Should IJS change how jumps are valued for ladies.

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by bek, Jan 31, 2012.

  1. bek

    bek Guest


    There are plenty of older girls who can do the jumps. And in a lot of cases smaller girls are going to have smaller jumps. Look at Tukt her jumps are smaller but its partially because she's so small. However the technique on her jumps is first rate. Its not like Tukt's just relying on being teeny tiny to get those jumps around.
     
  2. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    Very true. What is the solution?

    *Reward big, rotated triple jumps with +2 and +3 GOEs (often the case already, unless there are problems with the landing, takeoff edge, and/or telegraphing)

    *"Penalize" small jumps with no more than 0 GOE, or maybe +1 if there are other enhancements (mostly already the case)

    *Further penalize underrotated jumps with lower base value and -GOE (already the case)

    *Reward big clean double jumps, especially with enhancements, with +GOE so that a great double can be worth more than a bad triple

    *Reward overall programs with

    Obviously the skaters who can do all of this including big clean triples will have a huge advantage. But rotation in the air should not be the single most important determinant of a figure skating champion -- male or female, although we expect more of the men to have mastery of big triples

    And if you want mature skaters who are strong skaters and not just jumping beans, that's likely to be the case and not necessarily a bad thing IMO.

    Although it has been rare in the past 20 years to have a champion with fewer than 5 different triple jumps, it has been even rarer to have champions with triple axels or quads. It's not as though these were ever standard elements in women's figure skating. Not having them is not going backward -- one or two skaters having them in some years was an exception.

    It's probably been about 50-50 on triple-triple combinations; I'd have to go back and check year by year for exact counts of champions who won with or without one. Kwan and Slutskaya, for example, each won both with and without.
     
  3. bek

    bek Guest

    This would be so ripe for abuse. We've already seen some get away with all kinds of doubles. I like the concept of GOE but I can't help feeling its use to hold some up and some down.

    Not to mention the fact that what if someone's jumps are small, but they are still cleanly done with good technique. A smaller girl isn't necessarily going to have the highest jumps. I pointed out Tukt as an example because her jumps are clearly well done with very good technique even if they aren't the biggest. And she has the best landings in the business.

    Given the age rules; I think puberty pretty much takes care of a lot of jumping beans with Zhang's former technique. Now perhaps the judges SHOULD start hitting those hard who are clearly doing the jumps with shoddy technique. But I don't think someone like Tukt should necessarily be hit with low GOE just because her jumps are smaller.
     
  4. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    I can easily see a small, clean jump earning +1 GOE

    Base mark for seven triples and seven +1s across a program will hold up well against fewer triples even if some of them earn +2

    When I said a double with +2 or +3 GOE should earn more than a bad triple, I meant a bad triple -- negative GOE and possibly 70% or downgrade basemark -- not more than a good, rotated, but small triple
     
  5. bek

    bek Guest

    But to me everyone at that level should be able to do a clean/big double jump. (maybe the double axel is hard) but double jumps they should all be able to do that easily so I don't agree with handing big time plus GOE for it at the Senior level. Now maybe at the Junior level to discourage coaches from teaching young kids shoddy technique yes.
     
  6. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    A good double jump is a good double jump. The rules shouldn't be different for different levels. Of course the expectation of what's "good" might vary between a level where most of the competitors are physically mature (senior) and where most are prepubescent (below novice -- novice and especially junior levels tend to be a mix of physical maturity)

    NOT ALL SENIOR LADIES CAN DO ALL TRIPLE JUMPS. The same rules apply not only to world medalists but also to senior B event, qual rounds at ISU championships, etc.

    The rules for the senior short program require at least two different triples and a double axel. Great doubles in the senior SP still earn -3 GOE.

    In the long program, what do you want from a low-average senior-level jumper who can do 2A, 3T, and 3S but no other triples -- of whom there are many below the world level? Those jumps alone will fill a maximum of 6 jumping passes, given the repeat rules. So there will be at least one other jump pass in which the skater either needs to plan a double jump (or combination of double jumps) or else attempt a triple she's not capable of. I'd rather see good doubles score better than failed triples.

    Younger seniors who still have hope of mastering more triples might include one they're still working on if they can avoid a fall or downgrade, to get experience trying it in competition in hopes that they'll be more comfortable with it when (IF) they finally "get" that jump. That's their choice.

    If the best jump content a skater can use to fill an extra jump pass or two after her triples are used up is a big clean double, let her work on making it even bigger and cleaner and/or enhancing it in some way so she can get positive GOE and make the program cleaner and more interesting. I wouldn't want to see higher rewards for a telegraphed, cheated, two-footed 3Lo< or 3F< just for the sake of trying another triple.
     
