What's your favorite (or least favorite) change in the new CoP? What changes do you want to see? • To see more videos on scoring in our current code, check out this analysis of Viktoria Listunova's win at Euros: ruclips.net/video/zrfntdu7HTQ/видео.html • If you enjoyed, please subscribe! I appreciate it a lot. Thank you all so much for watching!
That is once again some stupid decisions by FIG...a .2 for a D dismount is pathetic, make it worth it, meks sure they can perform at least a F before rewarding that .2...and a 3 plus series for another .2!!!
@@kevinjewell233 Built-in bonuses should only be awarded to fwd BB dismounts and rare vaults. As fwd BB dismounts are the rarest and hardest in the sport; there's only one E and one F, respectively and even to connect a B skill to a C-valued fwd dismount is difficult. Whereas we see far too little variety on vault. Look at the Khorkina (tucked Cheng) it's a 5.4 and precursor of several bigger vaults, yet its skipped over it as if it weren't even there. For every other appartus they are undermining the point of it, which is to show apparatus-work. This is why I much prefer the Chinese balance beam programme to anyone else's, their focus is on the beam-work. Yes, they need to upgrade their double fulls, and I'm sure several will by Tokyo. But again the emphasis is on the beam-work with them, not the dismount--which is important but should not be given such an inflated value for no reason.
Really don’t like the emphasis on skills that utilize going around the beam. We already have uneven bars. The point of beam is what skills can you do on top without falling off? I don’t really get that
I am not a fan of the Vaults downgrading and would have liked to see them add .2 bonus for E+ dismounts instead. What I was wondering though is if FIG does any survey even among gymnasts or fans so as to get a sense of what changes should be made if any in a new code. If not then I would like to see them put out a PROPOSED change code first, get some feedback on it and then come up with the actual code. I read comments on here and the people here seem to have more sense than those whose job was to come up with this code. I think it was poorly thought out.
Instead of decreasing vault values, they really should’ve looked into how they could change the vault judging system so that deductions could be made more strictly. I feel like that was a wrong solution to the problem.
I think that you're right. It's frustrating to see them trying to fix a problem (abnormally high E scores on vault) by dealing with a completely separate issue. It's also important that we have more variation in vault E scores anyways in order to differentiate between stronger and weaker vaulters performing the same vault. Personally, I wish that there was more than a 0.4 step up from DTY to Rudi/Amanar, but that's just my opinion. No one seems to go for the Amanar anymore, and even Rudis are rarer :(
@@GymAnalysis I sort of understand but I don't think there really is a way to make high e-scores harder on vault. That's just in the nature of that apparatus. You're only doing one skill that takes no more than 10 seconds. Every other apparatus has multiple skills and each one can have its own deduction. I hope I made sense, but there's no way to be anymore strict on vault when there's only 1 skill that you can deduct points from.
@@womwom6774 I think you're right, but at the same time, I would love to see things like slow motion review and more levels of deductions/more specific deductions. I don't like that an Amanar, worth a whole 15.4 (or 15 now haha), is only eligible for so many tenths of form deductions, even if it could have the same twist form issues as a triple twist on floor that is worth 0.5. I guess it would make things more subjective, but not all crossed legs or flexed feet are made equal (in my eyes), and even if it's not possible, I wish there was a way to account for that nuance and variation in scores.
@@GymAnalysis the problem with nuance scoring is the nature of the E scoring system. Where the e score can only be calculated via eye sight. No slowmo cam can be used to judge. And changing that would mean a whole sweeping change to the way you evaluate e scores. (Unless restricted to Vault only or FIG / Olympics - not every competiton can have slowmo cams). But I do understand where they are coming from with the D score adjustment.. It must be on an equal footing with the rest of the events. Bleh.. Let 'em keep tweeking it.
@@pillowmuzictv That and even the regular Valdez should be common as they can even be used to start 2-4 skill acro series; it's ridiculous how they've disappeared from the sport. But I'd also like to see them come back on floor as they can be incorporated so fluidly into choreography.
@@honeyfromthebee Yeah, it's stupid. They should increase several dismounts and releases like deltchev, markelov, khorkina, Mo salto, Seitz, etc. UB is the most predictable apparatus nowadays.
I am glad they only limit multiple wolf turns in the routine. I was worried every turn was gonna be limited to one per kind and that we would no longer see beautiful turn sequences like Sanne Wevers's sequence of full L turn + full turn + double turn.
I was quite worried that they were going to limit all turns, but I'm glad they've only limited wolf turns (as far as I'm aware!). I have no problem with multiple L turns or Y turns (especially because they usually don't come right after each other).
Wolf turns are honestly not attractive to watch and the execution is usually terrible. I don’t understand why the gymnasts don’t create a larger variety of turning skills
@@earthlingphilosophy3531 bc it was easier to gain D+E skills on both beam+floor by really working on wolf turns and they don't often get deductions compared to other elements
I feel like an E dismount bonus should’ve been in order, I mean I think at this point we are all tired of the same single twisting double tuck dismount off bars for like multiple quads now. D+ seems pretty useless to me. Especially since all top gymnasts do at least a D dismount. Disregarding the double twist off beam that Chinese gymnasts do, of course.
I agree. I feel like the rule was only put in to penalize the Chinese gymnasts who love to perform the double twist (and perform it well too!). It just seems unnecessary to make D dismounts suddenly worth the same as an F skill. I think E+ would've been a better implementation (although I dislike double pikes off beam and it would definitely encourage that 😆).
@@bw2082 The goal is to penalize gymnasts who don't perform D (mainly those who use double twist on beam and floor) in order to incentivize them to switch. In older codes, there used to be a requirement for a D+ dismount, but it seems that FIG are hesitant to add another requirement back in, given it could make D scores more unbalanced/require more effort.
Some thoughts - definitely unhappy with vault downgrades to try and address E-score problem, seems like a lousy temporary solution - honestly glad to see them trying to phase out the spamming of wolf turns - Nabieva downgrade was expected, I wonder if the Mo/Hristakieva will appear more in this code - Clear Hip 1/2 going to D was an interesting decision, don't think it's going to be too common tho - Teza and Zamolodchikova earning CR by themselves is a pretty creative decision, not sure if it will boost their popularity much tho - D+ dismount bonus just reminds me of the D-dismount CR, and targets low-difficulty dismounts. Shouldn't be in code imo
I agree with you on all those counts -- I'm hoping that we do see more Clear Hip Hecht 1/2s, Mo Saltos, and Hristakievas, but I doubt we will. I feel like the style of bars won't change even if the rules do slightly.
I read once the Mo salto has a built in deduction due to the intermediate swing that results from it so it isn’t worth the risk to the athletes. I miss it though.
Not an expert but enjoy watching: would have preferred all other disciplines to be upgraded than vault being downgraded. 2008 scores were more exciting for some reason!
Ugh, I feel like Silivas should be a G, full twisting double pike off beam should be H, Biles off beam should be I, vaults shouldn't have been downgraded, and the 0.2 bonus should be for E+ dismounts instead of D+ because so many people have D dismounts anyway. I'm glad we only have this code for three years instead of four, so maybe they'll make better changes in 2024
Agree with you on all of those points! An E+ bonus would've actually been interesting, but it seems like they're just going after double twist-using athletes. Knowing FIG, I doubt we'll see most of these changes in 2024, but I'm hopeful ://
@@mht4908 I agree! I think with the Dos Santos II and even with other front tumbling (ie Podkopayeva, Dowell), upgrades would create so much more variety and uniqueness in routines. The Fan downgrade seemed unreasonable in my opinion.
@@GymAnalysis Why is FIG so annoying? Clearly lots of people don't like some of these changes, so why do they always go through with them anyway? Who makes the rules? Is their justification public? This is dumb
I think with the new dismount bonus we may actually end up with more gymnasts just doing 3 passes on floor instead of 4 to get the bonus. Some may add in an extra dance element, while others could add more connection passes. (Indirect D+D, C+E, or direct C+D)
Interesting way of looking at it, and hopefully so. I'm doubtful though as the 0.2 bonus means that almost everyone gets at least an F skill for a D...but I really hope your prediction comes to pass. I would have rather that they'd introduced a series bonus for 3-skill direct connections instead, but hopefully someone will take advantage of the code the way you've suggested and make good of this silly new bonus.
@@MD-722 It's my understanding that just the dismount of a D+ skill gets a 0.2 bonus, and not all D+ skills throughout the routine. Practically all elite gymnasts can dismount with a D+ for a third and possibly final tumbling pass. My thinking is that if this would lead to only 7 skills worth getting credit for with their current routine construction (would be sad to have to count an A or B for example) they could make up for it with an additional dance skill or acro skill added in combination to one of their three passes.
I think that would've been another way to "address" the wolf turn problem. Stricter deductions would've discouraged them while not penalizing girls who can compete the triple and double well and consistently.
In McKayla Skinners video where Tom comes to watch her he mentioned that they will not allow the girls to overturn anymore. So if a girl does a double but goes 2.5 that is a deduction. That may lead to coaches having their athletes be more precise with how they end the turn.
Hah -- there are some wolf turns that I like, so I'm glad they aren't all gone. I think this change prevents (most of) the code abuse we're seeing today, which is good :)
I'm also disappointed by the vault rules change. I also wish they would upgrade the Amanar and Rudi to incentivize gymnasts to actually compete them ://
@@GymAnalysis The Amanar and Rudi are fine this quad, the problem was the tariffs they were given in 2013-16. Their start values were so high that they absorbed too many of their deductions resulting in far to many sloppy ones that could easily outscore cleanly executed less difficult vaults e.g. Raisman's Amanar outscoring Mustafina's DTY in the Rio AA final. Because if their E-scores were kept the same but their DVs were adapted for this quad Mustafina would outscore Raisman, and rightfully so; especially as the difference between those vaults is only one half-twist. But now things are a joke. Every specialist should be able to score a least above a 6.0 DV on their respective apparatus; especially if that's what they rely on the most during an AA final (e.g. Nina Derwael coming 4th with an FTY and two-pass FX because her A-bar DV was so high). So if that's still the case for other apparatuses it should have remained the same for vault.
@@MD-722 Yes! The whole point of this new system was to separate and reward gymnasts for throwing the harder skills and doing it well. Vault scores have been lowered, beam and FX are always lower execution/scores, so I guess if you can't swing bars you're screwed lol I'm being dramatic but I really hate the constant score changing every 4 years. A little adjustment here and there is understandable but I hate to think this is something they are going to do every 4 years...
