PDA

View Full Version : ISU homologates the first quadruple Lutz jump



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15

gkelly
10-29-2011, 02:58 AM
But what about all the first triples? Other first quads? Surely those were done in non-ISU competitions first, even in the era of video tape, where evidence could have been sent in.

Well, before the era of videotape (film available just for the most important), there weren't a whole lot of other competitions.

Dick Button specifically waited until the Olympics to unveil his new jumps (2A and 3Lo). Same with Donald Jackson and the 3Lz at Worlds I believe.

I don't know that there's a clear answer as to who was the first woman to land a triple jump in competition. There must be a first triple landed at Worlds -- that should be documentable somehow. But apparently it wasn't a very big deal because it was known that other triples had been landed by other women in the past, at competitions that may or may not have been filmed. If not, there was no way to verify how clean they were.

So then you get into the question, when does it count as a "first" worthy of ISU recognition? And can other firsts that don't count as far as the ISU is concerned still count for other purposes?

5Ali3
10-29-2011, 03:04 AM
[deleted link to Southwestern protocol]



b) The ISU is basing their decision on YOUTUBE footage. Low framerate, low quality footage. Was this Youtube video the same footage available to the tech panel and judges when reviewing the jump? (ie: same camera angle?)


Good question. While there is no doubt that the jump has been cleanly landed, it looks like the video has been provided by some outside company and isn't the tech panel video?

So you know how I've posted several times recently that the video seen by the tech panel is from a camera mounted on the tech panel podium, so we can't determine what the tech panel saw, since we're seeing a different angle? :shuffle:

At U.S. non-qualifying competitions, Regionals, Sectionals, and Junior Nationals, the video feed for the tech panel is provided by the video vendor - you know, that guy in the corner freezing his butt off and listening to rap on his ipod? I suspect this video is from the vendor, which means that it's the same video that was available to the tech panel. (At U.S. Regionals, the judges do not have video review.) At U.S. Nationals, the camera feed is based on the same policy as at major internationals: one camera mounted on/near the podium.


homologate
Dear ISU: Thank you for introducing a new word into my vocabulary instead of adding simple variety or complexity throughout the definition of a previously compulsory word as you have a tendency to do. Love, 5Ali3

Skittl1321
10-29-2011, 03:12 AM
. In the NPR interview, it says that he was so surprised that he landed the quad Lutz that he forgot to do the 3T, so it was supposed to be his combination, which explains the lack of steps into it.



I heard him say that too. Hope they had a backup plan for the combo, since he clearly planned to fall...

I really liked his thought "hey, I'm up!"

Vagabond
10-29-2011, 03:58 AM
Brandon did receive all -GOEs (http://www.usfigureskating.org/leaderboard/results/2012/68244/results.html) on the 4Lz in his short program. I think -2 was an appropriate GOE, because of the flow out of the jump, the composed air position, and the flight. In the NPR interview, it says that he was so surprised that he landed the quad Lutz that he forgot to do the 3T, so it was supposed to be his combination, which explains the lack of steps into it.

Your link is to the results for a subsequent competition, Southwest Regionals, where he also landed a quadruple lutz (with -1.75 GOE). According to the protocols, he planned a 4Z+3T but did a solo 4Z and then turned an intended solo 3Z into a 3Z+3T combo, for which he received +1.23 GOE (which I would assume is at least in part due to steps leading into the combination, though I haven't seen a video or read any reports).

Mroz also did a quadruple lutz, again with -1.75 GOE, in the Free Skate (http://www.usfigureskating.org/leaderboard/results/2012/68244/results.html) at Regionals. Obviously, a lack of steps into the element was not the primary reason for the negative GOE that time around.

For those who feel that the fact he hasn't done the jump in international competition derogates from the accomplishment, I would point out that some international competitions aren't any more competitive than the Colorado Springs Invitational or Southwest Regionals. Case in point: this year's Mont Blanc Trophy (http://www.mbtc.it/pdf/results/senior/men/SeniorMen_SP_ResultForSegmentDetails.pdf).

5Ali3
10-29-2011, 04:59 AM
Your link is to the results for a subsequent competition, Southwest Regionals, where he also landed a quadruple lutz (with -1.75 GOE).

I thought Mroz received credit for landing the jump at Southwesterns, which feels like a legitimate venue when considering homologating a new jump. I did not realize that he received homologation credit for landing it at the earlier non-qual. Thank you for correcting my serious mistake - I'm not sure how I missed it! I think ratifying a jump based on a non-qualifying competition is a whole 'nother ball of wax compared to ratifying it at a U.S. qualifying competition... :slinkaway

senorita
10-29-2011, 09:47 AM
I read on ice network that Chan said he thinks the jump should be landed to ISU competition to be ratified so it seems it is not only skating fans opinion.

Ziggy
10-29-2011, 10:41 AM
For those who feel that the fact he hasn't done the jump in international competition derogates from the accomplishment, I would point out that some international competitions aren't any more competitive than the Colorado Springs Invitational or Southwest Regionals. Case in point: this year's Mont Blanc Trophy (http://www.mbtc.it/pdf/results/senior/men/SeniorMen_SP_ResultForSegmentDetails.pdf).

You're totally missing the point.

It's not about the quality of the field or the performances of the skaters competing.

