Why is the quad Axel so undervalued?

[lariko]

It is clearly undervalued. While some people say it discourages a hard jump like that, well, theoretically speaking, it pushes Malinin or the next guy to try a quintuple to see what BV will they give it, to try to gain as much technical advantage as the other break-out skaters enjoyed back at the time when one skater could jump a quad, when one skater started to do multiple quads, and, finally, when a skater was able to have a quad on basically every jumping pass where quad was allowed.

It's really unfair toward Malinin that his spectacular technical feat is of so little impact on the scoring that he must perform programs that are ultra-saturated with other quads, after 4A, and he can't risk a single mistake. He also has to demonstrate 3A too, on top of 4A, the reason being...???

And that's after years of debate about 4A and how it is an ultimate jump, unachievable etc.

We all had seen that the use of 4A in the SP was woefully inadequate in terms of creating a safety cushion for the free skate. A skater with a fairly common and safe 4T and 4S is far too close to a skater with a unique 4A and rather risky 4Lz.

What it will potentially leads to, is an SP like for Junior Women in this year's JGPF. Everyone performs the same elements, everyone is clean, everyone looks the same, so what's the point and how to judge it?

 

[4everchan]

The scale of values does not seem to be structured that way, though.

For instance, 1T to 2T is 100% more in revolutions, and 225% more in base value.

2T to 3T is only 50% more in revolutions, but still 223% more in base value.

But the reality is that in other sports too the scale of values is not directly proportional to rotation. Have fun at looking at the degrees of difficulty in diving. They are also not directly proportional to rotation. Degree of rotation (360, 720) is mathematical. Degree of difficulty or base value, has always been arbitrary.

As a fan of the 6.0 system as you have often shared with us, there wasn't even anything based on mathematics to establish the difficulty of programs... It was entirely subjective The IJS is not entirely subjective, but like other judged sports, the base value of the elements has been established arbitrarily considering multiple factors. My point is not about explaining how every decision was made and justify it in that sense. I have already mentioned and shown that I can understand why the axel jump isn't on the same trajectory as the other jumps when it comes to base value. We already know, when looking at the base values of quad throws in pairs, that the ISU makes decisions based on a variety of factors that aren't always logical to fans. I believe that quads in pairs are WAY MORE undervalued than the quad axel. Yet, it hasn't seemed to attract as much talk from fans. I wonder why

My main conclusion however isn't about the scale of value in general or pointing out every single oddity about it.

I am establishing two things here

1) a quad axel is three times a single axel and not four times. (4.5 turns versus, 1..5 turn or if you prefer 1620 degrees to 540 degrees) while the other quads jumps are truly four times the rotation of their respective single jumps. 1440 to 360 degrees.
2) despite the mythical aspect of a quad axel, in the end, it's only 180 degrees more than the other jumps. At a lower lever, that half turn is very impactful in proportion to the complete rotation. 540 degrees vs 360 degrees = 1.5. But when we get up there, 180 is not that much more compared to the already 1440 degrees needed to jump a quad. 1620 vs 1440 = 1.125

So in that sense, the quad axel's value to me, makes absolute sense. It could be raised or even lowered a bit and would make sense. What wouldn't make sense is to increase or lower it significantly. There would be absolutely no arithmetic reason to justify either approach. I think the title of the OP is making a statement, automatically saying the quad axel is undervalued. I disagree with that

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

Pairs quads have exactly the same value as Singles quads. Side-by-side quads, that is.

Yuzuru Hanyu & Alexandra Trusova side by side 4T

www.youtube.com

 

[icewhite]

The quad axel is clearly undervalued if we look at how hard it is for skaters.
But.
If its value is raised there need to be other measures as well. A failed quad axel should then be worth much less than it would if we applied the current percentage rules. Otherwise we will see failed quad axels all the time.
The PCS need to be judged much more strictly, maybe go up to 12. We need to think about taking out one jump passage and putting in another step sequence, such things.

And then there's the thing that already the jumps are taking such a toll on skaters bodies. Do we really want to encourage the sport to go even more into that direction? How can we justify this exploition of the human body, since, to do these jumps, you need to learn them at a young age, when people are not making decisions for themselves with an adult mind and experience?

