PDA

View Full Version : 2010 ISU Congress Agenda is online - discuss!



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

key65man
05-04-2010, 08:59 PM
I haven't kept track of that over the years, so I can't answer it for you. Maybe someone else can.

I tend to focus more on the skating content than on the politics, for better or for worse.

Got it. Thanks.

So far, I have not found any precedent. Quite interesting to see how things may go in June.

Doubletoe
05-05-2010, 12:05 AM
From ISU communication #1557

A difficult variation is a movement of a body part, leg, arm, hand or head, which requires more physical strength or flexibility
and that, has an affect on the balance of the main body core. Only these variations can increase the Level.

These is a difficult variation of position, not a difficult change of position, which is the new feature that is being proposed.
A difficult change of position refers to the transition between two positions, not the positions themselves.
I would agree that something like a transition from sitspin to camel spin should constitute a difficult change of position, as should an upright to camel, Biellmann to layback, or Biellmann to camel. You practically never see these changes of position because it is so difficult to maintain balance and speed.

Doubletoe
05-05-2010, 12:17 AM
This actually makes things more complicated while at the same time some hard tricks (level for spirals and 2nd step sequence) are no longer rewarded... Strategy will become the rule more than ever...

They are giving back power to judges that they purposely removed in order to make the TES more objective. That doesn't make sense.

I agree! After spending the past 4 years working my butt off to achieve the level features on my spiral sequence, I can now go out there and do a SpSq4 and get a lower score than a skater who executes a SpSq1, just because it is easier to execute with +GOE when you have no difficult positions or changes of edge/position. They had better define the criteria for +GOE on spiral sequences to require that the judges take difficulty into account. :mad:



No more requirement that only the first three positions count -- can several short positions followed by one 6-second position fill the requirement? Who's to say which of the preceding positions were part of the sequence and which were just transitions? ;)


Based on the language, it looks like they are probably keeping the definition of a spiral position as requiring at least a 3-second hold, so I would imagine only spirals held for 3 seconds or more would be counted as part of the sequence. Hopefully, they will issue clarifications within the next few months.

Doubletoe
05-05-2010, 12:25 AM
I am not sure about this rule change for ladies. A 3-3 sequence in general is not as difficult as a 3-3 combination. And, many lady skaters can manage 3T-1L-3S (another possibility for the third jump is 3F instead of 3S) than 3-3 when properly trained. This will help to even the field a bit. But, there should be a factor that differentiate 3-3 from a quasi combination such as 3T-1L-3S like Joannie's by not awarding 10% combination bonus.

One thing about the sequence is that it is not aesthetically as pleasing, let alone the difficulty factor.

I agree that other types of sequences are easier than combinations, but have you ever tried a jump+half loop+salchow? I've never done any triples, but having tried a double salchow from a half loop, I would say it's at least as hard as a double toeloop from the landing of another jump. So I think it definitely deserves credit as a combination instead of a sequence, especially since the skater is using up a 3-jump combo to do it, and only getting 0.5 pts for the second jump, the half loop.

Doubletoe
05-05-2010, 12:45 AM
My head also spins (for a minimum six, or is it eight, revolutions) at all these items. So, echoing myself and others - could someone elaborate if the following three singles-related items are being addressed? (And excusez-moi if I'm misunderstanding any of it.)

1. Giving credit for completing a full set of jumps.
So most of the top women (Joannie's the exception?) don't do all jumps. And now you're going to reward Mao for just doing her big jump in the SP, without forcing her to do another jump she's not good at?

This is such a step backward IMHO.

Where are all the people who used to nitpick about flutzing? Is it fair that now a skater can just leave it out, rather than have to attempt it correctly. (And yes, I know that leaving it out means you have to come up with something else that will add the points you lose for not havng a Lutz or flip or loop. But that "cheat" has worked for several top women.)

2. Related: A downplay of the ongoing idiocy/ obssession re: practically undetectable URs (and seemingly inconsistent application of penalties). This has been my biggest bugaboo since CoP started.

3. In a somewhat contradictory vein: More credit for those who do try the 3As and especially the quads. :D

And re: items that definitely are on the agenda:
4. I'd like even *more* credit for jump combos, especially combos involving the most difficult jumps.

