General Skating Chat

[EisElle]

bringing this here (edited original post)

3 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Historically? Based off the current field? Sakamoto's jumps aren't "very good" level based on historical data, nor are her jumps the biggest currently, as far as I can tell. She does have generally better overall jump quality than most current skaters though.

 

That person literally just brought up the example of a small quad to compare, too. Makes absolutely no sense.

 

This ignores the question I posed, too. If a "very good" jump gets +5, it means we're equating it to a best ever, essentially perfect jump which would get +5, too. Logical?

I suppose that should be decided if ISU ever wanted to establish more accurate parameters. Atm I'd say only current field should be used (maybe across several seasons tho), but the idea that in the near future those that are now considered big jumps could disappear entirely and the average decrease till current "tiny" jumps become the new "average" doesn't make me thrilled at the idea of completely forgetting "the good old times".

Personally I think about current field (+ some freshly retired skaters), but I wish ISU could do something more, because it looks like the current goe scoring is gonna shape the average rather than being based on it.

 

re: Kaori and her 3Lo, if one accepts to give her the amplitude bullet, the jump can be a +5, since she can also get bullet 2 and 3 plus matching the music and, even without granting the body position bullet (and I can't see how it could be considered so bad to justify a deduction for poor position), she can also get bullet 4 based on "creative entry". Kaori goes from her chsq directly into that jump so IMO that's fair ground to say it fullfills bullet 4. So those are 5 bullets, included the core bullets.

Maybe I could be picky and say she had even better 3Los in other comps, but tbh the WTT this 3Lo fulfills more bullets than many jumps that got +5 this season...so I'm not gonna be picky and say that was a +5 jump

 

And yeah, in the current system, +5 isn't about how perfect jump is (which makes Yuzu not getting those +5 more maddening). The system doesn't even require to hit all 6 bullets to get the highest score possible (which is IMO some very weird logic,  why should a jump with 6 positive bullets be scored the same as a jump with 5 positive bullets? but not surprising, since...ISU)...And of course they are guidelines

 

 

 

 

On 4/11/2019 at 2:39 PM, shanshani said:

Catching up on this thread. Here's what I proposed on GS:

 

What makes most sense is if a certain number of possible GOE points are available for height and distance, and you get a % of them depending on how far/high you jumped, all completely graded by computer. The standards could be set using historical data.

For the sake of demonstration, it could work like this. Let’s say we allot 1 GOE point available to be earned for height and distance, maybe split 0.5 for height and 0.5 for distance. (Someone made the comment that this should probably in actuality be 10% of BV, which I agree with. Going to use 1 just to make the math easier though.) Suppose we take a bunch of 3A data and we find that the biggest height is 0.7m and the biggest distance is 3.62m (which indeed was the case in the World’s SP). Let’s also say that, once we take into account lower tiers of competition, we find that the average 3A height is 0.56m and the average length is 2.62m. Let’s stipulate that your 3A has to at least be slightly above average to start earning height/distance GOE points (but of course we can argue about this—maybe the standard should be higher, maybe lower). From this, we could construct a scale where your height/distance GOE is proportional to how far your 3A is above the average, and the standard for full marks is set by the maximum height/distance among the historical data.

So, applying this to the Worlds men’s SP 3As, assuming those measurements are accurate, it would look like this:

Yuzuru Hanyu would get maximum marks for his 3A on both height and distance, as their height and distance matches the maximum height and distance in the historical data (obviously this is cheating a bit since I’m using his 3A in the historical data but this makes the math easier to demonstrate and the numbers somewhat grounded in reality, so deal with it haha). Therefore, he gets the full 1 point for height and distance.

Shoma Uno would get 0 points for height on his 3A, since his height of 0.51 is below the average height of 0.56. However, he would also receive (3.44-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=82% of full marks for distance, as his distance of 3.44 is 82% of the way between the average (2.62) and the maximum (3.62) in the historical data. Therefore, he would earn 82%*0.5=0.41 GOE for distance.