Those vault downgrades are silly - seems like it was just a poorly thought out way to deflate scores, instead of requiring their licensed judges to score more fairly. Lazy. Also does that mean that the Cheng will now only be worth a 5.6? What about the Produnova?
The only thing i'm happy about is the devaluation of candle mount and the flairs earning 0.5 CR, the other ones are just plain stupid. I mean everyone dismounts with a D on bars and mostly on floor and beam too, so it's an instant 0.2 to EVERY routine. Meanwhile vault was downgraded, not upgraded
If every vault was downgraded the same amount, it will have no effect on vault rankings, it was just a sleazy attempt to bring average vault scores closer to the other events for AA purposes. Vaults have considerably higher E scores because the skill is done in like 3 seconds so there’s not much to deduct from in real time. It was either increase how much each deduction was worth or just downgrade the vaults altogether. It’s mostly for AA purposes so that someone that is really good at vault does not have an advantage over the rest like how in 2008 the bars d scores were remarkably higher, so good bar workers had an advantage in the AA. I mean Simone can and has gotten near a 16 on her Biles vault when it’s rare to even crack 15 on the other events. That’s an extreme example, but a 9+ execution just doesn’t happen on bars, beam, and floor so even though the d score is lower, the scores themselves should even out a little more. As for vault EF, the rankings shouldn’t change since everyone is affected the same regardless of what vault they do (the only exception is the front handspring layout vault only for downgraded 0.2 while the rest is 0.4).
Looks like the Chinese will actually have to do elite dismounts instead of NCAA ones to compete. Bravo 👏 It was embarrassing for world medalists to do double twisting dismounts. It was a step way back in the evolution of gymnastics.
Me too :( I wish that FIG would give the Li Li an E valuation. Of all skills that should be at an E, I feel like the Wolf Jump 2/1 was not the best choice for a surprise upgrade.
I would love to see it again, but it does not fulfill the turn requirement (only one footed turns do) so the gymnast would have to do another turn element to get the 0.5 CR, so I don’t see many doing it. I was reading the code and it explicitly states elements satisfy it and unfortunately the Li Li is not one of them
I'm greatly displeased at the wholesale downgrading of the vault. And I'm very sad at the new turn rules for FX. My partner and I LOVE watching those godawful triple + double wolf turns! LOLOL! #AllTheWolfTurns
I’m waiting for someone to break out a bhs +Woorley, one of my favorite skills in WAG! I think it’s valued the same as Onodi, but it’s so rarely performed that I’d have to look it up.
I thought that since they upgraded the back extension roll to C that you could do a Rulfova + Back extension roll combo for 0.2 CV, but it is not a flight element so it is not eligible
@@nabojsa " So you basically get 4 wolf turns per gymnast who does that skill." LOL that is so true. If you see one on beam you WILL see one on floor too. It's sad. lol
I love everything with hip circles on beam. I find the routines much more interesting using different "levels". In horse vaulting, the sport I'm doing niw after retiring as a gymnast that's a must for each routine and I think it spices up beam routines too.
Thank goodness they addressed they lack of creativity AND difficulty in learning different types of movements, with the ridiculous repetitive triple wolf turn, followed by a double! I actually expected them to devalue both, since they seem easy enough for EVERY gymnast to use them to fulfill requirements lately.
I kind of wish they would have given some kind of bonus to more difficult mounts.. And I don't love what they did on vault. Other than that I am pretty okay with most of these changes.
And thanks for using older video for skills. It was nice to see Miller pop up in one of these (Someone else used Bogi) I am here for that :) And by older I mean 80's and 90's not 08 :)
Some of these skills are so antiquated that there are no videos of modern gymnasts competing them, haha! I'm glad to see the Code giving some "older" style skills upgrades; maybe they'll see new use :)
@@1MALICIOUSDIETY The "Miller" was never in the code. They considered it a continuation of the Omelianchik (which it wasn't) and refused to name it after her yet adding a half to any skills gets it named after everyone these days.
THANK YOU for showing Vlada Urazova for the wolf turn example. Hers are the example and how they can actually look gorgeous when executed properly. Seeing Chiles directly after her makes the disparity even more jarring.
I would have been okay with just not getting credit for the skill unless the body was held pencil straight vertically for 2 full seconds. Most were not straight or had pike at the hips or weren’t held long enough. It kinda ruins the whole point of doing the skill.
I will be SO happy to see more flairs on beam, if this happens more. I think they really add an extra element and hope to god it replaces those wolf turns at the beginning of a routine.
@@Appaddict01 I mean vault downgrades have been going on for more than ten years now when good vaulters like Hong Su jong from north korea, Cheng Fei from China and Oksana when she represented Germany were still competing, so you can't really say that...
@@Appaddict01 Yeah but 80% of the gymnasts from china rely on connections and difficult acrobatics on the beam to gain difficulty instead of from the dismount... so it's really obvious that this was targeted to them. But the rest are quite unbiased:)
Yup, they should now! Two Flying Flairs (performed by Peng Peng Lee in the video) also received an upgrade from B to C, I believe. Hopefully we'll see more of them in competition!
I would love to see gymnasts do them but I dont understand it being a “turn element” at all, I’d just give it a good value and get more gymnasts doing double turns on beam, they’re really not hard
I really don’t understand the motivation for continuously lowering difficulty values. When Simone debuted her double double on beam and they graded it so low that it wasn’t worth it to perform, they cited “safety concerns.” Now, they’re taking the hardest skills and downgrading them? That’s so confusing and inconsistent. And honestly it’s not super fun to watch the best routines in the world score like 13 or 14 points. Idk I don’t understand what the point of this is.
I'm just glad that they got rid of multiple wolf turns in a routine. I'm pretty fine with wolf turns being one of many dance elements, but I can't bear watching gymnasts sit in tuck stand for ten seconds spinning five times and then not doing another turn the rest of the routine 😆
The only changes I'm happy about here are on beam. I'm not sure why anyone finishing on a double tuck/pike on floor should be getting bonus. That dismount bonus rule should be reserved for at least E or F or higher on floor
Me too! I hope someone will go for it. One has to be a bit tentative, though, given that an under rotated one would result in 0.1 precision and a 0.3 downgrade!
the vault downgrades are soooo disappointing :/ i also feel that the nabieva being downgraded is wrong. even though it may seem common or easy in training, it’s really not common or easy to do in competition and on top of that, execution is rarely perfect…also the bonus on D dismounts makes absolutely no sense to me
@xilo An F signifies that something js very difficult, whereas G+ is meant to signify extreme difficulty to the point of rarity (e.g the Mo Salto, which should be an H). The counter-Kim should be G as it's way nore difficult than a Nabieva. The toe-on Nabieva has become way too common and there are several new versions set to be introduced in upcoming quads that much greater warrant G+ values.
@@xilomp3 It's still set to become more common, and it was never extremely difficult to begin with. The counter-Kim, Mo Salto and Hristakieva are all superior in difficulty. But where the latter two should be Hs, the counter-Kim should be a G. A clear-hip Nabieva could be a G, but the toe-on needs to go down to an F.
A hip or Stalder entry is more difficult than the toe on entry, so the downgrading of value is fair to me. I don’t think it’s right to downgrade value for the sole reason being frequency performed, which seems to be the case with the Navieva however. And it’s true that it’s still not all that common like a Moloney or Van Leeuwen on bars which should be worth less than Chow or Komova transitions to be consistent. The FIG is ridiculous. 🤦♀️
@@cantor7723 The point of downgrade elements that are frequently performed is to discourage overuse and encourage variety. Top UB routines have become far too predictable in recent quads which is a shame after the London 2012 final. Also there are certain skill which were clearly given values that were too high (e.g. the Nabieva) so it makes them _too easy_ to abuse. Because so far as the uneven bars go, all Tkachevs (bar clear hip and in-bar entries) need to be downgraded by 0.1; a straddled Tkachev should not be a D...(much like the double tuck on floor should go back to being a C).
-Thank god only wolf turns got prohibited. haha -Don't agree on the Fan downgrade. It is not that easy to land. -Clear Hip Hetcht 1/2 upgraded 😍. Finally we'll see something other than Van leweens. -Is that roll over the beam that difficult to deserve a C rating? -0.2 for a D+ dismout seems too much for me. 0.1 Would've been enough.
I’m annoyed they didn’t change the values of ANY acro skills on floor. Silivas should be a G. Maldonado should be an H. 3.5 should be a G. So many more!!
Agreed; they should really upgrade some of the difficult twisting skills! I also wish they'd upgrade difficult front tumbling a la double front, Podkopayeva, and Dowell
@Noah Byrd The Silivas should be an F. If it had remained a G in 2013-16 but still become as overused as it is today it would definitely be on its way to becoming an F by 2022-24. But frankly all double back tucks on floor need to be devalued because up until 2009 the double tuck was a C and all successive values should be based on that. The full-in tuck should be a D, the Silivas should be an F and the triple-double should be an I. Yes, tucked skills can be extremely difficult, but they are the easiset body position to perform acrobatics in and are even easier when performed from bwd entries. But otherwise I am 100% with you on the values of the 3.5 and Maldonado, and I've also said that all other D+ fwd twisting elements should be upgraded by 0.1 as well.
@@GymAnalysis The Podkopayeva and Dowell don't need to be upgraded, bwd skills need to be downgraded. All fwd double tucks are valued properly, but *ALL* bwd double tucks and D+ fwd twists are not.
I'm under the impression that controlled lunges were cut from the final draft. Disappointing to see, but I'd also say that it's good, given how subjective the lung deductions could end up being.
Damn, the Amanar all the way down to a 5.4. And meanwhile the number of gymnasts who can actually consistently do an amanar can be counted on one hand. D:
honestly i don't think these changes will incentivate the gymnasts to bring more originality to their routines, we will just see the scores going lower and lower and it's sad because it'll become nearly impossible to compare different quads scorings. i'm so sad for the vault downgrading, i got it is necessary to compare in a better way vault scores with other events ones but i'm still mad at FIG lmao. the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismount skills doesn't make any sense, it's just a penalty for gymnasts who prefer to work on E score rather than on D score (like chinese and netherlands ones). moreover right now a lot of gymnasts dismount with a D, i think it could have much more sense if the bonus was for E+ dismounts. the only thing i'm happy about is bars, a couple of skills were overscored and like this it seems fair. i was looking for some changes on D scores on floor (like downgrading the double tuck or the silivas), but apparently we'll have to wait the next quad
Clear hip Hecht is still in the COPs? I thought they stopped including it years ago. Also, I don’t really think floor routines have “dismounts”, you know?
