1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi all! No longer will threads be closed after 1000 (ish) messages. We may close if one gets so long to cause an issue and if you would like a thread closed to start a new one after a 1000 posts then just use the "Report Post" function. Enjoy!

No Quad? Fuggedaboutit.

Discussion in 'The Trash Can' started by Jun Y, Nov 4, 2010.

  1. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    I did a quick calculation. A fall in a fully rotated 4toe attempt is worth 6.3 (10.3-3.0-1.0), which is higher than an average 3Lutz (6.0). A fall in a fully rotated 3Axel attempt is worth 4.5 (8.5-3.0-1.0), which is higher than an average 3Salchow (4.2).

    To look at this from another angle, you can kill yourself to cram difficult entry, great speed of entering the jump, perfect air and landing positions, and significant distance covered, into a 3Lutz jump to get a +3 GOE, and this would amount to only 8.1 (6.0+2.1=8.1), which is less than a mediocre 3A (0 GOE) or a 4T with a hand down or stepping out (-2 GOE).

    To quad or not to quad? That is no longer a question. The risk is small, the reward is large, the calculation is simple.

    Meanwhile, a Level 3 step sequence (which most top-tier men get) perfectly executed with a +3 GOE will get you 3.3+1.5=4.8, which is about the same as a fall in a fully rotated 3A and far less than a fall in a fully rotated quad. (Of course, the ability to execute excellent step sequences is usually also reflected in higher PCS, but this benefit is hard to quantify and not always proportionally or reliably rewarded.)

    Is this fair? Is this appropriate? Is this good for the sport? I don't know. I'm not a technical specialist. What I think and how I feel about it is immaterial. Perhaps what matters is how the hundreds, if not thousands, of coaches who train teenagers day in and day out and face the decision of how much time a kid should spend on practicing 3A and 4T.
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  2. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Well, there aren't hundreds of coaches who have students capable of attempting 3A and 4T. How about dozens?

    But yeah, there are hundreds of coaches who have to prioritize their skaters working on harder triples vs. working on steps.
  3. Marco

    Marco Well-Known Member

    I am all for increasing the base value of 3axel and 4toe. But I don't like that at the same time they are reducing the value for GOEs.

    There're 2 ways to reward difficulty over quality.
  4. azurika

    azurika New Member

    [/QUOTE] Meanwhile, a Level 3 step sequence (which most top-tier men get) perfectly executed with a +3 GOE will get you 3.3+1.5=4.8, which is about the same as a fall in a fully rotated 3A and far less than a fall in a fully rotated quad. (Of course, the ability to execute excellent step sequences is usually also reflected in higher PCS, but this benefit is hard to quantify and not always proportionally or reliably rewarded.)

    Is this fair? Is this appropriate? Is this good for the sport? .[/QUOTE]

    I see what you are saying, but I don't think this is the right comparison to make. All skaters have the same program requirements (8 jumping passes for men, 2 step sequences, etc.). It's not like if someone is really good at step sequences but really bad at jumps they could decide to do 5 step sequences in their LP and only 3 jumping passes, that's not how IJS works. So, it doesn't make sense to compare the value of steps (or spins) to the value of jumps - instead we ought to be looking at each category (jumps, steps, spins) and what it takes to distinguish yourself WITHIN each one. Maybe the real issue here is that "most top-tier men" CAN get a level 3 SS, but only a few top-tier men have a quad? And if so, maybe the answer is to make it harder to get high levels on steps, rather than devaluing the quad?
  5. skateboy

    skateboy Well-Known Member

    I think it's fair AND appropriate. I'm amazed at how many posters scoff at the quad, consdiering how incredibly difficult it is. There are very few skaters on the planet that can pull it off. Many people act like it's just a triple with an extra rotation... a triple and a quad are not even in the same league.