Mikhail Kolyada, on the other hand, would receive (0.65-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=64% of full marks on height, as his height is 64% of the way between the average and the maximum, so 0.32 points. But he would receive nothing for distance, as the distance on his 3A (2.5m) is below average. (I personally kind of disagree with this and would argue for weighing height more, but we can argue over the details, this is just demonstration.)

Nathan Chen would receive (0.58-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=14% of the full marks on height, for 0.07 GOE, and (2.66-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=4% of the full marks on distance, for 0.02 GOE. Therefore, he would earn 0.09 GOE in total for jumping slightly, but only slightly, higher and longer than average. (Of course, let me note that I completely made up the average numbers—the actual average for clean 3As in the Worlds SP was 0.59m height and 2.87m distance, but I put lower numbers on the theory that the men at Worlds would have bigger 3As than all of the men who can jump a 3A do on average).

Keegan Messing, on the other hand, would receive (0.64-0.56)/(0.7-0.56)=57% of full marks for height, giving him 0.29, and (3.33-2.62)/(3.62-2.62)=71% of full marks for distance, giving him 0.36, for a total of 0.65 GOE for a strongly above average but still somewhat short of the maximum jump in terms of size.

Anyway, you get the idea. Again, the details can be tweaked, but I find the general idea to be much more sensical than a binary choice of whether the jump had “very good” height and distance. Of course, all the math can be done by computer, so all this is fully automated. It also has interesting strategic consequences—in addition to doing a better job of incentivizing jumping big, which I think the current judging is very bad at, it also has the interesting side effect that if you can figure out how to jump much bigger than your opponents, you can suppress their GOE scores (presuming the historical data is continually updated, which I think it should be). For instance, Yuzuru’s 3A was a whole 5 centimeters higher than the next highest 3A, from Mikhail Kolyada. Consequently (under this example scoring regime), no other competitor was able to score more than 64% of the points available for height! I think that would add an extra dimension to the competition and really encourage bigger jumps.

 

Admittedly, it would be difficult to set standards for jumps that are rarely jumped, like 4Lo and 4F. In those cases, perhaps standards could be set using a data set pooled from all of the quads. Unfortunately, I think that might short change 4Lo jumpers a bit, since I don’t think loops tend to get as high and far as other jumps because of the mechanics of the jump, but it would be a fair compromise until a bigger data set is built, and certainly better than whatever passes for height/distance judging now.

 

 

I think I like this system. It might prevent the slow death of big jumps, if the historical record used as reference can only move up and not move down.

Well, the average could still move down and jumps that now would be at 0% could become jumps that get 10%, but the would still be an upper anchor to ensure that different degrees of "good" are rewarded differently, and it's something I like, because excellent should get more points than very good and this can't happen atm (not that very good is getting any advantage over average anyway)

Depending on how much points were at stake, height/distance on jumps could become a serious incentive for working on getting more airtime and more horizontal speed. If the jumping technique is one that involves getting airtime on all jumps it could become significant for the scores. Additionally, it could also be established that only if you get a certain % of points for height/distance you can go above a certain GOE thresold

Of course the historical record should come from accurate measurements, so this excludes the jumps from the past (no Midori Ito standard for ladies ). 

 

Maybe though, before collecting the data, the actual rotations should be properly assessed. If one were to count the height of several UR quads it's likely the average would be lowered, when the reality is that particular airtime wasn't enough to rotate the quad....

well, we're talking about something that could happen in the future tho. A faster and cheaper technology would be necessary for ISU to even begin to think about such a system, and it would be necessary to gain the data on all types of jumps and further improve accuracy... but one needs to start somewhere and things like ice scope are a good start IMO.

In the meanwhile the available data could be used at least to review judges' scores and train them to better understand which jumps are small and which are big, since it looks like they have no real idea about that (assuming that there is no malice in the scoring...I know, t's hard)

 

@shansani, what about also using negative percetages as deduction system for small jumps too?

In theory current rules say that poor height/distance can get some deductions, though it's hard to say if it's ever applied... then there would truly be a difference between small jumps and big jumps...

