How will the new sequence rules affect planned jump content?

[antmanb]

Does the code of points recognize jumps landed on a back inside edge on the wrong foot as having the same value as the normal version of the jump?

The last time i checked (a good few years ago) it was expressly stated that a skater could land on either foot and get the same base value as the take off edge suggested for the jump. That was before Euler became a thing and three jump combinations with a half loop were marked as Jump+1Lp+Jump.

I don't know if they got rid of the statement after the Euler was listed because otherwise a half loop done choreographically in a programme could end up being a listed jump and take up a jumping pass if the skater hadn't already done all their jumps.

 

[On My Own]

Does the code of points recognize jumps landed on a back inside edge on the wrong foot as having the same value as the normal version of the jump?

Yes.

 

[Deleted member 221]

Brian Orser once did a 1-ft double salchow. I always thought it would be so cool if someone did that into a flip jump.

In the late 70s, when the flip was a prescribed jump in the combination, Brian Pockar did a one-foot triple salchow into a double flip. Here’s a clip I could find of one: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HqqcCAAoEp0

I seem to recall another event where he landed it perfectly.

I’d love to see COP bring back unique combinations like these.

 

[Lanie]

Incentivizing unique or creative sequences and combos would be really neat.

 

[Seerek]

Perhaps we'll be seeing more 2 axels in the pairs long programs if used as part of the sequence?

Here's an example from Manuel Piazza

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

How about a layback into a sit spin into a layback sequence?

All this talk about jumps so much is making me dislike the sport.

 

[antmanb]

I’d love to see COP bring back unique combinations like these.

Incentivizing unique or creative sequences and combos would be really neat.

The problem with the COP doing anything like that means if it gets more points, most of the field are going to work on doing it to the point that it is no longer unique, but generally likely to end up in messier looking jumps. Or at some point so many people start doing it that it no longer seems worthwhile differentiating between the original a new creations so it has to be rebalanced back.

I'm thinking of the previous levels for death spirals, having change of hands, and positions etc. Things that were unique at the time but ended up making that whole thing messy and not particularly aesthetically pleasing especially with every pair team trying to get the levels.

Nothing kills uniqueness like codifying it and giving it points.

 

[Coco]

That's very true. Maybe make originality a bullet point for GOE?

 

[antmanb]

That's very true. Maybe make originality a bullet point for GOE?

When COP was first introduced wasn't there a discretionary point that could be awarded for something that was genuinely seen as unique? I don't know if it is still somewhere in there now.

 

[Deleted member 221]

Nothing kills uniqueness like codifying it and giving it points.

This is a fair point. I remember a time of wishing for arm variations… Classic be careful what you wish for.

Nothing will ever truly stop the code-maximization. Once per program limits, as with spin features, may help somewhat.

I am sad at how many elements CoP has effectively killed by assigning base value that virtually everyone would agree is too low relative to the actual difficulty.

ETA: I remember the discretionary innovation point, but I’m not sure it was ever awarded?

 

[Lanie]

I'm still all down for requiring a Level 1 or Level 2 spin so we can see some nice camels and laybacks again without all the contortions

 

[Maximillian]

I remember back in the day that gymnastics put a two gymnast per country cap on particular types of mounts/dismounts. I don't remember the details, granted this was back when there were six/seven on a team in gymnastics, but I can't help but wonder if a 'per country' limit could be put on particular elements, essentially if one athlete at an ISU/Grand Prix/Challenger has a particular variation, others from the same country cannot have it. I realize this might be difficult to oversee, but something like Champs Camp or monitoring could bring this about and for smaller countries it would be a non-issue.

 

[gkelly]

The problem with the COP doing anything like that means if it gets more points, most of the field are going to work on doing it to the point that it is no longer unique, but generally likely to end up in messier looking jumps. Or at some point so many people start doing it that it no longer seems worthwhile differentiating between the original a new creations so it has to be rebalanced back.

Very true.

That's very true. Maybe make originality a bullet point for GOE?

It already is, more or less.

