Nastia Liukin 2008 EF BB

[Doug1233]

What were the deductions?

 

[RichardL]

Flexed feet on the sheep and the side somi, knees on the Onodi (there are almost always knees on an Onodi), flexed feet on the front toss to scale, crossed legs on dismount and large hop. And that's not accounting for rhythm deductions (the front half of the routine has some stalls).

But gorgeous work, thank you for having me rewatch!

 

[KristyJ]

I had slight overbalance on the handstand, feet on the sheep and the side somi, rhythm on the wolf full connection, and the hop on the dismount. But it's gorgeous, and I rewatched it several times just because.

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

I always assumed she'd got something for the wolf full too.

 

[Doug1233]

If there’s 5 or 6 tenths to take (and 2 are not contentious on the dismount), then there’s only 3 or 4 tenths in the interior of the routine.

That’s crazy!

Didnt she get a 9.8 at pac Rims? With a stuck DMT that’s only 1 tenth in the interior. Maybe the wolf full?

I know they tightened up the body shape deductions on the wolf so that would be a clear 0.3 these days but back then I assume it would have been taken as a 1.

I know most people are saying feet on the sheep but i’m skeptical if that was taken back in 2008?

She really did have beautiful lines. If you had to pick a gymnast of the 2000-2010 decade, you’d struggle to pick a gymnast better than her (I can only think of Ponor and Khorkina to rival her - although Sveta was never my cup of tea).

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

If there’s 5 or 6 tenths to take (and 2 are not contentious on the dismount), then there’s only 3 or 4 tenths in the interior of the routine.

That’s crazy!

Didnt she get a 9.8 at pac Rims? With a stuck DMT that’s only 1 tenth in the interior. Maybe the wolf full?

I know they tightened up the body shape deductions on the wolf so that would be a clear 0.3 these days but back then I assume it would have been taken as a 1.

I know most people are saying feet on the sheep but i’m skeptical if that was taken back in 2008?

She really did have beautiful lines. If you had to pick a gymnast of the 2000-2010 decade, you’d struggle to pick a gymnast better than her (I can only think of Ponor and Khorkina to rival her - although Sveta was never my cup of tea).

Mmm I tend to agree, the likeliest 2 tenths are the ones on the dismount.

 

[Doug1233]

Mmm I tend to agree, the likeliest 2 tenths are the ones on the dismount.

I cannot imagine they didn't take 2 on the dismount.

Two judges took 3 in the interior, and four judges took 4.

 

[youwannacranson]

That side somi (at least since last quad) would be a built in 0.3 deduction for inexactness of tuck. Both legs need to be bent

Her switch half is visibly shy of 180° from the judges' angle too

 

[Aeris]

Her switch half and onodi are gorgeous, really shouldn't deduct those. I doubt the front toss to leg hold was deducted, it was her skill and praised for its beauty. To me it shouldn't be deducted either, because the non-landing foot is not flexed at all and her landing foot is somewhat flexed mainly just in preparation for the landing, which is a normal thing to be expected.

The sheep jump and side somi for sure deserve a deduction. The switch ring could be deducted, her head doesn't exactly go back as far as it maybe should. The wolf full free leg position is a bit sketchy but actually better here than some other times. And then definitely two tenths on the dismount.

Judging is so much more preferable this way, a deserved 9.5 execution score. She should have beaten Shawn.

 

[KristyJ]

They wouldn't have deducted that switch ring in 2008, as the requirements were a bit less prescriptive then about head position and Nastia's was basically considered textbook. Which certainly raises questions about what we ask of gymnasts' switch rings now.

 

[Aeris]

The rules required an arch position, Nastia's shoulders aren't really bending back to fulfill that. Still a very good looking leap regardless, but it would be a fair deduction. Ofc, the code was never followed exactly during that time, which is fine because the deductions on paper have always been ridiculous, but judging on comparison between athletes is the key to get good results, and there were some rings being performed that had more back flexibility.

 

[Doug1233]

I'm more interested in what they actually took, rather than what they could have taken (mostly because you can 0.1 any routine to death - even Maroney's Amanar!)

 

[KristyJ]

The rules required an arch position, Nastia's shoulders aren't really bending back to fulfill that. Still a very good looking leap regardless, but it would be a fair deduction. Ofc, the code was never followed exactly during that time, which is fine because the deductions on paper have always been ridiculous, but judging on comparison between athletes is the key to get good results, and there were some rings being performed that had more back flexibility.

She has a small arch and does have head release. Back then that would've been sufficient, as degree of arch wasn't defined. It's not like she's rigidly upright.