 

 

On 4/12/2019 at 5:05 AM, Old Cat Lady said:

What I think would be interesting is seeing where the jumps that get greater than 3 GOE are on the list of height/distance ranks since height/distance is supposed to be a core bullet.  I think it's fair that if the jump is in the bottom third or half of all jumps in size, then they shouldn't get that bullet.

 

I also want ISU to do another seminar where they show why this or that element this season got this or that GOE. Heck, they can even cherry-pick the elements that properly fit the bullets and leave alone the...more questionable examples.

And they should at least do sbs comparisons. If they want to avoid comparing skaters, they could just pick a skater and say: "let's compare all his 3As during the season" and explain why they got different scores...

[yuzuangel]

2 hours ago, LadyLou said:

I suppose that should be decided if ISU ever wanted to establish more accurate parameters. Atm I'd say only current field should be used (maybe across several seasons tho), but the idea that in the near future those that are now considered big jumps could disappear entirely and the average decrease till current "tiny" jumps become the new "average" doesn't make me thrilled at the idea of completely forgetting "the good old times".

True, if everyone just gradually jumped smaller then the average would keep decreasing.

But either way they should be willing to define, using past and present "averages", some standards for the height bullet point 

[hoodie axel]

18 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

Well that's kind of unfair because then how do you differentiate between (and reward) average and above average jumps, in height and distance?

 

14 hours ago, LadyLou said:

And yeah, in the current system, +5 isn't about how perfect jump is (which makes Yuzu not getting those +5 more maddening). The system doesn't even require to hit all 6 bullets to get the highest score possible (which is IMO some very weird logic,  why should a jump with 6 positive bullets be scored the same as a jump with 5 positive bullets? but not surprising, since...ISU)...And of course they are guidelines

Well, it's a problem from the ISU bullets. Think about it, there's average, there's good, then very good, and also excellent height. They're grouping the jumps all together, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How should we differentiate? They also group together height and distance, when they are separate qualities. Giving more space to the amplitude bullets makes sense on multiple levels, actually, to me. As I mentioned on another thread, jump amplitude can sometimes affect landing and outflow, and that would negate the amplitude aspect of the jump based off the very bullets the ISU has proposed. But it makes no sense: suppose you're a new senior big jumper, controlling your jump landings, and mastering them will take time to learn, and in the meantime you're not even getting credit for what you ARE doing and putting effort into? It's an in-built reputation-based system in a way. The ISU rules are hardly helping judging. Like not to be a judge-apologist, because they shouldn't be dumb enough to blindly follow dumb rules, but the rules themselves are stupid.

 

As Lou mentions, we should also not be equating jumps with 5 bullets to jumps with 6 bullets. Instead, a 6 (or 7 or 8) bullet jump should be getting +5s, just that there should be different ways of getting six bullets (very good height + very good distance jump vs good height + distance + difficult entry, for instance).

 

In the meantime, well, I would give Sakamoto "+5", and then deduct a Raw GOE (-1 or -2 depending on the jump) for "lack of height" or something like that.

18 hours ago, yuzuangel said:

I don't see how it makes no sense.

They're saying that a quad has an average height and so does a 2A, and those average heights are probably very different.

It doesn't make sense to me to compare two different jump classes, though? A good 2A is a good 2A, a bad quad is a bad quad.

 

ETA: Maybe I misunderstood? I'm not comparing 2As and quads. 45 cm for a 2A IS good. It's still not exceptional height, though, since some of Ito's executions looked like they were more than half a metre off the ice, and came VERY late in the program, AND came off difficult entries.

 

18 hours ago, WinForPooh said:

I love Yuzu's toe jumps but his 2T rippon has to have a leg wrap because his toe jumps are so big in general.

He shouldn't be losing a bullet point for changing his technique to prevent overrotation at all! That's a GOOD display of technique.

