Why Zero Points and Invalid element?

[Sk8tr321]

Yup, it's hardly a Free Skate anymore. It's hardly a Sport either when a contestant can's show his best - only the best of what he is told. Oh for the days when a double walley was scrutinized for it's back inside takeoff.

Yes, can't do that anymore.

Oh those daw gone cheatin judges at the 2002 Olympics! Look what they have done.

If someone thought of a new jump, spin, turn, maneuver that is hard to do but is really cool I doubt they could introduce it to the sport. Why would they do it considering they would risk getting zero points or a downgrade?

I remember Scott Hamilton was on one of those "Ice Moves" shorts during world or nationals. He did an amazing footwork sequence. After completing it he said, "What did you think of that, guess what, zero points!"

 

[Mathman]

Oh for the days when a double walley was scrutinized for it's back inside takeoff.

Yes, can't do that anymore.

Has anyone ever done a double Walley in competition?

 

[gkelly]

I remember Scott Hamilton was on one of those "Ice Moves" shorts during world or nationals. He did an amazing footwork sequence. After completing it he said, "What did you think of that, guess what, zero points!"

Was it not a full step sequence? It would count as transitions, then.

Was it full step sequence with no "features"? In that case it would be a level 1 step sequence. Which is worth some points, not zero.

It's pretty hard not to get credit for a level 1 step sequence if you fill the whole ice with steps (circle or end to end) -- even if all the steps are easy or even if they're in the wrong combinations of steps and turns to earn any features.

Has anyone ever done a double Walley in competition?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTtKRLnTv0E
This is the only example I know of, at 1:25.

I've heard that Jozef Sabovcik was also doing them in the 1980s, but I don't know if he ever did it in competition or only in practice.

 

[Mathman]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTtKRLnTv0E

This is the only example I know of, at 1:25.

That was so cool!

 

[Sk8tr321]

Was it not a full step sequence? It would count as transitions, then.

Was it full step sequence with no "features"? In that case it would be a level 1 step sequence. Which is worth some points, not zero.

It's pretty hard not to get credit for a level 1 step sequence if you fill the whole ice with steps (circle or end to end) -- even if all the steps are easy or even if they're in the wrong combinations of steps and turns to earn any features.

I am not sure what he did it was several years ago and I was new to skating. I clearly remmeber him saying "zero points".

I think they were actually called "Olay Ice Moves" sponsored by Oil of Olay.

He did another "Ice Moves" where they put a yard stick behind him and he did a jump I think it was 34 inches off the ice and mentioned that some jumpers go higher.

I love Tonya in this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_Bj6i9RDp0

Oh yea, and Midori in this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpJX7myU3Hc

 

[Mafke]

Was it not a full step sequence? It would count as transitions, then.

This might make me feel better if transitions scores showed any relationship to reality. Instead, they (like the other PC scores) seem to be pegged to the score for skating skills.

 

[snowflake]

IJS considers a spin in the opposite direction a feature and with enough other features, can push it to a higher level spin. If Flatt had stepped close enough, it would have been a CCoSp4 (she had three other features - COE, catch foot, cannonball).

Klimkin did camel spins in both directions under 6.0 and Cop. In Torino OG he got level 3 for it (if I read the protocol correctly, CCSp3, base level 2.1) + GOE 0,64.

Exhibition from 2003.

Is Rachaels LP from Skate America on youtube? I can't find it. She didn't do the spin you are discussing in Cup of China, right?

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

That was so cool!

The Wally is a mirror image of (toeless) Lutz. Both jumps are near impossible for more than one rotation. They both cause the skater to counter rotation in the air (very easy to lose balance) as does the (toeoff)Lutz and the Toe Walley.

In the Lutz and the Toe Walley, it is easy enough to rock back to a more comfortable edge. The Tech Panel needs eagle eyes.

btw, the double Toe Wally was quite common in the eighties. It is also a counter rotation jump, but is the back inside edge clear? Doesn't matter, it's not used anymore.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Klimkin did camel spins in both directions under 6.0 and Cop. In Torino OG he got level 3 for it (if I read the protocol correctly, CCSp3, base level 2.1) + GOE 0,64.

Exhibition from 2003.

Is Rachaels LP from Skate America on youtube? I can't find it. She didn't do the spin you are discussing in Cup of China, right?

Klimkin was a very special skater who needed a very special coach. For me he was one of the finest musical skaters ever.

 

[gkelly]

Is Rachaels LP from Skate America on youtube? I can't find it. She didn't do the spin you are discussing in Cup of China, right?

She did do it at Cup of China, at 4:12 here right after the step sequence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvy59Vtn4ag

The change of foot/direction is pretty far apart there as well, but just enough better that it was credited as one spin.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

I would say Rachael did do two separate spins. Is there a clinker on the number of spins one can do it competition?

