Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Results 161 to 177 of 177

Thread: Pre-rotation

  1. #161
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,518

    5 Not allowed!
    Clearly different individuals draw the line between "acceptable" and "excessive" in different places.

    A subset of fans is drawing that line in a very strict definition that has never been officially or unofficially accepted by the skating community.

    Where the "correct" place to draw the line is would be a matter of consensus opinion rather than simple fact.

  2. #162
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,664
    Country: Canada

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Please no more straw-man arguments.
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Any number of examples can be used to showcase historical errors of judges and entire systems of judgements. The one I picked is just the most visceral, so as to show exactly how large the problem of ignorance can be.
    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

  3. #163
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,713
    Country: United States of America

    3 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by gkelly View Post
    Clearly different individuals draw the line between "acceptable" and "excessive" in different places.
    I think there is another problem, too. I think it is very difficult, even in slow motion, to tell the exact moment when the toe-pick leaves the ice (or when the biggest part of the weight is no longer supported by the blade). A skater is probably turning at least at the rate of 360 degrees per second at the moment of take-off, if not twice that fast. In a hundredth of a second, that's about 4 degrees. Without a ridiculously high-speed camera laying right at ice level, it would be impossible to get a precise reading.

    On the landing, however, it is usually quite obvious even in real time to the unaided eye that the skater lands with her blade sideways, kicking up a flurry of snow before she hooks it around to avoid falling.
    Last edited by Mathman; 03-13-2019 at 06:47 PM.

  4. #164
    On the Ice Mathman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    34,713
    Country: United States of America

    3 Not allowed!
    By the way, on the subject of replays, etc., I think that improved technology would increase our respect for the judges rather than the opposite. I bet we would discover that they get it right a lot more often than our wuzrobbin' mind-set credits them with.

    This certainly happened in American football. It used to be that the referees were roundly booed by one-half of the stadium or the other whenever there is a close call. Did the runner's knee hit the ground a split second before or after the nose of the ball poked over the plane of the goal line?

    Now the audience is (more or less) content to wait patiently, watching the replays over and over from different angles on the Jumbotron along with the officials, even while the game hangs in the balance. They usually get it right.
    Last edited by Mathman; 03-13-2019 at 06:49 PM.

  5. #165
    Skating is Art, if you let it be Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,625

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    She was saying that they react 1) only at excessive pre-rotation 2) only when that excessive pre-rotation is visible in real time.
    Yes, we know that. And I'm saying they lack the SKILL to see it. They are not educated well enough.

    Her own comments show the fault of the current rules and the judges' own understanding of skating. If they only "react" to excessive pre-rotation that is visible in real time, then exactly how do they determine if the jump was 1/4 turn short or not? The rotation needs to be measured at some kind of starting point, so how are they doing it if they can't even tell where the takeoff is? She does not give any explanation of this, which would seem to mean they actually don't understand how to spot rotation well enough.

    Also, again, she specifically said they look for toepick position to determine takeoff. Please stop saying she didn't. If they are actually looking at where the toepick leaves the ice, then inherently they should be able to see pre-rotation. Her remarks on "excessive pre-rotation" are vague and do not say anything specific. She provided no examples of a time where a skater with excessive pre-rotation was called on it or exactly what would constitute it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Baron Vladimir View Post
    Actually, i never heard in a skating community someone noted about any skater's 'pre-rotated' jumps, except Eurosport commentators and that only once for Satoko's jumps. Which only means that majority of people in the skating community don't think how skaters jump with excessive 'pre-rotation'. They basically don't use that word in their vocabulary.
    Frankly, why should we care about what you've heard? Moreover, majority awareness (especially your own personal perception of it) does not equate to something inherently being right or wrong. It's definitely talked about, sometimes in other terms. In the past it was mainly talked about with regards to toe-axeling, because that's the only jump people were excessively doing a pre-rotation on. This issue was simply a non-issue in the past, because it wasn't a technique fault that had arisen or was commonplace yet, and also before CoP (and current technology) people weren't analyzing jumps so precisely. It's been talked about on the Eurosport broadcast more than once, Kurting Browning also talked about it on a Canadian broadcast recently, but then this kind of technicality isn't something they feasibly want to talk about all the time.

  6. #166
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,664
    Country: Canada

    3 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    Yes, we know that. And I'm saying they lack the SKILL to see it. They are not educated well enough.
    Or, they are giving more leeway that you or others would otherwise give. It's a rather blanket dismissive statement to say they lack the skill to see it or aren't educated well enough. If anything they take actual seminars/training/etc. and are more "educated" about it than any of us. I mean, if you want to say they're not educated the way you would like them to be educated, that's another thing -- in which case, they'll never be skilled or educated enough, since your perception and opinion of what constitutes a sufficiently rotated jump fundamentally differs from the ISU's parameters. Same goes for many people who complain about pre-rotation.

    Panels obviously make errors too - I'm sure there were times you/me/others watched a performance thinking a jump was UR or fully rotated in real-time and then on the slow motion realized it was not the case. I mean, commentators who have tons of skill and education and experience (like Kurt Browning, or the Eurosport guys) accidentally call the incorrect jumping pass (like saying a triple lutz or triple loop is a triple flip or triple toe loop... some even say a 3-3 is a 3-2, or call a quad twist as a triple twist in pairs) as it happens in real-time -- and that stuff should be even more obvious to acknowledge than rotation takeoff/landing. Nobody is perfect.

    If we're going to go to the extreme, well, there may even be those who think that a jump should be marked as under-rotated if there's ANY pre-rotation, and the landing has any turn (even 45 degrees) - since past skaters have shown the ability to jump without any pre-rotation and landing their jumps fully backwards. I mean, if you're going to try to encourage skaters to develop perfect technique, should we mark down skaters for anything but perfect execution? Personally, I think there has to be some leeway. It'll be a while before we can strap sensors to every skater's toe-picks and create software that accurately measures the specific angle of takeoff and angle of landing, so we know exactly how much they rotate, and an algorithm spits out the points earned on the jump - I'm sure you'll rejoice when that day does indeed come, though!

    Errors are bound to be made in practically every sport due to subjectivity in reffing. In tennis, it would be "ideal" if every shot was validated or invalidated by Hawkeye, and there was no need for umpires or linespeople. In diving, I'm sure there were 10's that were given to divers who were not perfectly 180 degrees upon entry and technology could alleviate that. In baseball, it would be great if there was no ump, and a signal went off for a ball or a strike now that the strike zone can be technologically mapped as a pitcher throws their pitch. But that wouldn't be very fun to watch, even if it would be fairer to the players.

  7. #167
    Skating is Art, if you let it be Blades of Passion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    6,625

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    It's a rather blanket dismissive statement to say they lack the skill to see it or aren't educated well enough. If anything they take actual seminars/training/etc. and are more "educated" about it than any of us.
    This isn't true though. They are shown only what the ISU wants to show them, and the ISU's training process is deeply flawed and incomplete. Skaters out in the world who spend their time closely analyzing jumps and teaching them are more knowledgeable than most judges. ISU judges are unpaid and not selected on universal meritocracy. Maybe a few of them have strong technical skating experience and also put a lot of their own additional time in to learning more, but generally no. If they are pressured to follow along with other groupthink anyway (and they are), then that is also hindering their objectivity.

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    I mean, if you're going to try to encourage skaters to develop perfect technique, should we mark down skaters for anything but perfect execution?
    We've already talked about this! The answer is yes, a +5 GOE should represent perfection or close to it, and anything else needs to be less, or else skaters will have little reason to try and perfect an element to that level. Not only that, but if a +5 GOE isn't reserved for the best in execution, then the programs are inherently being scored wrong, as the scoring system is supposed to be assessing the exact value of what the skaters accomplished on the ice. It's not quite right to say skaters are being "marked down" in that instance. Getting a +5 GOE should just be a special thing, not something anyone would ever expect to get on most elements. +3 and +4 are very good scores and people shouldn't feel like they are marked down with a score like that on an element, unless they really felt like their execution was one of the best in skating history.

  8. #168
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,518

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Blades of Passion View Post
    This isn't true though. They are shown only what the ISU wants to show them, and the ISU's training process is deeply flawed and incomplete. Skaters out in the world who spend their time closely analyzing jumps and teaching them are more knowledgeable than most judges.
    The decisions about rotation are made by technical specialists, who are (or have been) skaters out in the world who have spent their time closely analyzing jumps and in many case teaching them.

    That's exactly what technical specialists are for.

  9. #169
    I'm unstoppable today! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    868

    2 Not allowed!
    If we follow Blades of Passion and others from "anti-prerotation lobby" suggestions in judging jumps - we will make absolutely incomprehensible and unwatchable fs for casual viewers - as they would not be able to understand why skater with more complex jumps would lose to skater with simpler jumps if both are visibly clean. And one of causes for many changes at recent ISU congress was to make fs more clear for casual fans - as far as I remember. Else we would risk to turn fs in ice dance type of "sport" where clean execution and reputation are playing the most important role. And it's the most unpopular type of fs as I dare to remind you - exactly because of it. Think about it.
    Also, focusing so much on clean/perfect/textbook execution of elements will do nothing but degrade sport even more. Even now, after lowering quads BV/increasing penalties for falls - number of complex jumps dramatically decreased throughout men's field. With further scrutiny for perfect execution men would just get rid of quads altogether as well as women from triples except maybe toeloops - else they risk to see protocols always riddled with UR marks. Real world situation is such that most skaters are just not capable to make textbook jumps consistenly - due to human body limitations and individual traits among other reasons. So, would turning each and every competition in slo-mo wars between judges and fans - make fs more fun to watch? I don't think so.

  10. #170
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    334

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Elucidus View Post
    If we follow Blades of Passion and others from "anti-prerotation lobby" suggestions in judging jumps - we will make absolutely incomprehensible and unwatchable fs for casual viewers - as they would not be able to understand why skater with more complex jumps would lose to skater with simpler jumps if both are visibly clean. And one of causes for many changes at recent ISU congress was to make fs more clear for casual fans - as far as I remember. Else we would risk to turn fs in ice dance type of "sport" where clean execution and reputation are playing the most important role. And it's the most unpopular type of fs as I dare to remind you - exactly because of it. Think about it.
    Also, focusing so much on clean/perfect/textbook execution of elements will do nothing but degrade sport even more. Even now, after lowering quads BV/increasing penalties for falls - number of complex jumps dramatically decreased throughout men's field. With further scrutiny for perfect execution men would just get rid of quads altogether as well as women from triples except maybe toeloops - else they risk to see protocols always riddled with UR marks. Real world situation is such that most skaters are just not capable to make textbook jumps consistenly - due to human body limitations and individual traits among other reasons. So, would turning each and every competition in slo-mo wars between judges and fans - make fs more fun to watch? I don't think so.
    Actually, it won't be so hard for the casual fans if the commentators then just say 'this is an incorrect jump because said skater is jumping forwards from a backwards entry'.

    I do not agree that this will decrease technical content any further. People don't try as many quads because quads are only worth a little more than twice a triple; get a UR or a fall on that and it's really not worth it compared to a good triple. However, women will not drop their triples for doubles because the base value difference is more than double. Watch:

    2T: 1.3
    2S: 1.3
    2Lo: 1.7
    2F: 1.8
    2Lz: 2.1

    3T: 4.2 (x3.2)
    3S: 4.3 (x3.3)
    3Lo: 4.9 (x2.9)
    3F: 5.3 (x2.9)
    3Lz: 3.9 (x2.8)

    Even a poorly done UR triple is worth more than a well-done double, and technically sound triples are within the reach of most top female skaters, so I don't see prerotation rules killing the ladies' field technically.

    Now, prerotation is most visible in toe jumps. The number of 4F, 4Lz jumpers is already quite small. By far the most popular quad is the 4T, so perhaps we will see skaters attempting this jump being affected by more stringent prerotation rules. However, if we tolerate more prerotation on edge jumps (necessary by their nature), a 4S should still be quite achievable for most skaters, so the most we'll see is skaters relying more on 4S than 4T. This, I feel, isn't a huge problem for the sport. If anything, it makes people learn a 4S; for some reason, it's much less popular than the 4T despite being an 'easy' quad.

  11. #171
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,664
    Country: Canada

    2 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Elucidus View Post
    If we follow Blades of Passion and others from "anti-prerotation lobby" suggestions in judging jumps - we will make absolutely incomprehensible and unwatchable fs for casual viewers - as they would not be able to understand why skater with more complex jumps would lose to skater with simpler jumps if both are visibly clean. And one of causes for many changes at recent ISU congress was to make fs more clear for casual fans - as far as I remember. Else we would risk to turn fs in ice dance type of "sport" where clean execution and reputation are playing the most important role. And it's the most unpopular type of fs as I dare to remind you - exactly because of it. Think about it.
    Also, focusing so much on clean/perfect/textbook execution of elements will do nothing but degrade sport even more. Even now, after lowering quads BV/increasing penalties for falls - number of complex jumps dramatically decreased throughout men's field. With further scrutiny for perfect execution men would just get rid of quads altogether as well as women from triples except maybe toeloops - else they risk to see protocols always riddled with UR marks. Real world situation is such that most skaters are just not capable to make textbook jumps consistenly - due to human body limitations and individual traits among other reasons. So, would turning each and every competition in slo-mo wars between judges and fans - make fs more fun to watch? I don't think so.
    Agreed. I mean, fair calls should be made even if a casual fan can't see these errors. But it can get to a point where the commentators will be like "this person had a considerably lower score due to URs... and this one too... and this one too... aaaaaand this one too". And then the viewing audience will be a bit annoyed and weirded out that only a subsect of skaters can execute jumps with sufficient rotation (and that's assuming they land said jumps without a fall or visible error like a stepout that a casual viewer can recognize).

  12. #172
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    334

    3 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    Agreed. I mean, fair calls should be made even if a casual fan can't see these errors. But it can get to a point where the commentators will be like "this person had a considerably lower score due to URs... and this one too... and this one too... aaaaaand this one too". And then the viewing audience will be a bit annoyed and weirded out that only a subsect of skaters can execute jumps with sufficient rotation (and that's assuming they land said jumps without a fall or visible error like a stepout that a casual viewer can recognize).
    I reckon once an emphasis is placed on correct technique, there'll be a year or two of transition where a few skaters have to readjust their jumping technique, but they'll come out better for it. It's currently just not a problem coaches care about because the current technique still gets the points. I strongly doubt that Alina Zagitova is physically incapable of doing a 3Lz-3T without forward takeoffs on both jumps, or that Shoma Uno can't do a 4F without his ridiculously 3/4 prerotated entry (his 4F at 4CC was a lot better, actually)

    Also, the argument I'm reading can be distilled to this: we shouldn't scrutinise prerotation more closely because it'll expose all these flaws in skating technique and make the sport look bad, especially to casual viewers. So, this means you recognise there's a systemic technique issue that needs to be swept under the rug for the sport's public image. This is hardly what I would deem honest.

  13. #173
    I'm unstoppable today! Elucidus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    868

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by lzxnl View Post
    I strongly doubt that Alina Zagitova is physically incapable of doing a 3Lz-3T without forward takeoffs on both jumps, or that Shoma Uno can't do a 4F without his ridiculously 3/4 prerotated entry (his 4F at 4CC was a lot better, actually)
    Problem is not that particular skater can't do classic lutz or something. Probably he can (which is still yet to be seen however - if majority of skaters are not capable of relearning flutz technique - what makes you think it's even possible to relearn so fundamental approach for established skaters late in their career?). Problem is that classic technique is less consistent - majority of classic technique jumpers are suffering from frequent falls - especially in combination jumps. And more falls and UR calls can't be exactly what this sport needs now to increase its popularity.
    I can easily predict atleast 5 major problems from the top of the head (and I am sure there are a lot more) - if we make prerotation rule more strict:
    1) it would require long transitional period which can destroy many careers of established skaters who wouldn't be able to adapt to these changes - which in turn causes lot of frustration amoing that skaters fans and as a result many of them just stop watching fs at all
    2) it would make fs less transparent for casual viewers to watch which in turn lessens its popularity
    3) majority of skates would be filled with URs calls and falls (as a result to adapt more pure technique) which in turn makes fs just a mess to watch - and it lessens fs popularity even more
    4) skaters wouldn't be motivated to try more complex jumps - which results in more simple layouts. And that makes fs even more boring.
    5) it would require more time for tech panel to check jumps or more expenses for ISU to hire additional people for the job

    Considering all the above - it's harsh price to pay. Now, what I wonder is - for what purpose we need to pay this price? What exact problem in modern fs strict prerotation rule is intended to resolve? Just for the greater good? To even the playfield to let rather weak skaters like Kawabata have a chance against top skaters - not by making Kawabata stronger - but by making others weaker? To let vocal minority of jump connosieurs be satisfied with proper jumps some times - however rare they may be?
    I won't make any conclusions here. Consider it as a food for thought though - I'll let everyone to weigh on their own all pluses and minuses and decides for yourselves whether it's worth to pay this price for what it can bring to the sport - or not

  14. #174
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,664
    Country: Canada

    3 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by lzxnl View Post
    I reckon once an emphasis is placed on correct technique, there'll be a year or two of transition where a few skaters have to readjust their jumping technique, but they'll come out better for it. It's currently just not a problem coaches care about because the current technique still gets the points. I strongly doubt that Alina Zagitova is physically incapable of doing a 3Lz-3T without forward takeoffs on both jumps, or that Shoma Uno can't do a 4F without his ridiculously 3/4 prerotated entry (his 4F at 4CC was a lot better, actually)

    Also, the argument I'm reading can be distilled to this: we shouldn't scrutinise prerotation more closely because it'll expose all these flaws in skating technique and make the sport look bad, especially to casual viewers. So, this means you recognise there's a systemic technique issue that needs to be swept under the rug for the sport's public image. This is hardly what I would deem honest.

    I'm not saying there's a systemic technique issue that is to be swept under the rug. I'm saying that there is some leeway in how jumps are assessed based on take-off and technique with variables to consider: the time it takes to assess these which compromises audience enjoyment, the power it gives to tech panels to make calls that can significantly affect competition results (already we've seen calls and non-calls on the LANDING.. imagine the error when you get take-off considered as well, especially in events like ladies/pairs).

    For those who say there needs to be X amount of pre/landing-rotation, the ISU is simply saying there's more leeway. It could go the other way -- if we truly want ideal technique, then anyone who doesn't have a completely non-pre-rotated takeoff (Kim's lutz for ex) should get marked down for not having "the ideal". Less than 1/4 on landings should be revised to less than 1/8 turn (since skaters have done that, like Gold). Of course, then pretty much every skater would be marked down for not having the ideal takeoff and landing, as previously exhibited.

    I'm not saying pre-rotation shouldn't be scrutinized more closely, but historically, jumps have been about the landing. And only in egregious pre-rotation -- toe axels, primarily, is it proscribed. And a toe axel (where a skater literally places their toe pick forwards instead of picking in backwards) is different than a toe loop where the skater picks in backwards and pre-rotates on the ice (the latter of which is more likely to be dismissed because of said leeway I talked about).

    People bring up pre-rotation on flips/lutzes/salchows/loops all the time -- but those aren't even mentioned in the rules. I wish Mona had come out and said "We don't really care about pre-rotation on the pick or salchows/loops going more than 180 degrees. Such issues can be reflected in GOE."

    The rules could use more refinement but I would caution against getting too astrigent with PR and UR, as it would make the sport pretty much unwatchable with the delays and the confusion. Tech panels would have to scrutinize a dozen takeoffs and landings. And you can't use the "oh it looks fine in real-time so it didn't need a replay" because this same argument could be used any time the tech panel doesn't flag a jump that is actually PR or UR. You would have to analyze every jump take-off and landing if you wanted to ensure 100% accuracy. Which can come at the expense of watchability.

    Take the StSq for example -- you would have to analyze in detail every aspect of what is adequately executed and what isn't to determine the level on it -- 1/3 of the pattern needs body movements? Well I suppose we must get someone to time the length of the step sequence, and then collectively add up all the timepoints that involved body movements, and then calculate the percentage to ensure that it was 33% or more of the time. And we also need to zoom in on the difficult turn combinations to ensure each one was on exactly the correct edge. We need to measure the distance of each skater's footwork pattern and determine if they really are doing multidirectional rotations each way for 1/3 of the pattern. And do it for everyone. It's the only way to be truly fair and accurate, but man is that cumbersome as heck.

  15. #175
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Posts
    334

    0 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by CanadianSkaterGuy View Post
    I'm not saying there's a systemic technique issue that is to be swept under the rug. I'm saying that there is some leeway in how jumps are assessed based on take-off and technique with variables to consider: the time it takes to assess these which compromises audience enjoyment, the power it gives to tech panels to make calls that can significantly affect competition results (already we've seen calls and non-calls on the LANDING.. imagine the error when you get take-off considered as well, especially in events like ladies/pairs).

    For those who say there needs to be X amount of pre/landing-rotation, the ISU is simply saying there's more leeway. It could go the other way -- if we truly want ideal technique, then anyone who doesn't have a completely non-pre-rotated takeoff (Kim's lutz for ex) should get marked down for not having "the ideal". Less than 1/4 on landings should be revised to less than 1/8 turn (since skaters have done that, like Gold). Of course, then pretty much every skater would be marked down for not having the ideal takeoff and landing, as previously exhibited.

    I'm not saying pre-rotation shouldn't be scrutinized more closely, but historically, jumps have been about the landing. And only in egregious pre-rotation -- toe axels, primarily, is it proscribed. And a toe axel (where a skater literally places their toe pick forwards instead of picking in backwards) is different than a toe loop where the skater picks in backwards and pre-rotates on the ice (the latter of which is more likely to be dismissed because of said leeway I talked about).

    People bring up pre-rotation on flips/lutzes/salchows/loops all the time -- but those aren't even mentioned in the rules. I wish Mona had come out and said "We don't really care about pre-rotation on the pick or salchows/loops going more than 180 degrees. Such issues can be reflected in GOE."

    The rules could use more refinement but I would caution against getting too astrigent with PR and UR, as it would make the sport pretty much unwatchable with the delays and the confusion. Tech panels would have to scrutinize a dozen takeoffs and landings. And you can't use the "oh it looks fine in real-time so it didn't need a replay" because this same argument could be used any time the tech panel doesn't flag a jump that is actually PR or UR. You would have to analyze every jump take-off and landing if you wanted to ensure 100% accuracy. Which can come at the expense of watchability.

    Take the StSq for example -- you would have to analyze in detail every aspect of what is adequately executed and what isn't to determine the level on it -- 1/3 of the pattern needs body movements? Well I suppose we must get someone to time the length of the step sequence, and then collectively add up all the timepoints that involved body movements, and then calculate the percentage to ensure that it was 33% or more of the time. And we also need to zoom in on the difficult turn combinations to ensure each one was on exactly the correct edge. We need to measure the distance of each skater's footwork pattern and determine if they really are doing multidirectional rotations each way for 1/3 of the pattern. And do it for everyone. It's the only way to be truly fair and accurate, but man is that cumbersome as heck.
    No one is requiring that everyone take off like Yuna Kim or land like Gracie Gold. Right now, only Yuzuru has a similarly textbook jumping technique, while Nathan is pretty close. Most of us are annoyed at forward takeoffs and using the whole blade in toe jumps. The ISU has communicated that forward takeoffs should be downgraded, and we can all agree that toe jumps should only involve, surprise surprise, the toe. These wouldn't even be hard to check. Have a jumps panel only that records and reviews the jumps of a performance in real time. Then, they can play back any jumping faults at the end of the performance for the audience, if necessary. This would save time AND be much fairer on the sport.

    Regarding the step sequence, it is worth far less points than the jumps in a program, so I don't think the analogy holds as much weight.

    However, I do agree that the apparent lack of consistency and objectivity in UR calls is hurting the sport. Look at all of us angry fans after some really, really strange calls.

  16. #176
    On the Ice
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    281

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by lzxnl View Post
    No one is requiring that everyone take off like Yuna Kim or land like Gracie Gold. Right now, only Yuzuru has a similarly textbook jumping technique, while Nathan is pretty close. Most of us are annoyed at forward takeoffs and using the whole blade in toe jumps. The ISU has communicated that forward takeoffs should be downgraded, and we can all agree that toe jumps should only involve, surprise surprise, the toe. These wouldn't even be hard to check. Have a jumps panel only that records and reviews the jumps of a performance in real time. Then, they can play back any jumping faults at the end of the performance for the audience, if necessary. This would save time AND be much fairer on the sport.

    Regarding the step sequence, it is worth far less points than the jumps in a program, so I don't think the analogy holds as much weight.

    However, I do agree that the apparent lack of consistency and objectivity in UR calls is hurting the sport. Look at all of us angry fans after some really, really strange calls.
    Boyang Jin also has very good technique, and in ladies I believe Liza has a textbook lutz. It’s unfair to the skaters who have good jump technique when easier, pre-rotated jumps get the same number of points. I hope that in the future, we will be able to measure the number of degrees a skater rotates in the air (to be honest, this should be possible now)—there will be zero confusion for casual fans why x skater scored higher than y skater then, because everyone understands that 800 degrees is less than 1000 degrees.

    (Also, casual fans can’t tell quads from triples most of the time—should we assign quads the same BV as triples in order not to confuse them? Of course not, quads are harder than triples, and the idea that they should be worth the same purely in order to reduce the confusion of the uninformed audience would make a mockery of this sport as a sport. The same principle applies here. Skaters who rotate more and have better technique should get more points, because they are showing a higher level of athletic skill, regardless of whether it’s visible to an untrained spectator.)

  17. #177
    Bona Fide Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    11,664
    Country: Canada

    1 Not allowed!
    Quote Originally Posted by Shanshani View Post
    Boyang Jin also has very good technique, and in ladies I believe Liza has a textbook lutz. It’s unfair to the skaters who have good jump technique when easier, pre-rotated jumps get the same number of points. I hope that in the future, we will be able to measure the number of degrees a skater rotates in the air (to be honest, this should be possible now)—there will be zero confusion for casual fans why x skater scored higher than y skater then, because everyone understands that 800 degrees is less than 1000 degrees.

    (Also, casual fans can’t tell quads from triples most of the time—should we assign quads the same BV as triples in order not to confuse them? Of course not, quads are harder than triples, and the idea that they should be worth the same purely in order to reduce the confusion of the uninformed audience would make a mockery of this sport as a sport. The same principle applies here. Skaters who rotate more and have better technique should get more points, because they are showing a higher level of athletic skill, regardless of whether it’s visible to an untrained spectator.)
    But we do reward skaters with better skill technique on all elements - that's what GOE is for. If we're talking about varying base value though, obviously many skaters get the same base value (level), even if there's a disparity in the quality for all elements... there are spinners who have better laybacks and biellmanns (2 hands on the blade, not strained) and positions/more rotations/faster rotations/better rotations. With footwork two skaters could both achieve a StSq4 but one is much better than the other. So, GOE is supposed to account for that. Same goes for jump takeoffs and landings - GOE should reflect poor takeoff/landing. URs and << are there to penalize skaters for under-rotation on the landing (or a cheated takeoff), but there is leeway. Just like there's leeway in what constitutes a layback/sideways leaning spin. Some skaters barely lean sideways or layback (eg Liza) and yet they get the same level 4 as those who actually arch and grab their blade with 2 hands (instead of skaters who have a less-than-ideal biellmann that hold the blade with only 1 hand - and not in a unique purposeful way like a Sotnikova/Asada/Brown - and instead grab their elbow/forearm). Some cross foot spin executions (like Chan's) are better executed than others (e.g. Fernandez) but the level still gets checked off. Some triple twists have huge height and others are just done to get it done.

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •