How will the new sequence rules affect planned jump content?

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,639
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.
 
D

Deleted member 221

Guest
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.
 

Seerek

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,728
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

 

AngieNikodinovLove

Already compiling PSOTY for next season 😝
Messages
10,602
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,639
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.
 

antmanb

Well-Known Member
Messages
12,639
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.
 
D

Deleted member 221

Guest
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. :shuffle:

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?
 

Maximillian

RIP TA
Messages
4,934
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,201
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
40,216
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?
 

danafan

Canadian ladies über
Messages
9,208
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,184
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

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,184
This is a fair point. I remember a time of wishing for arm variations… Classic be careful what you wish for. :shuffle:
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top
Do Not Sell My Personal Information