5. Finally, will the changes re: spins and spirals make for more individuality and creativity, getting away from certain of the ugly spin combos and the same old spiral positions?

From what I have read in the document, it looks like:
1. No change.
2. No change.
3. No change (unless you count 3A for Ladies in SP or two quads for the men, but there's equal risk there as well).
4. Just the 10% bonus for combination jumps now (but 10% of a more difficult jump will give you more additional points than 10% of an easier jump, due to higher base value)
5. The changes in spins (especially in the short program) will probably force the men to do fewer sitspins and more camel spins.
With the spiral sequences, it really depends on whether they publish new criteria for GOE's. But I'm guessing they will revert a little to what we saw under 6.0: Those who don't like spirals will just get them out of the way ASAP, while those who love them and are good at them will either keep doing the current level features or do some different and interesting transitions and positions.

key65man
05-05-2010, 03:01 AM
I agree that other types of sequences are easier than combinations, but have you ever tried a jump+half loop+salchow? I've never done any triples, but having tried a double salchow from a half loop, I would say it's at least as hard as a double toeloop from the landing of another jump. So I think it definitely deserves credit as a combination instead of a sequence, especially since the skater is using up a 3-jump combo to do it, and only getting 0.5 pts for the second jump, the half loop.

I appreciate your experience and thoughts. But, you are sort of generalizing your experience. Some personally find 3S far more difficult than 3Lz, but that does not mean it is generally so.

Let's put it in proper context. 3-1-3 or something equivalent, in my opinion, is given the new weight in order to give skaters who cannot do fully rotated 3-3 a tool to catch up. You might also agree that no skater in a big competition would do 2-1-2. Therefore, the sequence or combo of x-half loop-x should be in the context of 3-3. Without loss of generality, 3-3 is more difficult than 3-half loop-3S. You need to make a truly great first triple jump to hit the second one in 3-3. Many girls fail at it, which is why they can't do the second jump without under-rotating it in most cases. For 3-1L-3, you don't have to. However, I don't mean to say 3-1-3 is easy. It is difficult. (Regarding the 0.5 for half loop as a reason for getting the 10% bonus, it is skater's choice or she may do pther combo.)

I think this proposal will be put into practice as most countries do not have ladies with legit 3-3. I was just venting a little.

made_in_canada
05-05-2010, 03:08 AM
These is a difficult variation of position, not a difficult change of position, which is the new feature that is being proposed.
A difficult change of position refers to the transition between two positions, not the positions themselves.
I would agree that something like a transition from sitspin to camel spin should constitute a difficult change of position, as should an upright to camel, Biellmann to layback, or Biellmann to camel. You practically never see these changes of position because it is so difficult to maintain balance and speed.

Sorry... misread ;)

Marco
05-05-2010, 04:18 AM
key65man, I totally understand your point. A 3toe half loop 3sal is worth the same as a 3loop3toe at 9.9. However, the skater who does the 3loop3toe can add a 2toe here or at the end of his/ her 2 other combos. So in the end, A 3loop3toe is worth at least 1.43 more than a 3toe half loop 3sal which is almost the difference between a 3toe and 3flip or between a 3sal and 3lutz.

Doing the same calculations, doing a 3sal3toe or a 3toe3toe is respectively 0.88 and 0.33 points more advantageous than doing a 3toe half loop 3sal.

One other thing about the 3toe3toe - the skater who does this can only repeat one other type of triple, which can be disadvantageous in a way.

gkelly
05-05-2010, 05:03 AM
You might also agree that no skater in a big competition would do 2-1-2. Therefore, the sequence or combo of x-half loop-x should be in the context of 3-3.

First of all, the rules don't apply only to big competitions. ISU rules apply to all junior and senior competitions. For all practical purposes they also apply to international novice competitions and to whatever lower-level competitions each federation chooses to use code of points scoring for.

It's not unlikely that a JGP skater whose hardest jump is double axel might plan 2-1-2.

It's also entirely possible that a skater in a "big competitions" who plans 3-1-3 will end up doubling one or both of the intended triples, e.g., at 2:06 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLa1t20T1hI).

We can debate whether triple something-half loop-double salchow should be worth more, less, or the same than same triple something-double toe combination. Personally, I'd be satisfied with slightly less, slightly more, or exactly the same, but not significantly less.