It's about the kind of pressure you get when taking part in a "real" international competition, that is ISU sanctioned, can get you ISU ranking points and has an international judging panel.

It's a completely different ball game to competing at a club event.

Skittl1321
10-29-2011, 01:51 PM
I read on ice network that Chan said he thinks the jump should be landed to ISU competition to be ratified so it seems it is not only skating fans opinion.

The article wasn't clear whether Chan said that before or after the ISU issued its statement.

bardtoob
10-29-2011, 03:35 PM
I read on ice network that Chan said he thinks the jump should be landed to ISU competition to be ratified so it seems it is not only skating fans opinion.

But it was not ratified, it was recognized and homologated.

. . . the ISU clearly used that language because they only ratify elements at their competitions (now by protocols), yet the competition in which the jump was landed was at a competition which they sanction by way of a conforming member organization.

crystalice
10-29-2011, 03:35 PM
The more quads the better!

Омолигация (omoligation) is a commonly used word in Russia in Import/Export procedures relevant to various technologies, automobile industry and Manufactured Products Quality Control. It means “certification”, “authentication”, “accreditation”, “standard conformance”.
:confused: Well, it's "homologation" in English, and mr. google translates it with an "o" into Russian. I hope your import/export procedures are all fine. :rollin:

Skittl1321
10-29-2011, 04:14 PM
But it was not ratified, it was recognized and homologated.

. . . the ISU clearly used that language because they only ratify elements at their competitions (now by protocols), yet the competition in which the jump was landed was at a competition which they sanction by way of a conforming member organization.
My dictionary defines homologate as "to ratify"

I don't think the ISU used this word as a way to say they weren't really ratifying it. If it didn't "count" they just would have not said anything

Vagabond
10-29-2011, 04:19 PM
You're totally missing the point.

It's not about the quality of the field or the performances of the skaters competing.

It's about the kind of pressure you get when taking part in a "real" international competition, that is ISU sanctioned, can get you ISU ranking points and has an international judging panel.

It's a completely different ball game to competing at a club event.

I can understand written English, you know. That's pretty much what koolloop, who first brought up the issue, said.


c) I disagree with the ratification of jumps done at non-ISU sanctioned competitions. It's one thing to do the jump in practice, another toth do it in a small competition with no pressure (and I'm presuming an all US tech and judging panel). It's completely different to do it in front of the scrutiny of an entire ISU tech and judging panel (who might have judged the GOE more accordingly with the rules?...) not to mention the added pressure of doing it where there are stakes involved.

Just because a minor international competition like the Mont Blanc Trophy can help a skater earn ISU ranking points and meet the minimum score required to go to Worlds and even has judges who have been approved to participate at international competitions does not necessarily mean that there is any greater pressure that would affect a skater's ability to land a jump. But even if there were, so what? There will undoubtedly be more pressure at this year's U.S. Nationals than at the Golden Spin of Zagreb. Why should the ISU ratify a new jump at the latter but not the former?

It may well be the first lady who lands a quadruple toe loop in competition does so in some minor international competition, with a comparatively weak field, like the Senior (http://www.icechallenge.at/2011/icechallenge/CAT010EN.HTM) or Junior (http://www.icechallenge.at/2011/icechallenge/CAT006EN.HTM) event at this year's Ice Challenge or that the first man to land a quadruple loop will do it at a national championship rather than in an international competition. That wouldn't make the accomplishment any less (or more) real than Mroz's quadruple lutz, which he has now landed three times in competition. The ISU obviously understands this.

bardtoob
10-29-2011, 11:26 PM
My dictionary defines homologate as "to ratify"

I don't think the ISU used this word as a way to say they weren't really ratifying it. If it didn't "count" they just would have not said anything

Then your dictionary must be a thesaurus.

Furthermore, the ISU did say the jump did count for the record books, which is why they recognize and think (-logate) the same (homo-) as the organization that ran the competition.

I will point out that the ISU always declared an element "the first in international competition", not simply the first.

allezfred
10-29-2011, 11:56 PM
Why should the ISU ratify a new jump at the latter but not the former?


Because the former is not an international competition with a panel of international judges. National bias and all that.

MacMadame
10-30-2011, 02:11 AM
For those who feel that the fact he hasn't done the jump in international competition derogates from the accomplishment, I would point out that some international competitions aren't any more competitive than the Colorado Springs Invitational or Southwest Regionals. Case in point: this year's Mont Blanc Trophy (http://www.mbtc.it/pdf/results/senior/men/SeniorMen_SP_ResultForSegmentDetails.pdf).

I don't think the issue for many is the quality of competition so much as the venue. I know I find it questionable for the ISU to ratify a jump that didn't take place at an ISU-sponsored event. I know in the past we've had reports of skaters landing the first X jump at their Nationals or their qualifying competition and it wasn't counted. I'm pretty sure at least some of those comps were videotaped too.

I know a couple of people have made the argument that there is more pressure at an international comp than a local one, but again, I think that's less about the quality of the competition than about the expectation and pressures put on the skater. I also don't think that's the real issue because whether or not a skater feels pressure is highly individual.

The real issue, to me, is why is the ISU ratifying something that happened at a comp they wouldn't have ratified in the past? Something has changed in their thinking and I'd like to know what it is.