Keywords: figure skating; Double Axel; online off-ice training; competition preparation; full-program run-throughs; coach-trainer role boundaries
Case at a Glance
Athlete: A 13-year-old Japanese male figure skater living in North America, with approximately eight to nine years of skating experience.
Primary concern: According to his parent, previous competition performances had not reflected what he could do in practice. He had sometimes reduced the planned jump difficulty by performing a single jump instead of a planned double.
Intervention: Weekly 40-minute online off-ice sessions for 12 weeks, supported by a short home program updated every two weeks and performed on most days.
Main focus: General physical preparation, balance and body control, practice planning, full-program run-through frequency, and competition-readiness strategies.
Outcome: In March 2024, he landed the Double Axel as the first jump element in his program and received a positive Grade of Execution (GOE). He later reported that the experience had given him confidence.
Background
The athlete began online off-ice training in December 2023. His younger sister had started the same service approximately two months earlier, and the family had observed changes in her training before deciding to enroll him.
At intake, the parent described a long-standing difference between practice and competition. The athlete could show progress during training, but the family felt that he had not yet produced a competition performance that fully reflected that progress. The most relevant behavioral pattern was not specific to the Double Axel: in previous competitions, he had sometimes reduced the planned jump difficulty by substituting a single jump for a planned double.
This distinction is important. The available records do not confirm that a Double Axel had been included in his planned program content before the intervention. A more accurate interpretation is that, by the time online training began, the Double Axel had become stable enough in practice for the athlete and family to consider including it in competition. The challenge was therefore not simply to teach the jump, but to prepare the athlete to attempt the planned difficulty under competition conditions.
Initial Assessment
The athlete’s first stated goal was to improve the stability of his camel spin. Online movement observation also suggested limitations in flexibility, balance, general strength, and control of the center of mass over the base of support. These factors appeared to limit consistent position control and force management.
From a performance perspective, two issues were prioritized. First, the camel spin axis was unstable. Second, there was a gap between the difficulty planned for competition and the difficulty sometimes executed under pressure. The athlete was continuing regular on-ice training, so the off-ice assessment was not intended to diagnose jump technique. Its purpose was to identify physical and preparation-related factors that could support more reliable execution on the ice.
Goals
The initial athlete-led goal was to stabilize the camel spin. Beginning with a problem that mattered to him was intended to demonstrate the value of off-ice training and improve engagement.
As the sessions progressed, the performance goal became more specific: prepare the athlete to include the Double Axel in the planned program content and execute it in competition without reducing the planned jump difficulty. The trainer considered a successful competition attempt important because it could provide a clear mastery experience. The working hypothesis was that success on this high-priority element could substantially change the athlete’s expectations about competition.
Role Boundaries and Communication
Jump technique and on-ice skill instruction remained the responsibility of the athlete’s primary skating coach. The off-ice trainer did not attempt to replace or override technical skating instruction. The trainer’s role was limited to physical preparation, general movement understanding, practice organization, and competition readiness.
Information about on-ice performance was obtained mainly through parent-recorded video and conversations with the athlete and parent. The parent also asked how certain questions or concerns could be communicated to the primary skating coach. Coordination therefore took place indirectly through the family rather than through regular coach-to-trainer meetings.
Training Intervention
1. Physical preparation
The first phase addressed the athlete’s stated concern about the camel spin while also building a broader physical base. The program included foundational mobility, bodyweight strength, balance tasks, and exercises requiring the athlete to control the center of mass over different bases of support. The aim was not to reproduce skating technique off the ice, but to expand the physical options available in skating practice.
Jump-rope exercises and simple jumping tasks were added during January and February. These were used to develop basic rhythm, stiffness regulation, landing control, and repeated force production. Exercise selection remained simple so the home program could be performed safely and consistently without direct assistance.
2. Practice-planning support
The trainer reviewed the athlete’s preparation pattern and concluded that full-program run-throughs were being performed too infrequently for the demands of the upcoming competition. After confirming that detailed quantitative practice targets were not already being provided, the trainer helped the athlete and parent create a more explicit plan.
Beginning approximately three weeks before the competition, the number of full-program run-throughs per practice day was specified and adjusted by week. The athlete was also given success-rate targets for individual jump types. These were not technical corrections; they were criteria for judging whether an element was repeatable under the fatigue, timing, and attentional demands of a complete program.