  7. bek

    bek Guest

    I actually wouldn't mind more penalties for badly done triples and even if a very badly done triple is worth a double.

    But I don't want good doubles to be racking in GOE because that means these skaters will still be racking up points over skaters with good triples.

    I think doing a double at the highest levels is not a good thing whatsoever; and that a well down triple frankly needs to be worth a lot more than it is.

    I actually do think the skaters should have to attempt all the kinds of triples; but those who don't have all of the triples should have to take a major point hit because of it. Doesn't mean they should necessarily lose if they can rack up points elsewhere, but I don't want to see them getting huge points for that particular double jump.

    I didn't think for example Ando or Cynthia at 2010 worlds were properly rewarded TES wise vs Lepisto, for their many triples and Lepisto's many doubles. We aren't talking about Lepisto's PCS here but about TES. I don't know why Johnny Weir (hardly the jumping king)'s point about how Lepisto was doing jumping passes people do at the intermediate level; should somehow be so dismissed.

    An average triple that is cleanly done should be worth a lot more than a good double.
     
  8. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    It is.

    Double lutz (2.1 base mark) with +3 GOE (0.9) = 3.0 points

    Triple toe with 0 GOE = 4.1 points
     
  9. kwanfan1818

    kwanfan1818 I <3 Kozuka

    20,946
    3,827
    113
    If they removed the Zayak rule for 3T and 3Lo as the second and third elements in jump combinations, we'd see more 3/3 attempts. Not that I think it's likely to see a skater do 3T/3T and 3T/3T/3T in the same program, but to save us from that possibility, there could be a requirement that the Zayak rule doesn't apply as long as the first jumps are different.

    No, I don't think there should be different scoring systems for Men and Ladies: I think they should be the same. The same values, the same program lengths, the same number of elements, the same SP requirements, the option of a spiral step sequence in both disciplines, and the same PCS weighting.
     
  10. aliceanne

    aliceanne Well-Known Member

    2,350
    484
    83
    Originally Posted by aliceanne
    An average triple that is cleanly done should be worth a lot more than a good double.


    I don't know what the answer is. I'm just throwing ideas out there. Under the current system they should get rewarded for extra rotations because it is harder, and that is the standard that has been set. But looking at ladies' skating compared to men's that standard doesn't seem to be working as well for the progression of the sport. The men can peak in their 20's, but a lot of the women are done by then. It doesn't give them much chance to develop artistry.

    I don't know if the men just hide it more, but the women also seem to be caught in the trap of maintaining an unrealistic body type. Everyone talks about head cases, but I wonder how women like Sasha and Alissa can have the strength and stamina for the long program when they are on such low calorie diets. Yet a little added weight seems to seriously affect their ability to rotate in the air. Kimmie Meissner didn't grow that much, and yet when she did mature her triple jumps were gone.
     
  11. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    Which is why I'd rather see a few good triples, a few good doubles, and an interesting program than a few good triples, a few failed triples, and nothing in between.
     
  12. bek

    bek Guest

    Well absolutely I don't like to see people falling all over the place. But I'm still reeling from Korpi's scores at Euros and imaging if they could give her or Lepisto more points for doubles. I think they are rewarded enough on PCS.
     
  13. Rock2

    Rock2 Well-Known Member

    1,883
    465
    83
    Korpi and Lepisto get a bump in PCS because they are pretty. When judging was 100% subjective the ISU could effectively pick the faces of the sport, the decent skaters who had crowd appeal and could attract audiences. This is also in part why figures have gone away...to get rid of the Trixie Schubas of the world.

    Now with CoP anyone can win, especially if your tech is good. While that should be a good thing, it can also be bad for business if your jumping beans have no crowd appeal. So, PCS - the subjective part - is being manipulated a touch to give every hope to B-level skaters who could sell the sport. If it was up to me I'd lower the worth of PCS and knock it down to 3 scores only (1. Skating Skills, 2. Choreo and Transitions, 3. Performance and interpretation) to maximize the value of the technical impact and get rid of some components that I think intersect.

    My discussion with a friend illustrates the above paragraph very well the year after Nagasu won Nats. Note that casual fans represent the majority of skate-watching audiences:
    Me: HEY, US NATS ARE ON THIS WEEKEND
    Friend: COOL IS MICHELLE KWAN STILL SKATING?
    Me: NO, MIRAI NAGASU WON IT LAST YEAR.
    Friend: WHO?!?!??
    Me: NAGASU.
    Friend: UH, OK. LET'S DO SOMETHING ELSE...

