Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 67
  1. #21
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,207
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    A presentation score of 5.9 with a technical score of 5.6 -- as if that skater would have ever received a 6.0 in tech if s/he had landed that combination or triple jump, which is what the starting score would have been to cover a -.4 deduction -- would trump a 5.7/5.7, a 5.8/5.6, a 5.9/5.5, and a 5.6 and anything but a 6.0 in pre.

    Since the scores in 6.0 were treated equally except in tie-breakers, the judges could use a pre or tech score to change the relative balance between tech and free.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Infected with the joy of skating!!
    Posts
    10,553
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    14026
    I think sometimes we view the past with rose colored glasses. I can remember plenty of lackluster SPs under 6.0 that ended up on the podium.

    I *love* that you can roar back from 8th place to 1st if you earn it. That's exciting!

    But I do wish ISU would take advantage of the SP to require things like:

    * flying sit spin in the basic position for 8 revs, no variations
    * the skater must show both a backwards edge takeoff and a backwards toe supported take off (2nd jump in the combo doesn't count); OR
    * make the 2nd jump in a combination an edge jump

    The basic sit spin position is sometimes harder to maintain than the difficult variation position, which is only harder to get into. And edge jumps are so tricky under pressure - what better way to see who's mastered the technique of this sport than to require backwards edge jumps in the SP? This would keep things a bit closer, not to mention reward those who master the 3loop!
    Keeper of Nathalie Pechelat's bitchface.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    7,398
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    4361
    I think that the SP could be used to emphasize the more elegant, but less complicated moves. Maybe, limiting everyone to level one on the non-jump elements would encourage this. I would also penalize mistakes much more heavily in the SP ... if you can't do the jump perfectly, do a different one. The idea is that, in the SP, the skater needs to go for simple perfection; in the FS, where there is time to recover from mistakes, a skater can go for more difficulty.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,857
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    40880
    One thing I do love about COP is that it does reward skaters who are close enough to one another in points to win the competition after the SP, but I do think more emphasis should be put on executing required elements properly and maybe standardizing the elements to make it stand out from the LP.
    "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,426
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Exactly prescribed jump and spin elements would be my recommendations for the short program - you will likely see many singles skaters struggle if the combination requires a double loop (as a minimum)

    With prescribed content in the short program, it would likely come down to positive GOE as the margins by which the placements are to be determined.

  6. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    12,333
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    I would love to see a required triple jump in the SP by year. For example, 3Loop for everyone, and if you can't do it, then do a 2Loop !

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by briancoogaert View Post
    I would love to see a required triple jump in the SP by year. For example, 3Loop for everyone, and if you can't do it, then do a 2Loop !
    This is what I mean! So you can do a single, double, triple, quad etc and that's how you get your advantage. And for lutz/flip jumps, if you have an e call you don't get credit for the jump.
    It would definitely go a long way toward forcing skaters to have good edges.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,471
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    Quote Originally Posted by Macassar88 View Post
    This is what I mean! So you can do a single, double, triple, quad etc and that's how you get your advantage. And for lutz/flip jumps, if you have an e call you don't get credit for the jump.
    It would definitely go a long way toward forcing skaters to have good edges.
    Would it be required double, triple, or quad at senior level (quads for ladies too?), or would single jumps be legal and not require -3 GOE?

    So it would be more valuable to do a 1Lz with a correct takeoff and possible +2 or +3 GOE (not that it's worth many points for singles) than to do 3Lz with an edge call?

    I think the tech panels would have to go with the benefit of doubt on the calls -- only call it if there's a clear blatant change, not if it's just "unclear" -- but let the judges take -GOE if the edge is suspicious to them.

  9. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Two-foot skating = BAD
    Posts
    20,492
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    No, IJS has not made the short program redundant.

    For a number of reasons (technical requirements which don't exist in the FS, harsher penalties for mistakes, a big TES lead for skaters doing harder jumps like 3a and quads, etc.).

    Quote Originally Posted by VIETgrlTerifa View Post
    With COP, I just feel like the SP is very redundant since the LP really is just an extended version of it except with more combination jumps. Maybe the ISU can think of a way to differentiate the SP from the LP a bit more.
    They are different.

  10. #30
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    1,818
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Would it be required double, triple, or quad at senior level (quads for ladies too?), or would single jumps be legal and not require -3 GOE?

    So it would be more valuable to do a 1Lz with a correct takeoff and possible +2 or +3 GOE (not that it's worth many points for singles) than to do 3Lz with an edge call?

    I think the tech panels would have to go with the benefit of doubt on the calls -- only call it if there's a clear blatant change, not if it's just "unclear" -- but let the judges take -GOE if the edge is suspicious to them.
    Maybe unclear edge would be -3 GOE and a clear edge change would be 0 points. And I personally think that it's a matter of risk. If you can't do a triple lutz with a good edge, then don't do it.

