Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 149
  1. #61
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Age
    34
    Posts
    724
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I'd like to see a deduction in the SP for not completing a required element. In the 6.0 days the tough thing about the short was that you had to execute in order to have a shot at the title. This doesn't exist anymore, its basically a short free skate. I think a mandatory deduction, say between .5 and 1 point per non-completed element would accomplish this.

    I agree with everyone about the step sequences. They used to be one of my favorite parts of a program and now I can't wait for them to be over. And I miss serpentine sequences.

  2. #62
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,464
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenMichelle View Post
    I'd like to see a deduction in the SP for not completing a required element. In the 6.0 days the tough thing about the short was that you had to execute in order to have a shot at the title. This doesn't exist anymore, its basically a short free skate. I think a mandatory deduction, say between .5 and 1 point per non-completed element would accomplish this.
    If you don't complete a required element, you lose loads of points and most likely your shot at the title.

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Hampton Roads, Virginia
    Age
    34
    Posts
    724
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy View Post
    If you don't complete a required element, you lose loads of points and most likely your shot at the title.
    Not necessarily. For example if a skater does a perfect quad toe as thier solo jump but it is not preceded by steps, he will still get a lot of points for the jump as there is no deduction for the actuall jump. However, there is no penalty for not completing the required element which is a triple or quad out of steps. There should be an automatic deduction for this.
    Last edited by GoldenMichelle; 07-15-2011 at 01:43 AM.

  4. #64

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    What do folks think about this idea?

    In the junior and senior free program only,

    Jumps of 1 revolution, except in combinations, are considered nonlisted jumps. No points and they don't take up a jump slot.

    This means that skaters who pop jumps would get a free do-over if they choose.
    However, judges could be advised to penalize in Performance/Execution and Choreography as appropriate for awkward pops and obviously shoehorned-in elements.

    It would also mean that skaters would be free to include things like split flip, split lutz, or tuck loop as transitional moves without wasting a jump slot.

    What about 1.5 jumps?

    Backward-takeoff jumps landed forward after 1.5 revolutions can be fun transition moves or they can be underrotated doubles or popped triples or quads. Since they'll get next to no points as downgraded (<<) doubles with negative GOE, can we let them get no points and not fill slots regardless of whether they happened by mistake (negative effect on PCS) or with choreographic intention and control (positive effect on pCS)?

    As with the single jumps, it would be up to the skater whether to try a popped jump again, knowing that a second failure will probably lead to lower scores than just sticking to the choreography as planned.

    Single axels are going to happen pretty frequently as pops or as singled double axels late in the program when skaters are tired. And currently it is required to include "an axel-type jump" (single, double, or triple) in the free program. But we also do want to encourage things like delayed axels and one-foot axels, as highlight moves.

    Maybe the rule could be that single axels and less-than-single forward outside takeoff jumps (waxels, waltz jumps, bell jumps), whether clearly mistakes or clearly intentional or unclear, fill the required axel-type jump box, even if they get no value, if they are the only jump in that program from that takeoff.

    So if a skater plans one double axel and singles it, s/he would still get about one point for the attempt. If the skater plans a delayed axel, tuck axel, etc., it would be a freebie transition if there's already at least one double or triple axel in the program, successful or not. If there's no other axel jump, then a clean, enhanced, fully rotated single axel would fill the axel slot and earn base value of the single axel plus positive GOE.

  5. #65
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,464
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by GoldenMichelle View Post
    Not necessarily. For example if a skater does a perfect quad toe as thier solo jump but it is not preceded by steps, he will still get a lot of points for the jump as there is no deduction for the actually jump. However, there is no penalty for not completing a required element which is a triple or quad out of steps. There should be an automatic deduction for this.
    True.

    There are deductions for lack of steps, they just don't get implemented by the judges. :/

    gkelly - I actually like the fact that popping the jumps makes you lose loads of points. It rewards the skaters who attack the programs and go for it.

    I'd rather see falls on rotated jumps than pops.

