What would happen if the 10% bonus were eliminated?

[missing]

Presumably there's be less backloading of jumps, but would that make for genuine esthetic improvement?

And would results be actually changed? The 10% bonus clearly benefits jumpers, but would their scores lower in any significant manner?

Would a transitional compromise of eliminating the bonus for jumps that aren't landed make any difference?

Would training be affected? Would skaters feel less of a need to build endurance?

How important is that seemingly minor rule change?

 

[MAXSwagg]

It wouldn't matter. Judges should take program construction into account with choreography, even performance and interpretation. But they don't. They didn't with front-loading and they don't with back-loading. Judges don't care. They don't care about meaningful transitions, they don't care about properly rewarding quality...most of them just don't care Just look now. All the "top" skaters are bunched up in the components, so close to where it doesn't even matter. Most of those skaters have only "average" to "good" competency in those components (skating skills, for example). By the ISU's own definitions "average" to "good" should be around 7-7.25. But those skaters get 8.5 or 8.75, which is "very good" or "excellent." It's the same with GOE and eliminating the bonus won't do squat.

 

[briancoogaert]

ITA. It should be refkected in PCS and it's not.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

Much as I admire the Russian Beanie Babies, skaters like Marin Honda, Wakaba Higushi, Mai Mihara, and Rika Kihara would be more fairly recognised for their beautifully constructed programs and excellent skating skills.

 

[skateboy]

I agree with the 10% bonus in the long... pulling off jumps in the second half of a four and a half minute program is extremely difficult and requires great athleticism and skill.

But it seems silly and pointless for the short program.

 

[barbarafan]

Much as I admire the Russian Beanie Babies, skaters like Marin Honda, Wakaba Higushi, Mai Mihara, and Rika Kihara would be more fairly recognised for their beautifully constructed programs and excellent skating skills.

I think there should be a limit of up to half of the number of jump passes rounding up in first half to make better looking programs. ie if you are allowed 7 jumping passes in a program you can only get the 10% on 3 of them. In the short 10% on 1 pass.

 

[gkelly]

I think there are two completely separate issues with the bonus.

Stamina
This is pretty cut and dried. It's harder to rotate and land jumps (or perform other taxing and precise moves) on tired legs, so it's appropriate to reward this ability in the technical score, regardless of who's doing it or how well it supports the artistic side of the program.

The exact nature of the bonus could be adjusted if there's a good reason: e.g., the bonus could apply to all elements after the halfway point not just jumps; the bonus period could start at 2:00 for all junior and senior programs, which will be the halfway point for freeskates if the men's and pairs' freeskate times are lowered to 4:00 as proposed and would push the bonus until later (probably last one or two elements) for short programs; there could be a smaller bonus starting at 2:00 and a larger one starting at 3:00 for free programs; etc.

Whatever the details, skaters will figure out the optimum program construction to take advantage of whatever bonus is available, given their own technical abilities and fitness levels. So we will see many examples of the most advantageous layouts.

Choreographic effectiveness
This is much more subjective. Each judge and each skating fan may have different opinions about how important, as a general rule, temporal layout of the elements in the program is to aesthetic enjoyment of the programs. There will also be different opinions about whether any given skater's choreography made effective use of the element layout:

Does the element placement follow the natural flow and build of the music as edited?
Does it tell a literal or emotional or abstract story or support some sort of theme?
Is the layout unusual in a way that shows originality?
Does the program feel unbalanced, with too many of the exciting moves in one part of the program and what appears to be filler in other parts?
Is the ending anticlimactic?
Does the element layout appear to have any choreographic purpose, or does it just appear to be structured to take advantage of maximizing the ability to execute difficult moves with fresh muscles and to take advantage of bonus points if any?

Every program will have different answers to those questions, even those with the exact same elements placed at the exact same time markers. So I don't think there's any way to legislate exactly how to reflect the program construction in the PCS.

The way the Composition component criteria are currently written, temporal element placement would be only one part of the "Phrasing and form" bullet point, which is specifically related to the music. Some judges and fans might remember and still apply the old "Proportion (equal weight of all parts)" criterion that is no longer in the rules and want to penalize programs that appear top heavy or bottom heavy or empty in the middle.

My sense is that extreme backloading is still very unusual (because very few skaters have the stamina to accomplish land many difficult jumps late in the program) and therefore shows originality, which could be rewarded in the CO component especially if the program structure also supports the other choreographic questions. If backloading becomes more and more common, it will be less unusual and lose all sense of originality, so that wouldn't be a reason for rewarding it.

