Why is the quad Axel so undervalued?

[skatingguy]

I just watched the slow motion replay at the end, and I made interesting conclusion. In the replays the camera angle is adjusting throughout the jump, so it looks like the takeoff angle is different to what it is. Therefore for me it's not really clear cut. In the live video, and second replay it looks like he touches down way after the quater, but in the first slow mo replay it looks UR. It would be nice to find fancam footage to double check, but unfortunately there was an empty audience at this rink. For me though, it's reasonable they called it clean, although watching it like a hawk I do have doubts. I wish I had the tech panel cam footage to check.

His 3A did have excessive prerotation by many standards, landing itself is okay. Panel doesn't yet ding pretotation so that's a different argument.

I watched his program again just now at regular speed, and at super slow motion, and all the jumps are fine. The rotations are good enough in real time that the technical panel wouldn't have a reason to review them. I wouldn't call the triple Axel pre-rotated as it looks like a normal skid entry, which is the accepted entry to that jump.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

If I understand well your message, you admit that the jumps may be underrotated, but because they "look fine", the Tech Panel didn't have to review them?
After all, it will give a few views to this skate... We may also remind that the idea introducing this question of World Records here, was that World Records made Figure Skating more popular... Yet only 400,000 views in spite of all the Public Relations, media incitations and blocking of Yuzuru Hanyu's skates...

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

So, if you set the speed on Youtube at 0.25, the 4F< is at 1'12-1'15, and it came to my mind that your word "fine" might mean that his underrotation is well controlled and stable? I agree on this. He had spent the whole 2020-2021 season, and the first part of the Olympic season, trying to get it, and he succeeded. Yet it is clearly underrotated, "fine" or not, why would you think that a Tech Panel oughtn't investigate further when an underrotation is well controlled?
Given the angle, and also the fact that he's a bit slower bringing back the skate in the line, the 3A's underrotation, 1'41-1'44 on the video, is more visible.
Then, the 4Lz+3T< is at 2'27?-2'29, you can see that the degree of underrotation is a bit unclear on the 4Lz, but very clear on the 3T.
These are not big underrotations, yet all underrotations have to be called, as the Technical Panel had well remembered with Yuzuru Hanyu's just as underrotated 4A.
https://twitter.com/RED_far/status/1491634716256133126

 

[skatingguy]

If I understand well your message, you admit that the jumps may be underrotated, but because they "look fine", the Tech Panel didn't have to review them?

By fine, I mean that the jumps are clearly fully rotated in real time, and the technical panel would not have any reason to flag them for review.

After all, it will give a few views to this skate... We may also remind that the idea introducing this question of World Records here, was that World Records made Figure Skating more popular... Yet only 400,000 views in spite of all the Public Relations, media incitations and blocking of Yuzuru Hanyu's skates...

Yes, Hanyu is a more popular skater than Nathan Chen, and what skates of Hanyu's are blocked?

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com

So, if you set the speed on Youtube at 0.25, the 4F< is at 1'12-1'15, and it came to my mind that your word "fine" might mean that his underrotation is well controlled and stable? I agree on this. He had spent the whole 2020-2021 season, and the first part of the Olympic season, trying to get it, and he succeeded. Yet it is clearly underrotated, "fine" or not, why would you think that a Tech Panel oughtn't investigate further when an underrotation is well controlled?

The quadruple flip is clearly fully rotated.

Given the angle, and also the fact that he's a bit slower bringing back the skate in the line, the 3A's underrotation, 1'41-1'44 on the video, is more visible.

The triple Axel is also fully rotated.

Then, the 4Lz+3T< is at 2'27?-2'29, you can see that the degree of underrotation is a bit unclear on the 4Lz, but very clear on the 3T.

The combination is clearly fully rotated.

These are not big underrotations, yet all underrotations have to be called, as the Technical Panel had well remembered with Yuzuru Hanyu's just as underrotated 4A.
https://twitter.com/RED_far/status/1491634716256133126

Hanyu's quadruple Axel is clearly underrotated.

 

[Mathman]

Do they? I couldn't care less about world records.

The world record for the longest sandwich is 7.35 meters. It started at Notre Dame des Soeurs Antonines School and ended on Elie Street, in Hazmieh, Lebanon, in 2011. The width of the sandwich was 12.5cm and the overall estimated weight of the sandwich is 577.03kg. Isn't that interesting?

I for one do not begrudge Michelle Kwan her 57 6.0s. Good for her!

 

[4everchan]

I for one do not begrudge Michelle Kwan her 57 6.0s. Good for her!