    I like the idea of 1.1 bonus for combinations in general and 0.8 factor for repeating any jump. You really don't need a bigger bonus for 3/3s. The reason is, if you can cram 2 or more of your allowed allotment of triple jumps into one pass instead of 2, you have bought yourself another jumping pass to gain points. e.g.
    Scenario 1: 1st pass = 3F 2nd pass = 3T
    Scenario 2: 1st pass = 3F+3T 2nd pass = 2A
    Scenario 2 gets you more points, so that's how you're bonused for a 3/3
     
  14. bek

    bek Guest

    Rock I don't like the .8 factor for any repeated jump. That means a man doing a second 4toe gets penalized.

    If a skater has already done all of the other triples than I don't think they should be penalized for repeating.

    Maybe though there should be that factor if the skater in the end repeats one triple but never attempts/does the other kind of triple.

    I.e if a skater does all 5 triples and the repeats the 3lutz and 3toe, no .8 for them.

    But if a skater does only 4 types of triples, they should get the .8 hit on repeated jumps.
     
  15. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    12,550
    1,335
    113
    The skater with only 4 types of triples are already being penalized by not being able to attempt 7 triples.
    Can you imagine a skater like Ivana Reytmayerova with .8 factor because she can only do 3Sal and 3T at her best ?
     
  16. victoriaheidi

    victoriaheidi New Member

    1,784
    79
    0
    Agreed. Plus, how are we going to get 7-triple programs if there's a penalty on a repeated jump?

    I think jumps are being scored ok ATM. Not perfect, but I don't think scoring them differently for men and women is a good idea, given the ISU's track record with changes to scoring systems. GPF FD, anyone? :shuffle:
     
  17. bek

    bek Guest

    There's no current bonus whatsover for having all the triples. 7 triple programs are a rarity and skaters aren't encouraged to risk doing their weakier jumps.

    I think there should be SOMETHING to be said for mastering all of the jumps. Someone like Rochette never got any kind of advantage for having all the triples unlike Kim/Asada. I don't think she deserved to beat them, but the technical playing field there should have been a bit more even.
     
  18. victoriaheidi

    victoriaheidi New Member

    1,784
    79
    0
    Asada DID have the 3A, though.
     
  19. smarts1

    smarts1 Well-Known Member

    2,103
    135
    63
    Maybe we could do something like if you attempt a lutz or a flip in the LP, they must be repeat at least one of those jumps again in the LP... A little out there, but it could potential work. It would force skaters like Carolina right now to attempt another flip in her LP.
     
  20. bek

    bek Guest

    But she still was only attempting four types of triples in Vancover. I'm fine with giving her a bonus when she attempts 5 kinds.
     
  21. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    12,550
    1,335
    113
    I wouldn't attempt any Flip or Lutz anymore with such a rule ;)
    I think the best is a bonus point for those who attempts all kind of take-off (and correct edge, no Flutz or Lip). Double or triple or single, nevermind, but all kind of take-off. If you can't do a 3Lz, then, one jumping passes must be a 2Lz...
    Katarina Witt didn't attempt 3F anymore in 1988, but she had this 3Sal/2Flip sequence. I think that was good because she had one more kind of take-off with this (only the 2Lz was missing).
     
  22. bek

    bek Guest

    My only concern is I'm not sure its fair to someone who struggles with lets say a 3sal vs someone who struggles with a loop. Yu-na for example easily would fulfill the loop requirement with her 3 jump pass; but it would be harder for someone missing a 3sal. I guess a sequence... But it is likely time to insist on this. I think they obviously got rid of the 3 double axels for that reason too.
     
  23. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    12,550
    1,335
    113
    That's right. Why not 2Sal/3T. Or 2A/half-loop/2Sal.
    For the Lutz, it's more difficult, except a 2Lutz/3T. But this combo would be more points than 3T/2T.
     
  24. bek

    bek Guest

    Can everyone do a 3t after any jump.

    I think the point is that Kim for example could fit in the double loop requirement and not have to loose a jumping pass.

    But someone else might have to put in that double instead of a double axel or a triple they can do. I'd like to see the penalty for not having the triple be the same for all. Maybe the key is bonus, instead of require? But a sequence I guess could cover it.

    In the end I really don't want it to be in order to win you must have all the triples, because Kim was a great Champion without the 3loop. But it would be nice to see a bonus for those who have all the triples and have the edges correct too. Because clearly thats hard to do.
     
  25. maharbabackward

    maharbabackward New Member

    55
    6
    0
    I like the idea of 1.1 bonus for combinations in general and 0.8 factor for repeating any jump. You really don't need a bigger bonus for 3/3s. The reason is, if you can cram 2 or more of your allowed allotment of triple jumps into one pass instead of 2, you have bought yourself another jumping pass to gain points. e.g.
    Scenario 1: 1st pass = 3F 2nd pass = 3T
    Scenario 2: 1st pass = 3F+3T 2nd pass = 2A
    Scenario 2 gets you more points, so that's how you're bonused for a 3/3[/QUOTE]

    In a free program what if someone does:
    1st pass = 3F+3T 2nd pass = 3T
    1st pass = 3T+3T 2nd pass = 3 F

    Do you think this is even? Mind you, person A would get some GOE benefits but do you think that makes it all up?
     
