Changes you’d like to see in the 2025-2028 Code

[MaryClare]

Bars needs to stay at 8. But beam and floor should definitely be 6. If a gymnast has tumbled double layout and full in, I really don’t care that they can double pike

 

[Doug1233]

I believe judges are hammering most Giengers between the bar. Up to .3 for height, .1 for counter-rotation, .1 for bent arms catch, .1 for failure to swing through vertical, and then whatever muscling happens on the KCH

If only they actually took all those deductions, it would be fine.

 

[tempest]

I hate seeing a double double, double layout, punch to triple twist and a dismount of a double back? What a letdown

 

[onodian]

But if you move to 6 it does make more sense to do the G release since you could compete with a routine that’s basically all connected. I mean, granted, i haven’t thought this completely through but it seems to me it would move the emphasis in the right direction

 

[onodian]

Just imagine 3-4 tumbling elements counting, and then we’d only have to go through TWO DANCE elements. I’m about to cry just thinking about it. Although then we’d see the gymnasts “perform” and i might just long for the days of the wolf turns

 

[J175]

Ideas for reducing excess elements on beam:

1. Dance series has to count towards d score. There are so many extra dance elements being done to drop the series.
2. Raise the requirement for series bonus to B+C+C (to deal with the D-B-B mixed series)

Also, increase the value of some of the other turns on beam along with devaluing the wolf turns. Otherwise I feel like we will just see more A turns replacing the wolfs.

 

[tsarinajen]

For bars, I’d like to see an increase in difficulty in non-traditional release elements. I’d also like to eliminate the cap of transition elements and pirouette elements. I hate knowing what 90 percent of routines are going to look like before the start… and i blame the code not the athletes.

 

[irichluck21]

Also, increase the value of some of the other turns on beam along with devaluing the wolf turns. Otherwise I feel like we will just see more A turns replacing the wolfs.

Gymnasts don’t have to do a full turn anymore and can get requirement through a roll element.
Gymnasts do the wolf turns for the skill value not to fulfill the turn requirement (though it does fulfill).

 

[Doug1233]

I do think a Y or L that is actually held for the full 360 is just as difficult, if not more, than a side aerial.

 

[J175]

There are basically two schools of thought on beam turns at the moment:

• Double wolf
• Just get the CR out of the way

I would expect devaluing wolf turns and more people cottoning on to the rolls to mostly cause a shift towards the second option.

I don’t think any B turn is worth it in the current code, and Cs have only limited utility - they’re not worth doing to displace a B element which is the minimum most routines count, and for most gymnasts another dance element and an A turn/roll is probably safer than a non-wolf C turn. And a devalued double wolf would still be there. D is where it really starts getting worth it hence the popularity of the double wolf, but the other turns at this level are pretty risky for wobbles and downgrades so I’m really not sure how many would choose them, especially among the current generation who have been doing wolf turns for years.

 

[onodian]

There’s the third school:

You’re Dutch (urazova is honorable Dutch)

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Double wolf isn’t worth it for nearly all WAG. The triple is a different story. Unless you’re Ashikawa, most gymnasts are deducted for prep time before turns. I think C+ turns with choreography immediately into/out of them should receive .1 CV.

 

[Doug1233]

It is crazy that an L Turn is 0.1 more than a Straddle jump.

 

[Denn]

Overall:

• Change to .1, .2, .3, deductions, keeping .5 deductions for very large errors
• Remove dismount bonus. Instead, count dismount twice. This simplifies the rules and encourages harder dismounts.
• Deduction for not dancing into or out of dance elements. (Adding to the “excessive prep” deduction)
• Follow MAG rule and credit nearest element to avoid the constant D-score craziness. Just deduct for precision, e.g., A triple spin that’s kind of short gets credit for a triple and a 0.1, 0.2, or 0.3 deduction for being up to 30°, 60°, 90° off.

VT:

• harsh deduction for not untucking before landing (apply to double front vault)
• remove redundant deduction for “dynamics”

UB:

• Replace bonuses with: after flight = one letter upgrade; after flight on high bar = 2 letter upgrade.
• no limit on transition values — so shap-full can be an F
• Remove requirement for flight on same bar; count hardest same-bar flight twice instead.

Beam:

• Change artistry / choreo / dance to an element evaluated subjectively by D-panel and timer
• Count hardest flight or leap losing sight of beam twice

FX:

• Change artistry / choreo / dance to an element evaluated subjectively by D-panel and timer / line judge
• Remove double salto requirement. Count hardest double salto twice instead

 

[Beamer]

FX:

• Dos Santos II (layout double Arabian) up to I: performing it without deductions is exceedingly difficult… no piking, completing half turn early enough to be a true Arabian
• Podkopayeva (double front half) up to G: is at least as hard as a Silivas
• randi (front 2.5 twist) up to F: many of the randis we saw in '01-'05 we’re short (e.g. Nastia, Kaitlin White) and wouldn’t be credited today
• Silivas (tucked double double) down to G

VT:

• Tsukaharas up .1 in D-Score: they naturally suffer more height and distance deductions than the ro entry vaults and are rarely used to win World or Olympic medals. The Yurchenkos and Yurchenko half-ons are still overused and even the rudi is used more to win major medals than a tsuk vault.
• Produnova vaults in an ideal world would be worth .2 more in D but the judges would actually take harsher deductions so that one like Prod at 99 University Games would be properly rewarded and the butt scraping ones would be properly harshly penalized.

 

[Doug1233]

• Podkopayeva (double front half) up to G: is at least as hard as a Silivas
• randi (front 2.5 twist) up to F: many of the randis we saw in '01-'05 we’re short (e.g. Nastia, Kaitlin White) and wouldn’t be credited today
• Silivas (tucked double double) down to G

We have been saying all of these 3 for the last like 3 Quads and I just don’t know why they aren’t moving. This is like … CONSENSUS at this point.

 

[Doug1233]

so shap-full can be an F

Would a Shap 1.5 be a G?

 

[Denn]

Hm. Maybe.

BTW, I think Shap-half elements could come down to D at this point.

The twist is harder but not needing to get to horizontal like in a Shap without twist is easier.

 

[Doug1233]

Hm. Maybe.

Would an Inbar Shap 1.5 be an H?

 

[Denn]

Let’s make that a Q.