Should 2 quads a long program become the limit?

[Sam-Skwantch]

I'm an old woman and I recall back in the late 60's wishing that skaters would land more jumps in their programs, and lo & behold! eventually that happened. Then I wanted to see the men land harder triples than triple sal or triple toe. And that, too, became the norm. Then women landing triples. Who'd a tho't it?
And so it's gone over the years. It's called progression. I never tho't I'd live long enough to see anyone landing quads but I have. So long as their are risk takers & people prepared to push limits whether its in a sport or medicine or science, etc., there will be Progress. Otherwise there is stagnation. Ten years from now all quad programs may be the norm for the men, Will you then say "how boring this sport has become?"

Thank you for the perspective Merrywidow. I think you might just be right

 

[cruzceleste]

Nope. Why it should be ? If anyone can jump 5 quads, feel free

This, limiting will only be at unfair to the people that can jump the progrmas

 

[cruzceleste]

I'm an old woman and I recall back in the late 60's wishing that skaters would land more jumps in their programs, and lo & behold! eventually that happened. Then I wanted to see the men land harder triples than triple sal or triple toe. And that, too, became the norm. Then women landing triples. Who'd a tho't it?
And so it's gone over the years. It's called progression. I never tho't I'd live long enough to see anyone landing quads but I have. So long as their are risk takers & people prepared to push limits whether its in a sport or medicine or science, etc., there will be Progress. Otherwise there is stagnation. Ten years from now all quad programs may be the norm for the men, Will you then say "how boring this sport has become?"

 

[LRK]

Funny enough, while you get dinged for failing to put a repeated jump in combination, some skaters actually repeat the same triple in two combinations (e.g. Julia has donea 3Z+3T to open, and a 3Z+2T later and used to do 2A+3T/2A+3T+2T... or Hanyu will do two triple axels in combination). And plenty of skaters do multiple solo 2As (e.g. Brown), although I think even 2As need to have at least one in combination now.

If you fail to put a jump in combination the second time around, it's counted as a sequence (80% value). It's a pretty harsh rule because if you fall on the jump the second time around or step out, it ends up being a deduction on top of a deduction (it does make it riskier to include combos in the 2nd half).

Interesting. I had failed to realise that!

i agree that it's a really harsh rule - and I wonder what the reasoning behind it is? And why it would matter if, say, a skater did two solo 3As for example. I can understand why there would be a limitation on the amount of jumps allowed - for example a skater might otherwise litter the program with 3A after 3A if they were good at them, and choose not to do other jumps they weren't as good at. I just don't understand the why's and wherefore's of the combination rule... and wondering if there was something I wasn't seeing?

 

[Scovies]

And there's plenty of crappy no-quad programs, or shoddily skated no-quad programs. I still shudder a little when I think of Liam Firus' Olympic skate.

The ISU should encourage good programs by... encouraging good programs. Simplify the level requirements for the StSq in the SP (and bring back the two StSq), so that skaters can actually make the steps fit the music rather than cramming in all the turns. Punish falls, step-outs, sloppiness, ect. to encourage people to skate clean programs and do their best to save jumps. Take away levels for some of the spins, so we can see a nice simple scratch spin once in a while.

I agree completely. I think the requirements for spins and step sequences are actually what's making these programs so exhausting for the skaters, rather than doing multiple quads. Is a 50-second step sequence really going to be more effective than, say, what Michelle Kwan does here in less than 20? I'd much rather the focus of spins and footwork be on the GOE rather than the base values.

 

[IcyEdges]

My point is - with multiple quads the whole focus of the program is the set-up and then recovering either from a successful landing or a botched landing. I really get tired of the attempts at quads. I think a program should be well-balanced and skaters should be all-round skaters, not just jumpers. And I agree with whoever said it would be interesting to do a study on what learning, practicing and attempting those jumps does to a skater's back and knees and if it limits the lifetime of their competitive career. We know MANY of them work all year long to perfect a program and then the quad takes them out of contention for anything because they either fall, single or double it, or under-rotate it. I've always thought the quad was over-rated. And I also like TontoK's post. I think the whole argument of "limiting technical content" is sort of ridiculous. There are so many more ways for a skater to express himself (or herself) than attempting some of these jumps. I don't like skaters who are just jumpers and the in-betweens are clumsy, ill-executed, awkward, not musical, and their spins look like off-balance tops. So have a stricter penalty for "falls, stepouts, incorrect edges in takeoff and landing" and don't give credit for a jump that is fully rotated but ends on someone's butt.