The final tumbling pass of a floor routine is the dismount (as shown in all examples here), although you don’t hear it referred to that term as much in women’s gymnastics. you hear commentators saying it more often on the men’s side.
A good bb routine should include difficult skills and connections on the beam, not just mount and dismount. I am not a big fan of adding 0.2 for D+ dismount since in this quad the dismount (C) has to be included in DV. 0.2 bonus for E+ is better. Also I want FIG to downgrade double tuck on floor to C because it's not worth D. Double pike should stay as D.
Opinions 1. It’s a lazy attempt to align vault scores with the other events. E Score would have been a better focus. That being said, the change will not affect vaulters or the US disproportionately (The 2016/2017 change in the other hand). Everyone has to perform on the same vault code. Yeah, the Start Vues decreased, but the difference between an Amanar and DTY is still 0.4. Amanar and Layout Rudi are still the same. 2. Happy about this 3. Fan being downgraded is stupid. Nabieva shouldn’t be an F, but at least it’s consistent with the ray and church being worth the same as their giant entry counter parts. 4. Happy with pretty much all of these. Candlesticks are over used. I love the also love the Yurcheko loop. 5. Hopefully the new roll/flairs CR requirement will add some diversity to routines. Very happy about B+D getting CV. 6. I actually don’t mind it that much
I agree -- the new code has some things that are frustrating, but many of the new changes are actually pretty good! The vault values thing is a mess, but FIG doesn't seem willing to make a practical change there.
I'm glad you found it informative! I found the animation on Twitter under user Flip Fly Tumble (also has a great RUclips channel here!), and the app used to make it is called "FB Curves 3D Gym".
For beam dismounts they should've done a graded bonus increase so D (+0.1), E (+0.2), F (+0.3), G (+0.4) and H(+0.5) and the Biles dismount would at least get some proper credit for her dismount. I'm so tired of seeing either double pikes or double tucks on beam. Bring on the harder dismounts!!!
The value between the apparatus were actually balanced this quad. Now you have to be a Simone level vaulter just to compete with the 6.0+ bars and beam routines that are becoming more and more doable
This is the problem with FIG's idea on how to fix vault scoring (in my opinion) -- the problem is not with the vault D scores but with the vault E scores, and constantly lowering the D scores while continuing to give out E scores that are too high seems a bit reckless to me.
I would have like to see (BEAM) Double front F -> G Double double dismount beam H -> I Full-in pike G -> H (FLOOR) 3.5 Twist on F -> G Silivas H -> G Chusovitina H -> G (BARS) One Armed Geinger C -> E Full twisting double layout dismount E -> F Double Double layout Dismount G -> H Triple back dismount G -> H ( with the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismounts the full in will become even more popular i would upgrade these to encourage gymnasts ) I wouldn’t have downgraded the Fan
I agree with alll of those ideas, maybe with the exception of upgrading the Magaña/Triple Back. That seems like a skill where it's justified to keep a low rating to avoid people injuring themselves.
@@GymAnalysis i also would include the one armed gienger in that category. i think all one armed skills were downgraded so gymnasts wouldnt hurt themselves attempting it, correct?
@@eimardgomes1128 It's considered a forward element but with a backward entry. In WAG COP, all arabian elements (including onodi) are considered Forward Elements. The new code is too ambiguously written on whether B+D(bwd) means backward elements or backward entry. As long as I love the bhs+onodi combo I think FIG needs to clarify on this. Or if I missed anything on the COP, please correct me!
I'm honestly not sure; that's a really good question. The code lists it in the same family as forward handsprings and refers to it as "jump backwards (flic-flac take-off) with 1⁄2 twist (180°) through handstand to walkover forward", which to me implies a forwards skill. At the same time, I feel like it would deserve CV despite being a forwards skill, given that other forwards skills (ie BHS + rebound front tuck) would also be extremely difficult and (in my opinion) deserving of CV. FIG doesn't specify any CV for backwards B + forwards D, so it may not get any.
@@GymAnalysis what are you guys talking about? If Onodi were considered a foward element it would get 0.2 C.V in this current 2017-2021 Code. It doesn't.
@@eimardgomes1128 the B+D 0.2 CV only applies if both skills are forward, so even though the Onodi is considered a forward skill, the BHS + Onodi combo would not get 0.2. I really think they just mean backwards takeoff for the 0.1 bonus otherwise they would have said both elements must be backwards like they do for the 0.2 bonus.
I found the changes in general very good, as we will see new movements, mainly to decrease the value of Simone biles' heel, which I found extremely high.
I like the changes to encourage more unique routines! Still I wish artistry was rewarded more highly. Just finished watching the CK us classics and I love Wong's work!!! Shame she is punished for not being as powerful as those ahead; she is technically beautiful to watch. Still I love watching mad difficult skills too, don't get me wrong!
Good question; I'm also a bit unsure. I guess FIG thinks that the difference between pike and tuck on beam is significant enough to be 0.1, but the difference on floor isn't relevant enough? Also, I don't think FIG would want to rate a double back the same as a front full or back 1.5 twist, which may be holding them back from recognizing the double pike's difficulty.
@@GymAnalysis The double tuck was a C-skill until 2009. It was only increased to a D to help close the gap of disparity between UB and FX scores. But to this day that has not happened and instead we've seen the gross inflation in start values of tucked elements across all appartus (esp as of COP 2013-16). All tucked skills (bar the Biles dismount) should be devalued by at least 0.1 with the Silivas going down to an F. Tucks are the easiset body position to perform acrobatic elements in and their values should reflect that in comparison to others. But there should be a 0.1 differentiation between full-in and full-out twisting skills in all body positions. E.g. full-in DLO (G), full-out DLO (H), Moors (I). That way there is a clear system of progession as opposed to the D-->E-->H we currently have for double tucks on floor. Because there is a 0.4 difference between a double tuck and Silivas, but only a 0.3 difference between a double layout and a Moors...How can the easier element group be given a greater increase in progressive values? The same is the case with the balance beam, a double tuck is a D, a double pike is an E, but both of their full-ins are Gs. The double tuck receives a 0.3 increase in value but the pike only gets 0.2...The full-in tuck needs to be reduced to an F, the pike should stay a G and if we ever see a full-out tuck, that too can be a G. The Biles can be an I when it no longer receives 0.2 automatic bonuses (the current B+F system, or the imminent dismount bonus). But most of all the full-in tuck UB dismount needs to be a C. If they have the audacity to downgrade a more original and difficult dismount like the Fan, introduce this nonsense 0.2 dismount bonus, but keep full-in tuck at a D that is *blatant* corruption and inside politics.
@@MD-722 Agree on most of your points except the full-in / full-out one, because it is more or less a preference issue of individual gymnast to do full in / full out / half in half out. Instead, I would prefer Double back 1/1: E, Double back 1.5: F, Silivas: G. And seriously , if anything, the Fan dismount should be UPGRADED. It has a difficult L grip entry and deserves to stay at least at D. I cant help but wonder, if the downgrade is more political than technical.
@@kp395 Late reply here, I lost this thread (apologies). So firstly to answer your initial point, I agree and disagree. I agree that is a preference when it comes to UB dismounts, but for all other events twisting is more difficult in the second salto. Because if it wasn't then we'd see much more full-out double tucks. (we would probably even a full-out double tuck BB dismount, but we see no full-out double tucks and we haven't even seen a tucked Biles; which a skill one could expect to have been in the code decades ago...So I stand by point that it is more difficult to twist in the second salto (0.1 worth more) and the code should reflect that. But now to expand on my reasoning! Even though I fully agree with the term you coined _"the code has been on crack since 2013!"_ There was one good thing that did come out it, and that was the introduction of H and I values. The problem however was that they were not used correctly. Prior to that there were several skills that could not receive their proper tariffs because the start values did not go up high enough to accommodate them. Thus resulting in the mish-mash of elements that should not (and never should have) had the same start values as each other--e.g the full-in tuck, full-in pike and double layout, which prior to 2013 were all Es because the code only went up to G. It would also help to eliminate the issue of inflation (esp that of double/twisting double back tucks) by reinstating a much more clearer system of progression. Then last but not least I personally think it would encourage the use of intricate and original connections again, even in if the rules for CV were kept as they are now. So without further ado, here's a rough idea of how it would look (unadded elements are in brackets) *Floor:* Double tuck - C *(Double tuck half-out - D)* - )because of the blind landing --like the Biles I) Double tuck full-in - D *(Double tuck full-out - E)* Double tuck 2/1 - F (because the Silivas should only be a G for juniors) (*Double full-in tuck - G)* *(Double tuck 3/2 - H)* - because of the intricacy of its blind landing Double tuck 3/1 - I (because it's tucked and we now potentially have a stretched version on the way) *Double tuck 5/2 - J)* - again, because the blind-landing requires much more spatial-awareness than a triple-double. Double pike - D Double pike full-in - E Double full-in pike - H Double layout - F Doube layout half-out - G Double layout full-in - G Double layout full-out H Double layout 2/1 - I Double layout 3/1 - J (because if we have single skills that score over a full point, the code is officially broken). *Beam:* Double tuck - D *(Double tuck half-out - E)* Double tuck full-in - F Double tuck full-out - G double tuck 2/1 - I (as long as there are no built-in bonuses). Fwd double tuck - I (because it's the hardest dismount due to its fwd entry and blind landing). *Uneven Bars:* *ALL* bwd double tucks (from the double tuck to the Fabrichnova) need to be downgraded by 0.1 *NB -* You will notice that I left out fwd elements on the FX, that is because all fwd double saltos are valued properly (minus the Oliveira--piked double arabian 1/2 out--which I personally think that should be a G). So hopefully the above makes sense! But as you can see inflation is eliminated, there is a clear progression in the increment of values (for both shape, twists and landing visibility whilst still allowing for reasonable jumps--e.g the double layout being an F), there is increased incentive to innovate and fill in the _gaps_ in the code (i.e. add new skills) and by way of that new connections.