  11. #31
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,207
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    What I dislike about choosing a specific jump in the SP is that even if it is cyclical, it gives skaters a distinct advantage or disadvantage in the Olympic year.

    There's certainly a precedent for it in dance, either back in the day of the CD and OD and now in the SD, but in the OD/SD, there's either a workaround in stretching the definitions of genre or the non CD half of the SD, which in the SP, it not only directs one of the jump elements, it also impacts the jump combination, since the same jump can't be used for the combo and solo jump.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  12. #32

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    BC
    Posts
    9,146
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    35029
    I could see the politics already if ISU ever insituted a specific type of jump in the SP. I'm sure everyone would be just peachy keen if the ISU selected the lutz as the required singles jump in the pairs during the Olympic season.

  13. #33
    I <3 Kozuka
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Vancouver/Seattle
    Posts
    19,207
    vCash
    730
    Rep Power
    43906
    Quote Originally Posted by manhn View Post
    I could see the politics already if ISU ever insituted a specific type of jump in the SP. I'm sure everyone would be just peachy keen if the ISU selected the lutz as the required singles jump in the pairs during the Olympic season.
    Look at what happened in the 2006 Olympic cycle in Pairs: the year before the Olympics, the ISU changed the jump rules, and Zhang ruptured his Achilles tendon in trying to learn/re-learn a jump to meet the requirements.
    "The team doesn't get automatic capacity because management is mad" -- Greg Smith, agile guy

  14. #34

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,471
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    IF they were going to do this, including no credit for edge calls, I would suggest phasing it in.

    Maybe start with juniors where many of the skaters are doing doubles of the required solo jump anyway, just add the incentive to get the edge right, even if it means planning a single or double jump -- it's more important to show the edge than the rotation.

    After a few years, so that lutz and flip have both come around the rotation in juniors at least once, then you could put the requirements into the senior SP as well -- many of the competing seniors would have lived through the penalties in juniors and fixed the technique if they're able or focused on strategies using the double jump and more points elsewhere to compensate if they're physically unable to do a true triple lutz (or flip, as the case may be).

    But definitely allow doubles as a legal option if you're going to prescribe the takeoff.

    OR, if they want to start with seniors, still give enough notice that skaters wouldn't be caught unprepared especially in an Olympic year.

    E.g., make the rotation salchow in 2015, loop in 2016, flip 2017, lutz 2018. Skaters would know four years in advance that they'll get no credit for a flutz in the short program in 2018 and will plan their training accordingly.

  15. #35

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,797
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19516
    Perhaps. I do think the application of the IJS to the SP did not respect the intended purpose of the SP, which was to restrict the technical quantity of freeskating so that the judging could focus of the technical quality of freeskating.

  16. #36

    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Age
    53
    Posts
    10,471
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    21476
    But IJS didn't make the short program any less restricted than it was as of 2003.

    What it did was make the long program more restricted. I.e., less accurate to call it the "free program."

  17. #37

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Some place competitive and athletic, but ultimately more like an audition than anything else.
    Posts
    7,797
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    19516
    ^ I agree, the freeskate is prescripted, both by the balanced program criteria and the tendency to maximize TES base values when constructing a program.

    However, I was speaking to the significant lead that can be built in the SP based on the technical difficulty although the SP was originally supposed to measure quality.

  18. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    5,323
    vCash
    289
    Rep Power
    41317
    I do wonder about the specified jump thing. In Juniors they have specified jumps/jump combos. This year is a solo double or triple flip, I think. So why couldn't they do that at Seniors?

    The "balanced program" criteria is being made redundant by the emphasis on backloading. I've seen people praising a 2-6 program to the hilt and calling it wonderful - but that's hardly a "well-balanced program", is it?

  19. #39

    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    I Want to Go to There
    Posts
    9,857
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    40880
    It's not, but it's preferable to front-loading because in theory it's more difficult although it's not necessarily more aesthetically-pleasing.
    "Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility." - Ambrose Bierce

  20. #40

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Petaluma, CA
    Posts
    5,621
    vCash
    500
    Rep Power
    8475
    Quote Originally Posted by briancoogaert View Post
    The thing is that I wouldn't give credit for a Double jump, if the required element is a Triple.
    And of course, it's not a missed element, but the example I have in mind that I didn't like was 2005 Worlds SP, where Michelle Kwan placed in 3rd behind two skaters who made mistakes ! LOL.
    Under 6.0, I'm sure such mistakes would have cost the 1st and 2nd places.
    I guess it's just because I'm a MK Fan, and that I'm spiteful !!!
    Well, I am not a particular MK fan, and I agree with you. The tension and drama of the short program was in the fact that you HAD to COMPLETE the elements. I miss that part.
    DH - and that's just my opinion

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •