How will the new sequence rules affect planned jump content?

[On My Own]

(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.

I agree with you. I've brought up before that 2A+3T and 3T+2A get the same credit, when 2A+3T is in fact harder than 3T+2A. I agree that 3Lz+3T is much harder than 3Lz+2A, yet there's nothing but the BV of 3T vs 2A separating those two combos.

I would assume 3Lz+2A+2A is slightly harder than 3Lz+3T, but not that much.

I don't think it'd be that difficult to gather a bunch of jump coaches, determine the difficulty ranking of all jump combos that can be currently performed, come up with a BV for each, and enter those into a database so that the tech panel can call them in real time.

 

[Marco]

In the grand scheme of things, for the sake of variety, I am OK with axel sequences being worth the sum of the individual jumps involved, just like combos. For me this makes more sense than discounting the entire sequence by 20% and gives skaters more path to achieving 7 triples and 2 2axels with full base values. I see this as ISU's small, regular attempts in pushing for technical precision and comprehensiveness during different eras (i.e. using different levels of edge calls, rotation calls, GOEs to emphasize jump quality focus; encouraging euler-3sal combos a few seasons ago; discouraging overuse of tano arms and forbidding unreasonable backloading and over-repeating of difficult spin positions <Biellmann / donut code-whoring>; and now encouraging 2axel sequences etc). Too bad they didn't go through with the proposed ding on pre-rotation and toe-pick-less toe jumps - I hope they would revisit this soon. Next I hope they bring in some rule to encourage / reward jump variety (so many top guys these days are attempting quads and skipping an entire type, or two, of jump takeoff altogether which isn't good for the sport in the long run).

I do agree that sooner or later they need to (not that they will - it's been 20 years) find a proper way to reflect the difference in difficulty between 3loop3toe vs 3toe3loop, and between 2axel3toe and 3toe-2axel, for instance.

 

[zebobes]

One way that to differentiate the difference in combinations is for the final jump to receive a percentage bonus. That way, if you end with a more difficult jump, in combinations such as 3loop3toe vs 3toe3loop, the one with the more difficult jump at the end of the combination would get a higher score. The only thing is the point differences would be miniscule, 9.52 vs. 9.57 for the above combinations. For 3t2a and 2a3t, the point difference would be slightly bigger, 7.83 vs. 7.92. It might make a bigger difference in encouraging 4t as a second jump of combinations as that would make a significant difference in base value. A 3t4t combination would then be 14.65, while a 4t3t would be 14.12. I don't know if half point difference would be enough to encourage such a difficult combination... but maybe people would feel it's fairer?

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

I am OK with axel sequences being worth the sum of the individual jumps

I can’t believe that happen. I’m bored to tears with it. This is one of the only times I want to get Meagan Duhamel on speed dial.

and whats with this sea of single axles I see in every competition so far?

I want triple lutzes into triple loops lol and I want Mia to come to seniors so I can see the new quad technique she has.

I also wouldn’t mind another Kahlúa.

 

[On My Own]

Next I hope they bring in some rule to encourage / reward jump variety (so many top guys these days are attempting quads and skipping an entire type, or two, of jump takeoff altogether which isn't good for the sport in the long run).

I don't see any reason to encourage "jump variety" of this kind, and definitely don't see why it wouldn't be good for the sport in the long run. Most skaters do jumps they are good at and no one skater is good at all types of jumps. They shouldn't be compelled to put in jumps they aren't very good at just for the sake of an additional bonus. It will end up hurting the overall look of the program, which then most judges won't even deduct on GOE or PCS.

In the grand scheme of things, for the sake of variety, I am OK with axel sequences being worth the sum of the individual jumps involved, just like combos.

What is the 'variety' you're getting with axel sequences currently?

 

[melanieg]

In the grand scheme of things, for the sake of variety, I am OK with axel sequences being worth the sum of the individual jumps involved, just like combos. For me this makes more sense than discounting the entire sequence by 20% and gives skaters more path to achieving 7 triples and 2 2axels with full base values. I see this as ISU's small, regular attempts in pushing for technical precision and comprehensiveness during different eras (i.e. using different levels of edge calls, rotation calls, GOEs to emphasize jump quality focus; encouraging euler-3sal combos a few seasons ago; discouraging overuse of tano arms and forbidding unreasonable backloading and over-repeating of difficult spin positions <Biellmann / donut code-whoring>; and now encouraging 2axel sequences etc). Too bad they didn't go through with the proposed ding on pre-rotation and toe-pick-less toe jumps - I hope they would revisit this soon. Next I hope they bring in some rule to encourage / reward jump variety (so many top guys these days are attempting quads and skipping an entire type, or two, of jump takeoff altogether which isn't good for the sport in the long run).

