Worlds 1993 - Women's competition

[Zuranthium]

This was 1993. Five different triples was still a pretty big deal

Well I have to disagree with this mindset. If that's what the judges were thinking, they were simply wrong. Midori Ito had already set the standard of a 7 Triple program several years earlier. Any program with less than 7 Triples should have a lower base maximum score...at least 2/10 of a point per Triple not completed. Which means a 5 Triple program should never receive more than a 5.6 (unless there were a Triple Axle, Quad, or a very hard jump combination in there). That should have been Baiul's "base" score for her technical routine - a 5.6 if she did it perfectly. It's even nice to assume a 5.6 as her base considering she didn't do any combination jumps that included a triple. Taking 5.6 as her max and then deducting .1 for the minor mistakes she made, 5.5 should have been her technical score at both the 1993 Worlds and 1994 Olympics.

 

[antmanb]

Well I have to disagree with this mindset. If that's what the judges were thinking, they were simply wrong. Midori Ito had already set the standard of a 7 Triple program several years earlier. Any program with less than 7 Triples should have a lower base maximum score...at least 2/10 of a point per Triple not completed. Which means a 5 Triple program should never receive more than a 5.6 (unless there were a Triple Axle, Quad, or a very hard jump combination in there). That should have been Baiul's "base" score for her technical routine - a 5.6 if she did it perfectly. It's even nice to assume a 5.6 as her base considering she didn't do any combination jumps that included a triple. Taking 5.6 as her max and then deducting .1 for the minor mistakes she made, 5.5 should have been her technical score at both the 1993 Worlds and 1994 Olympics.

That's not how the long program marking worked under 6.0 that's how it worked int he SP but in the LP it was only what you did, not waht you didn't do.

Ant

 

[Zuranthium]

That's not how the long program marking worked under 6.0 that's how it worked int he SP but in the LP it was only what you did, not waht you didn't do.

Once again - that doesn't make any sense. They specifically had rules that stated a max of 7 Triples. Anything less than that logically has to mean inferior and therefore deserving of a lower rating. Otherwise what is the point. Are you judging the technical merit of the skater or not?

And in any case "what you did and what you didn't do" are exactly the same thing. If you DID 5 Triples then you still DIDN'T do two others that could have been completed.

 

[gkelly]

The rules never said anything about the maximum number of triples.

What they do say is that only two triples could be repeated. Therefore, if you had three different kinds of triples, the maximum total you could do legally would be five. If you had five different kinds, the maximum you could do would be seven. If you had six different, you could legally do eight.

However, even in the early nineties and also more recently when a few women were doing triple axels, I don't believe any of them ever maxed out the jump content with eight legal triples. They would only repeat one, or none, or double or leave out one of the other takeoffs. What was impressive was not that they were doing the maximum *number* of jumps, but that they were doing the hardest jump and possibly all the different kinds.

So which would be more impressive, six total triples of six different kinds (including triple axel), or six total triples of four different kinds?

How about one each of six kinds, or one each of five kinds with two repeats for a total of seven, but no triple axel?

How about seven achieved by repeating two with double toe on the end, vs. six total including a triple-triple?

How about seven attempted, including a triple-triple, but poor quality (small, or some of them cheated, or flutzed lutzes, or off-balance or two-foot landings), vs. one of each executed well?

How about six triples and a cheated quad (as Bonaly had already attempted before 1993)?

Obviously the maximum possible jump content considering only triples would have included 8 triples with two triple axels, two triple lutzes, and at least one triple-triple combination. As of 1993 no woman had ever attempted that in one program, much less succeeded. In fact, no one has done so as of 2006. But it would have been legal all along.

I don't know what specific judges were looking for in 1993. Likely the answer was different for different judges.

For me as a fan at the time, what got me to take a competitor seriously as a contender was having all five of the non-axel triples. To distinguish herself from the other competitors with that arsenal, something extra would be necessary. That something extra *might* be repeating two of the triples, but it could come in other areas besides jumps. In Baiul's case, her extras were mainly in the areas of the second mark.

 

[antmanb]

Once again - that doesn't make any sense. They specifically had rules that stated a max of 7 Triples. Anything less than that logically has to mean inferior and therefore deserving of a lower rating. Otherwise what is the point. Are you judging the technical merit of the skater or not?

