Draft of 2025-2028 WAG CoP

A+D .1
C+C .1
A+E .2
C+D .2

A+A+D .1
B+D .1
C+E .2
D+D .2

1 Like

Am I understanding correctly that all these eponymous skills are being devalued on the principle that their progenitors were actually not doing 1/2 turning releases, but rather catching in mixed grip? If so, I totally support that more than what they were doing before .

And I agree with keeping mixed catch variations the same value, otherwise you’re in a situation where all these release moves are very quickly inflated beyond what’s logical.

I don’t have a strong opinion on the change in value but I am all for de-classing these as ‘front saltos’. I think the direction at takeoff should be the sole criterion –

Thank you so much, Yarotska! I appreciate it.

If the proposed changes go into effect, it will be just like 2001-2004 with everyone doing 2.5 + front layout.

We’ll also see a lot of 1.5 through to 2.5 or double back.

1 Like

We haven’t heard anything official from the WTC regarding the rationale for the change. My guess would be that they are simply trying to discourage gymnasts from performing elements that they can’t execute correctly. Even after introduction of the current downgrade rules, we haven’t seen a dramatic increase in the quality in completion of the 1/2 turn prior to regrasp.

The fact that this gets the same CV as Simone’s front full to Silivas and Blacks back 2.5 to triple full is INFURIATING.


but they don’t update the C+E? So also Andrade’s opening will get the same? This really makes no sense. Just upgrade all the connections and lower the counting elements already. Incidentally, also on beam. bhs-onodi getting a tenth is absurd, hence nobody doing it.

I am less pessimistic about the potential changes for the following reasons:

  1. Compared to the 2001 - 2005 COP, gymnasts have more options for B saltos under the current COP. Assuming that skill values remain the same, the whip 1/2, front tuck 1/2, front pike 1/2, and tucked front full are all potential options.

  2. More gymnasts could potentially be encouraged to use other C + indirect D options such as whip full through to double tuck, or Dantzscher’s 1 1/2 twist through to front double twist.

  3. Less D tumbling passes in isolation

  4. Potential for more 3 pass routines as a gymnast that does full twisting front layout through to double pike will earn more points than doing a double pike and a double tuck separately.

  5. Also, because it is only a 0.1 increase in CV over their current values, I am not convinced these passes will become as overused as people think. For example, for a gymnast currently doing front layout through to double tuck, is the additional 0.1 in CV really worth learning a 2 1/2 twist + front layout? We also haven’t seen routines become flooded with 2 1/2 twist + punch front once D + A direct acro CV was reintroduced, at least not to 1997 - 2000 COP levels.

There are so many changes needed and they made barely any, while making quite a few things worse. This draft needs far more work.

They introduce .2 deduction for a couple artistry clauses but we’re still stuck with .1 and .3 (and .5) everywhere else. I’m especially tired of haggling over something being a .1 or .3 step, or which side of 30 degrees a pirouette ended at, when the difference is often negligible. There’s too many points being taken off with many of the .3’s given, .2 (and .4) needs to be an option.

We still have the overvalued shaposhes and lack of other valuable options on Uneven Bars to do connections or transition between bars, and the artificial E-cap for pirouettes and transitions. We still have Tkatchevs lording over other options, it’s wrong how Downie + Pak is considered a maximum difficulty connection (and the Downie itself being considered the same difficulty as Nabieva or Layout Jaeger or Counter-Kim). They have the audacity to try and limit Jaegers to 1 per routine at the same time? That’s infuriating.

The total devaluation of 1/2 turn releases is also so wrong, it’s absolutely more difficult when they are performed properly. The rule should be that there must be 1/4 turn in the air to get credited. The problem of entire skills being discredited because of a call on whether or not the turn was sufficient (like the composition issue Ellie Black could run into right now) would be fixed if Tkatchevs were simply limited to only 2 per routine, instead of this strange “only 1 from each line” rule, which does nothing to stop someone from potentially including 3 or 4 tkatchevs in a routine.

The values for elements on Floor are still messed up (silivas and double lay 1/1 overrated, 3.5 twist and difficult front tumbling underrated, wolf turns overrated) and they’ve made it worse trying to give .2 cv for C + D indirect tumbling. D + B connection getting .2 is also very problematic. It would be deserved in certain cases, but not for 2.5 twist + front layout or front tuck 1/2 getting that big of a bonus.

Beam remains a mess. Too many deductions and restrictions on how a routine can be performed.


I agree that there’s an issue, but I don’t think it’s as bad as you seem to think. The skills themselves also get more value, right?

  • back 1.* 5 … back 2.5 is C…D + 0.2 = 0.9
  • back 2.5 … triple twist is D…E + 0.2 = 1.1 points. So 1.5 more twists and 0.2 more points. It’s not “the same”.
  • front full…double double is C…H + 0.2 = 1.3 points, which is 0.4 more. 0.4 is a lot of points — four small errors.

The BIGGER problem, in my opinion is that C…D indirect is worth the same as C + D direct! So back 1.5 + immediate front double full, which is harder, is not worth more than back 1.5 through to back 2.5


I think 1.5 indirect to Full-in deserves more than just .1 compared to doing a Double Tuck instead.

Let’s also not forget D + D being .2 right now, the 2.5 twist into a Double Back certainly deserves more than just .1 over doing only a 1.5 twist in that pass.

There’s factually a cap on connections with 0.2, unless you go to 0.3 for some you’re always going to have this problem I’d think, but i guess they don’t want a connection that’s actually a C skill in value. Which i think it would be pretty good because it would leave room for other things in the routine and one less leap that nobody wants maybe

1 Like

I think they need to completely overhaul CV to get floor more in line with the other calculated events in terms of average-top D score. Something like:

Direct Acro
A+A+C .1
A+D .1
A+E .2
B+C .1
B+D .2
B+E .3
C+D .3
D+D .4

Indirect acro
A+A+D .1
A+E .1
B+D .1
B+E .2
C+D .2
C+E .3
D+D .3
D+E .4

1 Like

Bars and Beam need that level of specificity too. Plus the skill values themselves. Connection value also needs more differentiation than just the letter system. Certain skills and combinations are always going to be more difficult, despite the same letter ratings. Double Pike + Front Layout is more difficult than 2.5 twist + Front Layout. It’s overly simplistic to look at those two things as the same “D + B” level combo.

For many years I was thinking they should have something like a “B+, C+, D+” value that adds extra to certain skills when done in combination. Like a Rudi would get more CV than a FLO 1/1 when done in combination as it would be treated like a D but when done on its own it’s just a standard .3.

RE: Double pike + Front layout, perhaps up the value for countering vs momentum in the same direction? But then at the same time one could argue 3/1 punch front is easier than 3/1 back tuck.