I do agree that sooner or later they need to (not that they will - it's been 20 years) find a proper way to reflect the difference in difficulty between 3loop3toe vs 3toe3loop, and between 2axel3toe and 3toe-2axel, for instance.

In the grand scheme of things, for the sake of variety, I am OK with axel sequences being worth the sum of the individual jumps involved, just like combos. For me this makes more sense than discounting the entire sequence by 20% and gives skaters more path to achieving 7 triples and 2 2axels with full base values. I see this as ISU's small, regular attempts in pushing for technical precision and comprehensiveness during different eras (i.e. using different levels of edge calls, rotation calls, GOEs to emphasize jump quality focus; encouraging euler-3sal combos a few seasons ago; discouraging overuse of tano arms and forbidding unreasonable backloading and over-repeating of difficult spin positions <Biellmann / donut code-whoring>; and now encouraging 2axel sequences etc). Too bad they didn't go through with the proposed ding on pre-rotation and toe-pick-less toe jumps - I hope they would revisit this soon. Next I hope they bring in some rule to encourage / reward jump variety (so many top guys these days are attempting quads and skipping an entire type, or two, of jump takeoff altogether which isn't good for the sport in the long run).

I do agree that sooner or later they need to (not that they will - it's been 20 years) find a proper way to reflect the difference in difficulty between 3loop3toe vs 3toe3loop, and between 2axel3toe and 3toe-2axel, for instance.

Agree. But already, the calling of flutzes and i’s or e’s on flips is inconsistent and often seems to be based on whether they choose to “see” it or not. I’m afraid calling pre-ro and pick vs edge would turn into the same thing.

 

[Marco]

Agree. But already, the calling of flutzes and i’s or e’s on flips is inconsistent and often seems to be based on whether they choose to “see” it or not. I’m afraid calling pre-ro and pick vs edge would turn into the same thing.

Yes. The sentiment is good, but fair execution is another thing. Alas it is what it is for a judged sport. It is hardly an IJS-only thing.

 

[Marco]

I don't see any reason to encourage "jump variety" of this kind, and definitely don't see why it wouldn't be good for the sport in the long run. Most skaters do jumps they are good at and no one skater is good at all types of jumps. They shouldn't be compelled to put in jumps they aren't very good at just for the sake of an additional bonus. It will end up hurting the overall look of the program, which then most judges won't even deduct on GOE or PCS.

Skaters who can demosntrate correct technique on all 6 types of takeoffs (let's say 2+ revs) should be rewarded (vs those who don't / can't). Those who have a weak jump can decide whether it is worthwhile to work on that weak jump for comprehensiveness and a bonus or to skip it altogether for cleaniness but also lose the bonus. The ISU mandated an axel takeoff in a competitive program for 40(?) odd years for a reason. If the forward edge takeoff is considered so skillful that it should be mandated for competitions then it makes sense that it is somewhat mirrored for the other takeoffs too.

For decades, people tried to explain why Oksana beat Nancy by saying Oksana at least rotated five types of triples vs Nancy's four, despite some obvious 2-foots by Oksana. So I suppose jump variety does matter (esp when it is close).

 

[Marco]

One way that to differentiate the difference in combinations is for the final jump to receive a percentage bonus. That way, if you end with a more difficult jump, in combinations such as 3loop3toe vs 3toe3loop, the one with the more difficult jump at the end of the combination would get a higher score. The only thing is the point differences would be miniscule, 9.52 vs. 9.57 for the above combinations. For 3t2a and 2a3t, the point difference would be slightly bigger, 7.83 vs. 7.92. It might make a bigger difference in encouraging 4t as a second jump of combinations as that would make a significant difference in base value. A 3t4t combination would then be 14.65, while a 4t3t would be 14.12. I don't know if half point difference would be enough to encourage such a difficult combination... but maybe people would feel it's fairer?

Well maybe the percentage bonus can be made higher? Say 10% for the first jump of a combo, and 50% for the second jump of a combo? And then 10% for the first jump of a sequence and 20% for the second jump of a sequence? [totally random but you get the point...]

 

[On My Own]

Skaters who can demosntrate correct technique on all 6 types of takeoffs (let's say 2+ revs) should be rewarded (vs those who don't / can't).

Why？

In the long program? What if someone does all 6 types across both programs?

