1st Chinese WAG Internal Trial

[irichluck21]

Ou Yushan is NEVER getting a 9.10 E score on beam internationally.

LOL.

 

[irichluck21]

That is a team score that is 12 for 12.

When was the last time China went 12 for 12 in team finals? 2008 IIRC.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Yeah, I don’t think anyone will get a 9.1 on beam internationally this quad, but if anyone does it’ll certainly be Ou.

I’m also not expecting them to hit 12 for 12–but those scores are realistic ones well within their range for hit routines. So I’d say their team total in Tokyo will be around 170 which should be enough for silver.

 

[Jack]

Not even then! Cheng Fei splatted on beam.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Sort of 2006, depending on how you feel about Cheng Fei’s vault getting downgraded. Otherwise I don’t believe they ever have.

Ou Yushan’s beam is something else. The best routine we’ve seen in ages. I am absolutely torn over whether she’s going to fall in prelims or the EF. Nail biter.

 

[Jack]

I’m having a hard time with Ou’s routine. It’s perfection and poetry in motion, but the mixed series CV to include B elements has really killed the event for me. It’s become a series of connected elements that really don’t belong together. The BHS clearly needs to be downgraded to an A element. I think FHS + Front Tuck has overstayed its welcome as well.

 

[mnesiptolema]

I love the long series and the handspring-front tuck combinations we’ve been seeing. Much more fun and enjoyable to watch than big trick - reset - big trick - turn around - big trick again, that many other countries are doing.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

I think they’re fabulous and what gymnastics is all about. The mixed series when does as precisely as Ou is very beautiful. It’s refreshing to see a greater variation and use of A, B, and C elements. Fun to see perfect basics in action. I love the FHS–it’s nice and high in the hips and I think very impressive and beautiful when done well. I don’t necessarily think it deserves .2 CV though… Not if a standing full is probably getting an automatic deduction for low chest and likely one for foot form. But one day we may even see front handspring + Grigoras!

 

[Doug1233]

I’m actually fine with FHS Tuck Front. It’s not actually overvalued IMO. And it’s nice to break the monotony of BHS LOSO.

 

[JJS_5056]

@YurchenkoLoop – I agree that the idea of rewarding D, E+ skills intertwined with more basic (A, B) skills is what gymnastics, and especially beam, should be all about… however, as usual, the WTC screwed up the execution / translation into the COP.

In an open-ended COP, giving BHS, Split Jump, Straddle Jump, etc. a ‘B’ rating makes them worth .20 / 2 minor mistakes less than ‘D’ skills like the Onodi, Kochetkova, Front Tuck, etc. B+B+C mixed SB therefore adds not only .10 in bonus, but makes most D/E skills liabilities as you’d rather count a perfect Split Jump from a B+B+C for .20 than attempt an Onodi and break even with of 1) a flexed toe (-.10) + arm waiver (-.10).

The easiest fix, IMO, would be to revise the CV/SB formulas to:

Acro:
B+D = .10 / .20 (fwd+fwd)
B+F = .20
C+C = .10 / .20 (2 different saltos)
D+D = .20
Series Bonus = A+A+C* (+.10)
*can be applied 1 time per: mount, routine, dismount. (3 times total)

Mixed/Dance:
D (acro) + A (dance) = .10
C+C = .10
D+D = .10
Series Bonus = A+A+C* (+.10)
*can be applied 1 time each (Mixed and/or Dance) per routine. (2 times total)

Meanwhile, lower all basic jumps/leaps/hops back to ‘A’ where they belong (.30 / a medium-sized deduction away from ‘D’ skills).

It’s illogical to exclude full turns, sissones, wolf hops, etc., from being eligible for Mixed CV and SB. I also hate seeing BHS tacked onto Dance skills or series; at this point, I’d even take a rule as simple as limiting the use of BHS (+variations) to Acro CV/SB only.

 

[JJS_5056]

“Gienger (insufficient height, hips below bar height upon regrasp) 0.3 For a release between the bars, we have to use gymnastics sense. The expectations should be different expectations. The legs would hit the bar if she caught that high. I took only 0.1”

Is this outlined in the COP? Much of the code, from DV/CV/SB to deductions, make little ‘gymnastics sense,’ but they are the rules. Shap + Gienger is extremely risky and difficult because the Gienger is done between the bars; that risk is rewarded via .20 CV, the highest available. Just like a tall gymnast who bends their legs to clear the low bar for a tap is penalized, a gymnast who lacks dynamics on her Gienger between the bars needs to be penalized.

 

[Denn]

Which is why I took 0.1. And I firmly think that’s enough.

 

[Doug1233]

Yeah but what does the code and help desk say?

 

[Concorde]

Is this outlined in the COP? Much of the code, from DV/CV/SB to deductions, make little ‘gymnastics sense,’ but they are the rules. Shap + Gienger is extremely risky and difficult because the Gienger is done between the bars; that risk is rewarded via .20 CV, the highest available.

Yes, per the COP that is the expectation regarding amplitude of releases, aside from the Comaneci, and agreed that this is another example of the rules not considering biomechanics.

Just like a tall gymnast who bends their legs to clear the low bar for a tap is penalized, a gymnast who lacks dynamics on her Gienger between the bars needs to be penalized.

A number of gymnasts that are bending their knees during the tap are tapping above the low bar. Many would argue that this is actually a technical flaw, and can cause issues with consistency or the dismount to travel more out / horizontal rather than up. I believe the use of this technique is also one of the reasons cited as to why Nastia was never able to successfully connect her Tkatchev and Pak salto. In addition, taller gymnasts can either straddle or pike their bodies to pass the low bar while keeping their knees straight.

 

[Denn]

And what both of you are forgetting is that one of the “Responsibilities of Judges” in Article 5.1 is “Have extensive knowledge in contemporary gymnastics and understand the intent, purpose, interpretation, and application of each rule.” It does not tell judges to “blindly apply rules without any consideration of variations that necessitate different application of the rules.”

It also says “Evaluate each exercise accurately, consistently, quickly, objectively and fairly and when in doubt, give the benefit of that doubt to the gymnast”.

It’s NOT fair to deduct for something that can’t be achieved.

 

[Doug1233]

Well Denn what is an “accurate” evaluation if, to follow your own logic (even if it makes more sense), would contradict an explicit rule in the Code?

I’m sure practically speaking there IS some wiggle room in the code. But I’m pretty sure you would lose marks on the Brevet exam if you ignored a clear and express Code provision.

 

[Denn]

Your question cannot be answered because it makes the incorrect assumption that there always must be a single “accurate” evaluation. It is unfair to the gymnasts to act like 100% of their gymnastics performances can be evaluated using algorithmic-like application of rules that were not built to consider all cases to begin with.

And the WTC knows this, which is exactly why they include those two responsibilities in the Code of Points. When the rules don’t work, it is the job of a JUDGE to use her expertise to make a JUDGEment.

The Brevet exam, at least for the MTC, does allows for E-score ranges, not a single correct score. And this is part of the reason why. As I recall, the WTC’s exam does, too.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Either way, I don’t think Fan’s Gienger is one of the wimpier looking Giengers a la Shang Chunsong.

 

[Doug1233]

Denn I agree with you.

But not when there is a rule that says “when X happens, do Y”

And then you say “well when X happens it’s not fair to do Y so I’m doing to do Z”

Z might very well be the fairest approach but that’s not what the code tells you to do.

 

[Denn]

The point is that a Geinger between the bars isn’t “X happening”. The Code doesn’t state anything about releases between the bars, and several of us, yourselves included, just used your “extensive knowledge in contemporary gymnastics” to say that 0.3 is heavy-handed for Fan’s Gienger. And the Code tells you, in that case, to be fair.