It does no good to raise the bv of the 4A now without thinking about the consequences.

 

[Mathman]

The IJS is not entirely subjective, but like other judged sports, the base value of the elements has been established arbitrarily considering multiple factors.

I think that what actually happened is that when the Code of Points first came out, it went like this. You start with the triple jumps, since this (early 2000s) was the triple jump era. Just to pick a number oiut of a hat, the triple toe was assigned the value 4.0. This was regarded as the easiest jump, so then the others went up from there: 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0. The 3A was regarded as much harder,. so it got a higer base value. I think it was 9.0 (?) if memory serves, maybe even higher (?).

After that, they went to work on the values for double and single jumps as a fraction of the standard triples..

Over the years refinements were made. The 3T and the 3S weree brought closer together because many skaters actually found the Sal easier. The 3L and 3F came closer together with a corresponding greater separation from the 3Lz; etc. This of course had nothing to do with mathematics. Rather it reflected ISU deliberations about how hard it actually was to perform each jump.

Somewhere along the line, the Axel jump was systematically devalued in comparison to the other jumps. I don't know exactly why -- as far as I can tell they just decided that the Axel was not as special as they had formerly thought.

 

[CrazyKittenLady]

The quad axel is clearly undervalued if we look at how hard it is for skaters.

Hmm, but by that logic you could also argue that jumps in women's skating need generally higher base values than in men's. A quad, or even a triple-triple, is much harder to do for a woman than a man.

On the other hand, one could also question the premise that the quad Axel is so hard for skaters. Do we really have a significant data base? There is Hanyu who tried multiple times but never managed to land a 4A. What if he simply didn't have it in him? And then there is Malinin who apparently learned it very easily. Who's to say other skaters can't do the same?
ETA: Sorry, of course I forgot about Artur Dmitriev. He came pretty close a couple of times.

 

[icewhite]

Hmm, but by that logic you could also argue that jumps in women's skating need generally higher base values than in men's. A quad, or even a triple-triple, is much harder to do for a woman than a man.

On the other hand, one could also question the premise that the quad Axel is so hard for skaters. Do we really have a significant data base? There is Hanyu who tried multiple times but never managed to land a 4A. What if he simply didn't have it in him? And then there is Malinin who apparently learned it very easily. Who's to say other skaters can't do the same?
ETA: Sorry, of course I forgot about Artur Dmitriev. He came pretty close a couple of times.

Well, women don't have to compete against men, they only compete against each other. And while a quad or triple-triple is more difficult for them to do, so is already a double salchow.

We do not have significant data, but then we do not have that about other jumps either. Maybe all these jumps are not as hard as we thought if you learn the correct technique early. In the case of Malinin I think he learned a very good technique from the beginning on, while having a very suitable body for doing these jumps. I suppose that if more men started the sport, and many more had such coaches from the beginning on we would see more men being able to do this. Maybe we will already since the knowledge how to teach these jumps best should increase. However I don't see an uptick of men doing figure skating (my guess, I do not have the numbers), so that factor will likely miss out.
All the data we have is based on rough existimation. I would also question whether the series of toeloop to lutz is adequate. Maybe on the other hand it is just more easy to cheat certain jumps, or at least get away with technique in the gray area with certain jumps - and if they were judged differently we would see different numbers in successful jumps.
So, I can only rely on what I see and know, and from that knowledge I do think that the quad axel is a lot more difficult than a quad lutz.

 

[Mathman]

I would also question whether the series of toeloop to lutz is adequate. Maybe on the other hand it is just more easy to cheat certain jumps, or at least get away with technique in the gray area with certain jumps

That's a good point, too. A Lutz actually has more degrees of rotation in the air than , say, a toe-loop does. You can't prerotate a Lutz because of the counter-rotation. But many toe-loops do 180 degrees on the ice before lift-off.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that what actually happened is that when the Code of Points first came out, it went like this. You start with the triple jumps, since this (early 2000s) was the triple jump era. Just to pick a number oiut of a hat, the triple toe was assigned the value 4.0. This was regarded as the easiest jump, so then the others went up from there: 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0. The 3A was regarded as much harder,. so it got a higer base value. I think it was 9.0 (?) if memory serves, maybe even higher (?).

