Whip Full (C) or Full (B)?

[Doug1233]

Apparently, it’s a whip full if you do another salto after it…

@Denn your dreams have become reality.

 

[irichluck21]

Hmmm…not a whip…that is a full immediate double tuck.
Love the combination though.

 

[tempest]

I love those types of passes

 

[onodian]

What about the bontas 92 routine version?

 

[falcon9]

I would call that a whip full. It has tumbling out of it and it is definitely lower and longer than a regular full.

 

[onodian]

Yeah I mean that looks more like a whip full than doug’s example

 

[ArnoldRimmer]

Is that in the new code? If we’re going to spend the next 3 years on this point, I for one am ready.

 

[Concorde]

It was also a C starting in 2017.

 

[onodian]

If we’re going to spend the next 3 years on this point, I for one am ready

Bring on the downgrading of the whip full in 2022!

 

[Doug1233]

It has tumbling out of it

This is their justification. Which is value raising. Exactly what the FIG has specifically said the Code doesn’t do.

 

[falcon9]

What about the bontas 92 routine version?

Here is the video of this one too…

 

[Concorde]

It’s considered a whip full as long as there is tumbling out of the skill, whether or not it’s a salto. For Bontas, it doesn’t make a difference in terms of CV because both B and C - indirect D earn 0.1.

 

[crdubb17]

I would love for people to take advantage of this. If one can master whipping the full to create momentum and a solid block for the next element, that next element can sometimes be easier than doing it from a back handspring (I used to do power tumbling and learned to tumble out of baranis, whips, and whip-fulls into doubles due to wrist injuries).

So I Imagine a whip-full+2.5+front full would get 0.4 cv? I’d be here for it. I wonder if a barani is given the same treatment? There was a woman at Missouri who competed a barani+double full second pass; I’m sure some elite could do a double tuck or 2.5 from a barani relatively easily.

 

[onodian]

And what’s kupet’s whip half worth? I’m hoping at least B?

 

[YurchenkoLoop]

Whip 1/2 is a B, yes

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

It’s considered a whip full as long as there is tumbling out of the skill, whether or not it’s a salto. For Bontas, it doesn’t make a difference in terms of CV because both B and C - indirect D earn 0.1.

Is it that it needs have tumbling out of the skill, or does it need to be connected to a salto - either indirectly or directly? Somewhere in my mind I recall that it required that a salto follow it. I’ll try to find the newsletter or old version of the Help Desk that gives the clarification.

Edit -
I did look at my notes from Guadalajara in Dec 2016 - Andrianova (floor exercise presenter) stated that the whip salto with 360° turn was only credited C if followed by a salto - either indirectly or directly - other wise credit B (BWD layout stretched with 360°). Is this a change in the 22-24 code?

 

[RedBirdie]

So as long at ANY salto eventually follows a whip full, its a C? RO–whip full–double tuck and RO–whip full–BHS–double tuck, the whip full is a C either way?

 

[FrolovasDoubleLayout]

Yes, according to what was presented at the intercontinental course in 2016.

RO + whip 360° + FF + BWD salto tuck would be A + C + A + A.

Bontas with indirect is C + D for CV 0,10 but the above whip 360° + immediate BWD double salto tuck is CD for 0,20 CV (and rightly so!).

 

[Puffin]

I used to like Filatova’s whip-full that she competed in the late 70s

 

[Doug1233]

It’s considered a whip full as long as there is tumbling out of the skill

I guess the main point of my thread is that this is explicit value raising, despite the FIG making clear that value raising should absolutely have nothing to do with D Panel.