not quite... and as a matter of fact, the technical level this year has been growing in singles.... to the point that we had two ladies in seniors doing 3a and the first ever landed quad in seniors ladies...
we had a whole discussion about this a year ago.... pretty much, some of the folks think that the ISU has stopped pairs evolution... even the teams who had 4twist or 4throws are no longer doing them (the knierims, sui-han, james-cipres, tarasova-morozov)
Quad throws are dangerous and I have no problem with ISU not encouraging pairs to do that.
But they pairs who can do quad twists are mostly consistent and the can get level 2 o 3 all the time. So don't know why the quad twist also got lower BV.
It is sad about the Quad Twist disappearing. T/M and the Chinese pairs aside, Katia and Harley from Australia were training it too! It would have been magic to see a pair from little old Australia doing one of the hardest moves in pairs
Epic!
Agreed! I think it's generally "easier" for skaters from lesser-known feds to prove themselves and make a splash through technically difficult programs than going for artistry. Not to say that doing quads is easier, but it's flashier and gets more attention than a beautifully skated, artistic program. It's like a fast lane into greater recognition from judges and fans alike.
I think elements should be independent of each other. Under 6.0 a fall on a high risk quad or 3A (ladies) could still mean a 5.8 or 5.9 as a “bonus”. But better now to have each one separate and increase the BV on the twist and throws.Thought about starting a new thread but I'll just bump up this old thread(and the quad throw thread).
When it comes to the debate on pair quads I'm firmly on the side of discouraging them because they're more risky, the women is less in control of them yet the one likely to be injured, and they make the discipline that's already has recruitment issues even more elitist. It would also further restrict the body types that elite pairs would need. I'm also not convinced that they are needed to "progress" the sport to differentiate top couples as I think it would be better to just add another jump pass whether throw or side by side.
The BV for pair quads was lowered after the 2016 Olympics and even before then many people thought they were undervalued for the difficulty. I'm mostly supportive of that devaluing. But now we have no one even thinking about doing them now. The way Duhamel/Radford and Kavaguti/Smirnov did not feel too unsafe to me.
But what if a successfully executed pairs quad counted as a GOE cushion or "insurance" on another element? That is, a successfully executed pairs quad would neutralize the negative GOE on one another element. For instance, if a pair pulls off a positive GOE quad twist and then one of them falls in the side by side jumps then the negative GOE for that jump element could be neutralized to zero. The GOE cushion would not provide any benefit if they go clean in the rest of their elements but would keep the pair in the hunt if one of their other elements had a major mistake.
I think doing this might make a pair or two think about trying quads without making others feel like they really need to go for them.
I think elements should be independent of each other. Under 6.0 a fall on a high risk quad or 3A (ladies) could still mean a 5.8 or 5.9 as a “bonus”. But better now to have each one separate and increase the BV on the twist and throws.
Why would we create a whole new judging system just for pairs?But what if a successfully executed pairs quad counted as a GOE cushion or "insurance" on another element? That is, a successfully executed pairs quad would neutralize the negative GOE on one another element. For instance, if a pair pulls off a positive GOE quad twist and then one of them falls in the side by side jumps then the negative GOE for that jump element could be neutralized to zero. The GOE cushion would not provide any benefit if they go clean in the rest of their elements but would keep the pair in the hunt if one of their other elements had a major mistake.