After that, they went to work on the values for double and single jumps as a fraction of the standard triples..

Over the years refinements were made. The 3T and the 3S weree brought closer together because many skaters actually found the Sal easier. The 3L and 3F came closer together with a corresponding greater separation from the 3Lz; etc. This of course had nothing to do with mathematics. Rather it reflected ISU deliberations about how hard it actually was to perform each jump.

Somewhere along the line, the Axel jump was systematically devalued in comparison to the other jumps. I don't know exactly why -- as far as I can tell they just decided that the Axel was not as special as they had formerly thought.

Thank you for this history of jump Base Value in IJS!
I don't think that 1A, 2A and 3A are undervalued. They're just under 2T, 3T and 4T respectively in Base Value, in my opinion it's correct; and for all, but particularly for Intermediate Novices with all doubles, the return of Axel in sequences to full Base Value greatly help the nearly as new rule of repeating no more than one double jump and one single jump, with an 1A that's just 0.2 point less than a 2T.

As to a Toeloop (or any jump) prerotated by 180°, per the rules it's a downgrade. I know that SOME skaters feel allowed to cheat jumps because they know (or their coaches know) that they'll get away with it, but it's the Tech Panel who's wrong, not the Base Value. A 4Lz can perfectly be just as prerotated by the way (and with full blade assistance and all), as some Women have shown. Not only Women in fact (if this link isn't lost):

https://twitter.com/temaki1231/status/1618046211268964354

 

[Mathman]

I don't think that 1A, 2A and 3A are undervalued. They're just under 2T, 3T and 4T respectively in Base Value, in my opinion it's correct; ...

The strange thing, then is that for consistency the 4A should be valued just under the quint toe -- whatever we think a proper value for that jump should be.

 

[4everchan]

I think that what actually happened is that when the Code of Points first came out, it went like this. You start with the triple jumps, since this (early 2000s) was the triple jump era. Just to pick a number oiut of a hat, the triple toe was assigned the value 4.0. This was regarded as the easiest jump, so then the others went up from there: 3S = 4.5, 3Lo = 5.0, 3F = 5.5, 3Lz = 6.0. The 3A was regarded as much harder,. so it got a higer base value. I think it was 9.0 (?) if memory serves, maybe even higher (?).

After that, they went to work on the values for double and single jumps as a fraction of the standard triples..

Over the years refinements were made. The 3T and the 3S weree brought closer together because many skaters actually found the Sal easier. The 3L and 3F came closer together with a corresponding greater separation from the 3Lz; etc. This of course had nothing to do with mathematics. Rather it reflected ISU deliberations about how hard it actually was to perform each jump.

Somewhere along the line, the Axel jump was systematically devalued in comparison to the other jumps. I don't know exactly why -- as far as I can tell they just decided that the Axel was not as special as they had formerly thought.

I remember the era of 5.5 flip and 6.0 lutz very well. As I said, it was an arbitrary decision from the ISU to assign values to jumps. Back then, the triple axel was very uncommon. When they adjusted, arbitrarily these values, they gradually went to what we know today.
I wouldn't say that the axel was devalued compared to the other jumps : it became more and more common. Just like the quad salchow became pretty much as common as the quad toe.

I am well aware that it has nothing to do with maths but using the simple maths I have used actually shows that it does make sense for the axel to be valued pretty much where it is right now

Axel Paulsen would probably agree with me that the jump he invented shouldn't be compared to the others when it comes to valuation. As mentioned, the forward entrance and the half turn make it a very different element. This is why I don't like the terms devaluation or the arguments that say "if a quad lutz is XX points, a quad axel should be ZZZ points" and this is why I used simple maths to demystify these concepts

In the end, the ISU will keep on tweaking the Code of points as they wish... and if I were president of the ISU (and we all know I should be ! LOL) I wouldn't advocate for a new valuation of the quad axel...
My first move would be to advocate for

Higher values for STEP SEQUENCES !

