What do you think of the 0.2 "different directions" bonus on vault?

[Sasha]

From my perspective as a fan, I don't care for it as I don't see it adding any excitement or meaningful variety to the event. Like, Yurchenko + handspring entry is not inherently more interesting than Yurchenko + Tsuk. I also feel like it disproportionately affects the results. (And no, this is not Valentina Georgieva posting under a borrowed account.)

If the WTC wants to give bonuses on vault I'd prefer to see a stick bonus—IMO this has made things more exciting on the MAG side.

What do others think of the rule?

 

[Puffin]

I don't mind it as it forces specialists to up their game . Used to be really boring with the Yurchenko/Tsuk combos

Could have a stick bonus as well on ub/bb

 

[phoenix7]

I think you make some excellent points. I've noticed that people and commentators are often checking and wondering whether the bonus is applied and who is getting it. It feels arbitrary even though it isn't.

BBC commentary seems to be obsessed with getting stuck bonus for women. I think it does look great on vault. I'm not sure if there are any safety considerations I should weigh up, but as things stand I am certainly in favour.

 

[QuietColours]

I don't mind it as it forces specialists to up their game . Used to be really boring with the Yurchenko/Tsuk combos

Could have a stick bonus as well on ub/bb

I'll give a .2 bonus to anyone who mounts bars with anything other than a kip.

 

[KristyJ]

I don't find a similar postflight with a different entry to be so similar that I consider it the same-ish vault, so I find the bonus to be extra and a little busy-body.

 

[MaryClare]

I don’t like it. I can’t see what purpose it serves. DTY and Cheng are already the default vaults for top vaulters. So why does that need to be rewarded. The majority of vaulters have a DTY, so this rule means that the tsukahara entry is further obsolete from womens gymnastics. If they really wanted to diversify wag vault and reward those who show additional mastery over the apparatus, they would award a bonus for doing 2 vaults from separate entries ie only 1 can involve a round off.

The DTY + DTT that 25 years ago was becoming the go to combo was far harder than DTY and Cheng.

 

[Sanzhirovka]

I'll give a .2 bonus to anyone who mounts bars with anything other than a kip.

Almost no non-kip mount is worth it.

 

[makam]

Almost no non-kip mount is worth it.

The bonus would fix that, is what I think the op was saying

 

[Hatsumomo]

I'll give a .2 bonus to anyone who mounts bars with anything other than a kip.

I would love to kill the dead hang muscled-up kip on the high bar mounts.

 

[Sanzhirovka]

The bonus would fix that, is what I think the op was saying

What I mean, is that the deductions in most non-kip mounts would override any bonus.

For example, the McNamara is impossible to do without deductions under the new rules.

Even if you do it perfect, it violates enough rules to incur at least 0.3 in deductions.

 

[Sasha]

I don't find a similar postflight with a different entry to be so similar that I consider it the same-ish vault, so I find the bonus to be extra and a little busy-body.

Perfectly on-brand for the WTC then!

 

[Aeris]

Count mounts as a required 9th skill on UB, make the basic kip mount worth 0, and lower the amount of deductions taken.

For vault I think the bonus should just be for doing any two different families. That way people can do something like DTY + Y1.5 if they want, but it won't be especially lucrative. For example using This scale of values (the two vaults are added together, not averaged) and giving .4 bonus for different families, DTY + Y1.5 would be worth .1 less than DTY + Podkopayeva.

 

[Denn]

I think we're forgetting that the pairing of vaults below is allowed in apparatus finals (and qualification). However, it wouldn't get the bonus — which is the intended purpose, and which I think is a good thing.


Stick bonus is fun, thought it's a bit redundant since there's already deductions for not sticking. On the other hand, men's gymnastics does this on all apparatus except Pommel Horse, and it HAS increased the amount of sticks.

 

[Sasha]

I don't think anyone is forgetting that, Denn. But I don't see how awarding someone 0.2 (after averaging) for replacing one of those vaults with a Tsuk or Yurchenko improves the event.

 

[Denn]

I don't think anyone is forgetting that, Denn. But I don't see how awarding someone 0.2 (after averaging) for replacing one of those vaults with a Tsuk or Yurchenko improves the event.

Because it demonstrates mastery of a greater variety of technique.

So would you also get rid of the requirement of forward and backward saltos on floor?
or forward vs. backward acro on beam?

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

I have always been a proponent of having CRs graduated in a similar manner to previous CoPs SRs where the dismount was included and was given a rating: A, B =0,0 C=0,3 and D+=0,5.

So if a gymnast on floor used a simple salto forward tucked to fulfill a component of the salto directional requirements then she would receive 0,0 for that CR. So a gymnast who showed D+ in both direction would get the full 0,5. Even A=0,0, B-0,1 C=0,3 and D+=0,5 would probably work - AND - judges would still only have to know only 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,5 and 1,0 because it's just too complicated to know numbers like 0,05 and 0,15!

 

[Denn]

I have always been a proponent of having CRs graduated in a similar manner to previous CoPs SRs where the dismount was included and was given a rating: A, B =0,0 C=0,3 and D+=0,5.

So if a gymnast on floor used a simple salto forward tucked to fulfill a component of the salto directional requirements then she would receive 0,0 for that CR. So a gymnast who showed D+ in both direction would get the full 0,5. Even A=0,0, B-0,1 C=0,3 and D+=0,5 would probably work - AND - judges would still only have to know only 0,0 0,1 0,3 0,5 and 1,0 because it's just too complicated to know numbers like 0,05 and 0,15!

In addition to this way (which I really like), there's these two other ways of getting graduated requirements that MAG started using this year.

2) Element Groups II and III of each apparatus; a gymnast only gets 0.3 if he does an A, B, or C. (For reasons, I still am not 100% clear on, Element Group I is 0.5 no matter what.)

3) Element Group IV, the dismount, is the same amount as the dismount's value. So if a gymnast does a D, they get 0.4, for example. Starting in January, they are capping it at 0.5. Okay, fine, I guess.

That the third way (doubling) is probably the easiest of the 3 — and easy to remember and do. And even if you can only do an A, there's at least a little incentive to show some variety.

I starting asking for that around 20 years ago, and at different points, both MAG and WAG considered it, but it didn't get approved. The 2-part requirements in WAG were the main issue. And Adrian Stoica was the issue for MAG. So when it finally happened this year, I was so happy.

 

[Sasha]

Because it demonstrates mastery of a greater variety of technique.

So would you also get rid of the requirement of forward and backward saltos on floor?
or forward vs. backward acro on beam?

No, but there is a difference when the event consists of only two skills vs. eight.

I don't see an issue with rewarding the variety, but to borrow a term from video games, I feel the 0.2 is overpowered. As Spencer has pointed out, adding 0.2 after averaging is equivalent to adding 0.4 to a single vault—the difference in value between a DTY and an Amanar. Personally I find that excessive.