QuietColours
Member
- Jan 31, 2021
- 1,763
- 2,971
It’s tagged just for fun. Even elites need to play!
Gymcastic. Thoughts?
- Thread starter Doug1233
- Start date
Talk Gymnastics With Us!
Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads
This week’s episode included a Jessica rant that I agreed with so wholeheartedly I had to share. It’s about the deduction for “insufficient extension in a kip” – I’m not sure how long this has been in the CoP, but it’s indeed there in Section 11 - page 3.
Jessica’s point was that judging this skill according to some platonic ideal – while maybe productive in low level gymnastics – is ridiculous at the elite level. To make an analogy, it seems pretty clear that roundoffs and backhandsprings aren’t generally ignored in elite floor routines except in the most egregious of cases perhaps, and an “unextended” kip is far from egregious.
This letter of the law for this deduction means that both of the pre-eminent bar workers in the world, Suni and Nina, have already marred their routines with imperfection from the moment they begin, as both prefer a rather compact style of kip rather than an extended glide kip.
Jessica’s point was that judging this skill according to some platonic ideal – while maybe productive in low level gymnastics – is ridiculous at the elite level. To make an analogy, it seems pretty clear that roundoffs and backhandsprings aren’t generally ignored in elite floor routines except in the most egregious of cases perhaps, and an “unextended” kip is far from egregious.
This letter of the law for this deduction means that both of the pre-eminent bar workers in the world, Suni and Nina, have already marred their routines with imperfection from the moment they begin, as both prefer a rather compact style of kip rather than an extended glide kip.
Last edited:
I kind of agree and kind of don’t. I mean you could argue that mo shoots mostly get a lot of deductions for lack of rotation and lack of height and that as everyone does them like that we should change the requirements and take away those deductions. Or that most people land a double back with their chest down so lets change the requirements. I feel that an upstart should be extended at hips and shoulders. That is the move as I see it. But I do see what you mean.
I don’t think your double tuck chest position example belongs in this conversation, there are literally hundreds of gymnasts that can land that skill correctly, so that’s certainly not what I’m saying.
The question of how novel skills are added to the code and then ‘corrected’ to fit a platonic ideal is somewhat interesting to me. For example, Mohini Bhardwaj only ever competed her eponymous bars transition with a substantial leg separation, but obviously that wasn’t getting built into the skill’s definition. (I just find it funny to consider that one might argue along the lines of “I invented the skill-- this is exactly how it’s supposed to be done”. With the Mo Salto, I think there’s plenty of latitude to argue, “lack of height compared to what?” You are already necessarily flipping higher in the air than the average jaeger, so judges could certainly grant leeway, especially with an intentional goal of promoting this rare and exciting release move.
I just think this is a case of the code of points being overly prescriptive when it doesn’t have to be, and isn’t always. For instance, double layouts (even single layouts, on beam) are accepted whether one has an arched or a perfectly flat back position. One could make a case for which style is aesthetically preferable and judge accordingly, but I am arguing that this latitude is a superior approach that acknowledges that skills can be completed in different ways without deviating from perfection: this is what I’m saying about the kip. I would extend this idea to hand regrasping on the uneven bars, a deduction that I would rather see removed (and I get the sense it’s inconsistently applied, too - Suni Lee receives very high E scores despite regrasping after every single kip cast handstand in her routine). There are cases where it’s obviously an error (and on an event like parallel bars it’s basically always a balance mistake), but I don’t think a gymnast should be penalized for positioning themselves to optimize their swing or location for the next skill in their routine.
The question of how novel skills are added to the code and then ‘corrected’ to fit a platonic ideal is somewhat interesting to me. For example, Mohini Bhardwaj only ever competed her eponymous bars transition with a substantial leg separation, but obviously that wasn’t getting built into the skill’s definition. (I just find it funny to consider that one might argue along the lines of “I invented the skill-- this is exactly how it’s supposed to be done”. With the Mo Salto, I think there’s plenty of latitude to argue, “lack of height compared to what?” You are already necessarily flipping higher in the air than the average jaeger, so judges could certainly grant leeway, especially with an intentional goal of promoting this rare and exciting release move.