The ISU mandated an axel takeoff in a competitive program for 40(?) odd years for a reason. If the forward edge takeoff is considered so skillful that it should be mandated for competitions then it makes sense that it is somewhat mirrored for the other takeoffs too.

How does this at all follow?

The 2A is considered a rite of passage for most elite skaters. What exactly is the reason to demonstrate such mastery for the other jump types?

For decades, people tried to explain why Oksana beat Nancy by saying Oksana at least rotated five types of triples vs Nancy's four, despite some obvious 2-foots by Oksana. So I suppose jump variety does matter (esp when it is close).

Why does it matter if "people" tried to explain it this way?

Is the jump type the main takeaway there, or the equivalent of "base value" in that era?

 

[Coco]

I think a long backwards outside edge should be required for the lutz. Long = a full second or a 4m glide. If this doesn't happen, it's basically not worth .6 more in base value from a flip.

 

[On My Own]

I think a long backwards outside edge should be required for the lutz. Long = a full second or a 4m glide. If this doesn't happen, it's basically not worth .6 more in base value from a flip.

Literally why?

 

[VGThuy]

I think a long backwards outside edge should be required for the lutz. Long = a full second or a 4m glide. If this doesn't happen, it's basically not worth .6 more in base value from a flip.

Agreed. Many skaters utilizing the short entrance Lutz technique don’t have the counter-rotation at take-off that justifies it being the most difficult backwards-launching jump and getting scored as such. Of course, one could have a long glide into it that also doesn’t have that counter-rotation but I’d love see them attempt to sustain an outside edge for a reasonable amount of time before launching.

 

[On My Own]

What is a "short lutz edge entrance"?

Can someone show me an example of a skater who held the outside edge for "a full second"?

 

[Private Citizen]

Wasn't there a proposal at the ISU Congress a few years back to merge the lutz and flip into one jump, much like the toe loop and toe walley were once merged? I agree with the above two posts re: requiring counter-rotation. Otherwise, revisit this ISU proposal.

I also agree with Marco that all six takeoffs should receive a bonus. Right now, two lutzes and two flips plus three other takeoffs outscores all six takeoffs. In the men's event, this can be especially problematic as some skaters repeat two of the same quad and two of the same triple, e.g., someone like Grassl having 2/3 short program passes and 4/7 free skate passes involve lutz takeoffs. Malinin has 3/7 takeoffs from the lutz position. The Eteri girls had 3 or 4 of 7 passes taking off from lutz/flip, too, right? (And sometimes 5/7 were lutz and flip combined.)

For starters, I'd be OK with:

1) Requiring all three short program jumps to have different takeoffs (which would stop Grassl from doing 4Lz and then 3Lz+3T; and which might stop Malinin from attempting a 4A in the short program as either the combo or the solo jump),

2) Limiting the free skate passes to a maximum of two of the same takeoff. Doing two quad lutzes would mean no triple lutz pass. 4A, 3A, 3A+3T would be illegal, but 4A, 3A, and 3Lz+3A would be legal since only two passes take off from the axel entrance.

I'd also be OK requiring all three combinations / sequences to have a different final jump -- 3Lz+3T and 2A+3T in the same program, for instance, would become illegal. In order for skaters to work in multiple triple-triple combinations, they'd need to also master ?+3Lo, ?+1eu+3S (ETA: or 3F), or ?+3A.

 

[On My Own]

So in this "six take offs rule". Does that mean a "short lutz edge entrance" is the same as a "flip", and therefore to really get that bonus, one skater would in fact have to hold that "glide" for "a full second" for it to count as a lutz?

Or is a "short edge lutz entrance" by definition a "lutz entrance", just that we are counting it as a flip in BV, but still giving it the bonus if the other 5 take offs are also present?

Very important question for me.

 

[tony]

Pairs skating has had the throw flip and Lutz at the same value for a very long time, maybe even since the beginning.

We all remember Joubert doing a severe outside edge on his flip back in the day, and the panel one time just sparing him and calling it a Lutz. Technically? Yes. Intended? No. These days, that’s (supposedly…) an e with a lesser start value and the double whammy of GOE reduction.

I’ve been in favor of just calling the executed jump for a long time now, but technical panels are wildly inconsistent as it is and that’ll never work. One thing it would do is make people work on their technique as to not get an entire jump voided via Zayak.

 

[Private Citizen]

So in this "six take offs rule". Does that mean a "short lutz edge entrance" is the same as a "flip", and therefore to really get that bonus, one skater would in fact have to hold that "glide" for "a full second" for it to count as a lutz?