JMO of course. And I realize I'm in the minority but a well-skated clean program to me is far more representative of a skater's skills than some of these jump fests.

:agree:

 

[TMC]

I'm not in favor of limiting technical content.

However, I am in favor of much harsher punishments for falls, stepouts, incorrect edges in takeoff and landing...

In short, attempt what you want, but beware if you bite off more than you can chew.

I'm tired of seeing splat-fests.

I hope to never hear again such nonsense as "It was a fully rotated fall."

I agree with this.

Now this is just speculation and I'm basing it on conversations I've had with friends and relatives, but maybe the fact that falls, stepouts etc aren't "punished" as much as they could be, might have something to do with why fs is not so popular anymore? I want to make clear again that I really don't have anything against certain jumps! But maybe if falls etc got more points docked then perhaps skaters would stick to one version of a certain jump - the one that comes most natural - and perfect it as well as they could, instead of trying to cram as many as possible in there because even two fully rotated falls will give them a bunch of points...?

I've spoken to many people who used to enjoy watching fs but don't anymore because it is hard for them to understand this whole "fully rotated fall" thing. And I have tried my hardest to explain...They watch a competition on tv and enjoy cleanish and enthusiastic or touching programs, but then another skater can fall twice and still get 20+ more points.

For instance, my mum was a huge fs fan for decades - it was gushing over Michelle Kwan that pulled us both into the sport. Now she rarely watches because she doesn't get it and feels sorry for the skaters (I made her watch Euros with me and her fave is Julia, partly because she's consistent and charming, partly because she's Russian ).

Apparently the biggest locker room conversation of the Olympics at her gym was "how on earth did that American skater get 1st place (for a time) with that horrendous fall?" They asked my mum to ask me so she could then explain to them, but I'm not sure my explanation made much difference.... It's a shame because this is a demographic that has the time and mostly the money to go to competitions, and some of them used to go, but it sounds like they've given up on both going and trying to understand how mistakes are dealt with in the IJS.

This year I finally managed to talk my mum into coming to FT with me, even offering to pay for her ticket... And when I tried to get her a bit more excited by gushing over Yuzu.... "Who's he?" "He won the gold!" "Oh great that splatter. Yay."

I also do understand the point that in a sport risks must be taken for it to evolve. That is correct. But an audience is crucial to a sport as well, and I also worry about the diminishing audience.

I hope I didn't offend anybody, I don't ever mean to

 

[Sandpiper]

Oh, I absolutely think the lack of punishment for falls is part of why FS has declined in North America. It's less of an issue in Japan, in which FS wasn't as big during the 6.0 heyday, so they don't have those preoccupations. And Russia sticks with FS through thick and thin.

Back in the 6.0 days, favourites would plummet off the podium when they fell. Sometimes it was too harsh; there were instances where I felt like the skate with a fall still deserved to place higher than the skate without one. However, even with those few results I disagreed with, this was also what made the sport exciting. Because it was risky. Now, the miniscule -1, -GOE comparable to what you'd get for UR/wrong edge, plus no PCS reflection... well, it's almost ruined the quads and 3-3s for me. They're no longer as exciting, because they didn't carry the risk they used to.

I just don't think limiting quads is the answer (and it diminishes FS as a sport). I think punishing mistakes--namely, the large visible errors that the audience can see--is a better step. That addresses the problem directly.

I agree completely. I think the requirements for spins and step sequences are actually what's making these programs so exhausting for the skaters, rather than doing multiple quads. Is a 50-second step sequence really going to be more effective than, say, what Michelle Kwan does here in less than 20? I'd much rather the focus of spins and footwork be on the GOE rather than the base values.

A perfect example. Gives me goosebumps on every time I rewatch. Also: Note the simple spin at the end. Yes, it's not the most amazing spin ever, but it puts an effective period on the program. Now imagine if Michelle were forced to do a minute-long StSq with every turn imaginable (no matter if it fit the music or not), and had to end with a spin with four different positions that overstays its welcome...