    That said, I'm not one who believes in the quad over the other aspects of skating. No sense in going for a quad unless a skater can actually land it cleanly in practice, especially at the expense of a balanced program.
  6. mia joy

    mia joy Well-Known Member

    I don't think anyone believes it. It's just what people who bash against quads think of people defending them :rolleyes:

    I'm all for rewarding difficult jumps. The fact they weren't worth trying before was riddiculous. I really don't want another Lysacek. So, when the next guy wins his Olympic title in 2014, I hope he does it with a quad. Or two. Or more. Inside a properly balanced program, of course.
  7. briancoogaert

    briancoogaert Well-Known Member

    Well, a fall on a quad is not something innocuous. It breaks the program and the skater.
    So, it's not as if falling on a quad was better than landing a 3Lutz. Maths are Maths, but skaters are human. :)
    mag and (deleted member) like this.
  8. let`s talk

    let`s talk Banned Member

    If it's so profitable, why much fewer skaters tried a quad in Vancouver, comparing to 2002 OG?
  9. JerseySlore

    JerseySlore Active Member

  10. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    The profit for trying a quad is different in 2010-11 than it was in 2009-10. Jun is anticipating that under the new scale of values more skaters will be motivated to try.

    And in 2002 the penalties for underrotation were negligible compared to any version of IJS.

    Still, if you can't rotate it you can't rotate it. You may try for a while in practice to see if it seems feasible, but if you're not getting close and you are getting hurt, you stop trying.

    E.g., I don't think we're any more likely to see Rachael Flatt trying quads just because they have high base values than we are to see her trying Biellmanns.
  11. Jun Y

    Jun Y Well-Known Member

    ^ Yes, thanks. All I'm saying is, the rules have been jerking people around. One year, it's "you can win without quad," the next it's "anyone who can barely rotate the quad must use one of the jumping passes to try it."

    The world of figure skating does not comprise only a few top skaters who have a real chance for gold medals. There are dozens (hundreds?) of talented and promising young skaters around the world who are facing the choices of how to develop their competitive career. It affects training. It affects choreography. It affects skaters' decision to stick with the sport or give it up.

    Also, there are skaters who will never get on the podium at Worlds or Olympics but are on the brink of qualifying for national teams. The endless swings of the direction of the rules affect not only who becomes the Oly champ, Lysacek or Plushenko or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but also have a significant impact on the Ryan Jahnkes and Matt Savoies and Shawn Sawyers of the world --- on whether they get to have the Worlds or Olympics experience, which often means whether they get the (financial? mental? community's? federation's?) support to continue training, or not.
    Last edited: Nov 4, 2010
  12. bek

    bek Guest

    I'm all for making it so that there's a strong advantage to doing the quad, and its worth it. But I find the idea of getting 6.3 for a FALL on a quad to be ridiculous...It should be you get big points if you make the jump but you lose big points if you fall. Execution has to mean something, and I'm not convinced that GOE was really rewarding execution, because I think the best way to reward execution, is to penalize poor execution. And jump errors are NOT penalized enough in this system.

    In general though I agree that a huge point total for one jump also feels ridiculous. A part of me thinks the harder triples 3lutz, 3flip, and 3loop need to be worth more too (especially for the women).

    But I think the can find a way to reward the quad, and jumping difficulty by doing different things than handing out huge points for a fall.

    For example what about saying that a guy who does a quad combination, can do a 3toe or 3loop in combo with a quad, and also take on the same jump elsewhere while still keeping another triple..
    What about saying a guy can repeat one different quads and 2 different triples? This would be a way to allow the quad guys to rake up points versus others, but they'd have to do it in a way that involved more than just one jump. For example imagine if Joubert could be allowed to do
    Quad toe/3toe
    Quad toe

    He'd have right there a HUGE base value advantage over a quadless guy. And its not like that layout is so ridiculous. I seem to recall 2 quads and 2 3axels to be quite common back in the day.

    I think though that falling on a quad shouldn't get you more than 25% of the base value..
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 5, 2010
  13. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    My suggestion would be to use something like this year's base values and last year's negative GOEs for the big elements, so that there's -4.8 points off for -3 GOE on a 4T (with or without additional fall deduction as appropriate).

