Simone’s Yurchenko Double Pike

Talk Gymnastics With Us!

Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads

It really isn’t enough. 6.8 at least IMO. Doesn’t leave room for the YDT.

That said, no one is going to be competing that vault unless it’s Simone herself.
This vault is completely awesome!

I have updated the forum image to this vault. You can see it by logging out.

I also updated the title to help Google find this topic a little easier.

Gymnaverse just bought this photo from the AP for editorial use only. So talk away about Simone Biles and her new vault!

Last edited:
I think anything between 6.6 and 6.8 would have been fair.

In reality, there’s quite literally a 1% chance that the value of this vault will have any bearing on any Gymnastics medal for the next 20 years. By which time, the Code of today won’t even be recognizable (we only hope!)

The 1% I’m referring to, of course, would be where 2 tenths would be the difference between Simone getting a TF, AA or VT Gold, or not. Very unlikely. She would have to fall 3+ times in the AA, or on both vaults in VT EF. I guess it could happen in TF if someone gets an 8 on bars or something. But very unlikely (though not impossible, I guess).

And 20 years, because I can’t see any other female gymnast doing this vault until then.
“People don’t need to know the difference between a Cheng and a Yurchenko vault to know when something isn’t fair.”

“Pretty much everyone agrees that woefully undervalues the skill.”

What an absurd piece of writing. Of course you have to be knowledgable in gymnastics, one of the most complicated sports, to understand if this is unfair or not. And people definitely were talking about it possibly being valued at 6.6 before it was decided. I definitely would like to see Simone rewarded for her ability and inventiveness but this is just manufactured outrage rather than a reasoned argument.
I was actually expecting lower than 6.6. I don’t think that the number is nearly egregious as the double double BB dismount.
  • Like
Reactions: MRR
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #9
Okay when Spencer explains it he sums up some of the viewpoints here about the difference between low-balling Simone’s BB dismount and her YDP.

“ The problem with Simone’s double double beam dismount in 2019 being given an H value is that it did not adhere to any kind of recognizable precedent or logic established by previous values of other beam dismounts. On beam, a double tuck dismount is a D. Adding a full twist to that bumps it up three tenths to a G. And then adding another full twist bumps it up…1 tenth? To an H? Any logical progression falls apart pretty quickly, and the FIG’s post hoc explanation of the value as an effort to preserve the safety of gymnasts was fully laughable coming from an organization that, for example, doesn’t allow a touch warmup for event finals or has a checkered history with the various equipment manufacturers selected for various world championships.

In the case of this vault value, as opposed to that beam dismount, there’s an actual recognizable logic to giving it a 6.6. To me, it’s faulty logic, but at least one can recognize the world this score came from this time. Basically, it looks like the FIG elected to compare this vault to other Yurchenko vaults that already exist and applied the established 0.4 progression for upgrades. They looked at the Yurchenko 2.5, currently at 5.8, and said, “OK, so then if you do a Yurchenko double tuck, that would go up 4 tenths to 6.2, and then the Yurchenko double pike goes up 4 tenths from there to 6.6.”

It’s something. It’s a reasoning. The problem here is that it seems like they’re treating the Yurchenko double pike as an upgrade of the Amanar, which is fundamentally flawed. It’s not an upgrade of a single-salto twisting vault. It’s a completely different thing that wouldn’t appear on the same line of the code as the layout-twisting Yurchenkos and shouldn’t be viewed as a progression of those vaults.

The best comparison would be to other double salto vaults, but sadly we don’t have many of those in the women’s code save for the double front, which is also itself a completely different thing as a handspring vault with front tumbling, rather than a Yurchenko vault with back tumbling.