 

[Matt K]

Absolutely not. Unless there is some accredited/valid scientific research showing that quads cause injury, then limit the quads. Otherwise, big fat no.

I propose an additional deduction to skaters who do not attempt quads in the free skate.

 

[Wo|flax]

Absolutely not. Unless there is some accredited/valid scientific research showing that quads cause injury, then limit the quads. Otherwise, big fat no.

I propose an additional deduction to skaters who do not attempt quads in the free skate.

What no; that severely underestimates the difficulty and risk of training a quad

 

[Matt K]

What no; that severely underestimates the difficulty and risk of training a quad

That is what I am saying. Do not limit the amount of quads any skater can do in a program. Otherwise, Jason Brown, Abbott, Firus, and the like will never put them in their programs.

I propose an additional deduction to skaters who do not attempt quads in the free skate.

 

[Scovies]

I propose an additional deduction to skaters who do not attempt quads in the free skate.

Do you want to cause injuries? Because creating a rule that forces skaters to attempt a jump that they aren't ready for (either mentally or physically) or risk incurring a deduction would be a great way to accomplish that.

Besides, how could you even enforce such a rule? Do you deduct skaters who plan a quad but pop it? If a quad is underrotated to the point of being downgraded, does that count as an attempt?

There's no need for such a deduction. Skaters who attempt quads have higher base values than those who don't. Shouldn't that difference be enough?

 

[Sandpiper]

That is what I am saying. Do not limit the amount of quads any skater can do in a program. Otherwise, Jason Brown, Abbott, Firus, and the like will never put them in their programs.

I propose an additional deduction to skaters who do not attempt quads in the free skate.

What on earth is the point of that? I like the quad and all, but there's no point in seeing someone with a 0% quad success rate attempt one and have a horrible fall every time.

Are you perhaps saying that a program with any quad (even if it's "just" one) should be more greatly separated from an all-triple program? In which case, we can raise the BV of the first quad in the free skate by a bit--I wouldn't be completely against that, assuming there's an appropriate risk should you fall on it. This, in theory, amounts to the same thing, but it won't be as negative to the psyche of skaters (it'll encourage them to include the quad, but they will likely not feel as pressured if they're not ready).

 

[unico]

An interesting range of opinions here, haha.

I agree with those saying increasing the penalties for falls (and especially punishing multiple falls per program). I'm not sure if I like how currently, hand-downs (with >50% of the body weight on the hands) are considered falls because I don't like inconsistent calling from the technical panel... But I still think they should be punished more.

I would also cut down the step sequence/spin levels to maybe 2 different levels to encourage quality and musicality over spamming footwork/uncomfortable positions. A fast and exciting step sequence is so powerful, and only few people in the world are so skilled enough to make step sequences (as they are now) work in any semblance of the word (Chan, Takahashi, Asada off the top of my head).

 

[Mrs. P]

Basically the "penalize the skater" for no quad would only apply to Jason Brown. Josh Farris and Jeremy have attempted quads.

 

[TMC]

LOL

Judge: I see you didn't attempt a quad there Jason. That's a five-point deduction you know.
Jason: No, I did attempt a quad flip-triple toe. I just popped it into a triple. Every time I did Riverdance.
Judge: Oh well that's ok then

 

[Wo|flax]

I'm not in favor of limiting technical content.

However, I am in favor of much harsher punishments for falls, stepouts, incorrect edges in takeoff and landing...

That would be good; increasing deductions for falls is always talked about, but it's disproportionate if step-outs etc(and that little spinny thing they do sometimes on landings that annoys me so bad [and takes me out of a performance more than falls tbqh]).

So, to include the other things, you'd have to expand the GOE, so it can go to -6 or something(-4? big enough?). but you'd also have to expand the +goe proportionately so that someone with safe ittybitty boring jumps wouldn't win things.

But then there's the problem of going too far, and pushing the sport back with too much risk. (i.e. a beautiful 3A (or quad) would get the +6 points, but a step out on a 3A would potentially get you less than other easier jumps, and a fall on a triple would get you less than a double).

and then, it affects the proportion of jump points to spin (and everything else)etc. points, so you'd have to increase those as well...

and, someone winning with a safe programs is just as bad as quads being less exciting since they have less risk than they used to (not that I was around in the 6.0 era).

TLDR: I agree with you in theory but I don't know how it would work in practice.

There's something I like in the turns requirements arguments, but again not sure how it would work in practice.

 

[Wo|flax]

An interesting range of opinions here, haha.

I agree with those saying increasing the penalties for falls (and especially punishing multiple falls per program). I'm not sure if I like how currently, hand-downs (with >50% of the body weight on the hands) are considered falls because I don't like inconsistent calling from the technical panel... But I still think they should be punished more.

I would also cut down the step sequence/spin levels to maybe 2 different levels to encourage quality and musicality over spamming footwork/uncomfortable positions. A fast and exciting step sequence is so powerful, and only few people in the world are so skilled enough to make step sequences (as they are now) work in any semblance of the word (Chan, Takahashi, Asada off the top of my head).

Ooh that's interesting, so that goe would be more important; what would the gap between the levels be? how would they be defined?

if hand downs etc also got bigger deductions, and the gap stayed essentially the same (or not too much different) there wouldn't be that problem/ the tech panel wouldn't have too much power.

LOL

Judge: I see you didn't attempt a quad there Jason. That's a five-point deduction you know.
Jason: No, I did attempt a quad flip-triple toe. I just popped it into a triple. Every time I did Riverdance.
Judge: Oh well that's ok then

 

[gmyers]

No never. There should be one quad minimum of quad toe. If you can't do it you can do triple toe.

 

[unico]

Ooh that's interesting, so that goe would be more important; what would the gap between the levels be? how would they be defined?

if hand downs etc also got bigger deductions, and the gap stayed essentially the same (or not too much different) there wouldn't be that problem/ the tech panel wouldn't have too much power.

Hmm, I guess so. Heavy hands down are usually marked with -3 GOE straight across, and if it's considered a fall then it's an additional -1 point deduction so the technical controller only has control of that 1 point. But still, medal colours have been determined by less than a fraction of a point so I would like it if the calling was more clear cut, even if it's something simply like one hand down = no deduction and two hands = fall deduction.

I would have to really think about what requirements I would want for the step sequences and I'm definitely no expert, but with only two levels I would probably increase the GOE factoring for both (maybe to 0.7 and to 1.0 respectively, to encourage the importance of the step sequence) and loosen some of the requirements. Just less less less! Less convolution in the pattern (i.e. simple straight line, serpentine, etc), less required turns, less full body movement (hate seeing all those ugly 1-spin illusion spins in footwork just to meet the feature!), etc. Level 1 would be OK variety and Level 2 would be excellent/complex variety. GOE would be marked on clarity of movement, enagement with the music, speed, originality/creativity, and if skater wishes to include more complexity than is required (and they do it well) then extra difficulty can be another one of the GOE bullets. I don't know how I would tackle spins except that less done well is more than more done poorly

That would be good; increasing deductions for falls is always talked about, but it's disproportionate if step-outs etc(and that little spinny thing they do sometimes on landings that annoys me so bad [and takes me out of a performance more than falls tbqh]).

So, to include the other things, you'd have to expand the GOE, so it can go to -6 or something(-4? big enough?). but you'd also have to expand the +goe proportionately so that someone with safe ittybitty boring jumps wouldn't win things.

But then there's the problem of going too far, and pushing the sport back with too much risk. (i.e. a beautiful 3A (or quad) would get the +6 points, but a step out on a 3A would potentially get you less than other easier jumps, and a fall on a triple would get you less than a double).

and then, it affects the proportion of jump points to spin (and everything else)etc. points, so you'd have to increase those as well...

I think if -GOE factor on the quads/3As were increased to increments of maybe 1.5~2 then that would be pretty sufficient in punishing falls/step outs/overturns/doublefoot landings in one fell swoop. I don't think that the +GOE have to increase by the same factor because the BV of the quad is already pretty high and +GOE on a quad as it is right now is a huge amount of points. Perhaps the BV could be increased a little bit more, maybe, but not enough to counteract the increased -GOE. If we leave the +GOE factoring on quads/3As as it is and just increase the -GOE factoring then I don't think we would have to recalibrate the entire scale of values for all the other elements.