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

miki88
05-28-2010, 06:30 PM
I don't think a UR jump should be rewarded more than a fully rotated one either. And they are not under the new rules. Fully rotated ones still earn the most points.


I thought the penalty for UR was a bit too harsh before. I was hoping for a change such that honest mistakes -- nobody is immune to UR -- are rewarded more properly while avoiding to encourage skaters to deliberately exploit it. The current proposal of UR, in my opinion, is making it open to exploitation when combined with other proposals, and I certainly do not agree with them.

Then how would you change it? Some skaters are obviously better at avoiding URs and they are rewarded accordingly. I don't think a slightly UR jump should be rewarded the same way as a badly URed one which is hardly better than a double, but that's how they are being scored now. A skater who goes from badly underrotating a jumps to only slightly underrotating them shows improvement and should be rewarded. Yet, there's still incentive to perfect the jump because the points when you factor in the neg GOE will still be far from a fully rotated jump. I don't see what's the big problem is. It's not like the UR jumps are no longer penalized.

Ziggy
05-28-2010, 06:31 PM
More than 1/4 is not a slight underrotation.

Hiro32
05-28-2010, 06:44 PM
It absolutely is political.

Now that Asada lost to Kim, it really is no surprise that they are suddenly celebrating difficulty, penalising cheated jumps less, downplaying quality and totally ignoring calls for rewarding diversity in jumping. It basically is signalling Kim to retire and annointing Asada.

I think as long as the anonymous judging system is kept, the judges can do whatever they want and the scores are manipulated anyway...
We just want fair judging everybody understands and tends to agree to those scores.

This sport is not just for Kim or Asada :rolleyes:

barbk
05-28-2010, 06:47 PM
In the mid 90's through the end of 6.0, doing the full range of jumps (4 for ladies, 5 for men) was pretty important if you had any hope of hitting the podium. A guy without a triple axel was pretty much toast, and a woman without a triple lutz was about the same.

I miss that. I don't think that multiple double axels are a good replacement, and I would like to see the system somehow significantly reward skaters who do include the full set.

And I agree with Ziggy -- more than a 1/4 rotation short is not slight. The problem I have is that the calls seem to be wildly inconsistent. At the Olympics, there were virtually no underrotation calls in the SP -- something we didn't see at any of the other major competitions. I'm not convinced that the current system does at all a good job of calling the under rotations consistently and fairly. I wish they had cameras in two or three positions, or perhaps an overhead cam that could give a clearer image of the pre-rotation and landing rotation.

key65man
05-28-2010, 07:29 PM
Then how would you change it? Some skaters are obviously better at avoiding URs and they are rewarded accordingly. I don't think a slightly UR jump should be rewarded the same way as a badly URed one which is hardly better than a double, but that's how they are being scored now. A skater who goes from badly underrotating a jumps to only slightly underrotating them shows improvement and should be rewarded. Yet, there's still incentive to perfect the jump because the points when you factor in the neg GOE will still be far from a fully rotated jump. I don't see what's the big problem is. It's not like the UR jumps are no longer penalized.

The current proposal rewards a UR'd jump with 70% of the base value of the intended jump. A UR'd 3A gets 6 and probably 4.5 after an adjustment of GoE penalty (taking at a mid-point of 1 and 2 since the penalty is only recommended, not mandatory). A UR'd 4S gets about 7.35 and probably about 5.8 after the GoE adjustment.

Before, the penalty of UR was grave enough to discourage someone from deliberately relying on UR'd jumps. Now, the 70% is actually enough for many skaters.

Then, enter politics. Suppose they decide to relax UR calls, you hit a home run with a UR'd jump. Then, the expected value of UR'd jumps goes up even higher than 70% of the intended jump.

I would love to see the mid-point less than 70%. I would say 50% in general with less penalty on GoE while making the GoE penalty mandatory (of course, with some minor adjustments depending on jumps).

RunnersHigh
05-28-2010, 09:52 PM
It's just amazing the endless and blind love to Asada of JSF. I really wonder what's next step of JSF if Asada can't defeat Yuna under this absurd rule change. Anyway Asada must be the happiest skater in the world.