So if we’re attempting to go by any kind of precedent and not just pull a value out of our asses (the FIG special), we are forced to look to the Yurchenko double pike in the men’s code—which is a 5.6—and compare that to some of the vaults that do exist in both codes, like the handspring double front, which is considered 4 tenths easier than the Yurchenko double pike in the men’s code (5.2 versus 5.6). In the women’s code now, the handspring double front is a 6.4 and the Yurchenko double pike is a 6.6. So, it would be very valid to ask the FIG the question, why is the Yurchenko double pike is 2 tenths harder than the handspring double front for women, but 4 tenths harder than the handspring double front for men? What makes women doing this vault different from men doing this vault?

At the same time, I recognize some real cherry-picking in that argument. Instead of pointing to the double front, one could instead point to Yeo Seojeong’s recently named handspring front double full at 6.2 in the women’s code and 5.2 in the men’s code. By comparison, having the Yurchenko double pike at 6.6 in women’s and 5.6 in men’s makes total consistent sense. (Even though again we’re comparing a double salto vault to a single salto vault.)

What this really illuminates is that the FIG codes of points are a damn old illogical mess and unless a value is truly beyond the pale (like the 2019 beam dismount), then trying to use precedent or a comparison between the men’s and women’s codes is too messy to be categorically convincing. Sure, you can make a solid argument using comparison, but there are always going to be valid counter-examples because—and I cannot emphasize this enough—none of this shit makes any damn sense.

Even if we compare this vault value to itself, however, we run into trouble with 6.6 being too low—namely because of the value it implies if Simone had showed up this summer doing an also-groundbreaking Yurchenko double tuck instead of the double pike. Based on this 6.6 value, it sounds like the FIG would have given that double tuck vault a 6.2—lower than the value of the Biles I, the Y1/2 on layout 2/1, at 6.4—and therefore totally in no way worth doing and not representative of what a groundbreaking or difficult accomplishment it would be. The codes definitely do seem to think that complicated 1/2-on twisting vaults are the more difficult prospect, but that doesn’t really ring true with respect to the reality of women’s gymnastics. There’s a reason no one has come close to competing this thing before Simone.

But to me, even if you throw precedent or lines of the code totally out the window because of fundamental inconsistencies and instead try to take a wider-lens or more holistic approach, you also get to 6.8. Is the Yurchenko double pike the most difficult vault ever competed in women’s gymnastics? Yes. What is the value of the previous most difficult vault(s) ever competed in women’s gymnastics? 6.4. By what rate do all upgraded vaults increase? 4 tenths. Yada, yada, yada = 6.8. (And if you happen to need to explain this issue to a civilian, this is the simplest and best way to do it.)

So basically, 6.6 seems a bit low. It’s not shockingly low and there’s an actual logic and attempt at fair valuation at play here—so I’m not banging the pots and pans of protest—but it can fit as an additional example of the FIG having open-ended code cold feet if you want it to.”

Last edited:
Initially I thought that a 6,6 was absurdly low for what is required physically, technically and psychologically to perform this VT but when I compared the hierarchy of VT in the MAG COP
(The Shewfelt (Amanar) has a D-Score of 5,2 and the Melissanidis piked has a D-Score of 5,6) the WAG TC has actually rewarded it more, as the Amanar has a D-Score of 5,8 and the Biles (I’m not sure what # is attached at this point) has a D-Score of 6,6 so it is awarded 0,2 higher than compared to MAG.
I think most WAG gymnasts are biomechanically more suited to a twisting layout back than double flip compared to most MAG gymnasts for whom the Amanar is relatively more difficult and who are more capable of getting the necessary lift to rotate a double flip

**This is not based on experience, coaching or mathematical evidence but I’ve read this many times across the greater gymnaverse (not TM 😉 ) This seems to be a popular thought–can others corroborate or somehow verify lol?
This is EXACTLY my thoughts.

Women are more suited to twisting. So a flipping vault should get more than the equivalent gap in MAG.

I don’t know why everyone got their panties in a bunch about a 6.6. The fucking PRODUNOVA is a 6.4.