[WinForPooh]

3 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

 

Well, it's a problem from the ISU bullets. Think about it, there's average, there's good, then very good, and also excellent height. They're grouping the jumps all together, it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How should we differentiate? They also group together height and distance, when they are separate qualities. Giving more space to the amplitude bullets makes sense on multiple levels, actually, to me. As I mentioned on another thread, jump amplitude can sometimes affect landing and outflow, and that would negate the amplitude aspect of the jump based off the very bullets the ISU has proposed. But it makes no sense: suppose you're a new senior big jumper, controlling your jump landings, and mastering them will take time to learn, and in the meantime you're not even getting credit for what you ARE doing and putting effort into? It's an in-built reputation-based system in a way. The ISU rules are hardly helping judging. Like not to be a judge-apologist, because they shouldn't be dumb enough to blindly follow dumb rules, but the rules themselves are stupid.

 

As Lou mentions, we should also not be equating jumps with 5 bullets to jumps with 6 bullets. Instead, a 6 (or 7 or 8) bullet jump should be getting +5s, just that there should be different ways of getting six bullets (very good height + very good distance jump vs good height + distance + difficult entry, for instance).

 

In the meantime, well, I would give Sakamoto "+5", and then deduct a Raw GOE (-1 or -2 depending on the jump) for "lack of height" or something like that.

It doesn't make sense to me to compare two different jump classes, though? A good 2A is a good 2A, a bad quad is a bad quad.

 

ETA: Maybe I misunderstood? I'm not comparing 2As and quads. 45 cm for a 2A IS good. It's still not exceptional height, though, since some of Ito's executions looked like they were more than half a metre off the ice, and came VERY late in the program, AND came off difficult entries.

 

He shouldn't be losing a bullet point for changing his technique to prevent overrotation at all! That's a GOOD display of technique.

 

I think I see what you're saying: That the current system of evaluating how good a jump is via bullet points is flawed because a definitely, unquestionably above average on all counts jump - say, a 2A off a spread eagle and into a high kick, with above average height and distance, landed to a musical note, with good position - would get the same score as an excellent jump - say, a 2A out of twizzles and into a catch-foot spiral, with outstanding height and distance, and a rippon, taken off and landed to create the most impact to music. 

 

And yeah, I agree with that, an above average on all counts jump should get rewarded, but an outstanding on all jumps should be rewarded more, and an above average on some things but outstanding on others (or some such combination which is what most skaters will have) should have more nuanced judging. But as it stands now, I'd give Kaori +5 for that loop because deductions should be for below average, and getting the bullet is for being visibly above average of the field, which her 3Lo is in both height and distance. Again, this is because 'very good' is so open to interpretation. I'd say visibly above the average of the field is good enough, but then compared to Liza's or Tomoe's Lz, it's obviously not that big so are they going above and beyond because they're nuts, like Yuzuru and his complex entries?! I guess I can see both sides of it and somebody's getting screwed either way. Loops, though, seem to be among the smaller jumps compared to others because of that takeoff, so judging 'very good' height and distance for loops should be by comparing what kind of amplitude 3Los usually get. 

 

(Re: the comparing 2A and quads thing, I think they were referring to judging whether a jump hits 'very good' of that bullet by comparing it to average of the field in that particular jump, so a very good 2A would probably not have the height of an average quad. Obviously the 2A would still hit that bullet even if a quad of that size, even if they managed to rotate it, should not.)

 

ETA: As the rules are now, there is really no explanation for why Kaori would get more than +3 but also less than +5 because it seems obvious that she hits all the other bullets, so if that's the one she's getting deducted for, she shouldn't get more than +3 from anybody even if she does a handstand-twizzle out of it, according to the rules. Very good height and distance is a core bullet. Any jump with more than +3 from any judge should automatically be assumed to have got the core bullets. So this is just more inexplicable judging, imo. Judges really should be made to write reports explaining five randomly chosen judging decisions after every segment. 

[hoodie axel]

21 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

Loops, though, seem to be among the smaller jumps compared to others because of that takeoff, so judging 'very good' height and distance for loops should be by comparing what kind of amplitude 3Los usually get. 

