Changes to Base Values, Under-rotations, and Levels - ISU Comm. 1611

[Ziggy]

Nah, I'd apply it to double-double combination, at least in juniors and below.

Also, we do want something like (one-foot) single axel-triple salchow to get a bonus. That's where bonus for the second jump only would suffice.

Well yes, there are many different options. Which is exactly the point.

Instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, they could have agreed to some sort of compromise.

[key65man]

How about a tiered or progressive bonus scheme? For instance, 5% for a combination containing a double or a single and 10% for 3-3 or better (possibly 3-3-2 or better for three jump combinations). Whatever variations of bonus % that deem justifiable.

[umronnie]

I don't see a problem with a combo with a 1T as the second jump. It is still a combo, but no one would intentionally set out to do a 1T when it is worth almost nothing (0.4 and 4.4 with the bonus), and the punishemnt for mistakes is not in the base mark but in the GoE.

Further "punishment" for such a poor combo (besides a negative GoE) would be the missed opportunity to do a more valuable combo.

So just because some skaters (and remember that the same rules apply to very young skaters, as well) sometimes do a +1T combo is no reason to drop something really necessary such as a combo bonus, recognizing that it is more difficult to do the jumps in combination than separately.

As for the +COMBO jumps (why single out quads? some people botch easier combos, and some repeat the same jump without the benefit of a combo), it is easy to say that the 1.1 bonus only applies when there are actually two jumps in the combo. Whether both jumps need to be landed or whether even a fall on the second jump is still worth a bonus is matter for further debate but again I do not see why such a simple technicality should prevent a very needed bonus.

Finally, I think that a bonus should be applied to both jumps (because a 4T+3T and 3F IS more difficult than 4T and 3F+3T) but there is also a need to differentiate between the two jumps, because a 3T+3L is more difficult than a 3L+3T...

[The Accordion]

I don't see a problem with a combo with a 1T as the second jump. It is still a combo, but no one would intentionally set out to do a 1T when it is worth almost nothing (0.4 and 4.4 with the bonus),

the 1T would be worth .44 not 4.4. if it is being multiplied by 1.1

[oubik]

How about a tiered or progressive bonus scheme? For instance, 5% for a combination containing a double or a single and 10% for 3-3 or better (possibly 3-3-2 or better for three jump combinations). Whatever variations of bonus % that deem justifiable.

Then it should be more easier way to make SoV and GOE chart for every possible combinations, like is done for each single jump, each spin, lift etc. even if it leads to 22 pages of the combos charts

[Coco]

They could also come up with a non % bonus, such as:

3-2 or 3-2-2 combos, bonus = 0
2-3, 2-2-3 or 2-3-2, bonus = .5
3-3, 4-2, 2-3-3, or 3-3-2, bonus = 1.0
4-3, bonus = 1.5
3a/4-4, bonus = 2.0

But I already don't like this because it will drive people to the "easiest" possible combination in any one bracket. I like percentage based bonuses the best, especially now that the base values for jumps is more in line with their relative difficulty.

[key65man]

Then it should be more easier way to make SoV and GOE chart for every possible combinations, like is done for each single jump, each spin, lift etc. even if it leads to 22 pages of the combos charts

Well... Provided that the first jump is done with proficiency, the difficulty of a combination jumps when the second jump is a triple in comparison with a single or a double. This does not cover something like 2-3, 1-3 or whatever. But, these combos are not as difficult as, for instance, 3-3 as a whole.

Perhaps, I should have said two tiered than progressive over every single combo. Then again, nobody says anything, good or bad, about the idea; so, I guess it is pretty bad as you suggest.