Pre-rotation
- Thread starter chopinskate
- Start date
topic:
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Yes and 'cheated toeloop entrance' already exists as something judges are recommended to look at, so i was not considering that in my observation about 'pre-rotation' debate...
To be fair, Alysa Liu's 3S in her Nationals FS was almost a whole turn prerotated and I was amazed the judges didn't pick up on that.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
“If it is very clear that the rotation is done on the ice before the take-off, the jump is downgraded and evaluated using the scale of values for the jump of one rotation less,” Adolfsen explained. “The position of the toe pick/skating blade on the take-off is considered here, not the body position as some may believe. “We cannot see the jumps in slow motion, otherwise there will soon be many jumps to be considered and may be downgraded,” she continued. “Again, there are small margins, and here it has been decided that it must be visible in normal speed to consider whether the jump is pre-rotated or not. The rule for pre-rotations is not as strict as for landing of jumps as it is physically impossible to not have any pre-rotation.”
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
First, good to see you posting again, Blades of Passion! You are like the little stick that pokes us in the eye when we try to sip our Pina Coladas.
That is a good point. I think that the modern jump technique is to generate as much full body angular momentum on the ice as possible, rather that to leap up and then depend on technique (drawing on the arms, etc.) to get in the rotations. I believe that this is one reason why multi-revolution jumps do not seem to work as well, in terms of being choreographic highlights, as they did, even back in the double jump era.
JMO.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Sure... but when skaters in the 80's and 90's could stroke around the rink with little to no transitions into their jumps, and not expend energy with (comparatively) as complex footwork or spins or super difficult jump content, then they could get more spring off their takeoffs and pre-rotation wasn't as big a deal (although you'd still see it in even the best skaters, like Kwan). 80's/90's skaters were stronger and more built for bigger jumps (so they didn't need to pre-rotate) but the trade-off is that they weren't particularly limber, which is needed these days for flexibility in spin variations.
Skaters are smaller and younger in general these days save for more athletic types like Osmond or Sakamoto - couple that with all the difficulty they need to execute in a program, and it's unsurprising that not everyone vaults up with minimal pre-rotation on every jump.
The judges also give leeway to some extent (as Mona Adolfson said). They simply don't care about it as much as the landing -- which is historically how it's always been. I mean, look at it this way, in the 80s and 90s skaters didn't have as much pre-rotation but their landings weren't scrutinized for URs (judges were highly unlikely to deduct as long as the jump "looked" clean, even if UR). Nowadays, skaters generally have more pre-rotation but the landings are being scrutinized way more for the landings.
If you want to nab every skater who collectively pre-rotates and under-rotates in excess, you're going to see some very messy protocols, particularly in ladies/pairs.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
Agreed. There's got to be some tradeoff in being able to maintain speed.... after all if you're going into a jump faster, you'll explode off the ice higher, and won't need to rely on pre-rotation to fully complete the jump. Of course, there are skaters like Karen Chen who do explode off the ice but still occasionally hook their landings because they don't have the rotational momentum needed (which some skaters get when they pull in faster leading to potential pre-rotation). The most important part of a jump is the landing... so it makes sense that a skater would do everything they can to ensure that. But then transitions are needed to avoid telegraphing and also to earn more GOE.
If GOE existed in the 80's and 90's and skaters were deducted properly for telegraphed jumps and rewarded more for jumps with transitions into them, I think there would be more pre-rotation back then... but back then, all you had to do was do the jump so you could stroke straight into them and when you picked, you would vault much better off the ice.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
To me, that's the whole lament. I never did see what was wrong with "telegraphing." Look out now, here I come, wait for it, wait for it -- BAM! triple Axel! Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
I for one kind of miss the attitude.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2013
I think telegraphing just flicks off the "I'm doing a program" switch for a moment, whereas jumps should be integrated into a performance. If it is a huge jump like a 3A, then yeah the lead up can bring delicious tension, and it can be more impactful, but the stroking around leading up to that that makes it so obvious that it's a set-up isn't particularly appealing. Although there's the flipside, sometimes Kihira's 3A looks TOO easy and simple because there's no prolonged setup, like it's just another element for her and no big deal, lol.
Same with how in the 90's it was a big deal to have a second triple lutz (ladies) or triple axel (men) in the second half and it was a hold-your-breath moment. Now it's just like another element, and not a "oh geez, brace yourselves!" jump. So yeah, the "BAM!" moments (like Lu Chen's YOLO 3-3 in the Olympics) aren't there as they used to be but I do like that jumps are more seamlessly integrated (even it it's at the expense of pre-rotation, which I honestly don't care much for as long as it's not like an actual toe axel).
Check out the jump yourself and tell me that the blade didn't rotate on the ice, or that you can't see it in real time.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2018
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I need to be really there for that kind of evaluation tho From the video 3Lz-Eu-3S doesn't look pleasing to my eyes and i would judged it with negative GOE, if not call it with <. I would maybe call 3A< and 3Lz-3T< also, and judged it again with negative GOE as my final mark. You don't need to look strictly for 'pre-rotation' in the jumps - those kind of jumps as a product of that don't have the general quality which is (should be) reflected in GOE.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Yep, it's completely clear with no slow motion needed.
You tried to say it's not possible to overly pre-rotate a jump and still do the jump. That is incorrect. It happens constantly, but you've always tried to turn a blind eye to it for whatever reason.
This quote doesn't lend any credence to your argument and is in fact wrong. You CAN do a jump with no pre-rotation. It's more difficult, but it is possible, and is in fact the way that many skaters in the past (or a few still currently) executed their Lutz and Flip jumps. Let's assume jumps do need some pre-rotation though, particularly the Loop/Salchow/Toeloop, where a 1/2 turn of pre-rotation is fine. Just because those jumps use pre-rotation, that doesn't mean excessive pre-rotation should be ignored.