2 Bonus points per each ISU sponsorship. :D

kwanfan1818
05-28-2010, 10:27 PM
My question for the changes is whether they are trying to change the system to address an outlier situation, like Kim having 17+ points in +GOE, or whether they have noticed a trend they don't like and are trying to address that.

miki88
05-28-2010, 10:33 PM
My question for the changes is whether they are trying to change the system to address an outlier situation, like Kim having 17+ points in +GOE, or whether they have noticed a trend they don't like and are trying to address that.

I think it's probably both. I think people should realize the sports is not about just two skaters. :rolleyes: If the underrotation rule is passed, most skaters will be happy about it since no one is immune to underrotations after all. Those who seldom get URs will still get the most points in their jumps; that will not change under the new rules.

Asli
05-28-2010, 11:53 PM
I think as long as the anonymous judging system is kept, the judges can do whatever they want and the scores are manipulated anyway...
We just want fair judging everybody understands and tends to agree to those scores.

This sport is not just for Kim or Asada :rolleyes:

Exactly! And double "exactly" for your last sentence.

key65man
05-28-2010, 11:55 PM
I think people should realize the sports is not about just two skaters. :rolleyes:

You really believe it yourself? :cool:


If the underrotation rule is passed, most skaters will be happy about it since no one is immune to underrotations after all. Those who seldom get URs will still get the most points in their jumps; that will not change under the new rules.

Nobody is immune to under-rotation because skaters with good techniques occasionally miss timing, fail to control speed, do not adapt to poor ice quality, have a bad day, etc. If a skater is systematically prone to under-rotation, then the skater has a problem with techniques, generally speaking.

Compensating under-rotation will disproportionately affect skaters because it benefits more skaters with poor techniques and therefore relatively penalizes skaters, many of them, with good techniques.

So, is it justifiable to compensate under-rotation in the way proposed? I am sure your answer is yes. Mine isn't.

The new rules combined may even encourage poor techniques for certain jumps.

miki88
05-29-2010, 12:08 AM
You really believe it yourself? :cool:



Nobody is immune to under-rotation because skaters with good techniques occasionally miss timing, fail to control speed, do not adapt to poor ice quality, have a bad day, etc. If a skater is systematically prone to under-rotation, then the skater has a problem with techniques, generally speaking.

Compensating under-rotation will disproportionately affect skaters because it benefits more skaters with poor techniques and therefore relatively penalizes skaters, many of them, with good techniques.

So, is it justifiable to compensate under-rotation in the way proposed? I am sure your answer is yes. Mine isn't.

The new rules combined may even encourage poor techniques for certain jumps.

But the skaters with the better techniques will still gain the most points. The new rules just decreases the margins of point earnings, which I think is a good thing. Because we have seen skaters do performances with a fall or two but still gain a lot of points because their jumps are rotated. I guess purists will agree with this but as someone who side with the spectators I prefer to see cleaner performances. Because the truth is most spectators don't really care about underrotations that are only visible in slo-motion. I've heard commentators make errors in calling the URs as well. The whole thing is confusing and inconsistent. I think the ISU decided to make these changes from a business point of view. Figure skating needs to decide what it wants to be: a spectator's sport as it had been all these years or a sport understood by only experts.

key65man
05-29-2010, 01:04 AM
But the skaters with the better techniques will still gain the most points. The new rules just decreases the margins of point earnings, which I think is a good thing. Because we have seen skaters do performances with a fall or two but still gain a lot of points because their jumps are rotated. I guess purists will agree with this but as someone who side with the spectators I prefer to see cleaner performances. Because the truth is most spectators don't really care about underrotations that are only visible in slo-motion. I've heard commentators make errors in calling the URs as well. The whole thing is confusing and inconsistent. I think the ISU decided to make these changes from a business point of view. Figure skating needs to decide what it wants to be: a spectator's sport as it had been all these years or a sport understood by only experts.


