1. Keywords
Adolescent figure skater; foundational strength; Double Axel; under-rotation; movement awareness; jump mechanics; online coaching.
2. Case at a Glance
At age 14, the athlete began online off-ice coaching twice per week for 40 minutes per session, together with regular home training. The primary case period focused on the first two months leading to a regional block competition. The short-term goal was to achieve a clean Double Axel after approximately one year of under-rotation calls in competition. Triple jumps were already included as challenge elements in the competitive program, although they were not yet consistently clean. Improving spin quality, with Level 4 as a target where possible, was an additional goal.
Online coaching continued after the target competition and had reached approximately one year at the time of writing. Observations from this later period are reported separately from the initial two-month case period.
3. Background
The athlete was a 14-year-old second-year middle-school figure skater training with a highly competitive team in the Kansai region of Japan. The team had produced several senior skaters who competed internationally.
The athlete had already passed the relevant Double Axel test requirement, but under-rotation calls had continued in competition for approximately one year. Club-based off-ice training was generally conducted once per week and appeared to include rotational-jump practice and strength training.
According to feedback communicated through the parent, the skating coach frequently noted that the athlete did not remain tightly closed until immediately before landing and tended to open the rotational position slightly early.
The home training environment included basic equipment such as resistance bands and a Pilates ball, as well as a water bag and kettlebell. The relatively broad range of equipment was available because another family member also participated in sport.
4. Initial Assessment
Jump height did not appear to be markedly low on visual assessment. It appeared to be within a range in which some skaters could complete a Double Axel, although slightly greater height was considered likely to provide more margin for completing the rotation. Jump height was not measured instrumentally.
Slow-motion review of the athlete’s aerial position showed an asymmetrical arm configuration. The left elbow moved outside the line of the trunk while the opposite arm remained more compact. This position was interpreted as making the rotational shape less compact and potentially increasing resistance to rotation. The athlete and parent had not been aware of this asymmetry before it was pointed out.
Back and hip mobility also appeared somewhat limited, and the Biellmann position relied noticeably on lumbar extension. Overall, general strength did not appear to be the primary limitation. The working hypothesis was that improvements in axial control, movement awareness, use of the stretch-shortening cycle (SSC), and force application could produce meaningful change even over a relatively short period.
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of the asymmetrical aerial arm position observed at initial assessment (left) and a more compact alignment (right). Illustrative schematic only; not a tracing of the athlete.
5. Goals
The athlete-facing goals were to achieve a clean Double Axel in competition and to improve spin quality, with Level 4 as a target where possible.
In addition to these explicit goals, the off-ice program was designed to help the athlete progressively develop several underlying skills: understanding the direction of force and force output, using ground reaction force more effectively, reproducing higher-quality jumps off the ice, and transferring improved movement strategies to on-ice performance.
6. Role Boundaries and Communication
On-ice technical instruction remained the responsibility of the athlete’s skating coach. The off-ice program was informed by parent-recorded skating footage and by technical feedback from the skating coach that was communicated through the parent. These sources were reviewed as needed and used to guide off-ice exercise selection and coaching cues.
7. Training Intervention
At the initial trial session, the athlete and parent were informed that the coaching approach would analyze movement not only by whether a skill succeeded or failed, but also by considering how force was applied, in which direction it acted, and how movement organization might influence performance.
Body Alignment and Movement Awareness
Slow-motion footage of the Double Axel was used to show the asymmetrical aerial arm position and the tendency to open slightly early. The athlete was told that directing attention to these features might help, but that understanding a movement cognitively would not necessarily make it immediately controllable. Basic ballet movements were also used to support awareness of axial alignment.
SSC and Force Application / Strength Development
Short-distance movement drills and jumping drills were used repeatedly to develop awareness of the SSC and force application. After the athlete became familiar with the basic drills, bodyweight strength work and light resistance using a water bag were added. Kettlebell exercises were also incorporated when appropriate.
Reactive Coordination and Spin-Related Support
A reactive jump-rope circuit was introduced by showing a BlazePod on screen and asking the athlete to change the skipping pattern when the light changed color. This converted a familiar exercise into an externally paced coordination task. Mini-circuits also combined equipment available at home, including a kettlebell, jump rope, and balance work using a ball. Basic ballet work, handstand-related exercises, flexibility work, and trunk control were continued to support spin positions and overall body control.
Broader Movement Exposure
The athlete was encouraged to engage actively in school physical education and other movement experiences. These activities were framed as opportunities to support general athletic development rather than as a direct method of improving skating technique.
8. Timeline
Week 0: Initial Assessment
A brief movement analysis was shared during the trial session, including observations of the aerial position during jumps.
Weeks 1-2: Foundational Movement Work
Short-distance drills and jumping drills were used to introduce attention to the SSC. Basic ballet movements were also incorporated to develop axial control and awareness.
Weeks 3-4: Strength Progression
Once the athlete was familiar with the basic drills, bodyweight strength exercises and light water-bag resistance were added. Ballet basics and handstand-related work were continued, partly to support axial stability for the Biellmann spin.