  6. #66
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Not so much "A" rule, but a rethinking of competition structure for singles/pairs - basically making the SP way more rigid and the LP much more "free"

    SP - have the "required elements" be explicitly listed, kinda like how they do for juniors now and used to do for seniors, but more, e.g. "the combo jump for this year is (2 or 3)lutz-(2 or 3)toe, the single jump is (2 or 3)sal," but also "the combo spin is ___" (e.g. "Lvl1 layback with x position") and "the fw sequence is "[specification of steps here]," etc. Can do them in any order to your choice of music. Great way to compare elements from one skater to another and also reintroduce some "classic" or "simple" spins.

    FP - no "well balanced program" nonsense, just do what you do best, as much of it as you want. If it's unbalanced, the judges can take off from the PCS. John Curry's iconic "Don Quixote" has something like 9 jumping passes in it, there's no artistic reason to limit it to 7 or 8. Plus this way skaters who are really good at spins/FW can capitalize on that to a much greater degree instead of having to expend time and energy on filling 7-8 jumping boxes.

    ....and, since I'm feeling inspired, one more:

    scrap the ISU minimum score in favor of an international version of the "senior test," content of said test TBD. Doesn't have to be based on the USFSA one. Once you've passed, you've passed. Can take it at any time.

  7. #67
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,464
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by azurika View Post
    FP - no "well balanced program" nonsense, just do what you do best, as much of it as you want. If it's unbalanced, the judges can take off from the PCS. John Curry's iconic "Don Quixote" has something like 9 jumping passes in it, there's no artistic reason to limit it to 7 or 8. Plus this way skaters who are really good at spins/FW can capitalize on that to a much greater degree instead of having to expend time and energy on filling 7-8 jumping boxes.
    If you did it this way, everyone would just perform as many jumps as possible, as they are worth much more points than spins and footwork.

  8. #68
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    14
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Not necessarily...if you're great at spinning, but there's a decent-to-good chance of falling on your 3z attempt, it probably pays to do an extra spin instead. We already see skaters (well, coaches) using similar logic, avoiding "hail Mary" 3/3s and quads, for example. Plus programs that the judges found distractingly imbalanced (e.g. all spins) could be deducted under CH in the PCS. I just think it'd be nice to have some discretion for skaters to show off - and capitalize on - their strengths in the LP.

  9. #69
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,816
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    What if in the FS, they did
    8 jumps and 6 spins/footwork/spirals

  10. #70

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Quadland
    Posts
    6,284
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3358
    I would get rid of the bonus after the halfway point. But If you are going to keep that than 1.1 becomes 1.2 or 1.3 in the last 30 seconds. I would if the post halfway point bonus rule is kept ban doing more than three jumps in a row with no spin or step in between. This would hopefully end the thing where after 2:00 in ladies or 2:15 in men you get four or five jumps in a row with nothing inbetween them at all. This would spread the jumps around if that is so important to people. How is midloading - not at all backloading- really spreading the jumps around.

  11. #71

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Quote Originally Posted by azurika View Post
    John Curry's iconic "Don Quixote" has something like 9 jumping passes in it, there's no artistic reason to limit it to 7 or 8.
    Of course, the men's free program until 1980 was 5 minutes long, not 4 1/2.

  12. #72
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    3,507
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by caseyedwards View Post
    I would get rid of the bonus after the halfway point. But If you are going to keep that than 1.1 becomes 1.2 or 1.3 in the last 30 seconds. I would if the post halfway point bonus rule is kept ban doing more than three jumps in a row with no spin or step in between. This would hopefully end the thing where after 2:00 in ladies or 2:15 in men you get four or five jumps in a row with nothing inbetween them at all. This would spread the jumps around if that is so important to people. How is midloading - not at all backloading- really spreading the jumps around.
    I don't think taking away the bonus will help, if anything it would make it worse. Skaters put hard elements at the end of the program where it is more difficult to perform because they get the bonus. Otherwise they will put all the hard elements right at the beginning. It's not up to ISU rule-makers to choreograph the skaters programs.

    Some fans aren't going to be happy until all the skaters are wearing the costumes, skating to the same music, skating to the same choreography and may the best one win.