It is important who gets the most points. But, I think it is more important that techniques are justifiably rewarded. I mean, suppose you do a fully rotated 3A, and I a fully rotated 2T. And, I propose that you get 3 points for the 3A and I 2.5 pts for the 2T by saying that you still get more points. Would you be happy with the proposal?

If you think penalizing under-rotation is not important at all, then you don't need any rule upon it. If so, jumps lose their meaning and purpose that they are a demonstration and measure of athleticism and technical mastery. Allowing under-rotation defeats or undermines seriously the purpose IMO.

If you believe in penalizing under-rotation, then you need a set of rules. In order to enforce the rules, you need precision sometimes only revealed by super slow motion as we don't know everything by looking at it with naked eyes just like football. You may disagree with it, but I take it as a necessary evil.

Thing is, there was a similar problem under the 6.0. A difference is that the scoring process is now revealed. Everything must be accounted for. That is not going to change with the current proposals.

I agree that the whole thing can get confusing and inconsistent -- at least, it is so to me. But, it is not because the under-rotation rule is confusing and inconsistent but because they are applying the rules inconsistently.

key65man
05-29-2010, 01:12 AM
But the skaters with the better techniques will still gain the most points. The new rules just decreases the margins of point earnings, which I think is a good thing. Because we have seen skaters do performances with a fall or two but still gain a lot of points because their jumps are rotated. I guess purists will agree with this but as someone who side with the spectators I prefer to see cleaner performances. Because the truth is most spectators don't really care about underrotations that are only visible in slo-motion. I've heard commentators make errors in calling the URs as well. The whole thing is confusing and inconsistent. I think the ISU decided to make these changes from a business point of view. Figure skating needs to decide what it wants to be: a spectator's sport as it had been all these years or a sport understood by only experts.

BTW, I do agree that the current proposals are to reflect a business point of view. But, not in the way you describe.

galaxy
05-29-2010, 01:41 AM
How exactly is penalising cheating ridiculous?

You don't think that clean elements should be rewarded over the ones which are flawed?





I heard that Kim's scores and placement at the Worlds became quite controversial among ISU people.

If you show her skating of the Worlds to people of later years, let's say, 10 or 20 years later, and tell them " this is the free skating that won the first place that night and rewarded the skater with a silver medal at the competition.", you cannot make them feel comvinced however hard you try to explain them with quality, strict UR punishments, GOES and transition things.
You cannot convince them, nor make them feel that figure skating is an interesting,exciting and enjoyable sports and make them fall in love with figure skating.

Ironically, your queen's skating seems to have made them feel the need to dicuss and reconsider the base values, goes, punishments and other things. Their ultimate goal must be to make figure skating more enjoyable and exciting to watch and easier to understand, draw more people to figure skating arenas and make them love it.

Ziggy
05-29-2010, 01:43 AM
I think as long as the anonymous judging system is kept, the judges can do whatever they want and the scores are manipulated anyway...
We just want fair judging everybody understands and tends to agree to those scores.

This sport is not just for Kim or Asada :rolleyes:

What does anonymous judging have to do with this?

It's all about the evaluation of the marking that comes afterwards.

As long as the evaluation of the marking is good (it isn't at the moment), it doesn't matter if the judges are anonymous or not. Anonymity however, protects them from outside pressures.


The problem I have is that the calls seem to be wildly inconsistent. At the Olympics, there were virtually no underrotation calls in the SP -- something we didn't see at any of the other major competitions.

Were there any jumps underrotated over 1/4?


If the underrotation rule is passed, most skaters will be happy about it since no one is immune to underrotations after all. Those who seldom get URs will still get the most points in their jumps; that will not change under the new rules.

But it will narrow the gap between skaters who cheat and those who don't.


I heard that Kim's scores and placement at the Worlds became quite controversial among ISU people.

If you show her skating of the Worlds to people of later years, let's say, 10 or 20 years later, and tell them " this is the free skating that won the first place that night and rewarded the skater with a silver medal at the competition.", you cannot make them feel comvinced however hard you try to explain them with quality, strict UR punishments, GOES and transition things.

I don't understand what you mean, at all. What was wrong with Kim's scores and placement?