2024 US Nationals MAG Discussion

[Aeris]

To be fair, Daggett wants the kind of judging most viewers want - 9's in execution being the norm and exciting gymnastics being rewarded.

 

[ewdot2480]

Yeah I wish there were a better balance of explaining in real time how a particular performance is racking up deductions, while still ooohing and ahhhing at the great stuff within the same routine. I also think that since the public knows the 10 point system more than anything else, that they should put that first (left), then maybe show a (+) sign, then show the “difficulty” value, and then the total score. I do like their red/yellow/green symbols.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

The 10 point system hasn't been used in elite in a generation.

The Code would likely be easier to understand if there weren't so many picky deductions.
I think one member of this forum stopped judging because he was sick of applying ticky tacky deductions.
But Daggett should be explaining the code the we have, not the one that he wants.

 

[JDB]

Tim Daggett has many strengths as a commentator. Making open-ended scoring accessible to the masses is not one of them.

 

[makam]

The Code would likely be easier to understand if there weren't so many picky deductions.
I think one member of this forum stopped judging because he was sick of applying ticky tacky deductions.

And on gymnasts who should be getting higher marks, the tickytacky deductions that you have to apply bring them closer to parity to gymnasts who should be having major deductions and tickytacky ones but you only have time/bandwidth to get the major ones. It is like the judges think they aren't doing their jobs if they can't get at least 1 point off (other than vault).

 

[Denn]

Confession — I was that member that stopped judging because of that. I could find all the deductions — which we were supposed to do — and get a hit routine down to 7.3 or whatever it turned out to be applying the rules as honestly as I could. Time and bandwidth weren't a problem for me.

And it didn't bother me as much for a compulsory session because everyone was doing the same content.

But I felt dirty after an optionals competition, especially for juniors. These kids would get up and do a new skill they had recently gotten decent and replaced something a tenth or two easier in their routines. But then I would have to deduct more than they gained with the upgrade. All that work, and they get penalized.

And it felt awful.

 

[RAFIKI]

The 10 point system hasn't been used in elite in a generation.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

Tim Daggett has many strengths as a commentator. Making open-ended scoring accessible to the masses is not one of them.

I don't mind Tim Daggett. I learned a lot from listening to him (probably because when I started out I knew nothing).

He did spend most of his formative life with 10.0 system, so he may never feel totally comfortable with open ended.

I saw OLGA KORBUT on TV. I'm that old. But I didn't really follow gymnastics until the very last year of the 10.0. I never had time to get used to it. so open ended doesn't bother me.

 

[makam]

By the time I started watching, no one was actually ever getting a 10 in elite, so it already felt like a thing of the past. Nadia got 10s, Carly and Dominique didn't. At least, not in any comp on TV I ever saw.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

The last 10 in elite was in the 1990s.

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

The last 10 in elite was in the 1990s.

I think it was in 2001!

 

[arabiandoublefront]

I think it was in 2001!

Yeah, this is the only ten I remember.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

It's hard to grasp the concept of a pommel routine with no mistakes.

There weren't obvious ones in there.

Modern judges would probably find something. I almost never see people event get 9 E scores on PH. Maybe that will get better with 8 skills.

Like his body wasn't totally straight the whole time or there was a nanosecond hesitation on going up to handstand on the dismount or some such.

 

[Aeris]

The 10 point system hasn't been used in elite in a generation.

The 10 is still being used with open-ended scoring though and 9's on execution were the norm in 2008 for the top competitors. As recently as 2016 it was normal to see 9's for the very top routines. The scoring will never be understandable for common viewers when a million deductions are being taken for things they can't see.

 

[CameliasFingerpaint]

The 10 is still being used with open-ended scoring though and 9's on execution were the norm in 2008 for the top competitors. As recently as 2016 it was normal to see 9's for the very top routines. The scoring will never be understandable for common viewers when a million deductions are being taken for things they can't see.

Seriously. Does the average viewer really care that the back foot isn’t at shoulder height? I don’t even care!

 

[Aeris]

I think taking deduction for anything that isn't near-perfect makes sense, but the scaling is way off right now. Most skills should just be getting deducted 0.05-.2 total, but instead they are getting .3-.5 (plus a pedantic downgrade often times).

 

[irichluck21]

Wow that was 23 years ago and I didn't know Urzica got a 10 or I just didn't remember it.

We came close to another 10 in 2005 with Sacramone getting a 9.900 on FX at Nationals. She had 9.850, 9.900, 9.950=9.900

 

[RedBirdie]

I think taking deduction for anything that isn't near-perfect makes sense, but the scaling is way off right now. Most skills should just be getting deducted 0.05-.2 total, but instead they are getting .3-.5 (plus a pedantic downgrade often times).

This is far less of an issue in MAG. The MTC is way less busy body (to quote Denn) then the WTC.

 

[OnoNoKomachi]

The 10 is still being used with open-ended scoring though and 9's on execution were the norm in 2008 for the top competitors. As recently as 2016 it was normal to see 9's for the very top routines. The scoring will never be understandable for common viewers when a million deductions are being taken for things they can't see.

The number 10 is in there. It really isn't the same thing as the old system.

I'm a "late life" gymnastics fan. I was never a gymnast, coach, or gym parent. I started watching randomly after the 2004 Olympics....

The numbers in the scores never bothered me one bit. I could like at a score sheet and pretty much tell you how the meet went. It really isn't that hard. I think people from inside the gymnastics world vastly overestimate how confusing the numbers are. Which is not very.

The Code, on the other hand, is not easy to really understand. I kind of get some of it. I've been watching for like 20 years so picked up something.

To really understand it you have to study and practice judge. It would be easier to learn if there was less non obvious stuff.

I look at old videos from the 10 era and the scoring reads to me like a news report in another language. I have less idea with those where the score came from than I do if I look at something from now.

I think if little boys in America got status in the schoolyard from knowing the FIG code, every man in America would have Brevet level knowledge.

This armchair judging is fun for the audience, but I don't take it too seriously.
I know a lot more about it than the average person who knows nothing, and probably as much as many of the people on social media who are screaming about the scores.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. I'm not going to be too hard on these judges.

If you threw a bunch of tools on a table, I could pick out the Mayfield clamp and the Gigli saw and explain what they are for. But you sure as hell don't want me using any of those on you.

 

[irichluck21]

So are we thinking it will be:
Malone, Richard, Moldaeur, Young, and Hong/Whittenburg??