Whether it makes sense or not those were the rules...and there cetainly was not any rule saying the maximum number of jumps was 7...how were the men knocking out 8 triples a quad if that's the case? The Zayak rule meant that you could do every triple you had in your arsenal and repeat two so long as they were in combination, but you could double jump til you were were blue in the face since there was no restriction on the number of jumping passes.

And in any case "what you did and what you didn't do" are exactly the same thing. If you DID 5 Triples then you still DIDN'T do two others that could have been completed.

6.0 was not an absolute scoring system it was comparative - the marks were place holders. The skaters in 1993 were not being judged against what Ito 9or anyone esle for that matter) had done years before - they were being judged against each other. In order to get the right place holder a judge can give the skater any mark s/he wants, its the placement that counts. Going back to an example of Elvis Stojko i used in another thread getting a 6.0 in tech i think at '95 worlds despite stepping out of his quad toe was because the french judge has left him/herself no choice having given Candeloro a 6.0 for the presentation mark and needed to mark Stojko so high in the tech to get him to come out first where he should have been.

Ant

 

[RealtorGal]

Oksana had an "it" factor that went way beyond the judges... sheer magic on ice...

I totally agree. I even remember how I felt after seeing Oksana skate at that competition. I told Mr. RG that this girl was the most exciting skater I'd seen in many years. There was something very special about her, something you just couldn't really put into words.

 

[Zuranthium]

Whether it makes sense or not those were the rules...and there cetainly was not any rule saying the maximum number of jumps was 7...how were the men knocking out 8 triples a quad if that's the case?

Men have different rules. They get 9 instead of 7.

 

[Zuranthium]

For me as a fan at the time, what got me to take a competitor seriously as a contender was having all five of the non-axel triples.

Well, yes, obviously doing one of each kind is a good thing. But Midori Ito had set the bar and anything less than what she did deserved less points.

I disagree with scores being "placeholders". That's not a good way to judge. Everything should be universal. Which it is now with COP.

 

[skate expert]

Dont forget politics, especially before an olympic year, the Russian federation and the Ukrainian federation had been "in bed for years" so dont kid yourself, thats how she won both gold medals. No way she deserved the Liilihammer gold and it was the Russinan influenced judges who once again denied an American skater a gold medal.

 

[slutskayafan21]

The funny thing is Lu had a clean short and still finished only 5th in the short. The level of skating was so extremely high in the womens short you could come in as one of the only 2 returning World medalists, skate a clean short with a triple lutz combo and come only 5th in the short.

 

[gkelly]

Men have different rules. They get 9 instead of 7.

That's not true and never has been. What rulebook have you been reading?

The Zayak rule has always limited the number of jumps that may be repeated, NEVER the total number of triples allowed.

The well-balanced program rules for the new system limit women to 7 jumping PASSES and men to 8. However, by using combinations or sequences it is possible to fit 8 triples into 7 passes, so any woman who is capable of six different kinds of triples is perfectly free to try 8 triples if she wants.

 

[gkelly]

But Midori Ito had set the bar and anything less than what she did deserved less points.

Which would make sense if there were a mark just for jumps. Set the bar for jumping and call that 6.0 . . . until it gets surpassed. And do the same for the other areas of technical that make up the first mark.

But Nathalie Krieg had already set the bar for spins -- how could anyone get 5.9s or 6.0s without matching her on those elements?

The standard for basic skating and connecting steps might have been higher in earlier decades when the skaters were not spending so much practice time, or setup time during the programs, on all those triple jumps. Should a skater with difficult jumps and weak skating get a higher score than someone who had "set the bar" for basic skating skills 10 or 20 or 50 years earlier?

I disagree with scores being "placeholders". That's not a good way to judge. Everything should be universal. Which it is now with COP.

That's an opinion, and one that's certainly defensible -- including by the designers of the new system. But it's not the way skating judging worked in the 1990s, or in the 1890s when it made no sense to consider "difficulty of jumps" in relation to the technical mark. You can't look back and say that it was wrong of judges in the 19th or 20th century not to use a judging approach developed in the 21st.