I just think this is a case of the code of points being overly prescriptive when it doesn’t have to be, and isn’t always. For instance, double layouts (even single layouts, on beam) are accepted whether one has an arched or a perfectly flat back position. One could make a case for which style is aesthetically preferable and judge accordingly, but I am arguing that this latitude is a superior approach that acknowledges that skills can be completed in different ways without deviating from perfection: this is what I’m saying about the kip. I would extend this idea to hand regrasping on the uneven bars, a deduction that I would rather see removed (and I get the sense it’s inconsistently applied, too - Suni Lee receives very high E scores despite regrasping after every single kip cast handstand in her routine). There are cases where it’s obviously an error (and on an event like parallel bars it’s basically always a balance mistake), but I don’t think a gymnast should be penalized for positioning themselves to optimize their swing or location for the next skill in their routine.
I don’t have a problem with the kip deduction but the handgrasp I do. It stills the flow of the routine. Especially when they hand walk across the bar. It is a balance check. Which would be taken on beam or floor. It should be deducted. You could say excessive arm swing before a wolf spin is also positioning themselves to optimise their swing (or rotation in that case). Definitely a deduction to me. If you need to move location for your next move you need to adjust the routine - plenty of gymnasts manage.
The hand regrasp deduction should be reserved for when it’s done as something that’s necessary to regain balance, or stop your elbows from bending excessively, or stop yourself from bouncing out of position when catching a release. It shouldn’t be taken when just moving a hand over slightly or even when “hand walking” across the bar (if it’s done in a controlled way). Hand walking across the bar is something that takes actual skill. It’s not just sitting in place and preparing for a wolf turn - which is not a skill.
You can “hand walk” across the bar during a pirouette and it’s not an extra deduction, so why should it be elsewhere, if it’s done properly? Some sequences of moves necessitate having a certain amount of space across the bar. Why should someone be forced to pirouette into the end of the bar, and then also have to do a release at the end of the bar (which is extra unsafe), instead of being able to move themselves beforehand, so that the sequence will travel better across the bar? And shouldn’t we want people to utilize more of the bar space anyway? Keep things dynamic, not rigid.
And yeah kips should not be getting deducted unless they are very fugly or super labored. That’s like trying to penalize straddled casts for leg separation. These kinds of rules are like telling a dancer they aren’t allowed to move their body at a 30 degree angle because such a thing is allegedly inherently bad - which is preposterous. Art takes all forms, and dance (/gymnastics) is supposed to be about the full range of possibility within the utilization of space and the human body. Moving your arm or leg to the left isn’t inherently better than moving it to the right. Breathing fast isn’t inherently better than breathing slow. Standing up perfectly straight isn’t inherently better than a crouching kind of dance movement. It’s all about the overall picture, purpose, and timing.
Which is why the angle deduction rules for pirouettes are also flawed. If you end a pirouette at 45 degree angle because you were having difficulty with the turn, that is different than ending a pirouette at a 45 degree angle because you are going fast around the bar and showing good momentum, and it’s also different than a well controlled pirouette that is going slower, but with purposeful flow to show off the body position (Endos with full turns are a good example - it’s pretty much impossible to end them on top of the bar. Ling Jie’s Ono pirouette at 1999 worlds that ends very “late” is another good example). The context needs to be taken into account. Judges are there to judge exactly those things.
Cast handstands are the thing that should actually be getting judged very tightly for their angle, and the code is instead exactly backwards and gives cast handstands more leeway than pirouettes!
