Try to justify lower than 9.1 E-score for Leanne Wong's UB routine

Welcome to our Gymnastics Message Board

Members see FEWER ads... so join today

GymBeauty

Well-known member


Deductions:

.1 leg separation, Clear-hip 1/2
.1 flexed feet, Jeager
.1 angle, Toe 1/1
.1 leg separation, Bhardwaj
.1 rhythm, Bhardwaj
.1 grip adjustment (bullshit, but maybe could be considered enough of a regrasp to qualify)
.1 leg separation, Maloney (normally Leanne doesn’t have this, but I see a small foot separation on the backswing, so just to be safe it’s added…although IMO a small leg separation on the backswing of shaposh skills should be allowed for dynamics; judges can’t always see it from the side anyway)
.1 leg separation, Pak
.1 grip adjustment, Cast handstand on HB

Just .9 in deductions while being very picky. It’s time for judges to be giving 9+ execution again. I’ve seen some routines that deserve it, and instructional videos from FIG have reconfirmed Ashton Locklear’s 2017 routine deserves 9.2 E-score for the current code, so it’s definitely possible. Judges need to stop taking phantom deductions just because they are scared of not “finding enough” and being outside of the expected corridor.
 
normally Leanne doesn’t have this, but I see a small foot separation on the backswing
She always has this. It’s one of the reasons I was always so shocked she got 10’s so often on bars. She has it on both sides of the skill, but it seems judges will only take it once.

I also think a certain panel of judges might take .3 on the toe 1/1.

It’s a relatively clean routine, but I don’t think it has the firepower for be a “bars girl”

It’s a shame so much of her talent was wasted with horrible composition the first time around because she really could’ve been something huge. And I also don’t see Florida doing what needs to be done for her. They already struggle with NCAA execution.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #3
She always has this. It’s one of the reasons I was always so shocked she got 10’s so often on bars.
She definitely doesn’t always have it:



Even when she does have a small separation after the catch, she always brings the legs perfectly together by the time the backswing has reached its peak. When the legs are kept perfectly parallel, a small separation during the earlier part of the upswing (or at the start of the skill) is often unseen from side view.
It’s a relatively clean routine, but I don’t think it has the firepower for be a “bars girl”
“Firepower” doesn’t really mean anything, if the code is allegedly being applied correctly, and not just artificially keeping E scores lower. 9.1 E score on a 5.7 D score is 14.8 total - one of the top scores around.
 
At this point we really should just create a list of gymnasts who you aren’t allowed to talk about, because it doesn’t mean anything at all to anyone else but you. And I love Leanne Wong.

To actually talk about real gymnastics results, it’s so frustrating for Wong that you can go back in time to see exactly how she lost out on making major teams in 2019 and 2020(1), basically to single missed routines. She literally fell on her DTY at the World Trials in 2019. WTF? And that beam routine at Olympic Trials, wow. I love McCallum but Wong clearly paved the way for those team positions. Then she almost beats Melnikova for the post-Olympic World title.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
This thread is to judge the UB set in question, not make personal attacks or rant about Leanne missing a routine in the past. Please share your deductions.

I want to see quality routines rewarded. Reputation and groupthink judging still exist, whether people want to admit it or not. Talking more about the exact deductions a routine deserves can hopefully influence better judging.
 
Well, I have an 8.6 with a .3 on the pirouette. From eyeballing this is what I put in notes

.1 .1 .1
.1 .3 .1 .1
.1 .1 .1
.1
.1

14.1 is still a good score, but it’ll have to look exactly like this or better to stay above 14 with a Cat I/II panel.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #7
You have to list deductions, just putting numbers doesn’t say anything.

.3 definitely should not be taken for the Toe 1/1:

wong-toe-full


Rotation is complete, body is aligned, she is clearly within 30 degrees. Great example of a phantom deduction.
 
She’s clearly still leaning in that screenshot. In the end, it’s up to the judge to determine where she finished in real time, so it might be in her best interest not to stick her head out so soon for the transition. I think most judges want a moment of stability in handstand to really sell that it was hit, in her case she finishes the pirouette and immediately sets herself up for the Bhardwaj, it’s not the smoothest. Hopefully they’ll think about that. Jenny is a brevet but it’s obviously not something she thinks about often considering what she puts out on the floor.

But even with a .1 HS, I would still be in the 8’s

Clear hip 1/2 - .1 legs
Jaeger - .1 flex
Toe 1/1 - legs .1, .1 HS
Bhardwaj - Legs .1
Glide - legs .1
Maloney - legs .1
Pak - legs .1, body position .1
Van Leeuwen - legs .1
Final cast HS - labored .1, adjustment .1
 
This thread is to judge the UB set in question, not make personal attacks or rant about Leanne missing a routine in the past. Please share your deductions.

I want to see quality routines rewarded. Reputation and groupthink judging still exist, whether people want to admit it or not. Talking more about the exact deductions a routine deserves can hopefully influence better judging
Just don’t feed the troll, guys

[insert bonkers Russian proverb about a bear in a cave]
 
She’s clearly still leaning in that screenshot.
Her upper body and legs are both directly facing the bar. If you want another screenshot from a moment later I can post it, she’s within 30 degrees still and unquestionably in perfect alignment.
I think most judges want a moment of stability in handstand to really sell that it was hit, in her case she finishes the pirouette and immediately sets herself up for the Bhardwaj
That’s not the rules, and it would detract from flow and variety if every pirouette was expected to stop. Stability, sure, but nothing about this pirouette is unstable. Taking .3 deduction is a big deal, it shouldn’t just be thrown around like it’s nothing on a well executed skill…a skill that finished turning within 30 degrees. The rules literally say “when in doubt, give the benefit of the doubt to the gymnast.”