 

[Mathman]

I disagree with scores being "placeholders". That's not a good way to judge. Everything should be universal. Which it is now with COP.

It's not really a question of agreeing or not agreeing. It's the diference between ordinal judging and point accumulation.

Under ordinal judging the only responsibility of the judges is to say, "this skater was best, this one was second, this one third," etc. Little markers like 5.6 were just memory aids, useful in the case where you see a lot of skaters and maybe forgot what the first few were like by the time you got to the end.

In fact, IIRC, they would stop the procedings after the first skater in a group and compile the median scores for that skater. This was to establish a bench mark for each judge vis-a-vis the average of the panel. So, for instance, if you gave a 5.4 to the first skater and everyone else gave a 5.6, then you knew that the rest of the panel was judging a little more generously today than you were, so you had to be sure to mark the rest of the skaters in a consistent fashion.

Under the hybrid NJS (half point totals, half "who did the judges like the best today"), the judges still retain the same mind set, IMHO.

At Worlds, one judge gave Lambiel a total of +14 GOE points, while another judge, feeling more stingy, gave a total of +3 (the average of the panel was about 6).

So, is someone biased in favor of or against Stephane? No, because the same judge who gave Lambiel +14 also gave Joubert +14, and the same judge who gave Lambiel only +3 GOEs gave Joubert 0 (again the average of the panel was about 6).

So are these two judges crazy? How can the same performance be worth 14 points to one judge and 0 points to another judge?

IMHO it's because, in their minds, they are still using ordinals. Overall, the two judges agreed that Lambiel was slightly better, Joubert was a strong second, and somebody else was third -- the actual points didn't matter.

MM

 

[Mathman]

GKelly, is this a Zayak violation (men's)?

4T+3T
4T
3A+3T
3A

(Yes, because you repeated three jumps, 4T, 3A and 3T. Is that right?)

Tim Goebel once did three quads in a program. Is this jump layout OK?

1. 4T+3T
2. 4T
3. 4S
4. 3A+3Lo
5. 3A
6. 3 Lz
7. 3F
8. 3S

That's 10 jumps with three or more rotations, with only the 4T and the 3A repeated.

MM

 

[Zuranthium]

That's not true and never has been. What rulebook have you been reading?

The Zayak rule has always limited the number of jumps that may be repeated, NEVER the total number of triples allowed.

The well-balanced program rules for the new system limit women to 7 jumping PASSES and men to 8. However, by using combinations or sequences it is possible to fit 8 triples into 7 passes, so any woman who is capable of six different kinds of triples is perfectly free to try 8 triples if she wants.

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Here is the link to Sarah Hughes' 2002 Olympic program - http://youtube.com/watch?v=GTPwnLkXppg&search=hughes 2002

After having done 6 Triples, Sandra Bezic says "She is only allowed 1 more Triple".

Do you honestly think Surya Bonaly would have stopped at 7 Triples if there weren't a max?

 

[Zuranthium]

But Nathalie Krieg had already set the bar for spins -- how could anyone get 5.9s or 6.0s without matching her on those elements?

Spins + Spirals are part of the "presentation" component for the Long Program.

 

[gkelly]

After having done 6 Triples, Sandra Bezic says "She is only allowed 1 more Triple".

Do you honestly think Surya Bonaly would have stopped at 7 Triples if there weren't a max?

Neither Hughes nor Bonaly had a triple axel.

They had 5 different triples. They were allowed to repeat 2. That allows a total of 7.

If you have 6 different triples and repeat 2, that allows you 8.

If you only have 4 different kinds, the most you can do is 6.

You need to read the actual rules and not rely on TV programs for your information. The commentators don't always take the time to explain the details.

Spins + Spirals are part of the "presentation" component for the Long Program.

No.

From the 2003 Official USFSA Rulebook, SSR 4.28 (p. 125):

All the elements of a free skating program (the jumps, spins, step sequences and particularly the glide, footwork and the difficulty and variety of the steps) must be taken into consideration in the mark for technical merit [emphasis added] and be rewarded according to their relative merit as to difficulty. No individual element can be given predominant importance and the program must be considered as a whole.

