|
|
|
Mel's Editorial#14: June 2, 2005Decent Idea, Bad Timing Perhaps one of the most important moments of the off-season occurred when the ISU issued Communication 1319 (PDF file), more simply known as the changes to the code of points for singles and pairs. Many of the changes were expected - the addition of a fourth level to the elements, stricter guidelines in achieving higher levels to avoid another onslaught of the Bielmann position, the removal of moves such as ina bauers and spread eagles from the spiral sequences, since they are often showing up as transitional elements elsewhere in programs, and other points that mostly point to fine-tuning the awarding of higher levels. There was one change specific to pairs skating, however, that I didn't see coming at all. The surprise came in strikeout form. Rule 321, Paragraph 2 in the Code of Points refers to the specifics of the requirements for pairs programs and the first sentence under "Jump Combination" is crossed out. It once read, "The jump combination may consist of the same or another single different double, triple, or quadruple jump," but now, that allowance no longer applies. Beginning this season, pairs cannot repeat any jumps in their two jump sequences. Simply put, the most common jumping passes for senior pairs - triple toe double toe sequence and a second set of triple toes - is no longer valid. A pair that executes these passes would get no credit for the second pass, as well as a deduction for failing to meet the requirements. Out of curiosity, I pulled up the protocols from the last World Championships. Of the eighteen pairs that competed, eight executed jumping passes in their free skates that would be deemed illegal this season. Perhaps it isn't a majority, but it means that nearly half of last season's world competitors will have to change their jumps for the Olympic season, many of them finally mastering the second set of triple toes in their programs because they wanted to upgrade their jumps! While I understand the ISU's desire to reward the skaters who are executing two different kinds of triples in their program rather than doing the same jump twice, I wonder if it is necessary to penalize the teams with two sets of triple toes. Perhaps this is an essential change to elevate the level of difficulty in pairs skating, but is it necessary to make it during the Olympic year? There are a lot of figure skating enthusiasts who insist that the Olympic year shouldn't be treated any differently than the others and to a certain point, I agree. The Olympics are not the lifetime achievement award that the media always looks for - they are just one competition. However, there is something different about holding a figure skating competition that the whole world watches. Like it or not, figure skating + Olympics = hype in just about any country with any hint of a medal hope. The feeling of skaters either lowering their solo jump difficulty to a double axel or attempting triple salchows and being unsuccessful while the world watches...well, it doesn't sit well with me. Pairs skating, perhaps, is more sensitive than any other discipline this year. The world watched the competition unfold last time around, and certainly has not forgotten the drama of Salé & Pelletier vs. Berezhnaya & Sikharulidze. But aside from the media frenzy that followed the pairs free program, there remains one simple fact - the skating that night was incredible and for the first time since Lillehammer '94, pairs skating was looked upon with the true awe that I've always thought it deserves. Why not try to build on the momentum of interest that figure skating generated in Salt Lake? Why not do everything possible to restore faith in the sport? There's no way to control how the pairs will skate on Olympic ice, but what is the gain in putting a giant roadblock in their paths after they have come so far to fill the large holes left by the former headliners? Change is good, and it's only logical to tweak the points in a new system. Letting pairs have the same 1.1 factor bonus as singles for jump elements after the halfway mark? Fabulous! Letting spiral sequences be just that - spiral sequences? Great! Making the twist a leveled element and defining features to increase the level? Well, I'm not sure how it will work, but it's not a complete change in direction as so many teams were already adding features to their twists in order to receive a higher GOE. But changing a standard that has been the norm for the past quadrennium? It just doesn't seem like this is the right time. But then again, a lot of things would be different if I ran the ISU. Archives -- Contact -- Features -- Guestbook -- Links -- Webmistress (c)2005-7 Melanie L. Hoyt All rights reserved. |