You can “hand walk” across the bar during a pirouette and it’s not an extra deduction, so why should it be elsewhere, if it’s done properly? Some sequences of moves necessitate having a certain amount of space across the bar. Why should someone be forced to pirouette into the end of the bar, and then also have to do a release at the end of the bar (which is extra unsafe), instead of being able to move themselves beforehand, so that the sequence will travel better across the bar? And shouldn’t we want people to utilize more of the bar space anyway? Keep things dynamic, not rigid.
And yeah kips should not be getting deducted unless they are very fugly or super labored. That’s like trying to penalize straddled casts for leg separation. These kinds of rules are like telling a dancer they aren’t allowed to move their body at a 30 degree angle because such a thing is allegedly inherently bad - which is preposterous. Art takes all forms, and dance (/gymnastics) is supposed to be about the full range of possibility within the utilization of space and the human body. Moving your arm or leg to the left isn’t inherently better than moving it to the right. Breathing fast isn’t inherently better than breathing slow. Standing up perfectly straight isn’t inherently better than a crouching kind of dance movement. It’s all about the overall picture, purpose, and timing.
Which is why the angle deduction rules for pirouettes are also flawed. If you end a pirouette at 45 degree angle because you were having difficulty with the turn, that is different than ending a pirouette at a 45 degree angle because you are going fast around the bar and showing good momentum, and it’s also different than a well controlled pirouette that is going slower, but with purposeful flow to show off the body position (Endos with full turns are a good example - it’s pretty much impossible to end them on top of the bar. Ling Jie’s Ono pirouette at 1999 worlds that ends very “late” is another good example). The context needs to be taken into account. Judges are there to judge exactly those things.
Cast handstands are the thing that should actually be getting judged very tightly for their angle, and the code is instead exactly backwards and gives cast handstands more leeway than pirouettes!
I’m about halfway through the interview with Steve Butcher in this week’s episode. It’s been quite interesting so far and I’m curious about what others think about what he had to say about Simone’s withdrawal from the Tokyo TF. Apparently, she needed to provide a medical reason for withdrawing, otherwise (if I understood correctly), she would have gotten zeros in her other three events. They settled on citing anxiety as the medical issue. In the press conference after the final, Simone said she withdrew to “focus on her mental health”. Now, given her demeanor at competitions leading up to the Games, it’s not difficult to believe that she indeed was struggling mentally, but I’m wondering if her wording at that press conference had an element of CYA given the rules.
Also, I’m curious about the rules regarding her replacement in TF - they didn’t call up an alternate athlete, they just had the other three team members compete on the remaining events. Are teams not allowed to shuffle lineups once the competition has started? I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of this.
Edit: typo
Also, I’m curious about the rules regarding her replacement in TF - they didn’t call up an alternate athlete, they just had the other three team members compete on the remaining events. Are teams not allowed to shuffle lineups once the competition has started? I’m not sure I’ve ever been aware of this.
Edit: typo
Last edited:
My latest complaint is that Spencer keeps proclaiming his allegiance to a highest scoring team methodology – and used this to justify a Worlds team that included Lincoln and* Roberson (in addition to the uncontroversial choices of Biles, Blakely, Jones). And they keep complaining about an ‘all-arounder’ strategy that I think it out of context now given the strengths of USA’s current top gymnasts.
I don’t think this methodology holds up unless you are consistently adding ~ +0.5 over whoever the alternative 3rd best gymnast in a final would be. By ‘consistently’ I mean that your routine has structural advantages (a big D score margin) in addition to the E-score inclusive final score. I guess the amount of the margin is up for debate, but when your inclusion is ‘highest scoring’ is on account of just a single event, I think it’s a good idea to set that bar fairly high.
Roberson’s average vault margin over US’s 3rd best vaulter at Nationals, Blakely, is only 0.3 (14.6 vs. 14.3). Kaliya Lincoln’s margin over US’s 3rd best floor worker, Wong, is much higher at 0.525 (14.2 vs. 13.675) – so I guess she meets my threshold for a single-apparatus addition to a team of Blakely, Wong, Biles, and Jones.