Every other sport knows that high scores make people want to watch. Who really wants to see they 15.0 start value? Do you to remember when we were doing 17's on beam? Scores should be going up, not down
I don't understand why high vault scores are such a big deal. Like am I just not getting something, why is that a problem? They perform one skill, compared to the multiple performed on other apparatuses, so it makes sense that there's less room for deductions. They can't just keep downgrading all the vaults forever
I agree. If vault scores are high for everyone, there's no impact on people regardless of whether it's their best or worst event -- this change didn't close the gap between gymnasts doing different vaults. I wish FIG would focus on the execution aspect, creating a bigger difference between well performed and poorly performed vaults with the same start value.
Downgrading the Fan for what!!!! And the downgrades on vault are so dumb imo. I feel like it’s targeting Chinese gymnasts also who mostly do double twists off balance beam, and the ring changes in a routine. At least a lot are starting to gain D dismounts 😃.
I thought that the downgrade of the Fan was somewhat an attack on Chinese gymnasts :// the rings, the double twists, and even the Fan too. I'm hoping they can adapt to the code and have great results still!
Chinese could do harder dismounts on beam other than double twists, they have tripple and 2.5. They just feel that they don't need them so they got lazy. Now wakeup call.
Thank you for the overview! I don't follow WAG much but am a huge fan of MAG, so to me the new vault DV make perfect sense. I think it would be nice to increase the overall difficulty value for skills in other events as well (except UB, that is already really high compared to the rest), because a 12. something being a "good score" on Beam at the senior international level just makes me kinda sad haha. As for the D+ dismount bonus, why the hell did they go for that?? I'm pretty sure senior men are required to have D dismounts as part of their CR, and I thought it was the same for women, so why not just do that instead of giving a full 0.2 extra for something a great deal of gymnasts already do in WAG? It makes those who can pack in the difficulty less concerned about execution, because as long as they land on their feet they're getting that 0.2 bonus. I like that they are encouraging more originality and discouraging wolf turns, though. I see a lot of people complaining about how common double full tucked dismount is on UB and I agree, but in MAG the double double straight and the double full straight off high bar are literally the only thing we see being competed. I've seen forward dismounts on high bar and triple flips maybe 5-6 times total in the last quad.
The vault downgrades are distasteful!! Who would even want to be innovative on vault or even try the more difficult ones with little to no reward ?? The 2013-2016 CoP need to comeback these ones are just discouraging.
Uhm... the reward will still be the same? If someone tries a triple yurchenko he will get 0.4 more than an Amanar both now and next quad. No one gets screwed or helped if EVERYONE starts with 0.4 less for their vaults. It's just a FIG dumb way to bring vaults scores on par with other events, but in reality literally nothing changes.
So have they changed the turns downgrade rule? I earlier read (quite earlier) they did it for all. Like if a gymnast does Mustafina and memmel both, only one counts. Not complaining though. It's one thing to do a wolf turn and another to do two in a row! The Silivas should have been downgraded. Also I really don't like the Nabieva downgrade. It's not comparable to other F skills imo. The execution deductions could've been more stringent for it. Also, FIG, please consider removing the cap on dance skills/transitions. No one is going to attempt anything different otherwise! Lastly, how are they planning to level vault scores by providing a bonus to D+ dismounts? Most would be able to get it. If they wanted to encourage something, that should've been front tumbling or atleast an F skill bonus on floor, which would be really difficult to do as last pass. (There's already CV for it on beam.) Anyway, awesome video as always!
I'm under the impression that the turn limit only applies to wolf turns, based off of what I read in the code, but I could be mistaken. I also agree with the SIlivas idea -- it's hard, but not a 0.8 skill in my eyes.
Why don't they just make vault a requirement that all gymnasts have to perform two different vaults and average the two? Still shocks me that most AA gymnasts can't even meet the basic requirement to qualify for a vault EF. Like if you're an AA gymnast you should be able to have a chance to qualify into vault EFs.
@@nabojsa its much better to make it look like youre doing something. I hated watching gymnastics in the 2009-2012 quad where literally everyone would just stand there in the corner. It disrupts the flow of the routine
It would be ridiculous to bring back the lounge step. The lounge step would used to hide not able to control a landing. There is zero justification for women to be allowed a lounge step and not men.
@@nabojsa clearly you didn’t see in the past when they lounged forward and they still got perfect 10 scores. It is too subjective to say “that lounge was to cover up but that wasn’t”. The only objective way is to eliminate lunges completely. It is a stupid rule change.
Imagine doing a double twist gets you 0.3 and 0.1 in combination then if you do a two and half twist gets you 0.4 plus 0.2 in bonus and 0.1 in connection and the triple twist gets you 0.6 plus 0.2 in bonus and then 0.2 for b+f dismount and 0.1 in combination. B+B+C = 0.4 B+B+D= 0.7 B+B+F=1.1 Can someone tell me how can you get 0.7 for just adding a full twist. I know triple twist dismount are hard but 0.7 more?
The chinese wont be happy to see candle mounts downgraded! I would like to see some sort of bonus for full twisting skills on beam, they’ve become so rare
The D+ dismount bonus also seemed targeted at their very clean double twists, which are now at a three tenth deficit to a D dismount instead of a one tenth gap. I think FIG would do well to upgrade full twists-you're completely right that they're so rare these days!
I am first in line for the Yurchenko loop upgrade and candle mount downgrade. Also, I'm not sure the dismount bonus is really needed for bars or floor.
It is interesting to see that gymnasts can opt for these more creative (rarer) skills on beam. I hope to see less cookie cutter routines. Also, upgrading the clearhip hecht 1/2 into a D skill is interesting - it would be cool to see a combo like a shoot to handstand + clearhip hecht 1/2 + pak + van leeuwen. But I think you'd need to generate good swing to do this. Also, are lunges allowed on floor without deductions?
I imagine connecting clear hip Hecht 1/2 to a Pak would be quite difficult, but you could probably tack shoot to handstand + clear hip Hecht 1/2 onto the end of a series and use the D valuation for bonus.
I don't believe that someone in this video did that (Ou Yushan was featured on floor from China doing a double twist, if that's what you're asking about), but Wu Ran from China used Laurie's floor music during her 2020 routine. I'm not sure if she still has it.
I feel like a lot of the things they changed they’re trying to even the playing field a little more between the strength gymnasts (Vt, FX) and the typical bars beam gymnasts.
I do not understand the downgrading of skills each year. It seems that popular or even rare skills are guaranteed a downgrade. It does not make sense to me especially if only a handful of gymnasts perform the skill. Can anyone offer insight?
This code is way better ! Love almost every single one of them, except downgrading Fan dismount and the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismount. If anything, they should reward E+ dismounts instead.
What's your favorite (or least favorite) change in the new CoP? What changes do you want to see? • To see more videos on scoring in our current code, check out this analysis of Viktoria Listunova's win at Euros: ruclips.net/video/zrfntdu7HTQ/видео.html • If you enjoyed, please subscribe! I appreciate it a lot. Thank you all so much for watching!
That is once again some stupid decisions by FIG...a .2 for a D dismount is pathetic, make it worth it, meks sure they can perform at least a F before rewarding that .2...and a 3 plus series for another .2!!!
@@kevinjewell233 Built-in bonuses should only be awarded to fwd BB dismounts and rare vaults. As fwd BB dismounts are the rarest and hardest in the sport; there's only one E and one F, respectively and even to connect a B skill to a C-valued fwd dismount is difficult. Whereas we see far too little variety on vault. Look at the Khorkina (tucked Cheng) it's a 5.4 and precursor of several bigger vaults, yet its skipped over it as if it weren't even there.
For every other appartus they are undermining the point of it, which is to show apparatus-work. This is why I much prefer the Chinese balance beam programme to anyone else's, their focus is on the beam-work. Yes, they need to upgrade their double fulls, and I'm sure several will by Tokyo. But again the emphasis is on the beam-work with them, not the dismount--which is important but should not be given such an inflated value for no reason.
Really don’t like the emphasis on skills that utilize going around the beam. We already have uneven bars. The point of beam is what skills can you do on top without falling off? I don’t really get that
I am not a fan of the Vaults downgrading and would have liked to see them add .2 bonus for E+ dismounts instead. What I was wondering though is if FIG does any survey even among gymnasts or fans so as to get a sense of what changes should be made if any in a new code. If not then I would like to see them put out a PROPOSED change code first, get some feedback on it and then come up with the actual code. I read comments on here and the people here seem to have more sense than those whose job was to come up with this code. I think it was poorly thought out.
Instead of decreasing vault values, they really should’ve looked into how they could change the vault judging system so that deductions could be made more strictly. I feel like that was a wrong solution to the problem.
I think that you're right. It's frustrating to see them trying to fix a problem (abnormally high E scores on vault) by dealing with a completely separate issue. It's also important that we have more variation in vault E scores anyways in order to differentiate between stronger and weaker vaulters performing the same vault.
Personally, I wish that there was more than a 0.4 step up from DTY to Rudi/Amanar, but that's just my opinion. No one seems to go for the Amanar anymore, and even Rudis are rarer :(
@@GymAnalysis I sort of understand but I don't think there really is a way to make high e-scores harder on vault. That's just in the nature of that apparatus. You're only doing one skill that takes no more than 10 seconds. Every other apparatus has multiple skills and each one can have its own deduction. I hope I made sense, but there's no way to be anymore strict on vault when there's only 1 skill that you can deduct points from.
@@womwom6774 I think you're right, but at the same time, I would love to see things like slow motion review and more levels of deductions/more specific deductions. I don't like that an Amanar, worth a whole 15.4 (or 15 now haha), is only eligible for so many tenths of form deductions, even if it could have the same twist form issues as a triple twist on floor that is worth 0.5. I guess it would make things more subjective, but not all crossed legs or flexed feet are made equal (in my eyes), and even if it's not possible, I wish there was a way to account for that nuance and variation in scores.
@@GymAnalysis the problem with nuance scoring is the nature of the E scoring system. Where the e score can only be calculated via eye sight. No slowmo cam can be used to judge. And changing that would mean a whole sweeping change to the way you evaluate e scores. (Unless restricted to Vault only or FIG / Olympics - not every competiton can have slowmo cams). But I do understand where they are coming from with the D score adjustment.. It must be on an equal footing with the rest of the events.
Bleh.. Let 'em keep tweeking it.
I suspect it's harder to control the judges than the points.
I like that they changed the turn requirement on beam - maybe we will see more variety and "rare" skills!
Me too! Especially compared to a simple full turn, people are incentivized to throw more interesting and rewarding moves.