Unfortunately, a record that can no longer ever be beaten is less meaningful in sports right ? I mean, unless the ISU really wants to bring back the ordinal system.

Honestly, of course, I was following skating in that era but without internet, it's not like I kept records or could really analyze scoring the way I do it now.

But here is my candid question : do you think fans complain more now under the IJS or did they complain more back then with the ordinal system ?

Or course, if they complain more now, it could also be because nowadays, everyone has become an expert in everything, and not necessarily because the system is more flawed than the 6.0... right? I personally hated the ordinal system so I welcomed the IJS with great hope... let's just say that the constant tweaking of the rules has exposed the lack of vision of the ISU. Some tweaking is necessary in all sports. Things evolve.. constant tweaking is just too much for me..

Should I be controversial and suggest we judge Olympics that were under 6.0 with IJS and vice versa ? Would we have the same winner

 

[Mathman]

Unfortunately, a record that can no longer ever be beaten is less meaningful in sports right?

Here is the remedy for that. The USFSA sponsors an award called the Reader's Choice Award. Michelle Kwan won the popular vote every year and no one else had a chance. What to do? They renamed the torphy the Michelle Kwan Trophy and declared Michelle to be ineligible thenceforth.

But here is my candid question : do you think fans complain more now under the IJS or did they complain more back then with the ordinal system ?

I don't know. Fans certainly wuzrobbed their heads off in the 6.0 era. The difference now is, yeah, everyone is an expert and they bolster their wuzrobbing by making slo-motion videos with rulers and protracctors superimposed.

I personally hated the ordinal system so I welcomed the IJS with great hope....

I, too was intrigued when the IJS first came out. All those lovely numbers! But the mathematics of ordinals ("social choice theory") is also very cool and has a distinguished mathematical history dating back to the French Revolution when bourgeois political scientists were struggling to come up with a system of governance to replace the Old Order. So I kind of missed that, too. I gradually became less and less enamored with the "adding up the points" model -- what's the fun of that?

Should I be controversial and suggest we judge Olympics that were under 6.0 with IJS and vice versa ? Would we have the same winner

I think that the majority would come out the same but a few would be different. Nancy Kerrigan might beat Oksana Baiul under the IJS. Going farther back, Brian Orser would beat Scott Hamilton if there were no school figures.

Of course the competitors might have designed their programs differently if the scoring system had been different.

 

[gsk8]

No, no, you won't go with this one. This is not belittling the accomplishments of others. It's denouncing a big fraud, and if you don't see the difference, then I'm really sorry for you. Logics is part of Maths as it is of Philosophy, isn't it?

No need to insult and goad posters. This isn't a persecution thread of YH, so no need for overdramatic theatrics and conspiracy theories.

Let's get back to topic! If it's been exhausted, we don't need to continue down another negative rabbit hole.....

 

[icewhite]

Insult or not insult, all the threads in the edge seem to drift away very soon and all the time. I'm also guilty of that. But it makes it very annoying to read if you actually want to discuss a topic. Maybe we could all make an effort to stay a bit more on topic and not bring anecdotes and our favourite skaters and everything that comes to our mind in that moment into all the threads all the time.

 

[jorge2912]

I think that about Malinin is good idea see the detailed result per every element and compare with the video , maybe there’s the answer . I think that got the right score . About the score of a quad axel maybe if more skaters does it like says the theory “if 60% it does oquads axels , isn’t a hard thing and it turns into required element ” maybe in the next rulebook will be a basic or required element on SP and the GOE it keeps but the base value it would decrease a bit

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

By fine, I mean that the jumps are clearly fully rotated in real time, and the technical panel would not have any reason to flag them for review.

Yes, Hanyu is a more popular skater than Nathan Chen, and what skates of Hanyu's are blocked?

The quadruple flip is clearly fully rotated.

The triple Axel is also fully rotated.

The combination is clearly fully rotated.

Hanyu's quadruple Axel is clearly underrotated.

They're aren't but thank you very much because I always feel I have poor abilities for watching Figure Skating, as I often need ten times the time allocated to Tech Panels and judges and very slow slow-motions to see anything. This strengthens my viewpoint about the need for automated measurement of rotations too; and, I think I haven't written it yet, for cameras showing 60 pictures per second. Which makes me recall that the very detailed, high quality pictures of Yuzuru Hanyu's 4A proves that at least at that moment, there was such a camera at work, maybe from a TV channel; did this camera film other skaters too?
No skate of Yuzuru Hanyu's is blocked now, but his Olympic skates have been geoblocked for months by Olympic Channel after the Games, and any video of his skates posted on video sites was removed.

