

I would imagine that new fans are not so much into, oh isn't that pretty, like us old-timers are.

It’s a bit different though - in snowboarding and skateboarding you get points for amplitude, difficulty, variety, and cleanliness of execution… a 720 isn’t literally 720 degrees but is more two rotations from where the athlete takes off and faces after landing. Completeness of rotation isn’t as big a focus in street style sports or boarding.

And different sports focus on different metrics as the sports evolve - for example figure skating doesn’t really concern itself with prerotation and is more about the blade’s landing position. But a couple years ago it wasn’t as heavily scrutinized. Maybe with more time, AI etc the takeoffs will be scrutinized more. I don’t think snowboarders or skateboarders will ever get a slow motion replay to see if it’s a q or < on that 1080 mctwist. They’re too cool for that.

 

[Mathman]

I might disagree with this for reasons that you have pointed out in the past.

If the younger generation wants to watch a sport where you get to count rotations and go yippee look at those rotations, there are many sports to choose from. None of which involve wearing a costume and skating to music.

I guess I interpreted the question of the thread differently. I wasn't thinking about what fans, young or old. WANT figure skating to be, but rather how can we get new fans ti understand why the ISIU judgpng system makes such a big deal out of this sort of technical nit-picking.

I think that young observers as well as old can understand why this is the way competitive figure skating is ,without necessarily giving their approval or becoming enthusiastic fans of the sport.

 

[Anna K.]

I guess I interpreted the question of the thread differently. I wasn't thinking about what fans, young or old. WANT figure skating to be, but rather how can we get new fans ti understand why the ISIU judgpng system makes such a big deal out of this sort of technical nit-picking.

I think that young observers as well as old can understand why this is the way competitive figure skating is ,without necessarily giving their approval or becoming enthusiastic fans of the sport.

I guess I interpreted @el henry 's answer differently. I understood that it was a direct answer to the OP question: "I am an old fan and I've been ignoring jumps for 50 years. Why can't you as a new fan do the same?"

 

[niks]

if it is called "artistic skating" like it is in Latvian and several other languages, then it can cause expectancy that something "artistic" is rewarded. Which is not always the case.

There is indeed such expectation, especially from new / casual fans I would say, who would hardly be able to tell the difference between jump X and Y, done with 3 or 4 rotations (also because many "harder" jumps barely leave the ice by a couple of millimeters, and so look visually far less impressive than well-done "easier" jumps) but can tell if someone was aesthetically pleasing, skated with passion and conveyed emotions during their performance or not.

And that something "artistic" is very seldom rewarded actually, and virtually never in its fair measure, and this fact is only getting worse in the current state of figure skating. There lies for me the real problem. Nobody would even conceive that senior medals could be won by someone doing just singles, but we are not shocked that so many prizes, too many to count, are given to skaters with the comparatively same level of performance and artistic skills than singles are to tech. It's even a mute point, commentators would go on and on about that jump X being underrotated, but they won't utter a single word to say that the skater looked like an expression-less zombie skating in circles between (those rotated or not, doesn't really matter here ) jumps.

And yes, I can confirm that this disregard for the artistic side can get very annoying for new-comers.... and not just for them So, in answer to the OP, I don't think that the real meaning of that first-time viewer's comment was "I don't understand why a jump is supposed to be fully-rotated" but actually "I don't understand why the only thing that seems to matter here is if a jump is fully-rotated. Look at how many other things should also matter!"

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

How would you explain this to a first-time viewer who becomes irritated by the commentator's rotation talks and goes like this: "It looks all the same to me. Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I have a few ideas but I'd prefer to know what people who actually skate say

From a skater/pro: Because that's the point. That's what the full GOE points are there for and also...skating physics.
The tighter the arms and legs of the skater are pulled in towards the rotation axis the more the rotational speed of the skater is affected.
To rotate faster in the air, skaters must pull their arms and legs in close to their body to slow their inertia in the air. A more complete rotation means the skater has a more successful and efficient technique. Successfully completing the rotations is crucial for a controlled landing. A lack of rotation can cause the skater to spin into the ice upon landing, which can result in a failed landing and/or possible injury. Doing more rotations requires alot of strength to control the speed and maintain a tight body position in the air and technique to launch and rotate correctly/well is something that requires years of practice.

Not caring about full-completion of jumps would be equal to the following...
In an everyday scenario comparison: You go in for knee surgery and they only did 70% of the procedure before closing you back up and going "Yeah, that'll be good enough!"

 

[Mathematician]

"It looks all the same to me. Am I supposed to believe that this is something that matters?"

I say he's ready to start on the tech panel immediately.

 

[lariko]

This is rather close to what I actually said

This is "a sport has rules" perspective.
Here, I'm more interested in what the arguments against "this is a stupid rule" could be
Talking about which, a rule probably may look "stupid" or not depending on the viewer's expectancy. So, even a first time viewer would expect a runner to run and assume that the speed and traveled distance matters. As for figure skating, it's a bit problematic. Figures are not skated any more or, if it is called "artistic skating" like it is in Latvian and several other languages, then it can cause expectancy that something "artistic" is rewarded. Which is not always the case.

I just read the rules and listened to Ted Barton on JGP when I first started to watch skating. In that 2018 Olympics I was blown away by Uno and Zagitova, and Zagitova won, while Uno got silver and Uno fell. Everything always made sense to me, until I encountered Brown's scores after reading the rules and watching JGP. Basically, my experience is the opposite to what you describe. I read some addendum about what figures used to be 40 years ago, and set it aside as historical curiosity and boring stuff. I don't see the heck of a difference on the highest level in skating skill and performance. Sure, I love some programs far more than others and can imagine that one skater skates sincerely and other doesn't, but after watching dancers practice I have a more cynical view on sincerity and anything natural musicality tbh. It's all a drill in the end. I appreciate it when it is more probable that the skater themselves participated in creating that drill than simply followed the instructions of their team of three coaches, choreographer, PR team, coaching counsil and god knows who else. But performing this drill perfectly is the goal to win a competition.

That said, i feel that sometimes a penalty for q is too strict, and think that 0 in goe rather than negative of any kind is appropriate if the q'd jump initially was indistinguishable from fully rotated and recieved a high positive GoE from the judges. Judges probably should make that decision in their head regardless, but sometimes I see what I feel is overcorrection for a q jump when high positive drops into high negatives for a q that was visually flawless. i would favor 0 for visually great q; positive grade for fully rotated; and negative grades for either URs or visual mistakes on landing irregardless of degree of rotation. For me it would be more coherent with what I see during the performance and what I expect the score for the jump to be.

 

[lariko]

Oh, yes, another intriguing question is, should the skaters be penalized in a very specific way if they deviated from a filed layout? We normally give props to skaters who can correct as they go or make the actualy program harder than the one they filed, and it is a natural reaction. But... is this right?