I think those are separate points. You could do the six takeoffs bonus either with or without revisiting what's required to get the jump called a lutz.

 

[On My Own]

I think those are separate points. You could do the six takeoffs bonus either with or without revisiting what's required to get the jump called a lutz.

I'm still asking you the question. Which solution would you go for, since you agree on both things?

 

[Private Citizen]

I'm still asking you the question. Which solution would you go for?

I would go for the first solution: bonus for all six take-offs (with as-is standard for lutz and flip) immediately.

Changing the definition of lutz to require clear counterrotation is a bigger change. I think it would be fair to give at least 2-3 years' lead time for that change to allow skaters time to rework their technique.

 

[tony]

I just looked in my archive and found a post I made to my blog in March of 2013, just after Worlds concluded. Of course the scoring system back then was only -3 to +3 and '!' didn't exist. An 'e' didn't even result in that drastic of a points loss, as you'll read about.

As I mentioned in one of my first posts following the 2013 World Championships, I think the whole 'e' call for Lutzes and flips done on the opposite edges should be done away with, and skaters shouldn't receive any points for jumps they are likely doing for a third or even fourth time within one program.

Let's look at the ladies at the World Championship and see how many points they earned from jumps called 'e' in the free skate:

Mao Asada completed two triple flips and a Lutz (e) --- essentially three triple flips. The flutz earned her 5.30 additional points-- the same value as a base-value triple flip!

Zijun Li did the same as Asada: two flips, and a Lutz (e). Her flutz earned 5.70 points.

Gracie Gold did the opposite. Two triple Lutzes and a triple flip on the outside edge. She did the flip in combination with two double toes in the second half, and ended up with an average of -1 GOE, for 7.99 points overall.

Ashley Wagner completed two triple flips and a Lutz (e) in the second half of the program. It garnered GOE's just under base-value, and she came away with 6.30 points for the jump. Her clean triple flip at the end of the program earned 6.53 points, as a comparison. So you're telling me that when she actually does the same jump the correct way, it only earns 0.23 points more?!

Kanako Murakami did two flips and a Lutz (e), which earned her 5.80 points.

And we'll stop there. This is just for the top seven skaters in the free skate-- at the World Championship. Five of them can't do one of the two jumps right, yet are still averaging over 5.50 points for the jump they do completely incorrect (and for the third time). Ridiculous!

If I was competing at the highest level and had a flutz, I would surely put two of them later in my program (one in combination, of course) and hopefully only get -1 or so on the GOE. That's around 5.9 points for each attempt or 11.8 extra points for a jump that has essentially been done four times now.

A clean triple flip with +1 GOE scores just above that at a 6.0 before the half-way point and a 6.53 after.

A clean triple toe with +1 GOE, though, scores just 4.8 before the bonus and 5.21 after. The skater would likely have to get +2 GOE across the board for the 3T in the second half for it to earn .01 points more than the -1 GOE flutz in the second half.

What if I loved doing the loop or Salchow? If I attempt that jump a third time, I'm going to get 0 points. But it's fine to do a flip or Lutz for a third and fourth time and still earn nearly all of the base value.

I think this is insane. So many aspects of the IJS are about the skater planning wisely: whether to do most of the jumps in the second half, how many difficult jumps to attempt in the second half, how to get the maximum score out of seven jumping passes, how to get the highest levels and GOE's on spins and footwork, etc.

Why don't we just disallow flutzes and lips all together? Base the jump solely on the take-off edge. The technical panel has replays. If a skater thinks they are going to get around it and still get credit for a third jump on the same edge, then the jump receives 0 points just as repeating a toe loop, Salchow, or loop more than once would garner.

A lot of discussions over the last few years is to reward the skater who has a complete set of (clean) triples within a program with bonus points. Looking at the top 10 ladies at the World Championship, aside from the five I highlighted above, Kim doesn't attempt a loop and got called (e) for her flip in the short program; Kostner didn't have a successful loop in her free skate, Sotnikova gets Lutz (e) calls, and Osmond gets Lutz (e) calls. Only Elizaveta Tuktamysheva completed the five triples (not including Axel) successfully in her free skate, and she was only 8th in the portion.

These are the top 10 free skates at the World Championships we are talking about, and we can only find one lady who would earn the bonus!

I say scratch the idea of a bonus and again-- just don't allow a flip or Lutz jump to be done on the same edge more than twice.