 

[AxelLover]

a quad axel is three times a single axel and not four times. (4.5 turns versus, 1..5 turn or if you prefer 1620 degrees to 540 degrees) while the other quads jumps are truly four times the rotation of their respective single jumps

I don't think it makes much sense to base the base values of jumps on some simple linear arithmetics. The 4A is on the edge of human capabilities, we're not talking about linear growths here. It's ridiculous that the BV of the 4A is just one point higher than that of the 4Lz.

 

[Mathman]

Human beings, however admirable, are not gods. When we treat them as if they were, whether they be famous athletes, prominent actors, popular singers, or powerful politicians, that is not healthy.

 

[4everchan]

I don't think it makes much sense to base the base values of jumps on some simple linear arithmetics. The 4A is on the edge of human capabilities, we're not talking about linear growths here. It's ridiculous that the BV of the 4A is just one point higher than that of the 4Lz.

I agree it doesn't. It also doesn't make more sense to compare the axel to the other jumps because it is very different from the other jumps.
I watch a bunch of other sports with coefficient of difficulty, or call it base value or degree of difficulty (gymnastics, diving, acrobatic skiing, snowboarding). None of these sports have directly proportional scoring methods. Should the quad axel be worth more points ? I still don't think it should for all the reasons I have mentioned. The simple maths I shared was to show that there is nothing logical in making these base values or else the quad axel would have an even lower value as it is not 4 times the rotation of a single axel but 3. I just wanted to point that out because I thought it was interesting to notice. That half turn is causing for a lot of troubles

In the end, my point is that what seems humanly impossible now will probably be more and more common. Just ten years ago, I never thought we would see so many quad lutzes, flips and loops in a skating world that had seen mostly salchows and toes for what? 20-30 years. And now, many skaters in the top ten in the world have an exotic quads and some, use two of them in their SP... If that trend continues, we may see more skaters do the quad axel, and as I wrote in my post, demystify that jump. I don't like the idea that one element should define a winner, so I am 100% fine with a relatively lower base value. Could it be1 point more? I wouldn't care.... but it shouldn't be 15 points or 20 points like some people hope for.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I don't think it makes much sense to base the base values of jumps on some simple linear arithmetics. The 4A is on the edge of human capabilities, we're not talking about linear growths here. It's ridiculous that the BV of the 4A is just one point higher than that of the 4Lz.

Well, the previous progression of Base Values depending on the number of rotations, was not linear either; and a 12.5 value for 4A isn't even linear...
Here's ISU's Scale of Values; we may note that 1A is with double jumps, 2A with triple jumps, 3A with quadruple jumps, and they're scored accordingly; but 4A is also with quadruple jumps, and scored as a mere quadruple jump too, with less difference in points between a 4Lz and a 4A, than between a 3A and a 4T:
https://www.isu.org/figure-skating/rules/fsk-communications/28337-isu-communication-2475/file
I've made a diagram (excluding 1Eu) but I tried in vain to post it except as my avatar, I think that I will rely on a kind soul to post it, who may not be here before many hours.

 

[Mathman]

Should I be controversial and suggest we judge Olympics that were under 6.0 with IJS and vice versa ? Would we have the same winner.

The reason that I think most competitions would turn out the same in eitherjudging system is because both systems incorporate the same fundamental principle. There is an agreed-on threshold of technical expectations. After that threshold has been met, then among those tech achievers other factors come into play to determine the winner, whether that means spin levels and PCSs in the IJS or the second mark under the ordinal system. In either case, no matter how pretty you skate you won't win the championship unless you first establish that you belong in the top tier.

I do not object to this principle or to its application either then or now.

 

[4everchan]

The reason that I think most competitions would turn out the same in eitherjudging system is because both systems incorporate the same fundamental principle. There is an agreed-on threshold of technical expectations. After that threshold has been met, then among those tech achievers other factors come into play to determine the winner, whether that means spin levels and PCSs in the IJS or the second mark under the ordinal system. In either case, no matter how pretty you skate you won't win the championship unless you first establish that you belong in the top tier.

I do not object to this principle or to its application either then or now.

I think there are a couple factors that may sway it one way or another... especially in close calls. Do not forget one very important thing : with the 6.0 system, even one disregards figures, the overall winner wasn't decided by the total points of the SP and LP but by ranking points....
Look at the Brians... very close 5-4 split in the LP for Boitano who had finished behind in the SP. Would that have been the same in the total IJS score? As you know, a 5-4 split in IJS is secondary to the actual scores. In 6.0 a first place is a first place. In IJS, a first place can mean the skater edged out the second place finished by 1 point.. but it could also be by 10 points So in the end the total score can change things.

Also, in 6.0, a fall was VERY costly on the second mark. In 6.0 the second mark in the LP would be a tie-breaker as well. So it could go one way or another.

BTW, there is a good chance, with "TES" advantage that Manley would have won in 1988. She clearly won the LP and wasn't bad in the SP... I feel that with the total score in IJS points, it may have won her the title. Back then, she could also have won it if ITO had been rewarded better for her technical prowess or if Witt had placed behind Thomas... See what I mean... there are various ways that would have given different results one way or another, even in 6.0 which makes me think that in IJS, Manley probably would have nailed it

I am not interested in rewriting history just the same way I am not interested in figure skating world records Whatever the rules are, judges often score "ordinally - especially with PCS" and that messes things up at times...

PS I purposely chose 1988 because many fans are not invested in these skaters anymore I hope this discussion remains considerate.

 

[Mathman]

Look at the Brians... very close 5-4 split in the LP for Boitano who had finished behind in the SP. Would that have been the same in the total IJS score?

I think it would be the same. Boitano won the LP because he did two triple Axels and Orser only did one. and the SP was close by any system. I think that the extra Axel would have carried the day under either system.

The point about factoring in the SP placements is quite relevant, though. That is one real difference between the two systems. Under 6.0 if you didn't finish at the top of the leader board in the SP you were dead meat no matter how gloriously you skated in the LP.

I agree that Liz Manley's perfomance at Calgary is likely one that would have gone the other way under IJS. Plus, the expectation going in that it would be Thomas versus Witt in the Battle of the Carmens, pay your money and step right up, folks -- this was probably a bigger factor in the 6.0 era.

.... In 6.0 the second mark in the LP would be a tie-breaker as well. So it could go one way or another.

In principle, yes. However, we never saw a skater get 5.3 for tech and 5,9 for presentation. The 5.9s were reserved for the skaters who also did the biggest jumps, thus providing the tie-breaker but only between the leading techies.

The IJS is criticized for the same fault -- that big jumpers' PCSs seem miraculously to increrse the more jumps they do.

 

[4everchan]

I think it would be the same. Boitano won the LP because he did two triple Axels and Orser only did one. and the SP was close by any system. I think that the extra Axel would have carried the day under either system.

The point about factoring in the SP placements is quite relevant, though. That is one real difference between the two systems. Under 6.0 if you didn't finish at the top of the leader board in the SP you were dead meat no matter how gloriously you skated in the LP.

I agree that Liz Manley's perfomance at Calgary is likely one that would have gone the other way under IJS. Plus, the expectation going in that it would be Thomas versus Witt in the Battle of the Carmens, pay your money and step right up, folks -- this was probably a bigger factor in the 6.0 era.


In principle, yes. However, we never saw a skater get 5.3 for tech and 5,9 for presentation. The 5.9s were reserved for the skaters who also did the biggest jumps, thus providing the tie-breaker but only between the leading techies.

The IJS is criticized for the same fault -- that big jumpers' PCSs seem miraculously to increrse the more jumps they do.

So here... I put only two cases up for discussion and on one of them, you seem to agree so I can rest my case right? The judging system may have given other results one way or another (ordinals versus IJS) over the years.

This is also my issue with all the rule changes.

It also creates the feeling that base values are too low or too high and that makes it sound like results could change one way or another.

 

[Mathman]

So here... I put only two cases up for discussion and on one of them, you seem to agree so I can rest my case right?

Rest away!

Another one that might have turned out different is Yuka Sato over Surya Bonaly for the 1994 world championship. Plushenko versus Lysacek in 2010 would provide another interesting excercise.

This is also my issue with all the rule changes.

It also creates the feeling that base values are too low or too high and that makes it sound like results could change one way or another.

I don't know about "too high or two low." My observation in starting this thread was more about the mathematical esthetics of the entire scale of values. It seems inharmonious to me. So I wondered what other (non-mathematical) factors might be in play. (I got an earful of responses, so I should be happy, right?)

 

[4everchan]

Rest away!

Another one that might have turned out different is Yuka Sato over Surya Bonaly for the 1994 world championship. Plushenko versus Lysacek in 2010 would provide another interesting excercise.

Sometimes I feel sad for Surya but then, I was on team Yuka back then ! What gorgeous skating skills !

I don't know about "too high or two low." My observation in starting this thread was more about the mathematical esthetics of the entire scale of values. It seems inharmonious to me. So I wondered what other (non-mathematical) factors might be in play. (I got an earful of responses, so I should be happy, right?)

There were lots of interesting responses one way or another.