2022 World Gymnastics Championships WAG All Around Final (Thursday 11/03)

[irichluck21]

finally scored Kinsella’s FX that we didn’t get on Peacock feed and Doug and I (others, please score @Concorde @irichluck21 @MRR ) have her in bronze for the all-around

I have to get around to watching TF and AA now that YouTube videos are up.

 

[Yarotska]

Yes I have Gadirova ahead by 0.200. In real time I was feeling more impressed by her than Kinsella. I think her floor gold is the more dubious medal. Her Silivas was far better in AA than EF and there was little difference elsewhere in the routine.

Well, she took a bigger step (.3 vs .1) but the rest of the deductions remain the same regardless of how much better it was by the code standard.

 

[GymBeauty]

I think it is very similar, the difference is in the music selection.

Sorry but that’s just bad judging. Jordan’s choreo and movement is much different and specifically fulfills the criteria in ways she did not last year. More movement using multiple body parts at the same time, less emptiness in the corners, follows the music better, better transitions between skills.

@YurchenkoLoop Thank you for getting it. The average level of artistry seen in the routines this year has improved. So of course there aren’t more artistry deductions being taken; people worked on that aspect more.

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Her feet are together during her Silivas landing in the AA and she does not get a low chest deduction. In EF real time I saw her feet are splayed (precision) and she has a low chest, so I had her EF Silivas being .4 worse than that of the AA.

To add, GymBeauty, she has great variation in rhythm and really connects to the audience. The choreo between her opening tumble and DLO 1/1 checks off so many boxes

 

[navyblue]

Hard disagree here. I remember gasping when I saw what Jordan perform her floor routine at UCLA for the first time. To me it was the quintessential example of a frumpy elite choreography underutilizing the skill of a gymnast who actually can perform and dance if given material that better suits her personality. And hint hint – a lot of this has to do with embracing black and contemporary pop music/dance styles – you know, maybe recycling the musical styles that worked well for Soviet teenage girls in the 1980s isn’t the best move for 20+ year-old black women in 2022.

The simplest example is here – nothing crazy, but the way Jordan strikes a move to the beat of the song shows a degree of engagement nowhere to be found in her orchestral spiderman piece. On further review, the choreography here isn’t quite as egregious as I remember, and her overall presentation and carriage starts off strong, but by the second half of the routine you can see her going through the motions lethargically and basically creating opportunities to rest between passes. Nothing GymBeauty is saying is showing “bias against Jordan” IMO.

What are the facts on the ground?:

• Artistry checklist deductions did become more stringent and thorough this code
• Most gymnasts attempted to adapt their routines accordingly, including the top 3 from this year’s Worlds floor final – Jordan (who, it could be argued would have benefited from her NCAA routine regardless of the code), Jade who is incontrovertibly trying her best, and even Jessica, who started from a higher baseline is performing more expressively in 2022.
• E scores really haven’t changed much, comparing Jade, Jessica, and Jordan’s 2022 and 2020 scores… (Jordan’s is a bit harder to compare because her front tumbling had regressed at the Olympics during her 2 floor routines. On the one hand her domestic scores were obviously too high, but her execution was in fact better at those meets).

So I agree there’s good reason to believe that unaltered routines from the last quad would be scoring lower now, and I think it’s a bit cynical to claim that the by-the-book artistry deductions aren’t being taken, when the truth is we don’t know for sure either way. But I am tempted to give judges the benefit of the doubt on this, given it’s not some obscure change discussed solely in the gymternet, but a topic that’s found its way to the mainstream TV broadcasts.

 

[lovegymnasts]

To me it was the quintessential example of a frumpy elite choreography underutilizing the skill of a gymnast who actually can perform and dance if given material that better suits her personality.

Yes!
The bolded is what I find wrong with most elite floor routines…FRUMPY! It feels like most are going through the motions with as much minimal effort as possible.
I do not like college gymnastics but I do love their floor routines. If they can put forth choreography like that, why can’t elite?

 

[Yarotska]

Y’all I just wanna say Shoko Miyata is the moment. She is everything. She is so good. The audience was living for her. She had the whole floor to herself for AA finals. There was something so special about her. I also got chills when she stuck that DTY in team finals. It felt like another era when that happened.