  13. #73
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,464
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by azurika View Post
    Not necessarily...if you're great at spinning, but there's a decent-to-good chance of falling on your 3z attempt, it probably pays to do an extra spin instead. We already see skaters (well, coaches) using similar logic, avoiding "hail Mary" 3/3s and quads, for example. Plus programs that the judges found distractingly imbalanced (e.g. all spins) could be deducted under CH in the PCS. I just think it'd be nice to have some discretion for skaters to show off - and capitalize on - their strengths in the LP.
    You'd have to set a limit on the number of allowed elements, however, or it would result in huge spike in injuries.

    And make a rule against repeating spins.

    With the rule against repeating variations on spins, it could turn up that doing a 2lutz would make more sense than doing a spin.

  14. #74

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    4,736
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    Some fans aren't going to be happy until all the skaters are wearing the costumes, skating to the same music, skating to the same choreography and may the best one win.
    Well, I do miss compulsory dances

    Quote Originally Posted by DORISPULASKI View Post
    I also would like a rule for what amounts to a TKO:

    -3 falls in any program, and you are assumed to be too injured to continue to skate; leave the ice.

    Having watched several skaters fall many times in the LP, I would really have appreciated it if the ref had escorted them off after the 3rd fall. In hindsight, I bet they would appreciate it too.
    That would have ended Patrick Chan's GP season last year... Actually, I don't think it's a bad idea to have some sort of limit, to make sure skaters don't hurt themselves and because beyond a certain point, a program marred by so many falls just doesn't have much merit anymore, athletically or artistically. And yes, I realize we all have skaters whose programs we feel have no merit regardless of falls.

  15. #75

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Quadland
    Posts
    6,284
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    3358
    Quote Originally Posted by julieann View Post
    I don't think taking away the bonus will help, if anything it would make it worse. Skaters put hard elements at the end of the program where it is more difficult to perform because they get the bonus. Otherwise they will put all the hard elements right at the beginning. It's not up to ISU rule-makers to choreograph the skaters programs.

    Some fans aren't going to be happy until all the skaters are wearing the costumes, skating to the same music, skating to the same choreography and may the best one win.
    The skaters are not putting jumps at the end of the programs , they are putting them right in the middle, that is why a last 30 seconds rule may be better.

  16. #76
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,000
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Here's my contribution.

    For the Free Program -

    - Each skater can do one element of their choosing (anything; spin, jump, move in the field etc). The element must be of a low difficulty level - a single jump, a scratch spin, an Ina Bauer etc. The element will be something that the skater does wonderfully well (Natalie Kreig's scratch spin, Paul Wylie's Ina Bauer, Michelle Kwan's spiral, Brian Boitano's spread eagle).

    - This element will get a small amount of points for technical merit.

    - This element will get a very large amount of points for performance - up to a +8 points from the judges.

    - The amount of points for performance will be overseen closely. A judge may not give a +8 points more than once in a season to any skater - or something like that.

    My reasoning is that this kind of element will add some originality to the programs by allowing each skater to do something that they do best - something that isn't very hard but something that makes their individual performance remarkable and distinct from the other performances. It would allow for some of the creativity that many feel is missing in the current judging system.

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    103
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    At least in the US, I want a rule about selecting world team members. The selection committee should more heavily factor in performance that year. As it is, the skaters most likely to make worlds are holding back their best performances so they can peak a month later, which means that they're sometimes not as good as the skaters going lights out just to make a wild shot at the world team. The current system doesn't favor our best skaters.

    And while we're at it, I'm definitely in favor of a rule about footwork sequences. Speed of the footwork sequence should be a major, major factor. It's annoying to watch all these slow twisty turny progressions down the ice. Before PCS, footwork sequences flew.

  18. #78

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,458
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    20970
    Actually, I don't think it's a bad idea to have some sort of limit, to make sure skaters don't hurt themselves and because beyond a certain point, a program marred by so many falls just doesn't have much merit anymore, athletically or artistically.
    One of the first elite competitions I attended live was the 1994 Olympics. One of the lower-ranked skaters (yes, I do remember who it was) fell four times IIRC during his free program. By the third and fourth fall he looked pretty discouraged as he got back to his feet, as if he were considering giving up, but the crowd applauded encouragingly and he continued skating to the end of the program. Only he knew if he was injured, but his hesitance looked more like discouragement to me. Assuming that to be the case, I would guess that he would rather look back on his Olympic experience as one in which he bravely struggled on to the end than as one in which he quit from embarrassment or was disqualified from continuing by the referee on account of too many falls. Of course I can't read his mind.

    But as a spectator, it was more satisfying to watch him find the fortitude to continue in the face of adversity than to watch him quit or be removed from the ice. There are other kinds of human dramas and triumphs to appreciate in competition besides the quest for a perfect performance.

    I recall several years ago watching a skater in a summer club competition fall on triple jumps and double axels seven times in a senior ladies program. I don't know how much it hurt or if any damage was done or how she felt about the experience. But I'm pretty sure that later that same season was the first time she qualified to compete at Nationals at the senior level (not sure if she'd ever done so at lower levels).

    So possibly her goal for that competition was to go for the rotation on every jump and not double out? Trying and failing multiple times in the same program may have been a necessary step in the process of trying every time and succeeding more often than not later in the season?

    That process seems to be similar to what Patrick Chan went through this past season. Would he have been able to stand up on all the quads and triple axels at Worlds if he had left some of them out earlier in the season?

    I've also seen a lower-level skater in a club competition try to finish a program with multiple falls and obvious pain and insecurity and later hear she had broken her ankle during the program. That was an occasion where it seemed the better part of valor would have been to quit in the middle.

    Johnny Weir came to that conclusion at 2003 Nationals after only two falls.

    If the purpose is to protect skaters from injury, I think the important thing is for coaches and parents to instill in their skaters the recognition that no one competition is more important than long-term health and that there's no shame in withdrawing if injured.

    But I wouldn't leave it up to the referee or the rules to decide in advance that a skater needs to withdraw/be disqualified just because of a certain number of falls. Falling is part of learning to skate, part of training difficult jumps. Most falls don't cause injuries -- probably most don't even really hurt. The skater inside his or her own body is in a much better position to know whether it hurts, or worse, than a rulebook or in most cases an observer.

    I can think of quite a number of elite skating performances with three falls that had plenty of athletic and/or artistic content in the other 4 minutes of the program and even won medals.

  19. #79
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    1,004
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I want to see the IJS putting caps on amount of time skaters spend doing step sequences.

    Too many skaters spent too much time trying to achieve all the level requirements. I have never tried counting, but I'm quite sure that in some extreme cases, skaters spend up to 45 seconds performing their step sequences. This is a lot of time, especially in SPs.

    IMO, limiting amount of time, let's say to 15 seconds, may bring following benefits.

    1. Let skaters with best abilities stand out. With limited time to work with, only best skaters will be able to incorporate all the requirements for difficult turns and steps in their sequences while skating fast enough across the ice to finish their sequences in time.

    2. It will prevent slow and laborious sequences travelling all over the rink like we have today. Under current rules, skaters often deviate far from defined shapes of straight, circular, or serpentine lines.

    3. Skaters will have more time to display choreography. Some skaters will get up to 30 seconds of free time while doing same number of elements. Let them bring something creative and have them engage with the audience more.

    4. Bring back fast and powerful step sequences of the old days. Best skaters should be able to perform sequences just as powerful while meeting demands of IJS such as rockers and counters turns.

    To summarize, it will let the best skaters stand out more and bring back excitment to step sequences.
    Last edited by RumbleFish; 07-15-2011 at 10:09 AM.

  20. #80

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,014
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    13073
    I would like to alter the current rule regarding only repeating two triples to allow 3T to be a 'third' repeated triple provided that they are only included as the second half of a 3+3 combination (or 2A+3), for example a skater could perform 3Lz, 3LZ+3T, 3F, 3F+3T and 3S+3T, 3Lo, 3A/2A. This would allow more 3+3 combinations.
    Last edited by skatefan; 07-15-2011 at 02:40 PM.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •