At what point ISU will start to allow quads in Ladies SP?

Harriet · Mar 15, 2019

Alex65 said:
And on the merits: I am convinced that the decision on quads for women will be reviewed and made no sooner than someone from Japanese women can do it more or less consistently.

It would be much fairer to the field in general for quads to be introduced in the women's SP after two senior female skaters from small federations on each continent/region (ie North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia) have had two or more quads ratified in competition in a single season. The SP is about providing benchmarks for the entire field, not wrenching the rules about to advantage a handful of powerful outliers. If the skill isn't manifested to some extent across the entire field, it doesn't belong in the SP.

So if it never happens, it never happens. Too bad, so sad, never mind.

Alex65 · Mar 15, 2019

Harriet said:
All post

So never. Because this is not possible even for men.

lzxnl · Mar 15, 2019

Harriet said:
It would be much fairer to the field in general for quads to be introduced in the women's SP after two senior female skaters from small federations on each continent/region (ie North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Oceania, Asia) have had two or more quads ratified in competition in a single season. The SP is about providing benchmarks for the entire field, not wrenching the rules about to advantage a handful of powerful outliers. If the skill isn't manifested to some extent across the entire field, it doesn't belong in the SP.

So if it never happens, it never happens. Too bad, so sad, never mind.

That doesn't explain why 3As were allowed in the SP.

Mathman · Mar 15, 2019

lzxnl said:
That doesn't explain why 3As were allowed in the SP.

I think that's an easy one. Triple Axels were allowed in the SP because of higher, faster, stronger, it's a sport, etc. I think the same argument will prevail with respect to quads, and sooner rather than later.

To me, the more general question is, why do we have a short program at all? With the current scoring system it's like you go to a hockey game on Thursday; they play the first period. Then you come back on Saturday and they play the second and third periods. The original purpose, as stated by Harriett above, of having a "technical program" replacing figures, has long since been abandoned.

samkrut@mail.ru · Mar 15, 2019

Mathman said:
I think that's an easy one. Triple Axels were allowed in the SP because of higher, faster, stronger, it's a sport, etc. I think the same argument will prevail with respect to quads, and sooner rather than later.

To me, the more general question is, why do we have a short program at all? With the current scoring system it's like you go to a hockey game on Thursday; they play the first period. Then you come back on Saturday and they play the second and third periods. The original purpose, as stated by Harriett above, of having a "technical program" replacing figures, has long since been abandoned.

Well, I cannot agree with hockey example. 2 programs mean deaveraging. It is close to 2 runs in skis, 4 runs in bobsleigh, etc. With 1 program only we would not have Rika's dramatic comebacks which are her visiting card. All in all without the short program it will be a different sport.

Mathman · Mar 15, 2019

[email protected] said:
Well, I cannot agree with hockey example. 2 programs mean deaveraging. ...

I would agree if we still had ordinal judging. But with the CoP, if you score 2 goals in the first period and then 5 goals in the combined second and third, altogether you have 7 goals. The end. Whether there is a two-day intermission (instead of a two minute 17 second intermission) does not affect the scoring.

Of course someone might have a bad first period and a good second period or vice versa, but that's true in every sport. It would also be true if they played for 60 minutes solid without separating it into three 20 minute quarters at all.

Or -- here's a different suggestion. Just change the name of the so-called "technical program" to the "artistic program." That way no one could complain about the lack of quads. Jumps would be judged only on their contribution as highlights to the program as a whole.

(I don't really expect that the ISU will take my suggestions to heart.)

samkrut@mail.ru · Mar 15, 2019

Mathman said:
I would agree if we still had ordinal judging. But with the CoP, if you score 2 goals in the first period and then 5 goals in the combined second and third, altogether you have 7 goals. The end. Whether there is a two-day intermission (instead of a two minute 17 second intermission) does not affect the scoring.

Of course someone might have a bad first period and a good second period or vice versa, but that's true in every sport. It would also be true if they played for 60 minutes solid without separating it into three 20 minute quarters at all.

Or -- here's a different suggestion. Just change the name of the so-called "technical program" to the "artistic program." That way no one could complain about the lack of quads. Jumps would be judged only on their contribution as highlights to the program as a whole.

(I don't really expect that the ISU will take my suggestions to heart.)

I meant a different thing. Why would they have 4 identical runs in bobsleigh? I think, the reason is to get the average which shows overall skills of teams in a given competition stripped off random factors. In figure skating it is similar. And having 1-2 day rather than 15 minutes intermission is important to bring the physical readinness back to normal. Of course, figure skating and bobsleigh are different sports. And although technically it would make sense if skaters had 2 identical programs I would think that it will be quite boring vs. seeing 2 different ones. Actually some fans from my third group (namely my wife) towards the end of a season are tired of watching the same programs over and over again.

Leaving just 1 program that counts may result in more conservative approach: you won't have the second chance in the free.

Yes, and the argument to combine the two for one 6 minute program won't work as many skaters are at their stamina limit by the end of the free program. The spectators will be bored, etc.

And I would not go for "artistic" programs. We have galas for that. I could watch Zagitova's DQ dozens of times not being bored. But I could not stand hers or somebody else's gala programs more than a couple of times. Here I am with my wife: I've seen it before and I am bored.

withwings · Mar 15, 2019

[email protected] said:
And I would not go for "artistic" programs. We have galas for that. I could watch Zagitova's DQ dozens of times not being bored. But I could not stand hers or somebody else's gala programs more than a couple of times. Here I am with my wife: I've seen it before and I am bored.

Most of the time gala's programs are (and are meant to be) entertaining, not artistic.
Impact of entertainment certainly is short lived.

drivingmissdaisy · Mar 15, 2019

Mathman said:
To me, the more general question is, why do we have a short program at all? With the current scoring system it's like you go to a hockey game on Thursday; they play the first period. Then you come back on Saturday and they play the second and third periods. The original purpose, as stated by Harriett above, of having a "technical program" replacing figures, has long since been abandoned.

It would be ideal if the SP and LP could each showcase different skills, but I really can't think of any way they can with COP. Spins, for example, are bound to get reused in both programs as long as they are equally rewarded. Maybe if the spin and footwork requirements were different in each segment, we'd see a bit more variety. The LP could also have a bit more flexibility, maybe with one of two elements being the skater's choice of a jump, spin, or footwork. But as long as a good triple outscores a great spin, I guess no skater would make that substitution.

Sjs5572 · Mar 15, 2019

[email protected] said:
For me the answer to this is that there are 3 not 2 groups.

The largest one are true casual fans who watch FS once in 4 years. Russian casual fans were the majority in Sochi mainly because many international fans gave up their tickets after listening to their media. That's how I got my A level tickets which were impossible to get at first. Those fans, first, are patriotic, second care only about skaters' not falling. It's like in the circus. There are jugglers with different levels of skills and routine difficulty. But no matter what they do the impression goes south if they drop things. There were a lot of "crocodile tears" about Sochi crowd but, boy, those who shed them should blame only themselves.

The smallest one are hard-core purists most of whom are located here or on some other fs boards. Those people watch angles in slow-mo, calculate rotations and argue, argue, argue. Catering to those people? It's possible, but I agree with Elucidus that it will make the sport incomprehensible to 99% of viewers. Then it will make the waiting time longer which is a serious problem. Finally, it will not make the sport more subjectively fair because even those hard-core fans have very different opinions sometimes.

But there is the third group of fans in between who follow the sport, who watch competitions other than OG. Some of them can tell the difference between the jumps (like myself) - some of them cannot (like my wife). The group is not homogeneuos. I can tell for myself who is on its "upper" side. I care about angles and rotations when mistakes are visible in real time. Like when a skater is doing a lutz from an obvious curve in the direction of rotation. Or like when it's a clear "hook" on the ice after the landing. But I don't care much while watching the program when there is the last moment change of the blade position from the outside to inside/flat while the take-off curve was in the correct direction. Being here, I do watch slow-mos assessing the angles and landings but only because it's a "popular game" here. And also when there are cases when 2 skaters (Osmond and Medvedeva) have similar angle issues but only one is picked for the criticism.

I think that the argument of catering to this third group has rationale. These are the people who like and follow the sport unlike those "Russian bastards" who came to watch ladies short program in Sochi after the hockey quarter final where Russia lost to Finland. Those people were strongly displeased and were shouting "Ra-sse-ya" to everyone having no idea about "the queens" like Yuna, Mao or Caro. At the same time, catering to purist will kill the watchability of the sport, no doubt.

Possibly the Ra-si-ya fans were injected with "Nationalism" PEDs. After all, it was a BIG doping scandal!

yume · Mar 15, 2019

I find unfair to allow the 3A in SP and not the quad. Why to allow some skaters like Kihira or possibly Kostornaya next season to jump a risky and high scorer element (and lead by at least 5 points over everyone else) and prevent others to catch them with risky elements too?

gkelly · Mar 15, 2019

drivingmissdaisy said:
It would be ideal if the SP and LP could each showcase different skills, but I really can't think of any way they can with COP. Spins, for example, are bound to get reused in both programs as long as they are equally rewarded. Maybe if the spin and footwork requirements were different in each segment, we'd see a bit more variety.

Hypothetically:
One program could have specific required spins and maybe some specific required features (only those that everyone at that level could be expected to achieve -- such as 8 revolutions in position or backward entry or flying entry or two changes of foot), and the other program could have no requirements other than each spin must have a different code.

And/or one program could have leveled spins and the other would treat all spins as level base, with extra points from GOE only.

That would either encourage or require skaters to include different spin content in the two programs.

There could also be a similar approach to steps: one program could have an entired required step sequence or smaller sequence of steps that must be included in the full sequence, and the other could be completely free.

Or one program could have a leveled step sequence and the other could have only a choreo sequence with just some minimum requirements to count at all.

Pairs already have required lifts and death spirals in their short programs.

The LP could also have a bit more flexibility, maybe with one of two elements being the skater's choice of a jump, spin, or footwork.

But as long as a good triple outscores a great spin, I guess no skater would make that substitution.

Unless they've already used up all their triples. That would be most useful for lower ranked juniors and senior ladies who only have two or three different triples in their repertoire, and also for those who can do multiple 3-3 and 2A+3 combinations but can't do 3A or any quads. If there are 7 jump slots available and a skater can fit in all the difficult jumps they're capable of into 6 jump passes, they might as well use the remaining slot for a high-value spin, or step sequence/other edge-based element, instead of filling it with a double jump. Time would be an issue since these elements can take more time than a jumping pass, especially a solo double. But if the free program is designed to have a little extra time for in-between skating, a skater who excels at something that can guarantee element points while also making the program seem less rather than more empty could benefit from such an option.

However, for seniors with a full set of triples, and even more so for strong jumpers who also have one or more quads, they could probably earn more points with a triple they hadn't included yet.

Alexz · Mar 15, 2019

[email protected] said:
Very solid argument. One thing perplexes me, though: how did Kolyada who jumps just 1 to 2 quads but has superb skating skills get in group A while Samarin who is nothing but jumps is in group B?

My bad. Although my classification is not too accurate, but you get the drift (in general).

moriel · Mar 15, 2019

gkelly said:
Hypothetically:
One program could have specific required spins and maybe some specific required features (only those that everyone at that level could be expected to achieve -- such as 8 revolutions in position or backward entry or flying entry or two changes of foot), and the other program could have no requirements other than each spin must have a different code.

And/or one program could have leveled spins and the other would treat all spins as level base, with extra points from GOE only.

That would either encourage or require skaters to include different spin content in the two programs.

There could also be a similar approach to steps: one program could have an entired required step sequence or smaller sequence of steps that must be included in the full sequence, and the other could be completely free.

Or one program could have a leveled step sequence and the other could have only a choreo sequence with just some minimum requirements to count at all.

Pairs already have required lifts and death spirals in their short programs.

Unless they've already used up all their triples. That would be most useful for lower ranked juniors and senior ladies who only have two or three different triples in their repertoire, and also for those who can do multiple 3-3 and 2A+3 combinations but can't do 3A or any quads. If there are 7 jump slots available and a skater can fit in all the difficult jumps they're capable of into 6 jump passes, they might as well use the remaining slot for a high-value spin, or step sequence/other edge-based element, instead of filling it with a double jump. Time would be an issue since these elements can take more time than a jumping pass, especially a solo double. But if the free program is designed to have a little extra time for in-between skating, a skater who excels at something that can guarantee element points while also making the program seem less rather than more empty could benefit from such an option.

However, for seniors with a full set of triples, and even more so for strong jumpers who also have one or more quads, they could probably earn more points with a triple they hadn't included yet.

With the current rules, if we let skaters chose between a jump, a spin or a chsq, lets say, we could have the following replacements even for top skaters: replace a 2A (which is 3.3 BV) for a spin (up to 3.5) or a chsq (3.0 - still worth it if 2A is not good as you can get higher GOE here). For example, i could see someone like Medvedeva benefitting from this - her axels were never very good, and this season she fell from them quite a lot, so replacing one with a chsq, which would bring her something like 4.5 points easily and would be basically a mistake-proof element would totally work.

Alexz · Mar 15, 2019

el henry said:
Obvious to the “average FS fan” that Adelina and Alina were skater A? And Zhenya and YuNa were skater B?

Alina, Adelina and Mao Asada had the most difficult programs back than (for their time). Skater-A.
Zhenya and Yuna had slightly "easier" jumps and ladings were not perfect, but both had higher PCS skills and likable programs. Skater-B.

Alina and Adelina had nearly perfect skates of their lives. Skater-A type wins. Mao had a meltdown and could not handle all her difficulty. Skater-A went all-in for a risk, but could not handle all the difficulty.
Zhenya and Yuna had less difficulty and were hoping for their reputations and high-PCS. However, their landings were not perfectly clean, therefore even their high-PCS were not enough against clean'ish Skater-A. Skater-B loses. Very transparent and understandable. "Sport principle applies" as they say.

Skater-A with biggest (and risky) difficulty always should win even if his/her/their PCS are not perfectly superb. Skater-B with less difficulty could only win if goes very clean AND opponent Skater-A goes so messy that obviously this attempted high difficulty is just unprepared and not ready yet (if ever). We seen Medvedeva once wining gold with a fall over other clean'ish high-PCS skaters. We changed the rules now: -5GoE and stuff. Now it is too risky to fall on difficult jumps, thus skaters are more motivated to skate clean with easier jumps. However, those who still want to risk are still having a possibility to push difficulty and boundaries of the sport. Unique talents, high difficulty tricks (unreachable to the rest of the field), risk and drama. This is why fans are attracted to sports.

Fans are discouraged and disappointed at "I won gold because I had no quads, but more transitions". Karma is a ***ch. Look at the low-popularity numbers of FS in North America now (tv-viewership is going down, number of students are low, coaching FS is not a prestigious job any more), and compare with the current high-popularity of artistic gymnastics (where American WAG girls have the most amazing difficulty in the world, btw). Fans don't like corruption and want fair medals, otherwise they stop following this sport.

Alexz · Mar 15, 2019

el henry · Mar 15, 2019

Alexz said:
Alina, Adelina and Mao Asada had the most difficult programs back than (for their time). Skater-A.
Zhenya and Yuna had slightly "easier" jumps and ladings were not perfect, but both had higher PCS skills and likable programs. Skater-B.

Alina and Adelina had nearly perfect skates of their lives. Skater-A type wins. Mao had a meltdown and could not handle all her difficulty. Skater-A went all-in for a risk, but could not handle all the difficulty.
Zhenya and Yuna had less difficulty and were hoping for their reputations and high-PCS. However, their landings were not perfectly clean, therefore even their high-PCS were not enough against clean'ish Skater-A. Skater-B loses. Very transparent and understandable. "Sport principle applies" as they say.

Skater-A with biggest (and risky) difficulty always should win even if his/her/their PCS are not perfectly superb. Skater-B with less difficulty could only win if goes very clean AND opponent Skater-A goes so messy that obviously this attempted high difficulty is just unprepared and not ready yet (if ever). We seen Medvedeva once wining gold with a fall over other clean'ish high-PCS skaters. We changed the rules now: -5GoE and stuff. Now it is too risky to fall on difficult jumps, thus skaters are more motivated to skate clean with easier jumps. However, those who still want to risk are still having a possibility to push difficulty and boundaries of the sport. Unique talents, high difficulty tricks (unreachable to the rest of the field), risk and drama. This is why fans are attracted to sports.

Fans are discouraged and disappointed at "I won gold because I had no quads, but more transitions". Karma is a ***ch. Look at the low-popularity numbers of FS in North America now (tv-viewership is going down, number of students are low, coaching FS is not a prestigious job any more), and compare with the current high-popularity of artistic gymnastics (where American WAG girls have the most amazing difficulty in the world, btw). Fans don't like corruption and want fair medals, otherwise they stop following this sport.

I’m sorry, but I stand by what I said.

More revolutions in the air on a jump does not equate to best in the sport. No way, nohow. My opinion, based on too many years watching this sport and others, will not change on that ( although I do need to admit, it would be difficult to find a sport I care less about than gymnastics. If you want to talk about whether the return of DJaxx will help the Birds next year, I’m your gal

) ETA: which I admit is just an opinion. But so is, revolutions in the air is the most wonderful thing ever and what folks relate to. Just an opinion.

And the *last* reason, again IMO, out of 363 that viewership for figure skating is down is that not enough skaters are doing enough revolutions in the air. Jackson B Squat to do with it or karma.

Correlation is not causation. :biggrin:

Lunalovesskating · Mar 15, 2019

Also when will they allow Juniors to do a 3Axel in the SP? It is long overdue

Alexz · Mar 15, 2019

"More revelation In the air does not mean to be the best in the sport?"

How refreshing.

Nah, but you are surely entitled to your personal opinion. Last time I checked figure skating is still a sport, not an ice show. IOC wants it to be a competitive sport, without scandals and corruption. I think this is a fair demand. The strongest should win. "Beautiful translations" quality is good for a show. Or ice dance. I stand by a TAT's quote above.

el henry · Mar 15, 2019

Alexz said:
"More revelation know the air does not mean to be the best in the sport?"

Nah, but you are surely entitled to your personal opinion. Last time I checked figure skating is still a sport, not an ice show. IOC wants it to be a competitive sport, without scandals and corruption. I think this is a fair demand. The strongest should win. "Beautiful translations" quality is good for a show. Or ice dance. I stand by a TAT's quote above.

Beautiful transitions is indeed wonderful for a sport.:agree: of singles figure skating. Nothing to do with shows

But you are entitled to your personal opinion as well, and I don’t see us changing each other’s mind on what constitutes the best in this sport.

Which is what makes a figure skating board hum

At what point ISU will start to allow quads in Ladies SP?

Harriet

Alex65

lzxnl

Mathman

[email protected]

Medalist

Mathman

[email protected]

Medalist

withwings

drivingmissdaisy

Sjs5572

yume

🍉

gkelly

Alexz

moriel

Alexz

Alexz

el henry

Go have some cake. And come back with jollity.

Lunalovesskating

Moonbear power 🐻

Alexz

el henry

Go have some cake. And come back with jollity.

Similar threads

Connect with us