 

[onodian]

I am here for the Japanese. I was a fan all throughout the competition, and I hope they can build on this for the coming years.

 

[Hatsumomo]

I concur with both @Yarotska and @onodian. I was so sad at Murakami’s retirement, but her successors are giving me so much excitement and hope for Japan’s WAG program. I’m looking forward to seeing how they build on their 2022 successes next year and Paris.

 

[makam]

I was definitely poo-pooing them when Japan named their team. Buncha ‘never heard of them’ gymnasts, well Japan is going to be lucky to make the final. And then dang, they killed it (minus 1 bad routine). A little more seasoning and they look to be future contenders.

 

[GymBeauty]

I’m still not over that last Uneven Bar routine from Japan, it was going so well for them, and as a team they would have been so deserving of the medal.

 

[GymBeauty]

Since the team event is being talked about here, there’s something curious with Sydney Turner’s UB routine:



She was originally given a 5.4 D-score but then it was raised to 5.7, so they didn’t credit her Stalder 1/2 at first, but then did after inquiry. This raises multiple questions that need a concrete answer - exactly when should a turn like this be considered complete and how to apply the rule for “swings”. Looking at that turn she’s in .5 deduction territory when getting her hands back onto the bar in the “correct” grip, but she does get within 10 degrees of handstand and the upper body has completed the turn before grip change.

So there could be 3 different ways people are thinking to evaluate it:

1.) The turn is not complete until both hands have regripped and only that angle matters for crediting a swing

2.) It satisfies the rule of a swing reaching within 10 degrees of handstand to not get devalued, but still can get .5 angle deduction

3.) The turn here should be considered fully complete within 10 degrees and what happens afterward is just a “grip adjustment”

#1 is what I thought we’ve been told is the rule, although #2 has always been most logical to me. The D-panel must have chosen either #2 or #3 after the inquiry, and it’s unclear how the E-panel viewed it - the total deduction for the element is either .3 or .7 depending on if you choose grip adjustment or .5 angle as the answer, but since there’s variances in how to score the rest of the routine, that final score could mean either one.

 

[Doug1233]

Interesting question. My gut would say credit but deduct 0.5 (#2) but surely the Help Desk has some guidance here?

 

[GymBeauty]

Help desk says “the turn is considered finished when the gymnast grabs the bar with the second hand” and doesn’t say anything about considering the angle of the swing before then, which is option #1. The D-panel definitely did not follow that directive though.

 

[Doug1233]

But “grabs the bar” doesn’t specify which grip they are holding at the end of the turn?

 

[onodian]

I don’t understand shit. What is this rule that they wouldn’t credit a stalder 1/2 cause of a late grip? Can anybody please explain?

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

Perhaps this - as she was trying to execute a Stalder 360° and did not make the 2° half of the 360° but clearly finished 180° within 10° of HS. So initially the D panel credits a Stalder 180° devalued (as is the case with many clear hip, Stalder, toe-on that are meant as swings and not circles) - then an inquiry is put in and upon video review by the JOA it is deemed an acceptable Stalder 180° within 10° - so then the D-score is revised as the skill gains a C VP and then can be eligible for the 0.20 CV.

This would make the difference between 5,4 and 5,7.

As an E-judge, it should be deducted for adjusted grip - 0,10 and perhaps, body alignment in HS, as well as precision.

 

[GymBeauty]

It doesn’t mention grips at all, but the “second hand” would have to mean the hand that regrips the bar after the first hand has finished, no? If that weren’t the case it would mean all of these type of turns would inherently get a grip adjustment deduction, which makes no sense.

The help videos in every instance judge the turn when both hands have regripped and also when the whole body has completed the turn. That makes sense, since the actual code says “Handstand position is considered reached when all body parts are aligned in vertical.”

There are no examples like this though, and the written rules don’t support the most logical way of judging the element. It’s supposed to seen as either an incomplete turn that gets devalued, or a turn with 0 angle deduction.

 

[Doug1233]

Well, looks like whenever they put out the next version of the Help Desk, this should certainly be included as an example!

 

[Doug1233]

Can anyone get this to a 6.0 D?

DCDCDD2E1DE3 = 5.9?