3. Education and competition readiness
During the sessions, the trainer explained how support forces, balance, and rotational forces interact during movement. The purpose was to provide a usable conceptual model rather than isolated instructions.
Competition preparation also included imagery, strategies for resetting attention after an error, and discussion of common physical and cognitive responses to nervousness. The athlete was asked to connect likely competition situations with specific actions rather than rely only on general encouragement. For example, the preparation process distinguished between feeling nervous and changing the planned content because of that nervousness.
Timeline
December 2023: Online training began with an emphasis on mobility, balance, and the control needed for more stable spin positions. The camel spin was used as the first practical problem through which the athlete could understand the purpose of off-ice work.
January-February 2024: Bodyweight strength, balance, and general movement control were progressed. Jump-rope exercises and basic jumping tasks were introduced. Discussion shifted toward how those qualities could support repeatable on-ice performance.
Approximately three weeks before the March competition: Full-program run-through frequency and jump-specific success targets were formalized. The Double Axel was included in the planned program content, and preparation focused on executing the intended difficulty rather than reducing it under pressure.
March 2024: Imagery, attentional reset strategies, and concrete responses to competition nerves were reviewed. In competition, the athlete landed the Double Axel as the first jump element in his program and received a positive GOE.
Results
The main performance outcome was the successful execution of the Double Axel in competition. The jump was performed as the first jump element in the program and received a positive GOE. This contrasted directly with the previous pattern described by the parent: reducing planned doubles to singles in competition.
The athlete later said that the result had given him confidence. No standardized psychological measure was used, so the change cannot be quantified. Nevertheless, the report is consistent with the expectation that a successful high-priority element could change his perception of competition and show that he could perform planned difficulty under pressure.
Evidence Available
The case is supported by online-session recordings, competition footage, official competition results, and feedback from the athlete and parent. Athlete footage and session screenshots are not currently authorized for public use. The case is therefore presented as an anonymized written report.
Discussion
This case suggests that a competition problem that appears to be “mental” may also involve insufficiently structured preparation. The athlete did receive support for nervousness and attentional control, but the intervention did not treat confidence as something that could be produced through encouragement alone. Confidence was approached as an outcome that might emerge from repeated preparation, clear performance criteria, and successful execution of the planned task.
Beginning with the camel spin addressed the athlete’s own concern and allowed work on balance, strength, flexibility, and body control without entering the primary skating coach’s technical domain. Once the athlete understood the process, the focus could expand toward competition preparation.
The practice-planning component may have been particularly relevant. A skater may land a jump in isolation yet remain underprepared to execute it in a complete program under fatigue, music, timing, and competitive pressure. Increasing full-program run-through frequency and defining success targets created a more explicit bridge between isolated jump ability and competition execution.
The Double Axel result should not be attributed solely to the off-ice intervention. The athlete continued on-ice coaching and skating practice throughout the 12 weeks, and the jump had already been developing before the case began. The off-ice contribution is better described as supporting physical readiness, organizing practice, and helping the athlete commit to planned difficulty.
Practical Takeaways
- Start with a problem the athlete recognizes and wants to solve. This can improve engagement before broader priorities are introduced.
- Maintain clear coach-trainer role boundaries. Off-ice support can address physical preparation, practice structure, and competition readiness without taking over jump technique.
- Distinguish between landing a jump in isolation and being ready to execute it in a full program. Full-program run-throughs and explicit success criteria can help close that gap.
- When an athlete reduces planned jump difficulty under pressure, examine preparation as well as psychology. The response may require a concrete action plan rather than reassurance alone.
- Use successful execution as evidence. For some athletes, completing one high-priority element in competition can become a meaningful mastery experience and change expectations for later events.
Limitations
No in-person physical assessment was conducted; movement was observed through two fixed camera angles. On-ice performance was reviewed through parent-recorded footage rather than direct rink-side observation. Communication was also affected by the remote environment and language differences.
Baseline and post-intervention jump success rates were not systematically quantified, and no standardized psychological assessment was administered. The exact planned program content in competitions before the intervention could not be verified. Most importantly, the athlete continued concurrent on-ice coaching and regular skating practice. The successful Double Axel therefore cannot be attributed to the online off-ice intervention alone.