Can you imagine Simone learning a Produnova and getting a 9.5 E Score? I don’t think you can.

You have to also reflect the difficulty to do the vault WELL into the computation.
Can you imagine Simone learning a Produnova and getting a 9.5 E Score? I don’t think you can.
I can imagine Simone doing damn near anything.

Also, they only downgraded the Produnova after they had years of ample evidence of people throwing dangerous ones.

That said, I don’t think the 6.6 is some great miscarriage of justice. Especially in comparison to how they hosed her on her beam dismount. I think there’s an argument to be made for it to be a 6.8 instead, but that the media just ran with it.
Last edited:
You have to also reflect the difficulty to do the vault WELL into the computation.
Hard disagree. If we were still in the days of a single score out of 10.00, sure. But a system in which (hypothetically…) execution scores are decoupled from difficulty scores, in no way should the difficulty of doing the vault well be reflected in the D score. That’s for the E score to reflect.

I do agree with you that the Prod is ludicrously undervalued. Generating a salto out of a front handspring is more difficult than doing so out of a yurchenko, and we see that reflected in their D values in the code (4.0 vs. 3.3). And, landing blind is more difficult than being able to spot your landing. If adding an additional salto to a single salto vault is worth 2.4 in D score, (the difference between a handpring front tuck and a Prod), well, then a Biles II should only be a 5.9 (which is equally insane, but just spitballing here).

But when as the WTC shown any sense of competency and logic?
I have always been an advocate for decoupling of D and E. In no way should the E jury change their E deductions based on how difficult the element is to perform.

BUT, when determining how difficult an element is - given the system we are in now - then the difficulty of the skill surely reflects the difficulty to perform it with a 10.0 E score? What’s the alternative? Determining the difficulty to Chuck the skill and just about land on the feet?

No! The vault is worth a 16.6 and deductions are taken from it. That IMPLIES that the difficulty of the skill reflects perfect execution, and then deductions are taken from there.

The fact that the Prod is undervalued completely proves my point. It is almost impossible to get a 10.0E on a Prod. Surely this means that the D Score should be higher and then HARSH but appropriate deductions for poor performance are taken off?
The fact that the Prod is undervalued completely proves my point. It is almost impossible to get a 10.0E on a Prod. Surely this means that the D Score should be higher and then HARSH but appropriate deductions for poor performance are taken off?
Absolutely. They need to stop messing with D scores and start figuring out E scores for vault. Absent a fall, E scores on vault basically bottom out in the 8.4 range while an 8.4 is a well hit beam routine. They have 10 points worth of deductions, they’ve finally started using them on the other events, get vault in on the game and you can have sensibly leveled D scores on the apparatus. Vault is the closest event to something like diving, make the deductions go by .5 instead of .1 since there is a single skill being done instead of a string of them.
Well it’s not like these “new vaults” are surprises either. They’re not really even innovative, they’ve just never been done. The code should have clear principles of difficulty increases for each family, all the way up through vaults that no one will ever conceivably do, and they should make relative sense between families as well.

In this sense, you would already have values for vaults like the Yurchenko double tuck, pike, layout, and the double tuck with a full twist - or the Yurchenko triple, 3.5, or even 4. Gymnasts should be well aware of what a Prod is worth, what a Prod half will be, and what a piked Prod would be, even if no one ever does them. You should know in advance what a Biles 1 is, and what it would be scored if someone added a half twist or a full twist to it.

It shouldn’t be like… a surprise. These are natural progressions. Then when someone attempts to do one as the sport progresses, they already know in advance what the D score will be, and can decide if it’s worth doing from a safety/execution standpoint.

It really shouldn’t be that hard.
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #20
Gymcastic in their episode on Simone’s YDP episode claimed that Melanie Sinclair did play with the vault but I’m leery of accepting anyone’s claims. We need more proof than a claim and third hand accounts.

Talk Gymnastics With Us!

Join Today... Members See FEWER Ads