    Falls on underrotated or downgraded quads are already going to be worth a lot less. And I do think that a fall on a quad that was fully rotated should be worth more than a fall on an attempt that wasn't even close. But not more than a clean triple flip.
  14. chantilly

    chantilly Well-Known Member

    I think they should increase the deduction for a fall to 2pts. it is weird because I do believe that the landing is only half of the jump and the takeoff/air position is the other half. So I do kinda feel it should be rewarded somewhat if it is fully rotated. I also feel any Ur jumps less than a quarter should be counted. I though last year there was too much scrutiny with UR.
    But from what I heard about the quad is that it takes up to 50% training time which leave very little room for the rest of the program. So for me two quad passes should be it. I would hate to see it reduced to a bunch of guys trying to up the quad ante at the risk of short selling their programs and their bodies.
    Perhaps there should also be a mandatory reduction in components for falls like 1 pt for SS, execution. Perhaps there already is. I still have a hard wrapping my head around the scoring system. Particularly with the constant changes.
    But I have to admit it does bother me when someone can fall and win and someone doesn't fall and doesn't win.
    But I do think difficulty in entrances to jumps, variation in jumps makes the jump harder then just stroking. Argh. I would not want to be a judge.
  15. gkelly

    gkelly Well-Known Member

    Only falls on jumps? Should falls on spins and steps and in between elements remain at 1 point?

    Keep in mind that falls on double jumps (and downgraded triples, and most spins) already result in a net negative value, since the base value for the element minus the -3 GOE is less than 1, and then the fall deduction subtracts 1. This is already a problem at novice level and below, where most of the jumps are doubles. Maybe the fall deduction should be smaller at those levels.

    If the fall deduction were 2.0 per fall, that would mean that falling on the easier triple jumps would also have a negative net effect on the total score, and the negative effect of a fall on spins or steps or in-betweens would be even larger than it already is. But a fall on a quad would still be worth more than an OK triple flip.

    That's why I think the additional penalty for falling on a quad or triple axel should come out of the -GOE instead off the total program score.

    Which would mean that badly flawed quads without falls would only be penalized 1.0 less than quads with falls. But that's OK with me -- if they're badly flawed enough to deserve -3 GOE reduction, then they shouldn't be worth 7+ points even if rotated and remaining more or less upright. And if they're not that badly flawed, some of the judges will give -2 and they won't be penalized that much anyway.

    For the first year or so of the new judging system, before the fall deduction was introduced, there used to be a rule/guideline that judges should take 1 point off the Performance/Execution component for each fall. But they didn't do it consistently if at all. So instead the automatic fall deduction taken by the tech panel off the total program score was introduced.

    There are a couple of problems with automatically taking a certain amount off the component marks for each fall, especially if that set amount is as high as 1 whole point.

    *Not all falls are equivalent. Some are just up and down in 2 or 3 seconds and the skater is immediately right back into the program as if nothing happened. Some start with stumbling around and fighting for balance for several seconds before the skater loses the fight and goes down, and or take several seconds to recover from, during which the performance of the program virtually ceases. In pair and dance programs, often it takes a while for the partners reconnect if one kept skating while the other was on the ice.

    *What happens at lower levels, for example if a skater who only deserves 2.5 for that component on a good day ends up having a bad day and falls three times? The software won't allow a negative component score.

    *A skater who excels at most aspects of that component for all but 2-3 seconds for (each) fall out of a 2:50 or 4:00 or 4:30 program may still display more positive skill in that area over the whole course of the program than a skater who doesn't fall but who has persistent weaknesses in basic skating or carriage/body line or whatever, or who is also having a bad day and stumbling around and making sloppy mistakes, but who manages not to completely lose balance and fall all the way down. Judges need to have the flexibility to reflect that the former skater was better across the whole program at that component, despite the fall(s).

    Maybe component guidelines could be revised to give explicit advice on how to take falls into account without dictating exactly how much should be taken off. Some falls might not require reductions at all, some only 0.25, and some as much as 1.0 or more if they really disrupt the program for much longer than the time it takes to fall down and get up again.

    It only bothers me if the overall content and quality of the skating and performance is very similar, so that the fall should be the deciding factor. I.e., other things being equal.

    But other things are rarely exactly equal, and fall vs. no fall has never been an official deciding factor for freeskating or ice dance programs. In fact the rules have explicitly stated that a fall is not a bar to winning an event, under both judging systems.