Are senior ladies allowed to attempt quads in the sp?

[arakwafan2006]

People asking “ why”
Or “ that’s not fair “ as if we see so many of them in the free. I’m good with this though it’ll change unfortunately. Win with balanced skating!!!!

 

[Lchan]

Must admit that, since it is a sport, I struggle with justifying rules that limit the athletes to doing less than they can do. Higher faster stronger and all that jazz.

I could live with it if we were properly going back to the old short programs with specified jumps and entries. That would be justified because it's allowing the judges to directly compare one skater with another. But otherwise, let Trusova - or whoever - compete with the full range of skills that she has. And if it gives her a massive advantage, so what? If she's better than everyone else (as defined by the rules of the sport) she deserves the win. That's sport.

(Also - what's the justification for letting men do quads in the SP but not women?)

 

[Orm Irian]

Must admit that, since it is a sport, I struggle with justifying rules that limit the athletes to doing less than they can do. Higher faster stronger and all that jazz.

I think part of the justification is the state of the field. The short program is still the 'technical skills' program in a way; that's why there's still the requirement for the solo axel, which is marked out specially because it has a completely different entry from any other jump and is a marker of a particular skill. Quads have been a part of men's skating for long enough, and the techniques for learning it are developed enough, that a majority of male skaters at major championships are at least attempting one quad, if not more, in their free skates. It can be reasonably argued that quad jumps are part of the expected technical package of a championship-standard male skater, even if not all actually hit that mark at any given championship. Quads weren't added to the SP the minute Kurt Browning proved they were possible; they were added when the field advanced to the level that more than a tiny handful of people could do them consistently in the free skate, and they were starting to become more widespread.

In the women's field, the same happened with the triple axel when it started to look like more women were going to be landing it in the free - they adjusted the rules to bring triple axels into the short program too, and it's stayed in because it's aspirational (and we're starting to see that work now). But at the moment, there are two known juniors who've landed quads in their free skates, and one of those IIRC has only done so cleanly in domestic competition - they're not ISU ratified? So the field hasn't advanced to the point where quads can reasonably be described as part of the expected/desired technical arsenal of a majority of championship-level female skaters yet, or even a decent minority of them. Bringing them into the technical skills program, where the goal is to compare apples with apples, seems a trifle premature.

 

[gkelly]

Must admit that, since it is a sport, I struggle with justifying rules that limit the athletes to doing less than they can do. Higher faster stronger and all that jazz.

I could live with it if we were properly going back to the old short programs with specified jumps and entries. That would be justified because it's allowing the judges to directly compare one skater with another.

How did you feel about the 1989-94 ladies' short program rules, where they were required to do any (non-axel) double jump as the solo jump out of steps. Not a direct comparison of the same jump as up to 1988, because they had the choice of which double jump to include, but limiting because most of the top skaters were perfectly capable of doing two different triples in the combination and the solo jump.

And triple-triple combos weren't allowed in the ladies' SP until 1997, although some ladies had been performing them since the 1980s.

But otherwise, let Trusova - or whoever - compete with the full range of skills that she has.

She can, in the free skate.

If a man wants to (and can) do a quad-quad combination, he can include it in the freeskate but not the short program.

There are plenty of other elements that are allowed in the freeskate but not the short: flying combination spin, flying spin in one position with change of foot (or even any spin in one position with change of foot for the ladies; nonflying upright or layback spin with or without change of foot for men); three-jump combinations whether 3-3-3 or 4-3-3 for highest base values or 3 (or 4)-Euler-3 as an alternate option for ending combinations with salchow or flip; any kind of jump sequence. Or triple axel in combination or sequence -- the combination is allowed in the SP but it would be at the expense of requiring a double axel instead of a triple as the required solo axel.

All these skills can add variety and also give base value advantages, small in some cases significant in others, to skaters who can include them in freeskates. But they can't take advantages of those extra points in the short program. Quads in a discipline where hardly any competitor has ever done them in freeskates is one other example.

There are more pairs who have done quad twists or throws in freeskates than ladies who have done quad jumps. But those aren't allowed in pair SPs (yet?) either.

 

[Lchan]

Hmm. Interesting. I don't disagree, you know. If it is a true strict technical programme, I understand that there is a very good reason for limiting the very top few skaters to what the "average elite" skater can do. (Apologies for using the word "average" when anyone skating nationally and internationally is so far above average!)

But if the skaters are being allowed to pick and choose what they put into the short program (admittedly, from a list of required elements), it does seem to me that it is artificially limiting to say that the skater can't include their "best"/highest tariff skills. If they're allowed to pick a higher scoring double or triple jump and/or combo than their competitors, I guess I'm not seeing what's so very different about including a quad or quad combo?