Here's the rule about jump limitations as it read in 2002-03 (SSR 4.05 A., p. 123):

Skaters may include as many double jumps as they desire. For triple and higher jumps, only two different types of jumps (e.g. flip) may be attempted more than once each. These two may be attempted only twice each, one as a solo jump and once in a jump combination or a jump sequence (number of jumps in sequence is otherwise unlimited).

No distinctions between men and ladies, and nothing about the total number of triple and higher jumps allowed.

In 1992-93 it was pretty much the same except that it applied only to triples and didn't include quads -- no one, male or female, was trying two quads in a program at that point, so there was no reason to limit them yet. That changed in 98-99.

Here's a link to the ISU rulebook as of 2004, with rules for the New Judging System:

http://www.isu.org/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,4844-160824-178039-80283-0-file,00.pdf

(Note that some new rules have been introduced through ISU communications since then; they should be incorporated into a 2006 edition of the ISU rulebook sometime in the coming months.)

See p. 20 for rules about the well-balanced program including the maximum number of "jump elements" allowed, which is indeed 7 for ladies and 8 for men but can include more than 1 triple per jump element in the case of a triple-triple combination or sequence. See also pp. 21-22 under "Repetitions" for language similar to what I quoted above (aka the Zayak rule).

 

[gkelly]

GKelly, is this a Zayak violation (men's)?

4T+3T
4T
3A+3T
3A

(Yes, because you repeated three jumps, 4T, 3A and 3T. Is that right?)

Right, the violation is in repeating three different jumps.

Tim Goebel once did three quads in a program. Is this jump layout OK?

1. 4T+3T
2. 4T
3. 4S
4. 3A+3Lo
5. 3A
6. 3 Lz
7. 3F
8. 3S
That's 10 jumps with three or more rotations, with only the 4T and the 3A repeated.

Yes, that would be legal.

And while we're at it, how about, let's say,

1. 3A
2. 3Lz
3. 3S-3Lo
4. 3T-3T
5. 3F
6. 3Lo
Hmm, this lady has already done eight triples, repeating two (the toe loop and loop), and she still has one more jumping pass left under the new limits and is still allowed to do another sequence or combo, which could have three jumps. To make good use of the 1.1 multiplier for the second half of the program, let's go with
7. 2A-2T-2Lo

Eight triples. Perfectly legal. Now you just need to find a skater who can actually land all those jumps in one program.

 

[Mathman]

Sorry, but you're wrong.

Here is the link to Sarah Hughes' 2002 Olympic program - http://youtube.com/watch?v=GTPwnLkXppg&search=hughes 2002

After having done 6 Triples, Sandra Bezic says "She is only allowed 1 more Triple".

Do you honestly think Surya Bonaly would have stopped at 7 Triples if there weren't a max?

Because of the Zayak rule, you can squeeze in only 7 triples if you don't have a triple Axel. Do the math. Without the triple Axel, there are only five possible triples. Only two can be repeated. Five plus two is seven.

But if you have a triple Axel, ah, now you can do eight (6 plus 2 repeated).

Neither Sarah Hughes nor Surya Bonaly had a triple Axel, so the Zayak rule stopped them from doing more than 7.

Example

3A
3Lz+3T
3F+3Lo
3Lz
3F
3S

That's 8 triples, which is OK under either judging system.

And you can still throw in a double Axel!

In the New Judging system, anyone who can bring a triple Axel AND a triple/triple will clean up!

MM

PS. Oh, sorry GKelly, we posted at the same time. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Theatregirl1122]

ETA: and then I posted at the same time as both of them and asked the same question, oh well. Great minds... right? (now what does that have to do with me?)

So, to follow mathmans questioning to GKelley.

Lets assume Kimmie has her 3A back, that would make her a lady with both tripple-tripples and a 3A

Would it be legal for Kimmie (and I'm not implying she would) to do:

1. 3F-3T 9.5
2. 3A 7.5
3. 3Lz-3T 10.0
4. 3Lo 5.5x
5. 3Lz 6.6x
6. 3S 5.0x
7. 2A-2T-2L0 6.7x

and end up gaining 50.7 base points for her jumps, using 6 passes for 8 tripples and a 3 jump combo with double in the 7th? (this by the way is her jump layout from worlds, switching a 3A for her first 2A)