No I agree that only the same jump class should be compared. I think Kaori's best would get +4, because people like Miki Ando (for a much more recent example compared to Ito) had even larger loops, and also better air position. She does have a difficult entry out of the spiral into the three turns though.

[WinForPooh]

@shanshani I love your idea.  I'd like math to account for the time and length of setup and eliminate that -1 for long setup, as well. Then the bullets the judges choose could be for creative entry and exit, musical accent, good air position and so on. 

[Xen]

I'm not sure if we have to get into math to begin with if Judges actually properly applied the bullets.

And rather than 6, you could have different bullets account for 0.5 pts of GOE instead.

For example:

1) 0.5 GOE: above avg height

2) 0.5 GOE: above avg distance

3) 0.5 GOE: great height

4) 0.5 GOE: great distance

5) 0.5 GOE: Good take off (less PR and proper use of picking)

6) 0.5 GOE: good landing and flow

7) 0.5 GOE: Good air position and rhythm

8) 0.5 GOE:  Effortless throughout (including jump combos)

_____________________________________________________

Bullets 3-8 must be met for a jump GOE to be above +3.

 

The following can be considered for additional GOEs in a jump:

9) Steps before the jump, including creative or difficult entries

10) Interesting or varied body or arm positions in air, well executed (this is btw what I think it actually should be, it seems to be the replacement for the tano and rippon bullet)

11) Element matches the music

 

Note: if great height and distance are met, above avg height and above avg distance must automatically be added to GOE bullets.

 

Also, I will re-instate my wish that GOE panels and PCS panels are different, and the GOE panel judges get a screen where they just tick off bullets instead of do math. I want to verify which bullets were checked!

 

Now using actual jumps:

1) Yuzu's 3A from otonal: well we have stats and eyes, so 3, 4 is usually met. Take off is good, no extra PR (takes off before 180 PR), good landing and flow, and good air position and rhythm, and floaty (effortless). Also meets criteria 9 and 11 usually, so can be a +5 GOE jump.

2) Boyang's La Strada LP 4Lz: can def meet 3 and 4, take off is really good (virtually no PR and good picking), air position and rhythm are fine and pretty effortless jump. But steps...I don't recall any, and element matches music. So a +4 GOE 4Lz.

3) Shoma's 3A: using below for this analysis. He can meet criteria 2 and 4 for distance (unless ice scope data proves me very wrong). He has good take off, but not so great landing and flow, so bullet 5 but no 6. Air position is fine. No steps or arm positions so no 9 or 10, 11 is debatable.  Landing was pretty bad, so not sure about the effortless throughout bullet. So overall GOE would be 3x0.5 =1.5 GOE.

https://youtu.be/_PwDSWT_h6w?t=222

 

Of course the above isn't factoring in negative GOEs yet.

 

 

 

[hoodie axel]

I don't see why steps should be necessary for getting more GOE. A giant jump with no steps before or after it that still shows purity of technique, strong flow in and out, is definitely a benchmark. Or at the very least, I guess the flow itself I'd consider steps in and out, especially compared to tentative stalking, because it takes control of the edges and would make the jump harder due to speed after all. I'm very specifically looking at Yuna Kim's 3-3 combos (and some other jumps, like Boyang and his 4Lz, Kolyada and HIS 4Lz, something like Yagudin's 3A, lots of Ito's although she did lots of transitions anyway) here. They simply don't need steps to be amazing, because there are other qualities that are above and beyond.

 

I'm not a fan of "this much is needed to get past +3". I think there should simply be ways to get to the maximum via different qualities. In a way, that's what sport is about, too.

 

I would probably differentiate between entries as difficult vs extremely difficult (Yuzuru's back counter vs ina bauer back counter, for instance). For the exit, pure landing edge (Michelle Kwan's 2A) and difficult exit is a point (well, Michelle Kwan's 2A again). Pure air position and landing position are also desirable qualities (lots of examples! But let's go with Mao for this one). Not finishing rotation on the ice (ie, landing a jump that is already fully rotated, rather than a barely rotated one) also shows good technique (pick a jumper known to be a good jumper, any one. Let's go with Browning!). A lot of these are even related to each other, tbh.

