1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sit Spin without Scratch spin on end

Discussion in 'Moves In The Field' started by babbyrabbit, Aug 16, 2012.

  1. leafygreens

    leafygreens Well-Known Member

    1,738
    190
    63
    So if you can perform both jumps equally well, there's no benefit to performing a variety, you should do the one worth the most points?
     
  2. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    11,308
    3,180
    113
    Are we talking about IJS competition?

    You will get more points in the Technical Elements Score for doing jumps with higher point values, assuming the quality/GOEs are the same. That's guaranteed.

    Some judges might pay attention to the variety of jump takeoffs as part of the Choreography component, but you can't count on any of them doing so. And even if they do, at most it might make a difference of 0.25 in their score. So if you're doing double and triple jumps, that consideration wouldn't make up for the loss of base value. With single jumps, it would be worth it if you could count on getting rewarded for variety, but since it's not built into the rules, you can't count on it.

    If we're talking about 6.0 judging, then judges have more room to reflect whatever is important to them. Variety of jump takeoffs might be important to some. But again, you can't count on enough or any judges on your panel caring about that, and there's no way of knowing whether they do or how it affects their scores.
     
  3. leafygreens

    leafygreens Well-Known Member

    1,738
    190
    63
    I was wondering for IJS because if there's a .1 difference between flip and salchow, would any judge recognize that with a .1 higher PCS for variety? But as you said, there's no guarantee. It's probably best to perform the jumps with higher point value.

    It may be more of an urban legend that there's any points given for jump variety? Also Scott Hamilton saying "She did five triples, ALL DIFFERENT!" that makes people wonder. lol
     
  4. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    11,308
    3,180
    113
    It was a consideration under 6.0. Some judges cared about it more than others.

    They might still care under IJS, but they don't have an official place in the scoring to reflect the variety.

    Scott Hamilton is probably still influenced by 6.0 considerations in his own evaluations, maybe more than some judges and less than others.
     
  5. Doubletoe

    Doubletoe Well-Known Member

    2,660
    357
    83
    If your choreography and transitions marks are diminished because you force a lutz where you could have done a flip with a more interesting entry and better pattern, then you might want to sacrifice the 0.1 technical point and do a flip instead. Since IJS judges are already responsible for scoring each individual element as well as the 5 PCS components (for which they are focusing on things like speed, ice coverage, transitions, interpretation, choreography, etc.), I'd say they don't have enough brain space left to pay attention to your variety of jumps. They are more likely to notice if you did both of your lutzes in the exact same spot (a choreography issue).
     
  6. Aussie Willy

    Aussie Willy Hates both vegemite and peanut butter

    18,612
    2,775
    113
    The computer will take care of the types of the jumps done. Judges are not going to penalise an easier jump over a harder jump because it is an easier jump. If both jumps are done well they will get marked accordingly.

    In Australia at the Preliminary and Elementary levels, there is no restriction on the number of a particularly type of jump a skater can do. They can do up to 4 jumps at level. So a skater could basically do all axels as their jump content. That does not make a well balanced program. However as only two components get marked (Skating Skills and Performance/Execution) there is actually not much room even there to reflect that the program is not well balanced.
     
  7. daisies

    daisies New Member

    108
    20
    0
    The way I've understood the "concluding upright spin," at least for the past year or so, is that an upright is considered another position if it is "enhanced" in any way -- e.g., arms overhead -- but not necessarily a "difficult variation." In other words, it doesn't have to be awarded a feature, it just has to show that the skater meant to do the upright and have it count as a position.

    The wording in the 2012-13 ISU Technical Panel handbook for Singles seems to bear this out. It says, "In spins in one position and flying spins the concluding upright position at the end of the spin is not considered to be another position independent of the number of revolutions, as long as the skater is executing only the final wind-up without any enhancements."

    If they meant "difficult variations," they would have said "difficult variations" and not "enhancements," no?