Among the requisite for evaluating the jumps, there are height and length. These are the rules published by the ISU:

The first bullet is “very good height and very good length“. Among the errors, there is a deduction from -1 to -3 for “poor speed, height, distance or air position“.

The importance of height and distance can’t be clearer, the rules talk about it in the bullets and in the deductions. But when a jump is of very good (not average, very good) height and distance? Until some times ago, we can do our evaluations only with our eyes.

Now we have some technology that can aid us. At the World Championship 2019 the Japan television has used Icescope, and after that competition I’ve seen several measurement of the jumps. To say that the technology can be used isn’t enough. Every technology that can reduce mistakes must be used, starting from the most important competitions.

In the Men’s short program at Saitama almost all the triple Axels were measured. In a table that found on internet there are 29 skaters, but the short program was done by 35 skaters. I suppose that lack the jumps of the skaters who fell, but to make a control require time and I’m writing in my spare time. I don’t have time for all. All the controls should be made by the ISU, not by me. This is the table:

I’ve excluded from my controls Maierhofer and Virtanen, they jumped a double Axel, not a triple. If you want, you can check most of the numbers (not all, the full short program isn’t on youtube anymore) here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjqZX10jk3w

Edit: I posted a link to a video, and the video was deleted. When I noticed it, I found another video and posted the link, but again the video was deleted. If you want to check the data you must check if there are some video available.

I’ve transcribed the data in a file Excel, so I can play a little with the numbers. This isn’t ISU calculation. ISU has never said which height or length is good, they prefer remain vague. Considering that this isn’t an official method to give bullets, we can’t say that judges have broken the rules for not using this method. Moreover they didn’t have the numbers that we have. If they have given marks that, considering the numbers, are clearly wrong, we can only say that the judges aren’t incapable to distinguish the height or the length of a jump, and that a better technology is needed. I think that all honest judges will be glad to have an aid for give more correct marks.

These are height and length of all the triple Axel, the skaters are listed in alphabetical order. Let’s see first the columns B-D.

In yellow is marked the jump with the bigger height, or the bigger length, in red the jump with the lower height, or the lower length. For these jumps we don’t have doubts, but which among the other jumps is big, or little? I’ve made some calculation.

In the line 37 we see the sums of all the height or length. In the line 38 we see that the calculation are made on 27 jumps. In the line 39 we see the average. In the line 40 I wrote the average rounded, both for convenience of calculation that because the measurements are not accurate to the millimeter.

I considered the highest jump, 70 centimeters. From this measure I removed 59 centimeters, the average. What remains is 11 centimeters. This is box C42.

I calculated the half of 11, it’s 5.5 centimeters. This is box C43.

After I added up the average height (59 cm) with half the difference among the average and the highest jump (5,5 cm). The result is 64,5 cm, box C44. For me if a jump is higher than 64,5 cm (rounded to 64), he has very big height, otherwise not.

I did also the difference, with the average height (59 cm) minus half of the difference (6 cm) from the lowest jump (47 cm). The result is 53 cm, box C47. For me if a jump is lower then 53 cm, is of poor height, otherwise not.

In the column G I highlighted in yellow all the jumps higher 64 centimeters or more, in red all the jumps lower than 53 centimeters or less.

I did the same, in the column D for the calculations, and in the columns H for the length.

There are few jumps that exit from my range, jumps that for me have very good (or poor) height and/or length.

But perhaps there can be a single skater that has measure so different from the average that he can shift values. So I did again the calculations, deleting the measure of the higher and lower jumps, and of the bigger and shorter jumps. The way in which I did the calculation is the same, this is the new table.

The differences aren’t big, but indeed there are some difference. The high for a good height is lowered to 60 centimetres, so with the new table 11 skaters instead of the previous 3 have a good height. For the length the number of the skaters grow from 5 to 6.

With the poor height grown up from 53 to 54 the skaters with poor height remain 4. For poor length we haven’t 5 skaters anymore, but 6.

Remember, this is an hypothesis. ISU don’t use this system (but for me they should do, or use a similar system). According to the rules, only the jumps with very good height and very good length can obtain the bullet 1, and only if all the first three bullets (and, at least, another) are present, a jump can obtain +4 or +5.

Now I don’t watch the other bullets, the take-off, if the jump is effortless, the steps, the landing, I watch only the bullet 1. According to the rules, only the jumps of Hanyu, Kvitelashvili, Messing and Samohin have very good height and very good length. If some of the other skaters has received a +4 or a +5, the judge did a mistake.

Brown’s jump is high but also really short, what are watching judge 4, Bettina Meier (SUI), judge 7, Anny Hou (TPE) and judge 8, Saoia Sancho (ESP)?

Uno’s jump has the length, but the height is really poor. Two +5 and four +4???

Kolyada’s jump is better than Brown’s jump, but both of them have good height and poor length.

At least Tanaka’s jump has a very good height and hasn’t poor length. But there’s an and in the rule, not an or. Even he didn’t deserves bullet 1 and a +4.

Seven skaters has received one or more +4 (one also two +5) that, according to the rules, weren’t deserved. When ISU will start to use all the technology that exists? If they don’t care for the accuracy of the judging and the fairness of the competition, probably the people who say that figure skating don’t deserves to be in the Olympic Games has reason.

One last thing. For the bullet the speed isn’t important. Figure skating isn’t a competition of speed, if a skater enter in a jump with a counter is slower than a skater that enter with crossover, but his entry is much more difficult and he deserves higher GOE.

But if the speed is too low, the skater deserves a deduction. When the speed is too low? I did the calculations, watching all the skater or all the skater minus the fastest and the slower.

Only two skaters, or three in the second hypothesis, are very slow. Bychenko’s jump is high but short and slow, probably he deserves, only for these characteristics, a -2. Majorov’s jump is high, of average length and slow, probably a -1. Selevko’s jump is low and slow, probably a -3. Or, if I’m too severe, -1 for Bychenko, 0 for Majorov, -2 for Selevko.

With +3 as the highest possible GOE, and the deduction for length and speed, Bychenko at best can deserves a +2.

Selevko’s jump was underrotated, sign <. The littlest deduction is -2. With +3 as the highest possible GOE, -2 for the < and -2 for poor high and speed, his possible best mark is -1.

The mistakes were done for the skaters that competed for a place on the podium, for the skaters who competed for a place among the best 10 (and two spot for their nation the year after), and for the skaters who competed for a place in the free skate.

When ISU will use the numbers to give the bullet 1 instead to ask his judges to calculate dimension and speed of the jumps, knowing that, even with the better intentions, they will do mistakes?

We have all the stats after the competition. At Saitama it’s was impossibile to use this numbers. Now we can use them for the next World Championship, with the bullet for the triple Axel given by a computer and not by the judges.

I think that now we have all the stats only for the triple Axel. The ISU should measure all the jumps and calculate the average measure for every type of jump (double, triple, quadruple, toe loop, Salchow, loop…) among Men, Ladies and Pairs (I know that for Pairs is more difficult) in all the major competition. For now we have little data, the ISU should start using what it has (few is better than nothing, even if the data are only on one jump), collect more at every possible opportunity and add them to a judging system that use IA as soon as possible.

The ISU want to be taken seriously? The ISU want fair competitions? If yes, the ISU must use all the tools given by the technology, if not, it’s only a farce.