 

I don't necessarily think that take off in itself should be considered again for GOE. It's already (ideally) accounted for in BV, and the point about picking in already figures in with practically all goe bullets (air position, vault for instance). Lack of rotation can be part of negative bullets, too.

 

Other than that, I shouldn't be shocked that someone on the internet has been able to come up with ideas better than the ISU has been able to in 15 years.

[Xen]

I actually do want to add steps etc as a bullet, because if the assumption of +5 GOE is mastery of a jump. In some ways, my fear is that judges will NOT take off GOEs for long setups, so the lack of steps type of jumps, with long setups will get that bonus too. Secondly, though I guess we can agree to disagree, if a jump is very large, and is done out of steps (especially difficult steps or entries), it should be considered more masterful than a jump of similar quality, minus the steps, as the former is perhaps a demonstration of greater technique quality and control.

 

The issue that I see with how GOEs are applied is more this: that GOEs are to measure the quality, cleaniness, mastery etc of a technique (kind of like SS for general skating, GOE is the SS type for spins, footwork and jumps especially). Just doing a jump and landing it is not enough, that should be 0 GOE.  But so far judging isn't doing that, and frankly we should be seeing more -1 to 1 GOEs in jumps.

[hoodie axel]

Well for the steps part, I don't think there should be nothing in lieu of steps. Strong flow and great speed needs control and shows skill, and would make the succeeding element hard to control. Not everyone can move into an element with the same speed that Kim carried and make it successful.

 

ETA:

 

Also, IMO, we must consider "what-ifs" and slippery slopes that come along with it. You already are selecting an arbitrary line of termination for +5 GOE with steps beforehand being "necessary" in a way to get there, saying something extra is needed beyond classic jumps to set it apart. But, well, then there rises the question of what would happen if a person can replicate your example of +5 GOE jump, and adds a rippon to it? That now gets equated with a "lower" quality jump with "just" steps before an outstanding jump.

 

So, to me, an outstanding demonstration of classic jump quality is enough to get +5, especially because such a demonstration already is very rare and to me it seems extremely hard already to produce such a jump given how few have done it. Not to mention, we already see jumps that get a little less vault (Yuzuru gets a little less height on his back counter 3A than a no steps entry by Yagudin into it, for instance), a little too tilted in the air, removing a bit of classic quality in order to get steps in, or a tano out. Seems to me that extraneous qualities such as these can lower the inherent qualities of jump technique which might be harder to produce, but also, what I essentially want to say is "perhaps you can't get outstanding height, but you can compensate for that by adding a rippon". It is a matter of what the skaters choose to do, since best at everything at the same time isn't at all possible. Just a matter of where to terminate, and what is harder, IMO.

[WinForPooh]

11 hours ago, hoodie axel said:

Well for the steps part, I don't think there should be nothing in lieu of steps. Strong flow and great speed needs control and shows skill, and would make the succeeding element hard to control. Not everyone can move into an element with the same speed that Kim carried and make it successful.

 

ETA:

 

Also, IMO, we must consider "what-ifs" and slippery slopes that come along with it. You already are selecting an arbitrary line of termination for +5 GOE with steps beforehand being "necessary" in a way to get there, saying something extra is needed beyond classic jumps to set it apart. But, well, then there rises the question of what would happen if a person can replicate your example of +5 GOE jump, and adds a rippon to it? That now gets equated with a "lower" quality jump with "just" steps before an outstanding jump.

 

So, to me, an outstanding demonstration of classic jump quality is enough to get +5, especially because such a demonstration already is very rare and to me it seems extremely hard already to produce such a jump given how few have done it. Not to mention, we already see jumps that get a little less vault (Yuzuru gets a little less height on his back counter 3A than a no steps entry by Yagudin into it, for instance), a little too tilted in the air, removing a bit of classic quality in order to get steps in, or a tano out. Seems to me that extraneous qualities such as these can lower the inherent qualities of jump technique which might be harder to produce, but also, what I essentially want to say is "perhaps you can't get outstanding height, but you can compensate for that by adding a rippon". It is a matter of what the skaters choose to do, since best at everything at the same time isn't at all possible. Just a matter of where to terminate, and what is harder, IMO.