Weeks 5-6: Reactive Coordination and Circuits
A screen-shared BlazePod was used to cue changes in jump-rope patterns. Mini-circuits combined kettlebell work, jump rope, and balance tasks using equipment available at home.
figure2: A screen-shared BlazePod, Red-Right leg jump, Yellow-Left leg jump, Blue-Double Jumps
Month 2: Emerging Changes in Jump Execution
Visual observation suggested some increase in jump height not only in the Double Axel but also in triple jumps that the athlete was attempting.
9. Results
1. Changes During the Initial Two-Month Period
- Focusing on the previously unrecognized asymmetry in the aerial position appeared to provide a new point of attention after a prolonged plateau. The athlete reported an improved sense of the movement, and feedback communicated from the skating coach indicated that some change had become visible.
- The posture used in off-ice jumping drills became progressively more stable across sessions.
- The Double Axel aerial position was not completely corrected, but the pronounced asymmetry that had initially made the rotational position less compact was reduced. Triple-jump height also appeared to begin improving on visual observation.
2. Target Competition Outcome
- At the target regional block competition, the athlete landed a clean Double Axel and successfully completed the combination jump.
3. Subsequent Observations During Continued Coaching
- The Double Axel did not become consistently clean in every competition. Under-rotation calls still occurred at times, indicating that the short-term competition result did not represent complete resolution of the issue.
- The height of the jumping drills performed during online sessions became visibly greater over time, although it was not measured instrumentally.
- Triple-jump rotation calls also showed a gradual shift: downgrades (<<) had previously been common, whereas under-rotation calls (<) became more frequent than downgrades during the later period.
- With continued work on axial stability, flexibility, and strength, the Biellmann position became more stable in both leg height and rotation speed. Off the ice, the athlete became able to perform the Biellmann position on both sides.
- Level 4 spins were achieved in some competitions, although not consistently in every event.
10. Evidence Available
On-ice videos recorded by the parent; slow-motion and edited versions of on-ice footage; online session recordings; comments from the athlete and parent; competition protocols, including Double Axel rotation calls and spin levels; session records; and home-training records.
The filming location and camera conditions for on-ice videos were not always standardized.
A BlazePod screen image from this case can be shown to illustrate the online setup. For additional context, the following public video demonstrates a similar jump-rope reactive drill performed by another athlete. It is an illustrative example of the drill setup and is not evidence from this case:
11. Discussion
The athlete was already accustomed to reviewing skating videos but did not appear to have previously analyzed movement from the perspective of force direction, rotational compactness, or where attention should be directed. Once these ideas were explained, the athlete was old enough to use them as additional information when thinking about practice. In this case, that shift in movement awareness coincided with faster-than-expected early changes, although the contribution of the explanation itself cannot be isolated from the rest of the intervention.
Although the athlete was in adolescence and further physical growth remained possible, continued changes were observed at age 14 in reactive coordination, jumping execution, and movement awareness. These observations describe this individual case and should not be interpreted as establishing a general developmental rule.
The athlete also had high competitive motivation and trained in a demanding environment with strong skaters. These characteristics may have supported adherence to the program and willingness to engage with detailed movement analysis.
The clean Double Axel at the target competition was an important short-term outcome, but later variability showed that one successful competition did not mean the underlying issue had been permanently resolved. Continued changes in triple-jump rotation calls, off-ice jumping, and spin quality were observed during ongoing coaching.
12. Practical Takeaways
For an adolescent athlete, explanations of movement mechanics can be useful when they are linked to observable movement and practical cues. In this case, explaining why basic short-distance and jumping drills were repeatedly included helped the athlete understand the purpose of exercises that might otherwise feel repetitive or easy to omit.
Broader movement experiences outside skating were encouraged as a way to support general athletic development rather than as a direct means of improving skating technique. School physical education and participation in varied sports were therefore treated as complementary movement opportunities.
Reactive coordination tasks can be difficult to reproduce independently at home, but the online format allowed some variation through screen-shared visual cues. Combining familiar exercises into externally paced circuits also expanded the range of training that could be delivered remotely.
13. Limitations
Most off-ice movement observations were conducted through two fixed camera angles, and the position and filming conditions of on-ice videos varied. The interpretation of the asymmetrical aerial arm position and its possible effect on rotational resistance was based on video observation rather than instrumented biomechanical analysis.
Jump height, rotational velocity, strength, and use of the stretch-shortening cycle were not assessed using standardized quantitative measurements. Changes in movement awareness also included the athlete’s subjective perception. Evaluation therefore relied mainly on video observation, session records, competition protocols, and reported feedback.
The athlete continued to receive technical instruction from the skating coach, maintained substantial on-ice practice, participated in club-based off-ice training, and was still undergoing physical development. The independent effects of these factors could not be separated from those of the online off-ice intervention.
This was a single case, and the primary evaluation period was relatively short at two months. The Double Axel result at the target competition and the subsequent changes in triple jumps and spins were likely influenced by multiple factors and cannot be attributed to the off-ice intervention alone.