The other choreography-related questions would still apply.


I don't think that any specific strategy for jump placement should automatically be penalized or automatically be rewarded in the PCS. It should depend on how this program was choreographed, and how the skater delivered it in this performance.

The athletic fitness reward (TES bonus) can be automatic.

 

[Foolhardy Ham Lint]

For now, to make the playing field more even, maybe each skater can do short track sprints from one end of the rink to the other for two minutes straight. Then cram in as many elements as possible for the remaining two minutes.

 

[topaz]

I don't have a problem with the 10% bonus. Those who have the stamina to do the jumps in the 2nd half should get rewarded. Now if the judges/isu do not want programs with 80% to 100% of the jumps in the 2nd half then they could enter a rule of 2 jumps or 3 jumps in the first 2 1/2 minutes.

Now if it was easy all the skaters would be doing 80% to 100% of jumps in the 2nd half for the bonus and right now that is not happened. I agree with gkelly...

Whatever the details, skaters will figure out the optimum program construction to take advantage of whatever bonus is available, given their own technical abilities and fitness levels. So we will see many examples of the most advantageous layouts.

 

[AngieNikodinovLove (ANL)]

Someone mentioned the other day to do the 10% bonus instead for fully rotated jumps.

Let me think about it. Thought about it. I like that instead.

 

[Seerek]

Whatever the details, skaters will figure out the optimum program construction to take advantage of whatever bonus is available, given their own technical abilities and fitness levels. So we will see many examples of the most advantageous layouts.

Which does beg the question whether there were noted examples in the 6.0 era where a singles/pairs skater's marks where noticeably "held back" due to front loading (or conversely, noticeably rewarded for a supposedly more balanced layout).

 

[gkelly]

Noticeably -- probably not. There are so many different things that go into even the IJS Composition component that it's impossible to tell just from the score how much impact the jump layout specifically had on any judge's evaluation of the composition. Even harder to tell under 6.0 with so many completely different considerations all amalgamated under only two marks.

A few examples that were notable to me for starting with the
spiral sequence
or
spiral sequence plus layback
before getting down to jump business.

I'm not listening to commentary here at work, just finding the programs, so I'm not sure I have the right broadcast versions, and I'm not timestamping, but I recall commentators on US networks remarking on
lutz combo late in the program
triple axel very late in the program (to make up for a failed attempt earlier -- Zayak rule subsequently clarified to apply to all attempts successful or otherwise)]
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCNvJwICCDA]"flurry of jumps" (yes, easier ones) at the end of the program
in these programs.

And then there was this example of all but the hardest jumps saved for the end of the program for thematic reasons (ocean wave breaking on the shore)

I have no idea what the judges thought of any of these examples, or whether different judges shared the same thoughts.[/url]

 

[angi]

If we are on the subject - why was the 10% bonus eliminated from pairs skating after 2014?

 

[MAXSwagg]

If we are on the subject - why was the 10% bonus eliminated from pairs skating after 2014?

Because pairs is so crammed with elements, you can't really front load.

 

[angi]

Because pairs is so crammed with elements, you can't really front load.

Yeah, but than you had people like Aljona attempting the 3ATh or 4SalTh as her last element, or attempting jumps later on in the program. If they have it for singles why not have it for pairs as well?

 

[skatepixie]

People would frontload like crazy, like they did in the 6.0 days.

 

[MAXSwagg]

Yeah, but than you had people like Aljona attempting the 3ATh or 4SalTh as her last element, or attempting jumps later on in the program. If they have it for singles why not have it for pairs as well?

You would have to have it for lifts also (which is how it was).

 

[Vash01]

People would frontload like crazy, like they did in the 6.0 days.

Exactly.

I like the 10 percent bonus because it us much harder to land jumps on tired legs.

However, the bonus is pointless in the SP which is just 2:40 min.

 

[AxelAnnie]

I would rather they require a certain number of jumps be in the first half and the second half. That would eliminate the bonus attraction. I would eliminate credit for falls on a jump, and for jumps that are not fully rotated. It is just silly, and makes it so confusing and difficult for casual fans to understand. And, we wonder why people have stopped watching and following figure skating

And, take the jumps out of pairs.

