Rescoring past competitions w/ new SOV+rules | Page 9 | Golden Skate

Rescoring past competitions w/ new SOV+rules

Li'Kitsu

Record Breaker
Joined
Dec 29, 2011
Actually, you don't even need +1 GOE.
3T -1GOE: 3.78
4T -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.75

3S -1GOE: 3.87
4S -5GOE w/ deduction: 3.85

3Lo -1GOE: 4.41
4Lo -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.25

3F -1GOE: 4.77
4F -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.5

3Lz -1GOE: 5.31
4Lz -5GOE w/ deduction: 4.75

3A -1GOE: 7.2
3A -3GOE: 5.6
4A -5GOE w/ deduction: 5.25

So as you can see, even negative GOE triples can outscore quad falls. In the case of the axel, even -3 GOE 3A outscores -5 4A fall!

Yeah, that is what we get with BV reduction plus bigger GOE deduction... tbh this is more discouraging towards trying harder elements then it was in 2010 and before. I get the constant splatfest are annoying, but it's falty judging that's the problem, not the rules. And the ISU never manages to strike a balance with their rules, they always go from one extreme to the other. Looks like it's a valid possibility skaters will go back to the times they didn't risk much, you can't repeat more then quad now anyway and quads are so risky.... you can already tell the times when people scream for harder elements to be rewarded and encouraged more will come. In either 4 or 8 years I guess :rolleye:
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Does it also work for falls on triples against clean doubles?

Probably.

3Lz BV is 5.9. 3Lz(Fall) with deduction is 1.95. This is more than the 2Lz BV, IIRC.

Are we going to see a lot of doubles :rofl:

But honestly, the bigger GOE deduction is probably fine, TBH. I do think 9.6 - 1 for a 4Lz fall was too much. Not sure I agree with the way a few of them work out, though.
 

yume

🍉
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
. Looks like it's a valid possibility skaters will go back to the times they didn't risk much, you can't repeat more then quad now anyway and quads are so risky.... you can already tell the times when people scream for harder elements to be rewarded and encouraged more will come. In either 4 or 8 years I guess :rolleye:
I wonder if some will even go for a riskier element than 3lz.
A 3T with -1GOE (so not clean) worth more than a 4T fall........what is this kind of sick joke?
 

Shanshani

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Probably.

3Lz BV is 5.9. 3Lz(Fall) with deduction is 1.95. This is more than the 2Lz BV, IIRC.

Are we going to see a lot of doubles :rofl:

But honestly, the bigger GOE deduction is probably fine, TBH. I do think 9.6 - 1 for a 4Lz fall was too much. Not sure I agree with the way a few of them work out, though.

2Lz is 2.1 (with -1GOE is 1.89). 3Lz(fall) w/ deduction is 1.95 as you said.

2T is 1.3, 3T(fall) is 1.1
2S is 1.3, 3S(fall) is 1.15
2Lo is 1.7, 3Lo(fall) is 1.45
2F is 1.8, 3F(fall) is 1.65

1A is 1.1, 2A(fall) is 0.65.
 
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Hmmm. I think 4Lz and 4A falls being less than the triple equivalents even before the deductions isn't too fair to those jumps, but I think I'm fine with these, compared to the 0 GOE jumps with one less rotation apart from that.

Not sure what to make of -1GOE stuff yet.
 

yume

🍉
Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 11, 2016
2Lz is 2.1 (with -1GOE is 1.89). 3Lz(fall) w/ deduction is 1.95 as you said.

2T is 1.3, 3T(fall) is 1.1
2S is 1.3, 3S(fall) is 1.15
2Lo is 1.7, 3Lo(fall) is 1.45
2F is 1.8, 3F(fall) is 1.65

1A is 1.1, 2A(fall) is 0.65.

-1 penalty still applies. So those jumps worth almost nothing with the deduction.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
And of course many jumps with falls also have underrotations/downgrades and therefore lower base value. The loss to GOE is smaller now for underrotated jumps, but the lower base value minus lower GOE reduction on a failed triple should still work out to less than a good double, not even counting the fall deduction.

Since a downgrade gets the same base value as the lower rev jump, obviously a downgraded jump with -GOE would always be worth less than the base value of the lower rev jump.
 

Henni147

Final Flight
Joined
May 1, 2017
I read the last two pages and it makes my blood run cold. :shocked::palmf:

It would be totally fine, if a fall on a quad was less worth than a high quality jump of its triple equivalent with +4 or +5 GOE. You can discuss, where the exact margin should be...
I think, -5 quad ~ +3 triple would be fair, since there are these three obligatory bullets, which a 'quality' jump has to meet.
A fall on a fully rotated quad should be at least equal, but rather more worth than a simply landed triple without any features.