For spins, step sequences, and choreographic sequences, for both singles and pairs, the wording is "creativity and/or originality." For choreo sequences, it's the first list of the mandatory bullet points.

For jumps, there's no bullet point for originality per se, but there is one worded "steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry." So if a skater really does have an original way of getting onto the correct takeoff edge, that's where it could be rewarded.

There used to be a bullet point for "Varied position in the air / delay in rotation" but we rarely saw variations other than one or both arms overhead and so many skaters were using those so often that people got tired of them and they weren't especially difficult compared to other variations that skaters could have been using but never did. Instead now there's "very good body position from take-off to landing." That could be just excellent execution of standard body positions, or creative positions could be rewarded there too as long as they execution is very good.

There was also a bullet point for "Good extension on landing / creative exit." That could also be rewarded under the current "very good body position" bullet if done well as well as being creative. Or not, since the previous wording didn't require originality.

If someone does original landings or original air positions that enhance the jumps by being fun/interesting/creative but don't quite meet the standard of being very good quality, I guess they could be rewarded in the Composition score but not in the GOE.

ETA: I remember the discretionary innovation point, but I’m not sure it was ever awarded?

I don't recall it ever being awarded internationally.

I suspect the original intention of that point was to reward anyone who invented a totally new kind of skating move, e.g., something that wasn't in the Scale of Values at all because it wasn't a standard move when the SoV was compiled. But IJS came too far into the history of the sport for that to be likely.

Instead, when skaters did variations on spin positions, lift positions, etc. that might have slightly different inflections from anything that tech panel had ever seen before, the panel might discuss whether they should award the bullet point, and if so probably decided it was really just a variation on a variation they had already seen, not a brand new move, and therefore not worthy of the bonus.

But the guidelines weren't spelled out clearly so it was too subjective and dependent on the particular panel and what they had seen from other skaters in the past.

And then of course if a new move or new variation was awarded the first time a panel saw it, what would happen at the next competition when the same skater did it again, or when other skaters realized they could learn the same thing and add it to their programs?

 

[VGThuy]

I remember back in the day that gymnastics put a two gymnast per country cap on particular types of mounts/dismounts. I don't remember the details, granted this was back when there were six/seven on a team in gymnastics, but I can't help but wonder if a 'per country' limit could be put on particular elements, essentially if one athlete at an ISU/Grand Prix/Challenger has a particular variation, others from the same country cannot have it. I realize this might be difficult to oversee, but something like Champs Camp or monitoring could bring this about and for smaller countries it would be a non-issue.

Wait, there was actually a two person per team cap on what kind of elements a team could present?

 

[Maximillian]

Wait, there was actually a two person per team cap on what kind of elements a team could present?

I believe it was only the mount or dismount on UB or BB, back in the 1980s (I think).

 

[danafan]

I believe it was only the mount or dismount on UB or BB, back in the 1980s (I think).

I believe it was earlier than that, like the 60s and 70s. I remember reading about this is a gymnastics book in my high school library and I believe it was published in the late 70s. It was definitely not a rule when I started following gymnastics heavily in the mid 1980s. I'm curious though and want to do more research on it.

 

[Marco]

I don't recall it ever being awarded internationally.

I suspect the original intention of that point was to reward anyone who invented a totally new kind of skating move, e.g., something that wasn't in the Scale of Values at all because it wasn't a standard move when the SoV was compiled. But IJS came too far into the history of the sport for that to be likely.

Instead, when skaters did variations on spin positions, lift positions, etc. that might have slightly different inflections from anything that tech panel had ever seen before, the panel might discuss whether they should award the bullet point, and if so probably decided it was really just a variation on a variation they had already seen, not a brand new move, and therefore not worthy of the bonus.

I remember an Australian skater was awarded that point back in the days for a catchfoot spin in a domestic competition. It made the news. This is as much as I remember about that innovation bonus being rewarded.

 

[Marco]

This is a fair point. I remember a time of wishing for arm variations… Classic be careful what you wish for.