Would the Valdez full twist fulfil it
@@kishmishkashmiri I would love to see that skill come back
@@pillowmuzictv That and even the regular Valdez should be common as they can even be used to start 2-4 skill acro series; it's ridiculous how they've disappeared from the sport. But I'd also like to see them come back on floor as they can be incorporated so fluidly into choreography.
Bring back the Li Lis
I don’t understand why they are downgrading the Fan, it’s very difficult and Fan Yilin took several years to nail it
Because FIG has decided that UB isn't saturated enough with double tuck 1/1 dismounts 🙃😂
@@honeyfromthebee Yeah, it's stupid. They should increase several dismounts and releases like deltchev, markelov, khorkina, Mo salto, Seitz, etc. UB is the most predictable apparatus nowadays.
It's not even that popular of a dismount to get a downgrade. I reeealy didn't get that.
maybe they just don't like Asians lol
Agreed, that one made no sense whatsoever.
I am glad they only limit multiple wolf turns in the routine. I was worried every turn was gonna be limited to one per kind and that we would no longer see beautiful turn sequences like Sanne Wevers's sequence of full L turn + full turn + double turn.
I was quite worried that they were going to limit all turns, but I'm glad they've only limited wolf turns (as far as I'm aware!). I have no problem with multiple L turns or Y turns (especially because they usually don't come right after each other).
Wolf turns are honestly not attractive to watch and the execution is usually terrible. I don’t understand why the gymnasts don’t create a larger variety of turning skills
@@earthlingphilosophy3531 bc it was easier to gain D+E skills on both beam+floor by really working on wolf turns and they don't often get deductions compared to other elements
I feel like an E dismount bonus should’ve been in order, I mean I think at this point we are all tired of the same single twisting double tuck dismount off bars for like multiple quads now. D+ seems pretty useless to me. Especially since all top gymnasts do at least a D dismount. Disregarding the double twist off beam that Chinese gymnasts do, of course.
I agree. I feel like the rule was only put in to penalize the Chinese gymnasts who love to perform the double twist (and perform it well too!). It just seems unnecessary to make D dismounts suddenly worth the same as an F skill. I think E+ would've been a better implementation (although I dislike double pikes off beam and it would definitely encourage that 😆).
Yes what is the point when almost all do D anyway?
@@bw2082 The goal is to penalize gymnasts who don't perform D (mainly those who use double twist on beam and floor) in order to incentivize them to switch. In older codes, there used to be a requirement for a D+ dismount, but it seems that FIG are hesitant to add another requirement back in, given it could make D scores more unbalanced/require more effort.
@@GymAnalysis i hate to say it but if you were doing less than a d dismount on anything you are kind of irrelevant anyway.
@@bw2082 I mean the chinese commonly do it on beam and they are far from irrelevant on it. I guess it's just double pikes from here
FIG will literally do anything but differentiate e-scores on vault...
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Some thoughts
- definitely unhappy with vault downgrades to try and address E-score problem, seems like a lousy temporary solution
- honestly glad to see them trying to phase out the spamming of wolf turns
- Nabieva downgrade was expected, I wonder if the Mo/Hristakieva will appear more in this code
- Clear Hip 1/2 going to D was an interesting decision, don't think it's going to be too common tho
- Teza and Zamolodchikova earning CR by themselves is a pretty creative decision, not sure if it will boost their popularity much tho
- D+ dismount bonus just reminds me of the D-dismount CR, and targets low-difficulty dismounts. Shouldn't be in code imo
I agree with you on all those counts -- I'm hoping that we do see more Clear Hip Hecht 1/2s, Mo Saltos, and Hristakievas, but I doubt we will. I feel like the style of bars won't change even if the rules do slightly.
I read once the Mo salto has a built in deduction due to the intermediate swing that results from it so it isn’t worth the risk to the athletes. I miss it though.
@@MrGemini1983 intermediate swing? Like dead hang or a wasted swing? I guess that would make sense
Not an expert but enjoy watching: would have preferred all other disciplines to be upgraded than vault being downgraded. 2008 scores were more exciting for some reason!
I agree, haha -- make the numbers bigger! It'll be fun.
Ugh, I feel like Silivas should be a G, full twisting double pike off beam should be H, Biles off beam should be I, vaults shouldn't have been downgraded, and the 0.2 bonus should be for E+ dismounts instead of D+ because so many people have D dismounts anyway. I'm glad we only have this code for three years instead of four, so maybe they'll make better changes in 2024
The Fan dismount should stay as a D, the Dos Santos II should be upgraded to an I/J, the Produnova vault should be upgraded to at least a 6.6
Agree with you on all of those points! An E+ bonus would've actually been interesting, but it seems like they're just going after double twist-using athletes. Knowing FIG, I doubt we'll see most of these changes in 2024, but I'm hopeful ://
@@mht4908 I agree! I think with the Dos Santos II and even with other front tumbling (ie Podkopayeva, Dowell), upgrades would create so much more variety and uniqueness in routines. The Fan downgrade seemed unreasonable in my opinion.
@@GymAnalysis Why is FIG so annoying? Clearly lots of people don't like some of these changes, so why do they always go through with them anyway? Who makes the rules? Is their justification public? This is dumb
Vaults getting downgraded again is criminal.
I think with the new dismount bonus we may actually end up with more gymnasts just doing 3 passes on floor instead of 4 to get the bonus.
Some may add in an extra dance element, while others could add more connection passes. (Indirect D+D, C+E, or direct C+D)
Interesting way of looking at it, and hopefully so. I'm doubtful though as the 0.2 bonus means that almost everyone gets at least an F skill for a D...but I really hope your prediction comes to pass.
I would have rather that they'd introduced a series bonus for 3-skill direct connections instead, but hopefully someone will take advantage of the code the way you've suggested and make good of this silly new bonus.
@@MD-722 It's my understanding that just the dismount of a D+ skill gets a 0.2 bonus, and not all D+ skills throughout the routine. Practically all elite gymnasts can dismount with a D+ for a third and possibly final tumbling pass.
My thinking is that if this would lead to only 7 skills worth getting credit for with their current routine construction (would be sad to have to count an A or B for example) they could make up for it with an additional dance skill or acro skill added in combination to one of their three passes.
I think there should be a rule about wolf turns on the floor- so many gymnasts just roll out of them, it’s so easy to cover a loss of balance.
I think that would've been another way to "address" the wolf turn problem. Stricter deductions would've discouraged them while not penalizing girls who can compete the triple and double well and consistently.
In McKayla Skinners video where Tom comes to watch her he mentioned that they will not allow the girls to overturn anymore. So if a girl does a double but goes 2.5 that is a deduction. That may lead to coaches having their athletes be more precise with how they end the turn.
@@rebeccaspellmeyer5761 that’s encouraging to hear!
I fully support the change to wolf turns. _VERY few_ people make them look even halfway decent.
Was hoping they'd get rid of the wolf turn all together, lol, but at least this is progress
Hah -- there are some wolf turns that I like, so I'm glad they aren't all gone. I think this change prevents (most of) the code abuse we're seeing today, which is good :)
Its official: FIG hate vaulters
I'm also disappointed by the vault rules change. I also wish they would upgrade the Amanar and Rudi to incentivize gymnasts to actually compete them ://
@@GymAnalysis The Amanar and Rudi are fine this quad, the problem was the tariffs they were given in 2013-16. Their start values were so high that they absorbed too many of their deductions resulting in far to many sloppy ones that could easily outscore cleanly executed less difficult vaults e.g. Raisman's Amanar outscoring Mustafina's DTY in the Rio AA final. Because if their E-scores were kept the same but their DVs were adapted for this quad Mustafina would outscore Raisman, and rightfully so; especially as the difference between those vaults is only one half-twist.
But now things are a joke. Every specialist should be able to score a least above a 6.0 DV on their respective apparatus; especially if that's what they rely on the most during an AA final (e.g. Nina Derwael coming 4th with an FTY and two-pass FX because her A-bar DV was so high). So if that's still the case for other apparatuses it should have remained the same for vault.
@@MD-722 Yes! The whole point of this new system was to separate and reward gymnasts for throwing the harder skills and doing it well. Vault scores have been lowered, beam and FX are always lower execution/scores, so I guess if you can't swing bars you're screwed lol I'm being dramatic but I really hate the constant score changing every 4 years. A little adjustment here and there is understandable but I hate to think this is something they are going to do every 4 years...
No the FIG just sux has for decades.
FIG hates uneven bars fans.
Vault changes doesn't mess anything up. It's just a number. The vaults still have 0.4 difference between them.
Those vault downgrades are silly - seems like it was just a poorly thought out way to deflate scores, instead of requiring their licensed judges to score more fairly. Lazy. Also does that mean that the Cheng will now only be worth a 5.6? What about the Produnova?
All downgrades seem to be by 0.4 points. So perhaps the prudonova will be 6.0 if it’s difficulty in Cop 2021 was 6.4
The produnova is so under valued in my opinion, I feel it should be higher than Simone’s double back vault
The only thing i'm happy about is the devaluation of candle mount and the flairs earning 0.5 CR, the other ones are just plain stupid. I mean everyone dismounts with a D on bars and mostly on floor and beam too, so it's an instant 0.2 to EVERY routine. Meanwhile vault was downgraded, not upgraded
If every vault was downgraded the same amount, it will have no effect on vault rankings, it was just a sleazy attempt to bring average vault scores closer to the other events for AA purposes. Vaults have considerably higher E scores because the skill is done in like 3 seconds so there’s not much to deduct from in real time. It was either increase how much each deduction was worth or just downgrade the vaults altogether. It’s mostly for AA purposes so that someone that is really good at vault does not have an advantage over the rest like how in 2008 the bars d scores were remarkably higher, so good bar workers had an advantage in the AA. I mean Simone can and has gotten near a 16 on her Biles vault when it’s rare to even crack 15 on the other events. That’s an extreme example, but a 9+ execution just doesn’t happen on bars, beam, and floor so even though the d score is lower, the scores themselves should even out a little more. As for vault EF, the rankings shouldn’t change since everyone is affected the same regardless of what vault they do (the only exception is the front handspring layout vault only for downgraded 0.2 while the rest is 0.4).
Looks like the Chinese will actually have to do elite dismounts instead of NCAA ones to compete. Bravo 👏 It was embarrassing for world medalists to do double twisting dismounts. It was a step way back in the evolution of gymnastics.