We all have our own agendas but mine here is not about a skater, it's about global skating. I feel that the sport is way too focused on tricks and not enough on everything else. I love big jumps !! I adore them!!! Especially when I am watching online or tv... but going to live competitions has taught me that I live for the in betweens.. the jumps are not a priority when sitting 8 hours in a cold arena... it's the overall skating that accompanies me to happiness So a quad axel is fun... but a good programme is worth more.

 

[el henry]

.....

Higher values for STEP SEQUENCES !

....

If I knew enough math (if I knew any math) I would start a thread:

"Why is the Step Sequence So Undervalued?"

 

[Mathman]

...I wouldn't say that the axel was devalued compared to the other jumps....

I think that we are using different definitions of "devalued." If a triple Axel is valued at 9.0 points one year, then at 8.5 the next, then at 8.0 the year after, to me that seems like placing a lower valuation on the jump -- i.e., devaluing it?

You are probably right as to the reason the 3A was devalued, though It became more common. Plus, quads came along and took the luster off the mere 3A, cool though it was back in the days or Brian Orser and Brian Boitano.

 

[4everchan]

I think that we are using different definitions of "devalued." If a triple Axel is valued at 9.0 points one year, then at 6.5 the next, then at 8.0 the year after, to me that seems like placing a lower valuation on the jump -- i.e., devaluing it?

You can say this. Of course. Just like in some other thread, we used a different definition of "art"
To me it's more a correction based on supply and demand. More skaters are able to achieve a triple axel, so the value is adjusted.

Let's not forget how long it took for skaters to regularly land the big jumps, and I am talking here about the first ones : 3a, 4t and 4s.

Then, a couple skaters showed up (Boyang, Shoma, Nathan) with exotic jumps and then, many people started doing them.
So it took what 30 years for the first three big jumps to get regularly done, yet in the span of a decade the multiple quad programs are quite common within the top ten skaters at worlds. It's only in 2013 when Kevin Reynolds landed a SP with two quads... and now, ten years later, skaters with only one quads in the SP are at a disadvantage... and even more so, skaters with only a 4t and 4s have a 5 point deficit in BV compared to someone with one or two exotic quads

All in the span of a couple years... and not just by one skater but by several, Ilia, Nathan, Vincent, Shoma, Shun, Adam, Mikhail and others all sporting a two quad SP with an exotic quad.

So, perhaps, for once, the ISU is being a visionary by not over-valuating a jump that seemed impossible just a few years ago but has been tried by at least 3 skaters already in competition, and landed relatively regularly by Ilia. Perhaps that in 4-5 years, Ilia will be remembered as a pioneer but will have competitors with the same BV as his. So in light of that, why would the base value of the quad axel should be higher?
Supply and demand

 

[Alex Fedorov]

All these ratios of the value of jumps are very conditional. Perhaps, when a future skater takes his first steps in this sport, then for him/her 2T is really more than twice as difficult as 1T. But when an athlete already competes at the Grand Prix or even at a category “B” tournament, he/she is unlikely to notice any difference at all. Therefore, I would not attribute the basic value of a jump solely to the relative difficulty of its execution.

At least one of the ISU's motives in reducing the base price of quads (including 4A) is more or less clear - they do not want to turn the competition into a jumping tournament, in which the element of art will disappear. There is another motive - the desire to prevent the total dominance of certain skaters/a certain coaching group/a certain country.

The only question here is to what extent these fears are justified. In my opinion, the threat of the destruction of figure skating by “big jumps” is clearly overestimated. This is clearly visible in the example of men's competitions, where quads (and, of course, 3A) have long become the norm. The value of 4A is being discussed here, but it is unlikely that anyone will think of reducing the cost of “regular” quads again - after all, only Jason Brown does not have such jumps. And if the same thing had been observed in women, then no speculation on the topic of “mature female skating”, “age limit”, or mythical drugs that slow down puberty would simply arise.

But in reality, quads are not killing women's competitions at all. In order to understand this, it is enough to carefully analyze the results of all tournaments in which Alexandra Trusova, Anna Shcherbakova and Kamila Valieva took part for the period from 2018 to 2022.