And the problem wasn't just because it became common, but that it became BAD.

First Boitano and (much later) Rippon would do it with their arm(s) straight up; and then it evolved into the Russian women who did it with bent arms. Tuktamysheva's was bad enough, but Sotskova's was the absolute worst.

Back in 1988 Ito would do doubles with her hands on her waist / Kerrigan would do hers on her ears; and Boitano would land 3sals with arms crossed. I miss these kinds of arm variations.

 

[melanieg]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.

My question is, if you want to even the playing field and allow for more variety, ok, but isn’t that also “taking away” from the 3-3 in a way that discourages striving for a 3-3 (and a really good one with speed and flow, etc.)?

 

[tony]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.

My question is, if you want to even the playing field and allow for more variety, ok, but isn’t that also “taking away” from the 3-3 in a way that discourages striving for a 3-3 (and a really good one with speed and flow, etc.)?

3Lz+3T+2T is worth 11.4, with the bonus it would be worth 12.54
3Lz+2A+2A is worth 12.5, with the bonus it would be worth 13.75

I don't necessarily think it's that easy for skaters to tack on two double Axels and make it 'look pretty good', especially later in the performance. It's still a risk to have that third jump coming directly out of the second, and the forward take-off at that. If you're doing just a 3Lz+2A, then the base value is 9.2 and quite a bit below the 3Lz+3T.

Why can't ambitious skaters just strive for both 3Lz+3T and 3Lz+2A+2A, or similar?

 

[bladesofgorey]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.

My question is, if you want to even the playing field and allow for more variety, ok, but isn’t that also “taking away” from the 3-3 in a way that discourages striving for a 3-3 (and a really good one with speed and flow, etc.)?

A single axel after a single or double lutz isn't all that difficult for novice level skaters. But a decent double axel after a triple lutz with good flow is actually pretty difficult. Heck, we see high level senior skaters miss their double axels in isolation regularly when their timing gets off on the axel edge.

 

[SkateFanBerlin]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.

My question is, if you want to even the playing field and allow for more variety, ok, but isn’t that also “taking away” from the 3-3 in a way that discourages striving for a 3-3 (and a really good one with speed and flow, etc.)?

I've been thinking about this too. 3-3s are getting less common.. should 2a be lowered? Also a goe question. I hate those 3-2-2s where they make a little circle.

 

[Mafke]

I do feel like loops on the end of combinations are exceptionally tricky and prone to error

So under COP Karyn Cadavy's 3lp-2lp gets as many points as Midori Ito's 2lp-3lp.... fair?

 

[tony]

So under COP Karyn Cadavy's 3lp-2lp gets as many points as Midori Ito's 2lp-3lp.... fair?

There have been discussions since the beginning of IJS whether this is fair or if there should be some kind of multiplier on the second (and/or third) jumps in a combination.

But then, do you give the multiplier to every single jump that happens second (and/or third) In the combination? Only triples? What multiplier?

A 3Lo+2Lo with a 1.1 bonus on the 2Lo would have a base of 6.77. A 2Lo+3Lo with the 1.1 bonus on the 3Lo would be 7.09. That's really not a significant difference.

 

[Lutzes&Loops]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with.

My question is, if you want to even the playing field and allow for more variety, ok, but isn’t that also “taking away” from the 3-3 in a way that discourages striving for a 3-3 (and a really good one with speed and flow, etc.)?

I agree that more difficult combos should be worth more. Doing +2A's seq is infinitely easier than +3T combos, so from the jump value perspective, I think the combo vs seq value needs to be revised.

I see fewer novices/juniors in the US going for the +3T combos, instead opting to tack on 2A's to a triple in the second half to earn more points. A lot of them can't do a well-executed triple-triple and the current scoring system is not incentivizing them to work on it.

One idea could be limiting seq to + one 2A only, then you have variety and difficulty...

 

[kwanfan1818]

How many are leaving out 3/3's altogether, vs. being able to use the sequence to repeat two higher-value jumps instead of two 3/3T's, where the 3T takes up one of the Zayak rule triples?