I think I'd say that the judging system for the SP should either be based on who does a prescribed set of elements best OR should be based on who puts out the most difficult program. But a mix of the two systems seems arbitrary to me.

Anyway, thanks for making me think hard about this! It's probably for the best that I'm not going to be making any rules!

(@gkelly I've only been watching since '94 so pre-'94 rules aren't something I know too much about - but, yes, this issue puzzled me in the past too. )

 

[gkelly]

(@gkelly I've only been watching since '94 so pre-'94 rules aren't something I know too much about - but, yes, this issue puzzled me in the past too. )

Also at that time, BTW, the difference between what men and women were required/allowed to do in the SP was even bigger than it is now.

Men were required to do at least two triples in the SP, and allowed to do three if they could do a 3-3 combination.

Women were not required to do any triples -- 2-2 combination was still permissible at least for most of that time. At most they were allowed to do one.

And men were not allowed to do quads in their SP until 1999, although a handful of men had included attempts, some close to clean, during the 1980s, and more in the early 90s. Not to mention Surya Bonaly's attempts.

The spiral sequence was introducted to the ladies' SP in 1989 season, as was the mandatory layback, thus requiring female skaters to work on their flexibility or suffer in comparison to more flexible competitors. Men had a second step sequence and a change-foot spin with requirements that kept changing every two years until finally settling into required camel or sit position with one change of foot from 1995 season until now.

Clearly, what was required/allowed in short programs once the rotating very specific element requirements were eliminated after 1988 was not geared toward allowing the best jumpers to include all their hardest tricks in the SP, but rather to allow maximum content that more than one or two skaters were already including regularly in the freeskate, and also to allow minimum requirements at the lower end that average, as opposed to elite, skaters at that level (senior or junior) could be expected to attempt.

As the jump content in the freeskates has risen, so has the required or allowed content in the short programs. Exactly how many years it would take for something to be allowed in the SP after it had first been seen in the freeskate varies a bit, but in general it would be when several top skaters had already showed mastery of the skill, not just one or two outliers.

I was surprised the ISU allowed the solo axel in the ladies' SP to be triple starting ca. 2011, since only Mao Asada (and Yukari Nakano, who was retiring) had attempted it recently. However, it had been 20 years since Ito and Harding.

 

[Coco]

So what is the current purpose of the SP in singles? A broad filter to narrow the field for the FS and slot people into appropriate groups so the judges will have an easier time comparing them head to head, but without letting anyone build up too much of a lead?

If there are any limitations on the difficulty of the elements, they might as well go 'whole hog' and really limit them.

Require that one of the jumps in combination must be an edge jump, and make the flying spin either sit or camel but basic position only, 8 revs required.

 

[VGThuy]

I think they need to do something. Between the SP and LP these days, things feel redundant.

 

[Orm Irian]

So what is the current purpose of the SP in singles? A broad filter to narrow the field for the FS and slot people into appropriate groups so the judges will have an easier time comparing them head to head, but without letting anyone build up too much of a lead?

To me, it's to establish that all skaters in a given competition can demonstrate mastery of a specific and clearly-defined list of minimum-to-maximum technical skills appropriate for that level of competition, and to rank them according to their execution of those skills in the context of a performance.

 

[Dobre]

So what is the current purpose of the SP in singles? A broad filter to narrow the field for the FS and slot people into appropriate groups so the judges will have an easier time comparing them head to head, but without letting anyone build up too much of a lead?

I'll just leave this here . . .
http://www.isuresults.com/results/season1516/wjc2016/CAT001RS.HTM

 

[antmanb]

three-jump combinations whether 3-3-3 or 4-3-3 for highest base values or 3 (or 4)-Euler-3 as an alternate option for ending combinations with salchow or flip;

That has just reminded me that since the days of Plush vs Yags they were the ones that were pushing the three jump combinations like 4T/3T/3Lp but I always assumed that since IJS doesn't give any benefit to doing the jumps in combination as opposed to isolation that such a big risky combination was never worth it unless you needed to free up space in later jumping passes for content. Now that the men have one jumping pass less I wonder if it makes these big combinations or even a Kevin Van de Perren style 3/3/3 worth it?

I do wonder why Hanyu decided 4T/3A sequence is worth it given the penalty for doing sequences, when he's perfectly capable of doing combinations where possible to keep his BV up.

 

[B.Cooper]

I suspect the quad is coming for the ladies. Posted earlier this week, by Sasha Trusova, just in case you all missed this....Alexandra Trusova with 4lutz-3loop https://www.instagram.com/p/BqkV1ijCQUc/?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet

If I am not mistaken, the Olympic motto is "Faster, Higher, Stronger"....its only a matter of time before the ISU reviews the allowance of quads in the SP for the ladies.....