 

[screech]

I like the idea of the bonus, but not necessarily the execution. Maybe if there was a rule like no more than 2/3 of the jumping passes can be done in the second half.

I also don't think it should be included at all in the SP.

 

[caseyedwards]

Tuktamisheva had a good point! She doesn’t like it because you shouldn’t be rewarded for stamina if you are not jumping in the first half. It was very anti zagitova. Jumps take most energy. If you aren’t jumping how are your legs tired? You only have tired legs if you are actually doing something. Just being on the ice tires your legs? There must be standard established. Maybe like 4 triples and a step sequence and then your legs are tired and you start getting a bonus. Bonus must not be by time. It must be by content.

 

[topaz]

@caseyedwards - Footwork with spins and transitions are tiring.

 

[caseyedwards]

@caseyedwards - Footwork with spins and transitions are tiring.

Maybe they should get a bonus too then. Why is it just jumps?

 

[topaz]

Because jumps are difficult and a well known element. If you recall under the 6.0 system spins were largely done after the front loading or after the jumps were completed.

 

[MAXSwagg]

@caseyedwards - Footwork with spins and transitions are tiring.

Jumps are more difficult than any step sequence or spin in terms of energy expenditure, particularly triples, especially 3-3, and 3A and quads let alone multiple are not even in the same discussion.

 

[briancoogaert]

I am not for any new rule such as "at least 3 jumps in the first part and 3 jumps in the second part".
It is important to have the program constructed with the music.

And I totally agree that the bonus is pointless in the SP. Again, follow the music :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Btu4a5S6iU

 

[Erin]

If we are on the subject - why was the 10% bonus eliminated from pairs skating after 2014?

Because pairs is so crammed with elements, you can't really front load.

Supposedly. But what happens is you have programs like Peng and Jin's where they do their two jumps back to back as the first elements in the program and their two throws back to back as elements 4 and 5 in the program so you are 2 minutes into a 4:30 program and they have done all of their risk elements.

I have mixed feelings on the bonus, in both programs. When they didn't have it in the short program, I would guess that close to half the skaters (or maybe more) did all of their jumps as the first three elements. Look at programs from around 2008 and you'll see. Maybe the ladies would put a double axel later but that was about it. So it has helped that. But do I think Medvedeva should be basically guaranteed a win in the short because of when she does her jumps? Not really. I'm not sure how to solve the problem.

 

[MsZem]

If the bonus were eliminated, we'd go back to frontloading. As it is, programs are not well-balanced because so many skaters are waiting for the second half to start. If most skaters can do something that qualifies them for a bonus, maybe the difficulty is not high enough to justify said bonus?

I would limit the number of jump elements that can be done in each half of the free skate and have a higher bonus for jumps done in the final minute. I honestly see no reason for a second half bonus in the SP.

But all this goes back to the judges doing their job and marking PCS based on what the skaters actually do.

 

[gkelly]

Jumps, spins, and steps (and pair moves) are all more difficult on tired legs and are all tiring.

Certainly some moves are more tiring than others -- a level 4 step sequence is certainly one. For a skater who doesn't have the hardest jumps and does have strong steps, sometimes putting the step sequence early is a way to earn GOE for that element that they wouldn't be able to achieve later in the program.

The difference with jumps is that they're less forgiving. If you're too tired to jump high enough or rotate fast enough, the jump won't just be lower quality, it will be a failed element.

There are already GOE (and fall) penalties in place for flawed jumps, and lack of GOE reward for smaller jumps with less flow, which often occurs later in the program. The bonus is a way to compensate for the sacrifice of jump strength attendant on saving them for later in the program.

If the bonus were only available for successful jumps, what would be the cutoff between successful but flawed vs. failed? Fall, step out, or downgrade cancels the bonus, other errors affect only the GOE?

If the point of the bonus is to reward stamina, I'd say make the start of the SP bonus at 2 minutes, not 1:20. Then only the skaters with the best stamina, or those who aren't trying the hardest jumps anyway, would make use of it, and usually only for one jump element.

To reward a "balanced" program, encourage judges to reflect that in the Composition component. But don't dictate in advance how many jumps must be performed in each part of the program. Let each skater's individual skill set and the music and concept of the choreography determine the best layout for each program, and let judges evaluate how well it worked in that performance.

 

[giselle23]

I think the bonus should be eliminated in the short and long programs. Balanced programs should gain PCS points, as part of composition. It isn't a perfect solution, but neither is the bonus.