I did a quick calculation. A fall in a fully rotated 4toe attempt is worth 6.3 (10.3-3.0-1.0), which is higher than an average 3Lutz (6.0). A fall in a fully rotated 3Axel attempt is worth 4.5 (8.5-3.0-1.0), which is higher than an average 3Salchow (4.2). To look at this from another angle, you can kill yourself to cram difficult entry, great speed of entering the jump, perfect air and landing positions, and significant distance covered, into a 3Lutz jump to get a +3 GOE, and this would amount to only 8.1 (6.0+2.1=8.1), which is less than a mediocre 3A (0 GOE) or a 4T with a hand down or stepping out (-2 GOE). To quad or not to quad? That is no longer a question. The risk is small, the reward is large, the calculation is simple. Meanwhile, a Level 3 step sequence (which most top-tier men get) perfectly executed with a +3 GOE will get you 3.3+1.5=4.8, which is about the same as a fall in a fully rotated 3A and far less than a fall in a fully rotated quad. (Of course, the ability to execute excellent step sequences is usually also reflected in higher PCS, but this benefit is hard to quantify and not always proportionally or reliably rewarded.) Is this fair? Is this appropriate? Is this good for the sport? I don't know. I'm not a technical specialist. What I think and how I feel about it is immaterial. Perhaps what matters is how the hundreds, if not thousands, of coaches who train teenagers day in and day out and face the decision of how much time a kid should spend on practicing 3A and 4T.