Wow!! I love the in-depth analysis you give on each and every one of your videos. It really makes sense now. Love it
Glad you like them! If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know :)
I wanna see someone do a Li Li spin on beam
Me too :( I wish that FIG would give the Li Li an E valuation. Of all skills that should be at an E, I feel like the Wolf Jump 2/1 was not the best choice for a surprise upgrade.
I would love to see it again, but it does not fulfill the turn requirement (only one footed turns do) so the gymnast would have to do another turn element to get the 0.5 CR, so I don’t see many doing it. I was reading the code and it explicitly states elements satisfy it and unfortunately the Li Li is not one of them
@@jacksonxu9901 Yeah, when I saw the CR at first, I was hopeful that the Li Li would fulfill the requirement, but it unfortunately does not :(
I know Nastia is glad they only count the first wolf turn - she hates those! Lol
Her and the judges too, I imagine. I would not want to deal with deductions for dozens of wolf turns during a competition 😩
I'm glad too as I hate them as well....even when preformed well, I think they are ugly and awkward looking.
Just Nastia? Oh NO. WE ALL hate it.
@@r.m.2737 What about if you do SIX WOLF TURNS together?
I hate them too. Even when Simone does one it looks clunky and ugly. I wish they’d been banned completely.
I'm greatly displeased at the wholesale downgrading of the vault. And I'm very sad at the new turn rules for FX. My partner and I LOVE watching those godawful triple + double wolf turns! LOLOL! #AllTheWolfTurns
I'm also saddened by the vault changes. I think you and your partner may be the only people in the world who love those turns, lol :)
@@GymAnalysis We take twisted pleasure at watching aesthetically questionable gymnastics moves and routines. :P
I love the B+D - I absolutely want to see backhandspring + Onodi combos
I’m waiting for someone to break out a bhs +Woorley, one of my favorite skills in WAG! I think it’s valued the same as Onodi, but it’s so rarely performed that I’d have to look it up.
Sounds like we might be seeing a return of the Rufolva and hip circles on beam again
Love the Ruflova! Hoping so 🤞 there's some good coming out of this code
I thought that since they upgraded the back extension roll to C that you could do a Rulfova + Back extension roll combo for 0.2 CV, but it is not a flight element so it is not eligible
Hip circles on beam done terrible will be the new wolf turn.
Wolf turn : I'm the fuggest gymnastic skill
Teza on beam: hold my beer
Rufolvas coming back will be a dream come true.😍
@@nabojsa " So you basically get 4 wolf turns per gymnast who does that skill." LOL that is so true. If you see one on beam you WILL see one on floor too. It's sad. lol
I love everything with hip circles on beam. I find the routines much more interesting using different "levels". In horse vaulting, the sport I'm doing niw after retiring as a gymnast that's a must for each routine and I think it spices up beam routines too.
Thank goodness they addressed they lack of creativity AND difficulty in learning different types of movements, with the ridiculous repetitive triple wolf turn, followed by a double! I actually expected them to devalue both, since they seem easy enough for EVERY gymnast to use them to fulfill requirements lately.
Thank you so much for this video, it was incredibly helpful!
I'm super happy you found it informative! If you have any questions or requests, please let me know :)
I kind of wish they would have given some kind of bonus to more difficult mounts.. And I don't love what they did on vault. Other than that I am pretty okay with most of these changes.
Not only bonuses, they should impose a mount of a certain rank onwards as mandatory.
@@r.m.2737 every time I watch Biles beam I want a mandatory mount
And thanks for using older video for skills. It was nice to see Miller pop up in one of these (Someone else used Bogi) I am here for that :) And by older I mean 80's and 90's not 08 :)
Some of these skills are so antiquated that there are no videos of modern gymnasts competing them, haha! I'm glad to see the Code giving some "older" style skills upgrades; maybe they'll see new use :)
Speaking of "older skills", I would love to see the Miller on beam.
@@1MALICIOUSDIETY The "Miller" was never in the code. They considered it a continuation of the Omelianchik (which it wasn't) and refused to name it after her yet adding a half to any skills gets it named after everyone these days.
@@GymAnalysis They need to do something because every bar and beam routine looks the same and I am becoming so bored with this sport.
THANK YOU for showing Vlada Urazova for the wolf turn example. Hers are the example and how they can actually look gorgeous when executed properly.
Seeing Chiles directly after her makes the disparity even more jarring.
LOVE the upgrades to unique skills on beam!
Very happy with the downgrade of the candle mounts. I hate those 😅
Yeah me too.
I don't hate them as such, I just hate that it seems 7 out of 10 gymnasts use it.....
I would have been okay with just not getting credit for the skill unless the body was held pencil straight vertically for 2 full seconds. Most were not straight or had pike at the hips or weren’t held long enough. It kinda ruins the whole point of doing the skill.
I’m so mad about the Vault downgrades. That’s so low.
I will be SO happy to see more flairs on beam, if this happens more. I think they really add an extra element and hope to god it replaces those wolf turns at the beginning of a routine.
LOVE love this change of code. It doesn't target an certain country, pushes all gymnasts to improve and perform rarer and more original skills:)
Downgrading vault again definitely targets the American team.
the bonus for a d+ dismount is most definetely a reaction to the Chinese gymnasts mostly doing double twists as dismounts
sonja beebo I wouldn’t say just them a lot of girls have been doing easier dismounts.
@@Appaddict01 I mean vault downgrades have been going on for more than ten years now when good vaulters like Hong Su jong from north korea, Cheng Fei from China and Oksana when she represented Germany were still competing, so you can't really say that...
@@Appaddict01 Yeah but 80% of the gymnasts from china rely on connections and difficult acrobatics on the beam to gain difficulty instead of from the dismount... so it's really obvious that this was targeted to them. But the rest are quite unbiased:)
Wait so Flairs would fulfill the turn requirement?
Yup, they should now! Two Flying Flairs (performed by Peng Peng Lee in the video) also received an upgrade from B to C, I believe. Hopefully we'll see more of them in competition!
I would love to see gymnasts do them but I dont understand it being a “turn element” at all, I’d just give it a good value and get more gymnasts doing double turns on beam, they’re really not hard
I really don’t understand the motivation for continuously lowering difficulty values. When Simone debuted her double double on beam and they graded it so low that it wasn’t worth it to perform, they cited “safety concerns.” Now, they’re taking the hardest skills and downgrading them? That’s so confusing and inconsistent. And honestly it’s not super fun to watch the best routines in the world score like 13 or 14 points. Idk I don’t understand what the point of this is.
God, oh God, why did they not value the atrocious Wolf turns as an A element? That would dissuade everyone from doing them. Horrible.
I'm just glad that they got rid of multiple wolf turns in a routine. I'm pretty fine with wolf turns being one of many dance elements, but I can't bear watching gymnasts sit in tuck stand for ten seconds spinning five times and then not doing another turn the rest of the routine 😆
The only changes I'm happy about here are on beam. I'm not sure why anyone finishing on a double tuck/pike on floor should be getting bonus. That dismount bonus rule should be reserved for at least E or F or higher on floor
This was so informative, thank you!
I'm glad you found it informative! If you have any questions, please let me know :)
That wolf jump leap 1/2 @ 3:02 I wanna see some of those come up now... Wow.
Me too! I hope someone will go for it. One has to be a bit tentative, though, given that an under rotated one would result in 0.1 precision and a 0.3 downgrade!
the vault downgrades are soooo disappointing :/ i also feel that the nabieva being downgraded is wrong. even though it may seem common or easy in training, it’s really not common or easy to do in competition and on top of that, execution is rarely perfect…also the bonus on D dismounts makes absolutely no sense to me
@xilo An F signifies that something js very difficult, whereas G+ is meant to signify extreme difficulty to the point of rarity (e.g the Mo Salto, which should be an H). The counter-Kim should be G as it's way nore difficult than a Nabieva.
The toe-on Nabieva has become way too common and there are several new versions set to be introduced in upcoming quads that much greater warrant G+ values.
@@MD-722 i said that it’s not as common as it seems. literally only 2 people are actively competing it, training it doesn’t mean anything
@@xilomp3 It's still set to become more common, and it was never extremely difficult to begin with. The counter-Kim, Mo Salto and Hristakieva are all superior in difficulty. But where the latter two should be Hs, the counter-Kim should be a G. A clear-hip Nabieva could be a G, but the toe-on needs to go down to an F.
A hip or Stalder entry is more difficult than the toe on entry, so the downgrading of value is fair to me. I don’t think it’s right to downgrade value for the sole reason being frequency performed, which seems to be the case with the Navieva however. And it’s true that it’s still not all that common like a Moloney or Van Leeuwen on bars which should be worth less than Chow or Komova transitions to be consistent. The FIG is ridiculous. 🤦♀️
@@cantor7723 The point of downgrade elements that are frequently performed is to discourage overuse and encourage variety. Top UB routines have become far too predictable in recent quads which is a shame after the London 2012 final. Also there are certain skill which were clearly given values that were too high (e.g. the Nabieva) so it makes them _too easy_ to abuse.
Because so far as the uneven bars go, all Tkachevs (bar clear hip and in-bar entries) need to be downgraded by 0.1; a straddled Tkachev should not be a D...(much like the double tuck on floor should go back to being a C).
They also added back the lunge out of tumbling passes as well!!
Is this true??
That was in the draft. It did not make it into the final code
As far as I am aware, the FIG did not add the lunge in, for better or for worse :/
-Thank god only wolf turns got prohibited. haha
-Don't agree on the Fan downgrade. It is not that easy to land.
-Clear Hip Hetcht 1/2 upgraded 😍. Finally we'll see something other than Van leweens.
-Is that roll over the beam that difficult to deserve a C rating?
-0.2 for a D+ dismout seems too much for me. 0.1 Would've been enough.
I’m annoyed they didn’t change the values of ANY acro skills on floor.
Silivas should be a G. Maldonado should be an H.
3.5 should be a G.
So many more!!
Agreed; they should really upgrade some of the difficult twisting skills! I also wish they'd upgrade difficult front tumbling a la double front, Podkopayeva, and Dowell
@Noah Byrd The Silivas should be an F. If it had remained a G in 2013-16 but still become as overused as it is today it would definitely be on its way to becoming an F by 2022-24.
But frankly all double back tucks on floor need to be devalued because up until 2009 the double tuck was a C and all successive values should be based on that. The full-in tuck should be a D, the Silivas should be an F and the triple-double should be an I. Yes, tucked skills can be extremely difficult, but they are the easiset body position to perform acrobatics in and are even easier when performed from bwd entries.