The way things stand now, if a skater executes triple flip-half loop-double salchow, the total score for the sequence after the 0.8 multiplier ends up being lower than the base mark of the triple flip on its own. The point loss is even larger if the half loop-double sal is added to triple lutz or axel or to a quad.

Maybe the best solution would be to give a bonus to direct combinations and full value but no bonus to jumps connected by a half loop (with or without an additional 0.5 for the half loop itself).

key65man
05-05-2010, 06:30 AM
key65man, I totally understand your point. A 3toe half loop 3sal is worth the same as a 3loop3toe at 9.9. However, the skater who does the 3loop3toe can add a 2toe here or at the end of his/ her 2 other combos. So in the end, A 3loop3toe is worth at least 1.43 more than a 3toe half loop 3sal which is almost the difference between a 3toe and 3flip or between a 3sal and 3lutz.

Doing the same calculations, doing a 3sal3toe or a 3toe3toe is respectively 0.88 and 0.33 points more advantageous than doing a 3toe half loop 3sal.

One other thing about the 3toe3toe - the skater who does this can only repeat one other type of triple, which can be disadvantageous in a way.


I misread your post... Sorry...

key65man
05-05-2010, 06:39 AM
First of all, the rules don't apply only to big competitions. ISU rules apply to all junior and senior competitions. For all practical purposes they also apply to international novice competitions and to whatever lower-level competitions each federation chooses to use code of points scoring for.

It's not unlikely that a JGP skater whose hardest jump is double axel might plan 2-1-2.

It's also entirely possible that a skater in a "big competitions" who plans 3-1-3 will end up doubling one or both of the intended triples, e.g., at 2:06 here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLa1t20T1hI).

We can debate whether triple something-half loop-double salchow should be worth more, less, or the same than same triple something-double toe combination. Personally, I'd be satisfied with slightly less, slightly more, or exactly the same, but not significantly less.

The way things stand now, if a skater executes triple flip-half loop-double salchow, the total score for the sequence after the 0.8 multiplier ends up being lower than the base mark of the triple flip on its own. The point loss is even larger if the half loop-double sal is added to triple lutz or axel or to a quad.

Maybe the best solution would be to give a bonus to direct combinations and full value but no bonus to jumps connected by a half loop (with or without an additional 0.5 for the half loop itself).

You are right that the scoring change does apply to all competitions, and it is possible that skaters do something other than 3-half loop-3. And, I think we are in agreement. My contention is never about the full value given to the combination containing a half loop. It is rather about the 10% bonus to differentiate it from 3-3 as shown in the following quote of mine.



But, there should be a factor that differentiate 3-3 from a quasi combination such as 3T-1L-3S like Joannie's by not awarding 10% combination bonus.

umronnie
05-05-2010, 06:58 AM
We can debate whether triple something-half loop-double salchow should be worth more, less, or the same than same triple something-double toe combination. Personally, I'd be satisfied with slightly less, slightly more, or exactly the same, but not significantly less.

The way things stand now, if a skater executes triple flip-half loop-double salchow, the total score for the sequence after the 0.8 multiplier ends up being lower than the base mark of the triple flip on its own. The point loss is even larger if the half loop-double sal is added to triple lutz or axel or to a quad.

Maybe the best solution would be to give a bonus to direct combinations and full value but no bonus to jumps connected by a half loop (with or without an additional 0.5 for the half loop itself).

I never got the 0.8 factor for sequences. I understand that 3F-step-3T is easier than 3F-3T. Which is why a true combo should get more points (10% bonus is a move in the right direction, but I am not sure it is enough). But 3F-step-3T is not EASIER than doing 3F and 3T separately, certainly not 20% easier, so why the penalty?

The fair solution would be to award full value (no bonus) to a sequence and a larger bonus (20% or so) to true combos. Then we can debate whether a 3T-1/2L-3S should get a combo bonus or not, but it certainly should not be penalized...

Marco
05-05-2010, 07:42 AM
But 3F-step-3T is not EASIER than doing 3F and 3T separately, certainly not 20% easier, so why the penalty?

It isn't penalty so much as just the opportunity cost for 1 more jumping pass and fulfilling the Zayak rule on both jumps in the sequence. I don't think a 20% reduction in base value is right but is at least in line with how they reward combinations now.