How are you trying to give a deduction for legs in this skill? She keeps them perfectly parallel and they are close to each other throughout.
Pak - body position .1
Huh? Her position (aside from leg separation) is acceptable and quite beautiful.
Van Leeuwen - legs .1
What’s wrong with her legs here? She keeps them straight throughout and close together. Right before she catches there’s a tiny separation of the feet, but that is normal. Andrade does that too, and she is considered to have probably the best VL of anyone, and isn’t getting a deduction there.
Final cast HS - labored .1
How? There is no excessive use of force to get into that handstand, no arch, and no loss of flow. The grip adjustment is the only thing that separates this cast from an entirely clean one, and you already deducted for that. You can’t just deduct for the same thing twice.
I think Leanne should be doing more Weilers.
I know you’re joking, but that’s actually something a coach should be having her put some time into and see if it would work out. Her routine construction is currently held back by needing to do a C skill that gets no connection bonus. Starting the routine with Weiler 1/2 + Gienger is something that could be very clean and add .2 D-score.
Just don’t feed the troll
You are the troll, coming in here antagonizing and wasting space with a post like this, offering nothing whatsoever of value and gaslighting about the validity of what I’m saying. You’ve been doing this constantly, your behavior is harassment at this point.
 
If people want to be ignorant that is their own poor decision and can be done privately. You don’t get to march into every thread calling a very knowledgeable and helpful person a troll, simply because you have ideological disagreement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: L_R
@MaryClare I recently said something similar to you, but I quite enjoy you <33

Regarding Wong’s bars, she begins the routine standing on the low bar so she gets a much more extended KCH than usual, after her jump to high bar from between the bars. That’s a built-in -0.1, the unextended KCH

Clear hip 1/2 -0.1 for leg separation
Jaeger foot form, height (hips are at bar-height upon regrasp) -0.2
Toe 1/1 foot form, I had >30 deg in real time -0.4. After closer review I see it’s only .1 but it looks like .3 when she sticks her head out like that, as Yarotska pointed out.
Bhardwaj leg separation -0.1
Maloney leg separation, bent arms on regrasp -0.2. She doesn’t hold the straight shape to the apex of her backswing, she pikes it-- I didn’t deduct it tho it lacks style
Pak shape, leg separation -0.2. Almost looked -0.3 (separation) but this video with the high contrast is unforgiving. The rhythm is kind of disturbed after the Pak but I didn’t deduct
Van Leeuwen leg separation -0.1 (borderline for height but I wouldn’t)
KCH grip adjustment -0.1
Tap bent knee -0.1 (the first tap looked the worst to me. The third was maybe the cleanest?)
8.5 very good!!
 
I have 8.8. I took turn angle and posture in the HS separately for that full pirouette. I am not interested in debating it.

If she could do this exercise this way every time, that would be amazing.
 
Last edited:
For reference before getting into more specifics about this routine, Leanne received 8.066 at Worlds while having a dismount with .6 landing deduction (.3 big knee bend, .3 big step forward), a toe 1/1 with an actual .3 angle error, and a 1/2 turn that should get .1 more deduction than what she’s currently doing.

That’s .9 higher execution she should have received at Worlds if cleaning those things up (aka, what she did in this training video)…but would the judges with their current mindset actually give 8.966? If not, then it proves exactly what I’m saying - judges are scared of being outside the corridor, are highly influenced by groupthink, and are taking phantom deductions in order to artificially bring the scores down to what they think a particular gymnast’s scoring range “should” be.

What it also could prove, is the scores being given in this thread are inaccurate to the code, and to how judges at Worlds are looking at routines. Actual world judges would in fact be giving this routine 9 in execution, if we assume they are applying the code the accurately, going by the score they already gave. So which is it?
jump to high bar from between the bars is a built in -0.1 for unextended KCH
That’s simply not true.
Jaeger, height (hips are at bar-height upon regrasp)
Height is supposed to be judged after rotation has completed and when the gymnast is ready to catch the bar.

jaeger


There is no deductible lack of height here.
Maloney, bent arms
What on earth? Her catch is clean, and consistently one of the best in the business.

I say this as someone who’s big on taking bent arm deduction during these backswings, and feel it’s something that’s often been ignored by other judges.
Who is the very knowledgeable and helpful person that I’ve disagreed with?
There you are trolling again, nothing but empty personal attack while showing zero competence for the discussion, and acting like you’re some kind of ultimate arbiter in everything relating to gymnastics. Your opinion is not more valid, let’s make that clear. If you have disagreements then either share your points or move on.
 
There is no deductible lack of height here.
Looking at this holistically and thinking about the height Wong gets above the bar, I would not be inclined to deduct for height either. However, the FIG evaluation from 2021 Worlds disagrees with us. Wong’s routine from qualifications was given a 0.1 deduction for insufficient height for similar execution due to the hips being at bar height upon regrasp. She was also given a 0.1 deduction for bent knees on the swing leading into the Jaeger.
 
Last edited:

Welcome to our Gymnastics Message Board

Members see FEWER ads... so join today

Back