 

[gkelly]

Reviving this thread. Seeing this rule playing out for a while now, I’m curious what others think about this question: 1) shouldn’t the harder, actual combos be worth more (BV) now that seq combos are allowed? Putting a 3Lz2A2A in the second half gets a bonus, plus GOEs as long as there’s no mess-up — we’re talking 15 points or something like that. But a well executed 3-3 (lz toe or lz loop) is so much more difficult to do well, esp in the second half. You can’t even compare the degree of difficulty. Most US Novices and even intermediates can do a lutz and put a couple axels on the end of it and make it look pretty good. Not so for the 3-3, which many US seniors struggle with

Are you talking about 3Lz and 2A? Maybe "most" of the top 20 novice men or women in the US, and a handful of lower ranked, could do that sequence -- making it look good is another question.

A single axel after a single or double lutz isn't all that difficult for novice level skaters.

Yes, if you're talking about 2Lz and 1A, then yes, most novices and many intermediates could do that and make it look good.

There are hundreds of girls competing at these levels in the US. Most of them do not have any triples and many do not have double axels at all. If you're only watching the elite competitors who make it to Sectionals and beyond, you won't get a good sense of what "most" novices or intermediates can do.

But a decent double axel after a triple lutz with good flow is actually pretty difficult. Heck, we see high level senior skaters miss their double axels in isolation regularly when their timing gets off on the axel edge.

It's also really risky to plan both axels in a program at the end of a sequence that begins with a triple. What if you miss the triple and can't add either axel at all, not even a single? If you don't execute any axel in the program, you will get 0 points for your last jumping pass because an axel is required.

I agree that more difficult combos should be worth more. Doing +2A's seq is infinitely easier than +3T combos, so from the jump value perspective, I think the combo vs seq value needs to be revised.

I see fewer novices/juniors in the US going for the +3T combos, instead opting to tack on 2A's to a triple in the second half to earn more points. A lot of them can't do a well-executed triple-triple and the current scoring system is not incentivizing them to work on it.

One idea could be limiting seq to + one 2A only, then you have variety and difficulty...

Within the US, novices currently can get a bonus of 1.0 for one triple-triple combination and/or one triple (or double axel)-single-triple combination.

Intermediates can get the bonus for one double-triple combination and/or one triple (or double axel)-single-triple combination.

So domestically, there are definitely more points to be had by putting a triple jump at the end of a combination. Assuming they can do so successfully.

 

[Coco]

So under COP Karyn Cadavy's 3lp-2lp gets as many points as Midori Ito's 2lp-3lp.... fair?

Does anything in the criteria for the + GOE allow for the judges to consider difficult of the jumps in a sequence / combination relative to each other and award the 2l-3l?

 

[gkelly]

Does anything in the criteria for the + GOE allow for the judges to consider difficult of the jumps in a sequence / combination relative to each other and award the 2l-3l?

Not officially.

The positive bullet points for jump elements are
1) very good height and very good length (of all jumps in a combo or sequence)
2) good take-off and landing
3) effortless throughout (including rhythm in jump combo or sequence)
4) steps before the jump, unexpected or creative entry
5) very good body position from take-off to landing
6) element matches the music

It is likely that a 2-3 combination will have a bigger double than a 3-2 combination. So if the triples are comparable, a judge might be more likely to award that first bullet point to the 2-3 combo.

 

[Lutzes&Loops]

Intermediates can get the bonus for one double-triple combination and/or one triple (or double axel)-single-triple combination.

So domestically, there are definitely more points to be had by putting a triple jump at the end of a combination. Assuming they can do so successfully.

(I am talking triples and primarily referencing the top girls competing at the junior level. )
My point is tacking on 2As is much easier to do than a +3T, so that's what these girls are opting for. The 1 point bonus doesn't offset the risk for them to put the +3T combos in the free program. And they don't put 2As in the last jumping pass, so in case of an error they can tack it on to a later jump.