# Thread: Spin Question: Mao's change combo spin - what are the 4 levels here?

1. ## Spin Question: Mao's change combo spin - what are the 4 levels here?

http://youtu.be/f5DmwDNtaig?t=1m49s

She got a level 4 on this.

I see (1) back entry, (2) I-spin/upright, (3) broken-leg sit, (4) ?

Is the last upright a difficult variation? If so, could someone break it down for me--what is the tech specialist seeing here?

Thanks!

2. I would guess it's a difficult variation of an upright spin, something to do with a movement of a body part (in her case both the head and free leg), which requires more physical strength or flexibility and that, has an effect on the balance of the main body core. She tilts her head and turns out her the knee of her free leg as she's twisting ahead of her spinning direction, so I would assume that impacts the way the spin balances over the blade. Am sure gkelly, RFOS, AussieWilly or someone who actually judges has a better explanation.

3. Thanks you, yes! That's what I was thinking, but wanted to make sure.

What are the judges/tech looking for that makes this upright "twist" a more difficult level?

I'm seeing what you're seeing. But lets' say someone was going to "steal" this spin (ehem), and wanted to make sure they weren't only getting it half-way there...what is twisting/turning/tilting enough or not enough?

4. Hmm, good question.

The back entry is one feature and the upright variation is another (and those would have to be the only features on the first foot since when there is a change of foot only 2 features per foot can be counted). I would classify the I-type spin as an upright layback (UL) difficult variation, because her head and shoulders are clearly backwards and her back arched (definition "Layback Spin is an upright spin in which head and shoulders are leaning backward with the back arched. The position of the free leg is optional.")

The broken leg sit on the second foot counts as a sit sideways (SS) difficult variation. The last variation looks like it would fit the definition of a "sideways leaning spin" and maybe the panel considered it an upright straight or sideways (US) difficult variation.*

OR, maybe they didn't award a difficult variation but awarded the increase of speed. Increase of speed only counts within a basic position, not when going from one to the other, and doesn't count in a basic upright position but can count in a layback position (and I think sideways leaning spin is considered interchangeable as explained below) and it looks like she does increase in speed AFTER establishing that position. So I could see awarding a level 4 for the (1) backward entry, (2) upright layback difficult variation, (3) sit sideways difficult variation, and (4) clear increase of speed in camel, sit, layback or Biellmann position.

HOWEVER, if they awarded the upright layback (UL) variation in the combination spin then it wouldn't be available for use in the layback spin, and the only way I can get to level 4 on the layback (which she did get) is for (1) 8 revolutions without change of position/variation/foot/edge, (2) clear change sideways-to-backwards, (3) upright layback (UL) DV for the haircutter, and (4) Biellmann. So maybe they considered the "I" spin with the back arched to be considered an upright straight (US)? I still think it clearly fits the definition of a layback.

*However, my understanding is that a "sideways leaning spin" with the back arched, as Mao's was on the 2nd foot is pretty much considered interchangeable with a layback spin. Either one is allowed (or a combination of both, as is common to fulfill feature 11, the "sideways to backward" feature) to fulfill the LSp requirement and Technical Notification 136 put "sideways leaning spin" into the UL category. Since I already awarded that category, it wouldn't be available to use again in the program, let alone in the same spin. However, that looks like it originated with U.S. Figure Skating and perhaps the ISU has a different interpretation?

http://usfigureskating.org/content/F...%20Singles.pdf
http://usfigureskating.org/content/T...Spins%20DV.pdf

5. Thank you! That's a lot of great info!

Does the even more gray area Intermediate Position fit in here with that last position? I never seem to recognize Intermediate positions until someone points it out to me.

And yes, I was just wondering how often "clear increase of speed" gets called as a level feature. It just seems like one of the more subjective features to count on from the skater's POV. I wouldn't doubt, though, that someone like Mao or Alissa or Julia L could definitely count on it.

6. Originally Posted by Jozet
Thank you! That's a lot of great info!

Does the even more gray area Intermediate Position fit in here with that last position? I never seem to recognize Intermediate positions until someone points it out to me.
An intermediate position (or "non-basic position" as they are called now) is one that doesn't fit the definition of a sit spin, camel, or upright/layback. So essentially the skating leg has to be "more than slightly" bent (so it's not an upright spin) and not a camel or sit spin either. A classic example would be a half sit spin. (3 or more illusions in a row are also counted as a difficult variation of a non-basic position, which is a somewhat unusual exception.)

On that last position in the combo spin Mao's leg was *slightly* bent, but not enough to make it not an upright/layback spin.

7. Got it. Thank you!

I just checked...she got the level 4 at NHK and Skate America, but not Oly or GPF. Hmmmmmm.

8. Originally Posted by Jozet
Got it. Thank you!

I just checked...she got the level 4 at NHK and Skate America, but not Oly or GPF. Hmmmmmm.
If the increase in speed is the feature she's going for, it's definitely a borderline one. If any of the following happened, she could lose the feature:
(1) the increase in speed wasn't clear enough
(2) the increase in speed occurred only when changing from the sit to the upright/sideways-leaning position
(3) the sideways leaning position wasn't sideways enough (for example if only her head were turned sideways but not the shoulders/torso, or if the shoulders/torso lean forward at all).

Increase of speed is definitely a less "reliable" feature than the others and unless a skater is really exceptional and can do it really obviously, really consistently, it seems like a good backup plan would be to have another feature as a backup (since the increase in speed could be rewarded on the GOE by the judges anyway if it does happen).

Looking back at the "I" spin I guess I could also see the argument that the back isn't arched very much and that it could be considered an upright straight or sideways.

#### Posting Permissions

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