Unfortunately, the same spin in two different directons is not considered as one spin but two separate spins, so the difficulty may be appreciated by skaters but the scores do not show it. Unfortunately, in same jump in two different directions is considered two separate jumps and difficulty is not scored. The risk is a waste of time.

 

[antmanb]

I would say Rachael did do two separate spins. Is there a clinker on the number of spins one can do it competition?

Yes in the LP the skaters must do three spins (no more no less) and each needs to be a different abbreviation from the others.

Unfortunately, the same spin in two different directons is not considered as one spin but two separate spins, so the difficulty may be appreciated by skaters but the scores do not show it.

I don't think that is quite right, if the change in direction is executed immediately after the first direction spin and quickly then it is simply a change foot foot spin, all classed as the same spin with a level feature achieved (like Flatt did at Cup of China where the spin was called as she was hoping).

Unfortunately, in same jump in two different directions is considered two separate jumps and difficulty is not scored. The risk is a waste of time.

It depends on the jumps in question, but since the skater would have left the ice and landed twice, there obviously are two jumps executed, whether they are two solo jumps, two jumps in combination, or two jumps in sequence depends on the movements, steps, hops (if any) in between the two jumps. But it is true that there is absolutely no (or very little at least) benefit whatsoever in doing a jump in the "other" direct.

Ant

 

[gkelly]

This might make me feel better if transitions scores showed any relationship to reality. Instead, they (like the other PC scores) seem to be pegged to the score for skating skills.

Of course, if the skater is doing difficult steps in both directions between the elements, that would also positively affect the Skating Skills score. E.g., the multidirectional skating criterion.

The Transitions score includes the quality of the steps and highlights. If the skating skills are not so good, then the quality of the transitions would also likely be not so good, regardless of their variety, difficulty, and intricacy. And vice versa.

It is true though that not all judges use the scores as independently as they should.

The biggest objection comes for skaters with good skating skills (and thereby deserve high SS scores) who don't do much at all in the way of varied difficult or high-quality highlight moves and steps between the elements, and don't link the elements intricately with each other or with transitional moves but rather telegraph the elements, but still earn high transitions scores. That's the most obvious situation in which the two scores should be considerably different and often don't appear different enough.

 

[Mathman]

The biggest objection comes for skaters with good skating skills (and thereby deserve high SS scores) who don't do much at all in the way of varied difficult or high-quality highlight moves and steps between the elements, and don't link the elements intricately with each other or with transitional moves but rather telegraph the elements, but still earn high transitions scores. That's the most obvious situation in which the two scores should be considerably different and often don't appear different enough.

Although...I notice that virtually 100% of the time, the Transitions are the lowest of the five components for every skater. (I just checked the ladies' long porgram from Skate America -- yup, 100%.)

To me, this shows that the judges are aware that good skating skills do not automatically mean that the skater is doing much in the way of transitions, and in fact, that all skaters at the top level are leaving points on the table by neglecting this component.

It depends on the jumps in question, but since the skater would have left the ice and landed twice, there obviously are two jumps executed, whether they are two solo jumps, two jumps in combination, or two jumps in sequence depends on the movements, steps, hops (if any) in between the two jumps. But it is true that there is absolutely no (or very little at least) benefit whatsoever in doing a jump in the "other" direct.

I think what Joe is proposing is that skaters be allowed to repeat a jump in the opposite direction without it counting against the total number of jumping passes. Or in other words, that the ISU allow a third kind of "two-jump pass" in addition to the combination and the sequence.

An "opposite-jump duo" would be two jumps of the same type performed consecutively, one in each direction. The base value would be the same for each, but both would be allowed to count and the two tigether would comprise a single jumping pass. Interesting thought.

 

[antmanb]

I think what Joe is proposing is that skaters be allowed to repeat a jump in the opposite direction without it counting against the total number of jumping passes. Or in other words, that the ISU allow a third kind of "two-jump pass" in addition to the combination and the sequence.

An "opposite-jump duo" would be two jumps of the same type performed consecutively, one in each direction. The base value would be the same for each, but both would be allowed to count and the two tigether would comprise a single jumping pass. Interesting thought.

But if the base values remain the same then i'm not sure there's any incentive for the skater to do it. For example, if a skater did a triple toe in their dominant direction and then did it in the non dominant direction, if they still only get the base value for two triple toes, why would they risk the non dominant triple would be more liekly to result in a fall, UR, or worse landing than the dominant one, when they could do a 3T/3T and get the same base value?

Ant

 

[gkelly]

I don't see why it would need to be the same jump in both directions.

The only advantage to declaring a jump with the same type of takeoff and the same number of revolutions to be a different jump would be to get around the repeated jump rules.

E.g., if a skater could do a triple toe in the opposite direction, they could still do two regular triple toes, at least one of them in combination, and also a reverse triple toe without having that count as three of the same kind of jump.

Or they could repeat two more difficult jumps (say, quad toe and triple axel for the top men, or triple lutz and triple flip for the ladies) and also do a regular triple toe and a reverse triple toe without that counting as repeating a jump.

But if the reverse jump were rewarded for extra difficulty, then it could be as valuable to repeat that one as to repeat a jump with a more difficult takeoff or more revolutions, so if you can do the same triple in both directions, it would be worthwhile to choose that as one of your repeats.

Even if there were a way to encourage reverse jumping, it's not likely that we'd be seeing reverse triple jumps any time soon.

And senior skaters have no limits on repeating double jumps, except for the limit of three double axels.

You'd also have to make sure the technical panel would notice the reverse jumping to give credit for it. And account for the fact that it's just possible that a skater would learn a jump, most likely single lutz, to rotate the opposite direction in the air from all their other jumps and not actually be able to do it in his/her "normal" direction.

Make it worth the skaters' while to do reverse singles (expecially lutzes and axels) and doubles.

One possible way to handle it:

In any jump combination or jump sequence, if two listed jumps are performed in opposite directions, then the one performed in the skater's nonpreferred direction gets a bonus to the base value. Maybe double the base value for single and most double jumps and add 1.0 per revolution bonus for reverse double axels and higher.

Say the skater did a double axel-double axel sequence with one of the double axels in the opposite direction. That would be worth (3.5 + 2.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 7.6.
Better yet, add the reverse rotation bonus after the sequence multiplier: (3.5 + 3.5) x 0.8 = 5.6 + 2.5 = 8.1.

Or how about double flip-reverse double lutz combination? No pesky sequence multiplier to worry about. 1.7 + (1.9 x 2) = 5.5, same value as a triple flip. Might be a good choice of skill to develop for ladies who just don't get enough height and quickness of rotation to master the harder triples.

The exact values of the bonuses would need some adjustment, but even offering any bonus would make it worthwhile for some skaters to develop that skill, if they wouldn't lose more points on GOEs than they gain from the bonus.

 

[Mathman]

Just a point of clarification. Can skaters actually do jumps in both directions? That means off the wrong foot and everything, right?

I believe Sonia Henie did her (single) Lutzes in the direction opposite to that of her other jumps. But I don't think she could do it both ways,

I remember when Michelle Kwan was spinning in both directions, that was cool. But her spins the right way were so much better than her spins the wrong way that she stopped doing it.

 

[mskater93]

Some skaters can do jumps in both directions. As I mentioned back a ways, we had a skater at Regionals in Intermediate do 2Lz (CW)/2Lz(CCW) combo and Rohene Ward could consistently land 2A, 3S, 3Lz in both directions but got - GOEs for his CW jumps

 

[gkelly]

Just a point of clarification. Can skaters actually do jumps in both directions? That means off the wrong foot and everything, right?

The more revolutions, the more the extra difficulty of rotating the wrong way is magnified.

Single jumps the wrong way aren't too bad -- even I can do (bad) wrong-way waltz jumps, salchows, and toe loops.

ISI (the recreational skating organization) requires flip, lutz, or loop in the opposite direction at one of their intermediate levels and gives the option of opposite-direction axel OR double axel and then double jumps in both directions OR triple jump-double loop combination at their top two levels:
http://www.skateisi.com/site/sub.cfm?content=testing_requirements#7

Once on a practice session I saw a skater working on single flip-reverse single lutz combination. She may have been working in the ISI at about level 7; she was at an overall skill level to be first learning double jumps.

Axels in both directions have occasionally been done in competition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKwbFXoczLw&feature=PlayList&p=30C43C37C5B7F455&index=4
(at 2:14)

[Todd Eldredge did a reverse axel, not as well, at 1990 US Nationals, but I can't find it on youtube). I've also seen axels and double sals in both directions in adult competition from a skater who had trained in both USFSA and ISI programs.]

One-foot axels both ways in a pro program, starting at 4:58:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXJqsoFwUic

Here's Rohene Ward, another of the small number of skaters who have passed ISI level 10, doing double axels in both directions in an exhibition, starting at 2:06:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAdIn-NFKhc

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

But if the base values remain the same then i'm not sure there's any incentive for the skater to do it. For example, if a skater did a triple toe in their dominant direction and then did it in the non dominant direction, if they still only get the base value for two triple toes, why would they risk the non dominant triple would be more liekly to result in a fall, UR, or worse landing than the dominant one, when they could do a 3T/3T and get the same base value?

Ant

It's not really a question of base value. It's a question of difficulty.I don't believe the originator of the Base Values Chart took up Elements in Both Directions, and if they did they did not see the difficulty in them, whereas they do see the difficulty in the difference between single jumps. They do not consider same jumps in different directions as a single jump, which I believe they are and where the difficulty lies and just as much as in the air rotations. It's just like some other elements which are basically unwritten restrictives

But hey, I'm not battling City Hall, I would just tell skaters avoid them. Much too risky for just earning no more than an additional base value and and checking out another jump pass..