IMO, the first jump in a sequence should be rewarded with 5% bonus and the second jump with 10%. And the first jump in a combination should be rewarded 10% and the second jump 20%. (or variations thereof)

Marco
05-05-2010, 08:25 AM
Overall I don't think the proposals relating to skating elements are moving in a right direction at all.

1. No mention of the bonus for having 5 types of triples or all 6 types of takeoffs for ladies, or of a penalty for not having all 6 types of takeoffs for both ladies and men.

2. No new proposals on fixing the currently messy and way-too-arbitrary rules on downgrades.

3. Allowing 3axel for the axel requirement in the ladies sp and allowing 2 quads in the mens sp will NOT achieve what they want of shutting the whiners up. If Brian Joubert lands 4toe3toe, 4sal and 3axel while skating to a trashy program with no quality and content, and loses to Patrick Chan who lands 3flip3toe, 3axel and 3lutz while skating to a superb program with good quality and difficult elements, there is going to be an even bigger outrage (and more whining from some posters here :P). Even if Joubert beat Chan in the above scenario you will still have all these people saying he didn't beat him by enough. :blah: I am at least glad they are not bowing to the pressure to increase the value of the quad and 3axel yet again.

4. No proposals to fix the judging corridor situation. I wish there was at least some written guidance that a judge's PCS and GOE can deviate from those of the rest of the judges, independent of skate order and reputation, as long as he can justify it. Same goes for giving different levels of PCS for the 5 categories to the same skater.

umronnie
05-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Overall I don't think the proposals relating to skating elements are moving in a right direction at all.

1. No mention of the bonus for having 5 types of triples or all 6 types of takeoffs for ladies, or of a penalty for not having all 6 types of takeoffs for both ladies and men.

2. No new proposals on fixing the currently messy and way-too-arbitrary rules on downgrades.

3. Allowing 3axel for the axel requirement in the ladies sp and allowing 2 quads in the mens sp will NOT achieve what they want of shutting the whiners up. If Brian Joubert lands 4toe3toe, 4sal and 3axel while skating to a trashy program with no quality and content, and loses to Patrick Chan who lands 3flip3toe, 3axel and 3lutz while skating to a superb program with good quality and difficult elements, there is going to be an even bigger outrage (and more whining from some posters here :P). Even if Joubert beat Chan in the above scenario you will still have all these people saying he didn't beat him by enough. :blah: I am at least glad they are not bowing to the pressure to increase the value of the quad and 3axel yet again.

4. No proposals to fix the judging corridor situation. I wish there was at least some written guidance that a judge's PCS and GOE can deviate from those of the rest of the judges, independent of skate order and reputation, as long as he can justify it. Same goes for giving different levels of PCS for the 5 categories to the same skater.

I think that these moves ARE in the right direction, but are NOT ENOUGH.

1. While there is no bonus for landing all takeoffs, the limit on the number of 2As will force the skaters to dry their problematic takeoffs. The bonus for the skaters who already have all takeoffs is that they will also get good GoEs for them...

2. UR will remain the biggest issue with CoP. I really am amzed that nothing is being done about it.

3. Allowing 3As and 2 quads in the SP is only right because this is a sport and the idea that athlets are prohibited from performing an element they can do just because it is more difficult than anyone else. It is like saying that Usain Bolt can't run faster than 10s in the preliminary rounds, to even up the field with the slower runners. Currently this change will benefit only Asada and Reynolds, the only two skaters with the track record to make the risk worthy, but in the future - who knows?

You are right that it does not solve the problem with the value of 3As and quads. This is a separate issue and the question is whether the current scale of value properly addresses difficulty. I think it doesn't and that the value for both jumps should be raise. But don't worry about Chan vs. Joubert - I did a recalulation of the scores for Torino LP if the 3A was worth 9.0 points and the 4T worth 12.0 and Chan still beat Joubert (but by a smaller difference). Of course, if they ever get around to re-evaluating jump difficulty a nd assigning base marks, they should also do something about the GoE factoring, which is skewed in favor of the easier jumps.

4. You don't really expect the ISU to do something about the judging itself, do you? It's huge that someone even suggested to get rid of the random draw - I wonder if it would pass.