I guarantee you that the skaters would either really work to correct the technique issues, or they would have to plan their programs based on what they actually can do.

So.. more of the same a decade later.

 

[On My Own]

Changing the definition of lutz to require clear counterrotation is a bigger change. I think it would be fair to give at least 2-3 years' lead time for that change to allow skaters time to rework their technique.

Could you give me an example of "clear counterrotation" versus "unclear counterrotation (but I'm guessing still on the outside edge on take off)"?

 

[Coco]

Maria Butyrskaya and Todd Eldridge are two skaters I can think of that had good counter rotation on their lutzes.

 

[On My Own]

Maria Butyrskaya and Todd Eldridge are two skaters I can think of that had good counter rotation on their lutzes.

Which skater has poor counterrotation on their lutz, despite being on an outside edge?

Because unfortunately, neither Butyrskaya nor Eldredge seems to perform their Lutz like this: https://m.facebook.com/cbccalgary/videos/donald-jackson-and-the-first-triple-lutz/718017721703170/

Or like Denise Biellmann used to either. Starting from a long back outside glide and then slowly deepening until they reach the final stretch of the jump, when they deepen it fully and pick in.

 

[VALuvsMKwan]

Maria Butyrskaya and Todd Eldridge are two skaters I can think of that had good counter rotation on their lutzes.

I believe that Tatiana Malinina (Ilia Malinin's mother) was often cited as having a "true" outside edge lutz - was it also known to exhibit good counter-rotation?

 

[On My Own]

By the way... I guess since lutz and lip are same, I would never train an actual lutz at all, nor would I ever try to learn a flip instead of lip. I would be doing a 3Lip combo and 3Lip, with added Goe for doing steps into the jump, because there's going to be a turn into the lip unlike with an actual lutz...

I don't really understand why a lip gets lower bv than a flip currently.

/s

 

[VGThuy]

I guess if you think about it, terms like “flutzes” and “lips” came about because we considered what the skater was attempting to do based on how they went into jump since it used to be easier to discern what jump a skater had intended to do as there used notable differences between the way a skater went into an intended Flip and an intended Lutz. Things got murkier as time went on and some skaters’ Flips and Lutzes started to look interchangeable. Then the transition-heavy era of IJS judging started and it got even murkier with some skaters.

No wonder @tony advocates just calling the jump by what is actually executed at take-off and not having the caller call a jump based on what is written on the program planned content list or figuring out what the skater’s intention was by using context clues of the skater’s body and blade movement preceding take-off. However, he also pointed out valid concerns over inconsistent and incompetent enforcement issues that will probably arise if we switched to calling a jump strictly by blade edge placement/curve at take-off.

 

[On My Own]

A lutz and lip aren't the same thing...

There's a reason why the lip is considered a base value deduction on the flip.

Because it's easier.

If you considered it a lutz, it would make it harder than a flip.

Should someone be advocating doing an incorrect flip and getting the BV of a Lutz for it?

You can figure out whether a skater was attempting a lutz or a flip most of the time, because there's usually a turn into a flip. A lutz is usually done off a backwards glide... So the TP isn't basing it on the planned program content...

Things got murkier as time went on and some skaters’ Flips and Lutzes started to look interchangeable. Then the transition-heavy era of IJS judging started and it got even murkier with some skaters.

If you remember a discussion from earlier in the year. I'd pointed out that Scott Hamilton used to do a VERY bad lip, back in 1984.

This was part of the discussion about how compulsory figures lead to good jump technique, and some 'compulsory figures gold medalist' attempted to tell me that I have 'no common sense' when I tried to ask which figure he was bad at that lead to this particular technique flaw (especially seeing he had won compulsory figures in 1984).

So when did 'some skaters' flips and lutzes' start to look 'interchangeable'? Earlier than 1984?

 

[CantALoop]

I believe that Tatiana Malinina (Ilia Malinin's mother) was often cited as having a "true" outside edge lutz - was it also known to exhibit good counter-rotation?

On that note, I think Tatiana Malinina had the clearest distinction between her flip and Lutz of any skater that I remember. I'm having trouble finding it, but I remember a video that showed her flip and Lutz side by side, and both had clear edges to the inside and outside, respectively. It might've been an early ISU IJS video that was used to demonstrate elements, program components, etc.

 

[Sylvia]

Here's a fun account to follow: https://www.instagram.com/the_real_triple_lutz/

Includes a slo-mo clip of Jozef Sabovčík's double walley : https://www.instagram.com/reel/CyRHrs_L6pY/