 

I would be on board with taking steps before jump out of the GOE for jumps IF and only if it would actually matter to TR. Say, if a free skate does not have at least three jumping passes out of creative entry with steps, it's capped at 7.5 no matter how many arm wavy things there might be. If you can't jump out of steps, then you don't get high marks for TR. If it's taken out of GOE, then it becomes a far more important component for TR. 

 

And I think the steps before solo jump in SP should still be a rule. That's a specific skill that should be tested as part of what's supposed to be the more technically strict programme. But oh well. 

[hoodie axel]

54 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

  

I would be on board with taking steps before jump out of the GOE for jumps IF and only if it would actually matter to TR. Say, if a free skate does not have at least three jumping passes out of creative entry with steps, it's capped at 7.5 no matter how many arm wavy things there might be. If you can't jump out of steps, then you don't get high marks for TR. If it's taken out of GOE, then it becomes a far more important component for TR.  

  

And I think the steps before solo jump in SP should still be a rule. That's a specific skill that should be tested as part of what's supposed to be the more technically strict programme. But oh well. 

Well, I mean, I obviously want PCS evaluated properly. I am not sure if I WANT to ensure creative entries into a minimum number of jumps, but I do agree that TR should take a hit if there aren't any transitions, and that's a different debate anyway. Just that, well, we need a cut-off for GOE evaluation somewhere while making rules, because then one could say "here's a Yuzuru Hanyu back counter 3A + a rippon" and then that's even more worthy of a +5, so why end at steps in...? And what's stopping someone else from saying "Rippons to jumps are what show real mastery"? So leave a +5 possible for perfect classic executions of jumps (it IS after all extremely rare, and have beauty of their own, and show mastery of this basic technique), but make sure you can still get +5s even in other ways, because there's hardly anyone who has shown such perfect executions. Also, I disagree with steps in being a criteria anyway. Difficult entries (and exits) is what should be asked for. (EDIT: Also I'm not asking it to be taken out of GOE entirely! The bullet is still up for grabs, just not necessary to get +5s, asuming there are enough of other qualities. And I really am thinking of Kolyada-level 4Lz executions here. It's not easy to jump a perfect classic jump even with no steps in after all, assuming you still maintain good speed and control in, so not like Chen would be getting +5s if he ever jumped a 4Lz as high as that)

 

I do agree steps into jumps for SPs should remain, though. (although even then, you got extra GOE credit only if the entry was difficult/creative, not simply for existing)

[WinForPooh]

21 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

Well, I mean, I obviously want PCS evaluated properly. I am not sure if I WANT to ensure creative entries into a minimum number of jumps, but I do agree that TR should take a hit if there aren't any transitions, and that's a different debate anyway. Just that, well, we need a cut-off for GOE evaluation somewhere while making rules, because then one could say "here's a Yuzuru Hanyu back counter 3A + a rippon" and then that's even more worthy of a +5, so why end at steps in...? And what's stopping someone else from saying "Rippons to jumps are what show real mastery"? So leave a +5 possible for perfect classic executions of jumps (it IS after all extremely rare, and have beauty of their own, and show mastery of this basic technique), but make sure you can still get +5s even in other ways, because there's hardly anyone who has shown such perfect executions. Also, I disagree with steps in being a criteria anyway. Difficult entries (and exits) is what should be asked for. (EDIT: Also I'm not asking it to be taken out of GOE entirely! The bullet is still up for grabs, just not necessary to get +5s. And I really am thinking of Kolyada-level 4Lz executions here. It's not easy to jump a perfect classic jump even with no steps in after all)

 

I do agree steps into jumps for SPs should remain, though. (although even then, you got extra GOE credit only if the entry was difficult/creative, not simply for existing)