  26. Coco

    Coco Well-Known Member

    10,974
    1,596
    113
    I get what you are saying, gkelly, but bek hits on the problem with not having a sizeable gulf between doubles and triples in the scale of values. It's the unintentional doubles that need to be "punished" and unfortunately the well done intentional doubles, tricked out with transitions and variations, suffer.

    I would also rather see a great program with cleanly landed 2a, 3t and 3sal (all repeated) plus a nice tano 2z from spread eagle or 2flip from charlotte or 2loop from spirals with the arms overhead.

    But the place to separate that program from the slower skater who ignores their music and "chucks" jumps is in PCS and GOE, not TES.

    As to my earlier post, I would like to see balance in the SP, so two toe assisted jumps and two edge jumps (axel plus something else, now that they allow the axel to be either 2a or 3a). It would prove to be quite the equalizer, I think. Only downside would be no edge-edge combos. My original idea would allow for edge-edge, though. The first jump of the combo and the solo jump should be opposite types.

    I still like the idea of 6 passes for ladies whether it leads to 3-3-3 or not. I think ladies programs are long enough at 4:00 (4:10). One less jump would really open it up for slow sections, more involved choreography, etc.
     
  27. bek

    bek Guest


    But Coco the question of rather is really a hard point. I guess if we are talking about two mediocre skaters; I'd say sure reward it to the more balanced program. But for me 2010 worlds was a great example of the problems with rewarding doubles. Neither Ando or Phaneuf were doing "mediocre triples" Ando has some of the best jumps in the business. And Kostner's jumps were definetly a bit shaky, but she wasn't a mess and had a lot of Lepisto's great qualities. I'd rather have had Kostner rewarded with that bronze than Lepisto. It felt like Lepisto was rewarded for going the easy route.

    And same goes for me with Korpi and Polina at Europeans; if Korpi hadn't lost a jump she would have been within 4 points of Polina's 7 triple program with a 3flip/3toe and a double axel/3toe. And once again very well executed, high and exquisite triples from Polina (except for a slight double foot? on the lutz) Mainly that was due to PCS but give Korpi more points for doubles....

    Don't get me wrong I don't necessarily dislike Korpi's skating; she has a more interesting style than Polina; and I definetly wouldn't disagree with her getting higher PCS. But Korpi isn't a revelation artistically either. She's no Kostner. (She's not even Lepisto). She's not exactly breaking the mold artistically where she should be that close to a great technical skate....

    This IS frankly a sport and at the top levels; when we are talking about making a podium at an ISU championships; doubles would ideally just not be there. I'm sorry they shouldn't be. Revolutions are frankly one of the least subjective things about figure skating.

    Now what I want to see is errors on high base valued elements-penalized more.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2012
  28. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    10,822
    2,417
    113
    How would you feel about the following two programs, if skated cleanly?

    A:
    seven triples and a double axel, including a difficult 3-3 combo, most with positive GOE
    all level 1 spins, with about 0 GOE
    level 1 steps, with 0 GOE
    boring choreo spiral with 0 GOE
    nothing but crossovers, three turns, mohawks, and long glides in between

    B:
    five triples of three different kinds, two double axels (in six jump passes by executing two of the above in a sequence) and another good 2-2 combo or solo double out of steps, most or all with positive GOE
    level 4 spins (or maybe one level 3, let's say she doesn't have a Biellmann ;) with +GOE
    level 4 steps with +GOE
    beautiful and difficult choreo spirals with +GOE
    lots of transitional skating moves of various kinds (e.g., walleys, split jumps, spread eagles or Ina Bauers, edge work and steps into and out of elements), well phrased to the music

    Obviously A has the more difficult jump content.
    But arguably B has the more difficult program, more difficult technical content in terms of the program as a whole

    Wouldn't it be sporting to reward B for all her areas of extra difficulty?

    Maybe the non-jump difficulty is enough to make up for the difference in jump content even just in the TES. Or maybe it can just close the gap in TES enough that she can win on PCS (if in fact she deserves to -- as I described above we don't know how the two skaters' Performance/Execution or Interpretation compare, or most of the Skating Skills criteria)
     
  29. nubka

    nubka Well-Known Member

    7,909
    1,370
    113
    It most certainly IS the answer... :D
     
  30. aliceanne

    aliceanne Well-Known Member

    2,350
    484
    83
    I never was good at math. Couldn't we just vote them off the island?