But in no skating universe should a sloppy triple score more points than a quad fall.


Thank God I think, the quad kings and aspirants are too proud to give their babies up and go back to pure triple programs.
Their current success rate is not that bad (independant from recent splat fests) and the competition is huge. You can't afford to play safe and remove two or three quads, if there are still other skaters with 4 or 5 quad layouts (and land them all).
 

Tyranid

Final Flight
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
There seems to not be a thread where all of the changes are organized together in one OP. So I have a couple of questions:

1. Is the GOE scale of value 10% of BV for each plus?

2. What new BV did they adopt? The proposed one with 3Lz = 5.9, 3F = 5.3 and 3Lo = 4.9?
 

xeyra

Constant state
Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 10, 2017

moriel

Record Breaker
Joined
Mar 18, 2015
I read the last two pages and it makes my blood run cold. :shocked::palmf:

It would be totally fine, if a fall on a quad was less worth than a high quality jump of its triple equivalent with +4 or +5 GOE. You can discuss, where the exact margin should be...
I think, -5 quad ~ +3 triple would be fair, since there are these three obligatory bullets, which a 'quality' jump has to meet.
A fall on a fully rotated quad should be at least equal, but rather more worth than a simply landed triple without any features.

But in no skating universe should a sloppy triple score more points than a quad fall.


Thank God I think, the quad kings and aspirants are too proud to give their babies up and go back to pure triple programs.
Their current success rate is not that bad (independant from recent splat fests) and the competition is huge. You can't afford to play safe and remove two or three quads, if there are still other skaters with 4 or 5 quad layouts (and land them all).

I am with you here. I even stopped reading this thread because simply scary.
It kinda makes me wonder why all those people don't simply stop watching singles and pairs, and watch only ice dance, because the scoring there is 100% as they like it.
 

gkelly

Record Breaker
Joined
Jul 26, 2003
I am with you here. I even stopped reading this thread because simply scary.
It kinda makes me wonder why all those people don't simply stop watching singles and pairs, and watch only ice dance, because the scoring there is 100% as they like it.

I don't think any individual could find a scoring system/scale of values that is 100% as they like it, not even the people who designed the system. There will always be some compromises, and often some unintended consequences.
 

Shanshani

On the Ice
Joined
Mar 21, 2018
Terrible decision on the 3F. Why is the Lz and Lo lowered while the Flip stays the same? Do they want to drag up certain flutzers? Ugh...

ETA: just make the flip 5.1. That would be fair and not difficult to do. Gj ISU... :palmf:

I don't think it's as nefarious as that. I think the ISU just wants the base values to fit a pattern whenever they think they can to make them less complicated/easier to remember when possible. Note that from the 4Lo onward, the quad values go up in nice, easy to remember increments of 0.5 (which doubles to 1 going from 4Lz to 4A). For the triples, 3S is 4.3, 3Lo is 4.9, 4F is 5.3, 3Lz is 5.9--cleaner pattern, easier to remember. I agree that this comes at the expense of the point values actually making sense sometimes though--there's no way the difference between a 4Lz and 4A should be equivalent to the difference between a 3Lo and 3Lz.
 

Leonardo

Final Flight
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
But now falls should take half of the jump's BV, plus the deduction, which in some cases means a triple with even just +1 GOE is worth more than a fall in its quad equivalent. Isn't that punishing already? You punish even more and skaters can get too risk avoidant.

I agree. My point is, the +5 to -5 goe scale gives too much power to the judges and can be used to manipulate results even more. Goe's will define everything. I think that the old scale +3 -3 was better and with a bigger deduction for falling it would be ideal.
 

cohen-esque

Final Flight
Joined
Jan 27, 2014
I don't think it's as nefarious as that. I think the ISU just wants the base values to fit a pattern whenever they think they can to make them less complicated/easier to remember when possible. Note that from the 4Lo onward, the quad values go up in nice, easy to remember increments of 0.5 (which doubles to 1 going from 4Lz to 4A). For the triples, 3S is 4.3, 3Lo is 4.9, 4F is 5.3, 3Lz is 5.9--cleaner pattern, easier to remember. I agree that this comes at the expense of the point values actually making sense sometimes though--there's no way the difference between a 4Lz and 4A should be equivalent to the difference between a 3Lo and 3Lz.

Well, but it if they wanted that, they could have just gone back to the original: 4.0, 4.5, 5.0, 5.5, 6.0. They’ve obviously tweaked base values since *presumably* based on difficulty.
 
Top