I don’t think this methodology holds up unless you are consistently adding ~ +0.5 over whoever the alternative 3rd best gymnast in a final would be. By ‘consistently’ I mean that your routine has structural advantages (a big D score margin) in addition to the E-score inclusive final score. I guess the amount of the margin is up for debate, but when your inclusion is ‘highest scoring’ is on account of just a single event, I think it’s a good idea to set that bar fairly high.
Roberson’s average vault margin over US’s 3rd best vaulter at Nationals, Blakely, is only 0.3 (14.6 vs. 14.3). Kaliya Lincoln’s margin over US’s 3rd best floor worker, Wong, is much higher at 0.525 (14.2 vs. 13.675) – so I guess she meets my threshold for a single-apparatus addition to a team of Blakely, Wong, Biles, and Jones.
Never mind that you can’t responsibly take Lincoln and Roberson. Who are you going to put up on bars?! Lincoln is liable to splat all over the place, while Roberson doesn’t even have a same bar release (and only scored 7.1 e at nationals!).
If you’re going to take one of them, take Lincoln. She add some much more on floor than Roberson does on vault, and Lincoln probably has a better shot at an individual medal on floor than Roberson does on vault.
Still mad that neutral deductions of bars are the reason why Lincoln finished behind Roberson.
If you’re going to take one of them, take Lincoln. She add some much more on floor than Roberson does on vault, and Lincoln probably has a better shot at an individual medal on floor than Roberson does on vault.
Still mad that neutral deductions of bars are the reason why Lincoln finished behind Roberson.
- Feb 10, 2021
- 7,383
- 9,279
At the Olympics, alternates cannot be subbed in once the competition had begun. Additionally, Simone vaulted so she was “active” in the team event and couldn’t be replaced anyway.
At Worlds you can sub your alternate in for team finals after team qualification but the sub must happen before the meet begins.
This is why 4-4-3 and 4-3-3 was so critical. You needed a solid and strong 4th score on all 4 events just in case.
Last edited:
Yes, basically because the alternates get medals. Exactly like what is common in track- you can have someone who contributes by running the relay in heats then sits out the final.
- Feb 10, 2021
- 7,383
- 9,279
Right.
FIG recognizes the alternates (which began in 2010 IIRC) and gives them medals.
Olympics does not recognize alternates or gives out medals. I am trying to recall the last time the alternate was allowed to train with the team and be on the competition floor. I think it was Barcelona for the last time, but it might have been Seoul (the infamous Rhonda Faehn incident).
In Atlanta, teams didn’t usually travel with the alternate because the 7th team member was the built in alternate. The alternates were not with the teams at the Olympics. If they were they had to stay outside of the athletes village and didn’t get credentialed.
IIRC, Ana Maria Bican ruptured her ACL a few days before podium training, but there was no time to fly in an alternate. Andreaa Cacovean and Claudia Presecan were already injured. Both Loaies and Tugurlan were intended to be the two alternates and both were called in. The federation didn’t have any other options anyway, though I think if they had time they would have brought in Alexandra Dobrescu.
They were held together by hopes, prayers, and sheer determination. Gogean had emergency adenectomy surgery just a few weeks before Atlanta and Milosovici had badly sprained her ankle right before podium.
Romania was really fortunate to get the bronze with Russia and US going out so strong. China stumbled. Otherwise with all their injuries and lack of depth, they could have finished out of the medals.
FIG recognizes the alternates (which began in 2010 IIRC) and gives them medals.
Olympics does not recognize alternates or gives out medals. I am trying to recall the last time the alternate was allowed to train with the team and be on the competition floor. I think it was Barcelona for the last time, but it might have been Seoul (the infamous Rhonda Faehn incident).
In Atlanta, teams didn’t usually travel with the alternate because the 7th team member was the built in alternate. The alternates were not with the teams at the Olympics. If they were they had to stay outside of the athletes village and didn’t get credentialed.