But otherwise I am 100% with you on the values of the 3.5 and Maldonado, and I've also said that all other D+ fwd twisting elements should be upgraded by 0.1 as well.
@@GymAnalysis The Podkopayeva and Dowell don't need to be upgraded, bwd skills need to be downgraded. All fwd double tucks are valued properly, but *ALL* bwd double tucks and D+ fwd twists are not.
I think there will be no problem for Chinese to add extra half twist to dismount from beam.
I hope so! I think they'll be able to do it as well.
If it wasn't a problem they would have them already. Almost nobody in the world is doing 2.5 twists anymore
@@eimardgomes1128 all of them changed from triple to double, cause there was no need to have D+ dismount anymore.
Omg! We had taken so long to do anything about the wolf turn!!! I love the decision. I hope soon they decide to downgrade it too.
Great video!!
Glad you enjoyed it! :)
That Teza skill is insane. I would break my neck!
I’m assuming that the controlled lunges got cut from the final draft of this COP
If so, I’m a bit miffed about that :(
I'm under the impression that controlled lunges were cut from the final draft. Disappointing to see, but I'd also say that it's good, given how subjective the lung deductions could end up being.
so will bad hip circles on beam become the new wolf turns?😶😶
Damn, the Amanar all the way down to a 5.4. And meanwhile the number of gymnasts who can actually consistently do an amanar can be counted on one hand. D:
i thought the same! seems excessive honestly
Great video!
honestly i don't think these changes will incentivate the gymnasts to bring more originality to their routines, we will just see the scores going lower and lower and it's sad because it'll become nearly impossible to compare different quads scorings.
i'm so sad for the vault downgrading, i got it is necessary to compare in a better way vault scores with other events ones but i'm still mad at FIG lmao.
the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismount skills doesn't make any sense, it's just a penalty for gymnasts who prefer to work on E score rather than on D score (like chinese and netherlands ones). moreover right now a lot of gymnasts dismount with a D, i think it could have much more sense if the bonus was for E+ dismounts. the only thing i'm happy about is bars, a couple of skills were overscored and like this it seems fair. i was looking for some changes on D scores on floor (like downgrading the double tuck or the silivas), but apparently we'll have to wait the next quad
I like the bonus for dismount but it should be for an E skill not a D
Clear hip Hecht is still in the COPs? I thought they stopped including it years ago. Also, I don’t really think floor routines have “dismounts”, you know?
The final tumbling pass of a floor routine is the dismount (as shown in all examples here), although you don’t hear it referred to that term as much in women’s gymnastics. you hear commentators saying it more often on the men’s side.
A good bb routine should include difficult skills and connections on the beam, not just mount and dismount. I am not a big fan of adding 0.2 for D+ dismount since in this quad the dismount (C) has to be included in DV. 0.2 bonus for E+ is better. Also I want FIG to downgrade double tuck on floor to C because it's not worth D. Double pike should stay as D.
Opinions
1. It’s a lazy attempt to align vault scores with the other events. E Score would have been a better focus. That being said, the change will not affect vaulters or the US disproportionately (The 2016/2017 change in the other hand). Everyone has to perform on the same vault code. Yeah, the Start Vues decreased, but the difference between an Amanar and DTY is still 0.4. Amanar and Layout Rudi are still the same.
2. Happy about this
3. Fan being downgraded is stupid. Nabieva shouldn’t be an F, but at least it’s consistent with the ray and church being worth the same as their giant entry counter parts.
4. Happy with pretty much all of these. Candlesticks are over used. I love the also love the Yurcheko loop.
5. Hopefully the new roll/flairs CR requirement will add some diversity to routines. Very happy about B+D getting CV.
6. I actually don’t mind it that much
I agree -- the new code has some things that are frustrating, but many of the new changes are actually pretty good! The vault values thing is a mess, but FIG doesn't seem willing to make a practical change there.
@@GymAnalysis hey, just wondering: what would a practical change be, in your opinion?
Thank you, very informative. Curious, where does the animation at 3:04 come from?
I'm glad you found it informative! I found the animation on Twitter under user Flip Fly Tumble (also has a great RUclips channel here!), and the app used to make it is called "FB Curves 3D Gym".
you're quick!!
Thanks hah -- I had some stuff to procrastinate on today, so I figured I might as well make a video :)
Glad the issue of throw away dismounts has been addressed, sick and tired of seeing elite gymnasts doing double twists off beam.
For beam dismounts they should've done a graded bonus increase so D (+0.1), E (+0.2), F (+0.3), G (+0.4) and H(+0.5) and the Biles dismount would at least get some proper credit for her dismount. I'm so tired of seeing either double pikes or double tucks on beam. Bring on the harder dismounts!!!
i'm glad flairs are back, i miss some of the older moves
The value between the apparatus were actually balanced this quad. Now you have to be a Simone level vaulter just to compete with the 6.0+ bars and beam routines that are becoming more and more doable
UB connections have also been downgraded for the 2022-2024 quad.
This is the problem with FIG's idea on how to fix vault scoring (in my opinion) -- the problem is not with the vault D scores but with the vault E scores, and constantly lowering the D scores while continuing to give out E scores that are too high seems a bit reckless to me.
I would have like to see
(BEAM)
Double front F -> G
Double double dismount beam H -> I
Full-in pike G -> H
(FLOOR)
3.5 Twist on F -> G
Silivas H -> G
Chusovitina H -> G
(BARS)
One Armed Geinger C -> E
Full twisting double layout dismount E -> F
Double Double layout Dismount G -> H
Triple back dismount G -> H
( with the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismounts the full in will become even more popular i would upgrade these to encourage gymnasts )
I wouldn’t have downgraded the Fan
I agree with alll of those ideas, maybe with the exception of upgrading the Magaña/Triple Back. That seems like a skill where it's justified to keep a low rating to avoid people injuring themselves.
@@GymAnalysis i also would include the one armed gienger in that category. i think all one armed skills were downgraded so gymnasts wouldnt hurt themselves attempting it, correct?
The B+D connection bonus only applies to backward D elements. Isn't Onodi a forward acro?
no. Onodi is a backward element too
@@eimardgomes1128 It's considered a forward element but with a backward entry. In WAG COP, all arabian elements (including onodi) are considered Forward Elements. The new code is too ambiguously written on whether B+D(bwd) means backward elements or backward entry. As long as I love the bhs+onodi combo I think FIG needs to clarify on this. Or if I missed anything on the COP, please correct me!
I'm honestly not sure; that's a really good question. The code lists it in the same family as forward handsprings and refers to it as "jump backwards (flic-flac take-off) with 1⁄2 twist (180°) through handstand to walkover forward", which to me implies a forwards skill. At the same time, I feel like it would deserve CV despite being a forwards skill, given that other forwards skills (ie BHS + rebound front tuck) would also be extremely difficult and (in my opinion) deserving of CV. FIG doesn't specify any CV for backwards B + forwards D, so it may not get any.
@@GymAnalysis what are you guys talking about? If Onodi were considered a foward element it would get 0.2 C.V in this current 2017-2021 Code. It doesn't.
@@eimardgomes1128 the B+D 0.2 CV only applies if both skills are forward, so even though the Onodi is considered a forward skill, the BHS + Onodi combo would not get 0.2. I really think they just mean backwards takeoff for the 0.1 bonus otherwise they would have said both elements must be backwards like they do for the 0.2 bonus.
I found the changes in general very good, as we will see new movements, mainly to decrease the value of Simone biles' heel, which I found extremely high.
Yuri HUH??
I like the changes to encourage more unique routines! Still I wish artistry was rewarded more highly. Just finished watching the CK us classics and I love Wong's work!!! Shame she is punished for not being as powerful as those ahead; she is technically beautiful to watch. Still I love watching mad difficult skills too, don't get me wrong!
Can you do an analysis of Chellsie Memmel’s beam routine during the mock meet on her most recent video?
Like judge it.
I think I'm going to wait until US Classics to make a video about her! She's definitely on the to-do list though :)
I was expecting double tuck on floor to be devalued to a C. There is a difference between them as beam dismounts, so why not make floor match?
Good question; I'm also a bit unsure. I guess FIG thinks that the difference between pike and tuck on beam is significant enough to be 0.1, but the difference on floor isn't relevant enough? Also, I don't think FIG would want to rate a double back the same as a front full or back 1.5 twist, which may be holding them back from recognizing the double pike's difficulty.
@@GymAnalysis The double tuck was a C-skill until 2009. It was only increased to a D to help close the gap of disparity between UB and FX scores. But to this day that has not happened and instead we've seen the gross inflation in start values of tucked elements across all appartus (esp as of COP 2013-16).
All tucked skills (bar the Biles dismount) should be devalued by at least 0.1 with the Silivas going down to an F. Tucks are the easiset body position to perform acrobatic elements in and their values should reflect that in comparison to others. But there should be a 0.1 differentiation between full-in and full-out twisting skills in all body positions. E.g. full-in DLO (G), full-out DLO (H), Moors (I). That way there is a clear system of progession as opposed to the D-->E-->H we currently have for double tucks on floor. Because there is a 0.4 difference between a double tuck and Silivas, but only a 0.3 difference between a double layout and a Moors...How can the easier element group be given a greater increase in progressive values?
The same is the case with the balance beam, a double tuck is a D, a double pike is an E, but both of their full-ins are Gs. The double tuck receives a 0.3 increase in value but the pike only gets 0.2...The full-in tuck needs to be reduced to an F, the pike should stay a G and if we ever see a full-out tuck, that too can be a G. The Biles can be an I when it no longer receives 0.2 automatic bonuses (the current B+F system, or the imminent dismount bonus).
But most of all the full-in tuck UB dismount needs to be a C. If they have the audacity to downgrade a more original and difficult dismount like the Fan, introduce this nonsense 0.2 dismount bonus, but keep full-in tuck at a D that is *blatant* corruption and inside politics.
@@MD-722 Agree on most of your points except the full-in / full-out one, because it is more or less a preference issue of individual gymnast to do full in / full out / half in half out. Instead, I would prefer Double back 1/1: E, Double back 1.5: F, Silivas: G.
And seriously , if anything, the Fan dismount should be UPGRADED. It has a difficult L grip entry and deserves to stay at least at D. I cant help but wonder, if the downgrade is more political than technical.