By the way, back in 2019, Russian sports journalist Zhurankov proposed changing the entire rating scale for quadruple jumps. In his opinion, the triple axel should definitely be more expensive than the 4T and perhaps even more expensive than the 4S. In addition, 4Lo should be assessed at least at the level of 4F or even higher.

 

[Mathman]

....At least one of the ISU's motives in reducing the base price of quads (including 4A) is more or less clear - they do not want to turn the competition into a jumping tournament, in which the element of art will disappear. There is another motive - the desire to prevent the total dominance of certain skaters/a certain coaching group/a certain country....

I think that the ISU has failed spectacularly in its pursuit of these two goals. Men's skating has devolved into a jumping tournament -- see for instance the recent Grand Prix Final or the last Olympics.

As for women, the only way to prevent certain skaters and certain counrtiea/cooaches from dominating was to ban then from international competition altogether.

 

[Mathman]

You can say this. Of course. Just like in some other thread, we used a different definition of "art"
To me it's more a correction based on supply and demand. More skaters are able to achieve a triple axel, so the value is adjusted.

Ah, definitions. Myself, I cannot think of any definition of "devalue" than "reduce the value of."

I also (not being as visionary as the ISU) cannot see the oversupply of quad Axels that is responsible for the relatively low base value of this commodity.

 

[Alex Fedorov]

I think that the ISU has failed spectacularly in its pursuit of these two goals. Men's skating has devolved into a jumping tournament -- see for instance the recent Grand Prix Final or the last Olympics.

I cannot agree with you on this point. Nathan Chen's programs at the Olympics looked quite decent and did not look like a meaningless set of jumps with nothing in between. And Malinin is not at all as hopeless as it seemed at first; he is clearly trying to work on the PСS.

As for women, the only way to prevent certain skaters and certain counrtiea/cooaches from dominating was to ban then from international competition altogether.

Here I agree with you, but with one important caveat - quads have nothing to do with this sad result. Eteri tried to provide her skaters with the greatest possible advantage, but practice shows that her efforts were excessive - even without ultra-c, the women's “world team” would have lost to the three best Russian skaters.

 

[4everchan]

Ah, definitions. Myself, I cannot think of any definition of "devalue" than "reduce the value of."

It's not so much the definition itself that is different but the context/tone. Undervalued or devalued like some have used in this thread is negative... as if the axel wuzrubbed of its base value. I use the term in a different context. It's getting possible and more accessible so the devaluation is about demystification. It's about democratizing the axel. That's pretty awesome no? So there is a negative meaning/implication to the word and there is a positive meaning too.

I also (not being as visionary as the ISU) cannot see the oversupply of quad Axels that is responsible for the relatively low base value of this commodity.

10 years ago, nobody thought we would see so many skaters with more than a couple quads in their arsenal. Yet, now there is one skater who aims to land them all in one LP. Adam didn't have all these quads just a year ago. He has 4 out of 6 now. He just landed both the quad flip and quad lutz in his SP at French Championships, just coming back from GPF in China. It was his first time with those two quads in the SP.

The reality is simple and Patrick mentioned it when Nathan arrived on the scene : the young guys are fearless.

 

[DizzyFrenchie]

I think that the ISU has failed spectacularly in its pursuit of these two goals. Men's skating has devolved into a jumping tournament -- see for instance the recent Grand Prix Final or the last Olympics.

As for women, the only way to prevent certain skaters and certain counrtiea/cooaches from dominating was to ban then from international competition altogether.

A jumping tournament "on the paper", not in real jumps as we could see in video (although Olympic Channel really failed to give Worldwide access to them for many months). Just as in PCS "on the paper".
And as we're speaking of the valuation of Step Sequence, I wholeheartedly agree, but I can't fail to notice that a skater (who also never got his underrotated jumps called) who has never, ever been able to skate a Level 4 Step Sequence because of his lack of balance, has consistently had his Step Sequences wrongly validated at Level 4 and scored above the real "kings of Step Sequences" the whole Olympic cycle... So, score Step Sequences higher, yes please, but above all, score them fairly.
Sorry for this digression.