IIRC, Ana Maria Bican ruptured her ACL a few days before podium training, but there was no time to fly in an alternate. Andreaa Cacovean and Claudia Presecan were already injured. Both Loaies and Tugurlan were intended to be the two alternates and both were called in. The federation didn’t have any other options anyway, though I think if they had time they would have brought in Alexandra Dobrescu.
They were held together by hopes, prayers, and sheer determination. Gogean had emergency adenectomy surgery just a few weeks before Atlanta and Milosovici had badly sprained her ankle right before podium.
Romania was really fortunate to get the bronze with Russia and US going out so strong. China stumbled. Otherwise with all their injuries and lack of depth, they could have finished out of the medals.
That totally makes sense, but i was under the impression that Butcher was saying that they wouldnt have been able to sub other team members into Simone’s spots on the other three events (e.g., Chiles on bars). That’s the bit that surprised me. Makes sense that you cant add a new person once the competition has started, but shuffling lineups using people who are on the competition floor seems a bit different.
RichardL
Defender
- Feb 5, 2021
- 894
- 1,529
Even with all of that, though, they were just .158 from silver over Russia. Marinescu’s beam dismount could’ve done it, or Amanar’s beam fall in compulsories. So could lots of tiny mistakes across the meet, and of course lackluster team members at the bottom of the roster. They beat China by almost two and a half points.
- Feb 10, 2021
- 7,383
- 9,279
I know what actually transpired, LOL.
China was 2 and half points behind, but they also counted various mistakes and had the horrible compulsories, finishing 5th, and not in the last optional round.
China was a bit underscored in optionals here and there. Mo Huilan’s vault stands out as the most underscored routine in optionals, for example.
Romania had a lot of unfortunate luck before the meet began, but got some luck back. They could have been in 4th had China not counted multiple falls.
China was 2 and half points behind, but they also counted various mistakes and had the horrible compulsories, finishing 5th, and not in the last optional round.
China was a bit underscored in optionals here and there. Mo Huilan’s vault stands out as the most underscored routine in optionals, for example.
Romania had a lot of unfortunate luck before the meet began, but got some luck back. They could have been in 4th had China not counted multiple falls.
RichardL
Defender
- Feb 5, 2021
- 894
- 1,529
It was an interesting era where each team was carried by three or four very strong AA gymnasts. The specialists at the bottom of the rosters never really materialized in 1996 beyond Chow, maybe Teslenko.
I wonder what a 4-3-3 would’ve looked like with these teams:
US - Miller, Moceanu, Strug, Dawes
RUS - Khorkina, Kotchetkova, Galieva, Grosheva
ROM - Amanar, Gogean, Milosovici, Marinescu
I wonder what a 4-3-3 would’ve looked like with these teams:
US - Miller, Moceanu, Strug, Dawes
RUS - Khorkina, Kotchetkova, Galieva, Grosheva
ROM - Amanar, Gogean, Milosovici, Marinescu
Trending Discussions
-
WCC: Patrick Kiens & Daymon Jones take reins as Laurent Landi moves on
Either WCC had a going away party way in advance, or Laurent is wrapping up this week. There's...- RedBirdie
- Replies: 52
-
-
Russia-Ukraine War: Effects on Gymn World
Here’s hoping everyone in Ukraine is safe right now. Does anybody have any word?- rlayt
- Replies: 1,395
-
British WAG (and MAG!) talk
Thought it might be fun to discuss all things GB WAG. Saw this on Jennifer Gadirova: This...- Doug1233
- Replies: 3,273
-
Preview of 2025 NCAA Season - SEC conference
The NCAA season is less than a month away, I think it's safe to say that the next NCAA title...- cuuf
- Replies: 9
-
Talk Gymnastics With Us!
Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads
Similar threads
Upcoming events
-
Feb 2020252025 Turnier der Meister - Cottbus World CupWorld Cup Series
-
Feb 2120252025 Winter CupNational Competition - USA
-
Mar 520252025 L'International GymnixWAG Juniors and Seniors