This person exactly said the position of the toe pick is supposed to be considered. Well, guess what, many skaters are jumping by leaving the ice on their toepick 3/4 of a turn into the jump (or even more). This person overall doesn't seem to really understand jump mechanics, but then that's nothing new for an ISU judge. If landings are being checked in slow-motion, then entrances should be as well. You can't have one without the other, it makes no sense. The ISU needs to change the rule and educate themselves and the judges better.
Again though, you don't even need slow motion to see when a jump is overly pre-rotated. If someone is not able to see it, then that is their own lack of training and awareness. What you do need the slow motion for is to determine the exact point of takeoff and landing on the ice. It's the only way to measure things fairly and there's no reason it shouldn't be done. Unless we want to remove slow-motion and rotation calls altogether, and just have judges score every jump based on the real-time impression they got from the jump.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
Real-time impression is the biggest merrit (as it is in every other sport) of adressing the jump type/rotation and all of other types of skating elements. If elements look 'fine' to a naked eye in a real time, than they are not called for a review and not scrutinize with e and < as a product of that. It's not like all UR jumps are called by the tech pannel, some of them looked much better for the judges naked eye, so nobody review them in a slow mo to find a mistake in first place. Its not the point to call everything which is not correct in skaters skating but only those things which look uncorrect in a real time to a naked eye. If we review with a slowmo every element skaters performed we will find much more mistakes... Also, type of a jump is defined by a take-off while rotation of a jump is defined by a landing foot. Thats just how those things are defined and because of that can be reviewed with a (super)slow mo to adress if they correspond to their definition. If things are differently defined, judges would potentialy look at them differently.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2008
- Country
-
Rotation is factually not only a landing and actually there's no complete definition about rotation in the rules. It makes no sense to judge things only by landing, as that would be like looking at a mathematical equation and removing half of it; which is nonsense. Everything has a starting point. Imagine someone puts a glass of water in front of you and says "how much water did I pour in this glass". Unless you know how much water started in the glass, then you have no way of knowing the answer. Knowing only the end point, how much water is currently in the glass, does not give you a way to answer the question accurately.
Right, but looks fine to who? I can see the cheated entrances in real time. Like I said before, it seems people are just oblivious to the problem, not trained enough to see it. The problem has gone on for so long that people just accept it now, rather than being aware of how these jumps are being cheated, in comparison to how a perfectly executed jump should actually look.
---
There are plenty of people who have both flexibility and the ability to do jumps without overly pre-rotating (or would have the ability if they were actually trained as such). You can also do transitions into jumps that aren't excessively pre-rotated.
The current state of figure skating calls for more transitions than ever before, but that isn't necessarily how the sport should be, and it definitely doesn't mean we should be judging jumps (and the component score) incorrectly. If people are only able to do a lower quality jump out of a transition, or are only able to do transitions while sacrificing a better musical interpretation or body line or performance quality, then it needs to be judged as such.
So what? That's the point of the scoring system. And if they were getting called, then they would change their technique and/or overall competitive approach. Which is a good thing.
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2014
I see a lot of things which i suppose you can see too. We can see more of that with TV slow mo camera angles. But general audience in the arena don't see that, nor we have replays in the arena. And i think those things should be judged by a perception majority share and by the only equipment they have in real time (their own eyes), and not by the eyes of 'die-hard' fans who are strictly looking for pre-rotation, or under-rotation or for a wrong edge. Because sport is not made only for those 'die-hard' fans. You can slow-mo every sport's game and find something you didn't see in a real time. But sports competions are not judged retroactively but in a real time with the views majority share, because those games are made for the audience, people who come to enjoy the game while watching it 'live', as a witnesses- that's the point of existing of all sports competitons.
Figure skating prides itself on its technical accuracy. As accuracy is defined by experts, the jumps need to be accurate as viewed by experts, else the sport loses its credibility as a rigorous sport. In addition, it teaches people to take shortcuts.
Prerotated jumps do look different. There's less rotation in the air, so the lack of rotation can be notable. To pick on one of my favourite skaters, Rika has done 3Ts of varying quality. Most of them are quite good, but the few rare prerotated 3Ts (probably because the preceding jump wasn't the best) markedly appear to rotate less than her better ones.
Rika has, at least, done decent 3Ts. There are skaters who don't, at all. That becomes a systematic technical issue.
Prerotated jumps do look different. There's less rotation in the air, so the lack of rotation can be notable. To pick on one of my favourite skaters, Rika has done 3Ts of varying quality. Most of them are quite good, but the few rare prerotated 3Ts (probably because the preceding jump wasn't the best) markedly appear to rotate less than her better ones.
Rika has, at least, done decent 3Ts. There are skaters who don't, at all. That becomes a systematic technical issue.
Might as well not call underrotations then either, as those aren't visible to most spectators except diehard fans who look out for them. But this is a sport, not a beauty contest--it's not only appearance that matters, but what athletes actually do. I mean, if the scoring system is just going to cater to casual watchers, we might as well not have extra points for quads, because casual watchers are often unable to distinguish quads and triples (and I don't blame them--some cheated quads *do* look like triples) and are consequently confused why so-and-so who only jumped triples got a score so much lower than so-and-so who maybe skates uglier but jumps quads.
The running analogy is apt--an athlete who ran 90m should not get the same credit as an athlete who ran 100m, whether or not the audience can tell the distance run.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2017
- Country
-
Slightly off-topic, but you are aware of the existence of handicap sprints, yes? I agree with your overall point, but your choice of analogy doesn't quite hold up here.
Similar threads