 

Maybe there shouldn't be a cutoff, maybe each of those things should get that .5 that @Xen described, and the upper limit should be whatever the max no of bullets x.5 is. Base value for an average jump of average height without a stepout or UR on landing, with no wrong edge, no PR beyond what's prescribed for jump - basically for a jump that has nothing particularly bad wrong with it. Negative GOE for flawed technique and particularly bad air position, for extremely long setup, .5 deduction per negative bullet. Positive GOE for above average, rising to excellent, and for everything else. ISU pulled that 5 out of their dark holes, like they pulled the 3 out of it earlier, so why should that be set in stone, too, if we're questioning everything else? So if a jump is that level of excellent AND has a perfect rippon, it can get the credit for the rippon, too. (By the same measure, I wish bad tanos would at least not hit that bullet, if not get a negative bullet for really ugly air position, but that's my pet peeve.)

 

Yes, difficult entries to jumps, and if at least three jumping passes in the free skate don't have that - that could be three solo jumps out of four, even - then TR should get capped, though maybe not as low as 7.5 if it's still part of GOE. If it's taken out of GOE, then at least a couple of points in the SP and up to four or five points in the free skate on PCS should be achievable only if they can TR into jumps. I mean, ideally that should be one of the things you look for when you score a skater for TR! 

 

For the solo jump in the SP thing... I still don't understand why the solution to 'judges can't tell what's difficult and what's a step' was to just get rid of a difficult technical requirement instead of teaching judges what that is. 

 

Oh wait no, I do understand, I just don't like it. 

 

ETA: You know, if there was no upper cutoff except for whatever no. of bullets x.5 is, it might be a bit harder to fudge GOE by throwing candy? They'd actually have to check the bullets they're giving the points for instead of chucking a number with this very laissez faire attitude of 'well we mixed and matched a bunch of the bullets and came to the conclusion that +4 looks about right' which is the impression I get from looking at protocols now.

[hoodie axel]

23 minutes ago, WinForPooh said:

Yes, difficult entries to jumps, and if at least three jumping passes in the free skate don't have that - that could be three solo jumps out of four, even - then TR should get capped, though maybe not as low as 7.5 if it's still part of GOE. If it's taken out of GOE, then at least a couple of points in the SP and up to four or five points in the free skate on PCS should be achievable only if they can TR into jumps. I mean, ideally that should be one of the things you look for when you score a skater for TR! 

I guess "ideally" there will always be one jump everyone does transitions into in the LP. Well, everyone in the top 6 except one guy (Zhou) did, IIRC. It seems like a matter of principle to preserve program content. I do agree dinging skaters on TR is good if there aren't any. But there are also difficult entries into spins, out of jumps etc. I do still question what is "harder" though -- because between doing some meh steps in, or maintaining strong flow in, the latter would be harder to control certainly, and it would help with overall PCS too because strong flow is still more desirable than meh steps (and I'd rather also see big jumps without steps in than small jumps with difficult steps in), and necessitating things like this might not help. But there's an undeniable hierarchy there anyway.

[WinForPooh]

3 minutes ago, hoodie axel said:

I guess "ideally" there will always be one jump everyone does transitions into in the LP. Well, everyone in the top 6 except one guy (Zhou) did, IIRC. It seems like a matter of principle to preserve program content. I do agree dinging skaters on TR is good if there aren't any. But there are also difficult entries into spins, out of jumps etc. I do still question what is "harder" though -- because between doing some meh steps in, or maintaining strong flow in, the latter would be harder to control certainly, and it would help with overall PCS too because strong flow is still more desirable than meh steps (and I'd rather also see big jumps without steps in than small jumps with difficult steps in), and necessitating things like this might not help. But there's an undeniable hierarchy there anyway.

 

I think the jump GOE would reward big jumps with speed and flow in that system, and it would go towards higher PE and IN and maybe CO as well if a jump is big, without reduction in speed, and with good flow out - if the TR into jumps is meh and affect those components, that should be reflected in the score too - so that should balance out some.