@@kp395 Late reply here, I lost this thread (apologies). So firstly to answer your initial point, I agree and disagree. I agree that is a preference when it comes to UB dismounts, but for all other events twisting is more difficult in the second salto. Because if it wasn't then we'd see much more full-out double tucks. (we would probably even a full-out double tuck BB dismount, but we see no full-out double tucks and we haven't even seen a tucked Biles; which a skill one could expect to have been in the code decades ago...So I stand by point that it is more difficult to twist in the second salto (0.1 worth more) and the code should reflect that. But now to expand on my reasoning!
Even though I fully agree with the term you coined _"the code has been on crack since 2013!"_ There was one good thing that did come out it, and that was the introduction of H and I values. The problem however was that they were not used correctly. Prior to that there were several skills that could not receive their proper tariffs because the start values did not go up high enough to accommodate them. Thus resulting in the mish-mash of elements that should not (and never should have) had the same start values as each other--e.g the full-in tuck, full-in pike and double layout, which prior to 2013 were all Es because the code only went up to G.
It would also help to eliminate the issue of inflation (esp that of double/twisting double back tucks) by reinstating a much more clearer system of progression. Then last but not least I personally think it would encourage the use of intricate and original connections again, even in if the rules for CV were kept as they are now. So without further ado, here's a rough idea of how it would look (unadded elements are in brackets)
*Floor:*
Double tuck - C
*(Double tuck half-out - D)* - )because of the blind landing --like the Biles I)
Double tuck full-in - D
*(Double tuck full-out - E)*
Double tuck 2/1 - F (because the Silivas should only be a G for juniors)
(*Double full-in tuck - G)*
*(Double tuck 3/2 - H)* - because of the intricacy of its blind landing
Double tuck 3/1 - I (because it's tucked and we now potentially have a stretched version on the way)
*Double tuck 5/2 - J)* - again, because the blind-landing requires much more spatial-awareness than a triple-double.
Double pike - D
Double pike full-in - E
Double full-in pike - H
Double layout - F
Doube layout half-out - G
Double layout full-in - G
Double layout full-out H
Double layout 2/1 - I
Double layout 3/1 - J (because if we have single skills that score over a full point, the code is officially broken).
*Beam:*
Double tuck - D
*(Double tuck half-out - E)*
Double tuck full-in - F
Double tuck full-out - G
double tuck 2/1 - I (as long as there are no built-in bonuses).
Fwd double tuck - I (because it's the hardest dismount due to its fwd entry and blind landing).
*Uneven Bars:*
*ALL* bwd double tucks (from the double tuck to the Fabrichnova) need to be downgraded by 0.1
*NB -* You will notice that I left out fwd elements on the FX, that is because all fwd double saltos are valued properly (minus the Oliveira--piked double arabian 1/2 out--which I personally think that should be a G).
So hopefully the above makes sense! But as you can see inflation is eliminated, there is a clear progression in the increment of values (for both shape, twists and landing visibility whilst still allowing for reasonable jumps--e.g the double layout being an F), there is increased incentive to innovate and fill in the _gaps_ in the code (i.e. add new skills) and by way of that new connections.
Every other sport knows that high scores make people want to watch. Who really wants to see they 15.0 start value? Do you to remember when we were doing 17's on beam? Scores should be going up, not down
I don't understand why high vault scores are such a big deal. Like am I just not getting something, why is that a problem? They perform one skill, compared to the multiple performed on other apparatuses, so it makes sense that there's less room for deductions. They can't just keep downgrading all the vaults forever
I agree. If vault scores are high for everyone, there's no impact on people regardless of whether it's their best or worst event -- this change didn't close the gap between gymnasts doing different vaults. I wish FIG would focus on the execution aspect, creating a bigger difference between well performed and poorly performed vaults with the same start value.
Elise Kinsey I couldn't agree with you more. I am so pissed with this decision.
Downgrading the Fan for what!!!! And the downgrades on vault are so dumb imo. I feel like it’s targeting Chinese gymnasts also who mostly do double twists off balance beam, and the ring changes in a routine. At least a lot are starting to gain D dismounts 😃.
but downgrading vault might give chinese come advantages. even though their vault level is really poor.
I thought that the downgrade of the Fan was somewhat an attack on Chinese gymnasts :// the rings, the double twists, and even the Fan too. I'm hoping they can adapt to the code and have great results still!
Chinese could do harder dismounts on beam other than double twists, they have tripple and 2.5. They just feel that they don't need them so they got lazy. Now wakeup call.
@@AJ-zg5xxw lazy? do they see the rest of their routines - miles harder than the others
@@ansonpang
When you have triple，but try double. Downgrade D to C is an encouragement.
你harder还不是一个车间出来的同样的东西，看一个就不用再看下一个。UB和FX也是一样。
I'd love to see them add a compulsory hand balancing element on floor and beam. Add some variety.
Where's the Amanar Vault at 0:32 from? That was beautiful.
I think it was the 2006 or 2007 Worlds. Can’t remember which. Start your search there. ☺️
Thank you for the overview! I don't follow WAG much but am a huge fan of MAG, so to me the new vault DV make perfect sense. I think it would be nice to increase the overall difficulty value for skills in other events as well (except UB, that is already really high compared to the rest), because a 12. something being a "good score" on Beam at the senior international level just makes me kinda sad haha. As for the D+ dismount bonus, why the hell did they go for that?? I'm pretty sure senior men are required to have D dismounts as part of their CR, and I thought it was the same for women, so why not just do that instead of giving a full 0.2 extra for something a great deal of gymnasts already do in WAG? It makes those who can pack in the difficulty less concerned about execution, because as long as they land on their feet they're getting that 0.2 bonus. I like that they are encouraging more originality and discouraging wolf turns, though. I see a lot of people complaining about how common double full tucked dismount is on UB and I agree, but in MAG the double double straight and the double full straight off high bar are literally the only thing we see being competed. I've seen forward dismounts on high bar and triple flips maybe 5-6 times total in the last quad.
The vault downgrades are distasteful!! Who would even want to be innovative on vault or even try the more difficult ones with little to no reward ?? The 2013-2016 CoP need to comeback these ones are just discouraging.
Uhm... the reward will still be the same? If someone tries a triple yurchenko he will get 0.4 more than an Amanar both now and next quad. No one gets screwed or helped if EVERYONE starts with 0.4 less for their vaults. It's just a FIG dumb way to bring vaults scores on par with other events, but in reality literally nothing changes.
If anything, the problem with vault is that the difference between Amanar/Rudi and DTY is too small, not that they were all downgraded.
How is a double tuck on fx a D. I mean. C'mon.
I think they don't want it to be the same as a back 1.5 or a front full, even if it is easier than a double pike :/
O que diz os descontos sobre as impressões de rotação nas entradas do grupo 5 do salto sobre a mesa?
So have they changed the turns downgrade rule? I earlier read (quite earlier) they did it for all. Like if a gymnast does Mustafina and memmel both, only one counts. Not complaining though. It's one thing to do a wolf turn and another to do two in a row!
The Silivas should have been downgraded. Also I really don't like the Nabieva downgrade. It's not comparable to other F skills imo. The execution deductions could've been more stringent for it.
Also, FIG, please consider removing the cap on dance skills/transitions. No one is going to attempt anything different otherwise!
Lastly, how are they planning to level vault scores by providing a bonus to D+ dismounts? Most would be able to get it. If they wanted to encourage something, that should've been front tumbling or atleast an F skill bonus on floor, which would be really difficult to do as last pass. (There's already CV for it on beam.)
Anyway, awesome video as always!
I'm under the impression that the turn limit only applies to wolf turns, based off of what I read in the code, but I could be mistaken. I also agree with the SIlivas idea -- it's hard, but not a 0.8 skill in my eyes.
If they totally got rid of the wolf turn I wouldn’t complain. I do not like that move at all. The wolf jump on the floor is sort of cool though
I had no idea they could be this fugly. I don't care who does it. DON'T CARE!
Why don't they just make vault a requirement that all gymnasts have to perform two different vaults and average the two? Still shocks me that most AA gymnasts can't even meet the basic requirement to qualify for a vault EF. Like if you're an AA gymnast you should be able to have a chance to qualify into vault EFs.
Also, they're not going to address the fact that bars scores are disproportionately high compared to beam and floor?
I heard the lunge step in NCAA will be in elite gymnastics during this quad as well. Which I like
I heard that they were considering it, but I didn't see it in the new code? I could be mistaken though.
@@nabojsa its much better to make it look like youre doing something. I hated watching gymnastics in the 2009-2012 quad where literally everyone would just stand there in the corner. It disrupts the flow of the routine
It would be ridiculous to bring back the lounge step. The lounge step would used to hide not able to control a landing. There is zero justification for women to be allowed a lounge step and not men.
@@nabojsa clearly you didn’t see in the past when they lounged forward and they still got perfect 10 scores. It is too subjective to say “that lounge was to cover up but that wasn’t”. The only objective way is to eliminate lunges completely. It is a stupid rule change.
I hope it's back too-so many gymnasts are getting serious ankle and knee injuries from landing stiff legged trying to stick landings.
I need to see the whole routine of the one showed at 1:27 please!!!
Imagine doing a double twist gets you 0.3 and 0.1 in combination then if you do a two and half twist gets you 0.4 plus 0.2 in bonus and 0.1 in connection and the triple twist gets you 0.6 plus 0.2 in bonus and then 0.2 for b+f dismount and 0.1 in combination.
B+B+C = 0.4
B+B+D= 0.7
B+B+F=1.1
Can someone tell me how can you get 0.7 for just adding a full twist. I know triple twist dismount are hard but 0.7 more?
The chinese wont be happy to see candle mounts downgraded! I would like to see some sort of bonus for full twisting skills on beam, they’ve become so rare
The D+ dismount bonus also seemed targeted at their very clean double twists, which are now at a three tenth deficit to a D dismount instead of a one tenth gap. I think FIG would do well to upgrade full twists-you're completely right that they're so rare these days!
I am first in line for the Yurchenko loop upgrade and candle mount downgrade.
Also, I'm not sure the dismount bonus is really needed for bars or floor.
Thank you
Thank god they downgrade the candle mount. I can‘t see it anymore -_-
Bonus for ending a floor routine with a double tuck? That wasn't good enough in 92. They need to downgrade that skill.
It is interesting to see that gymnasts can opt for these more creative (rarer) skills on beam. I hope to see less cookie cutter routines. Also, upgrading the clearhip hecht 1/2 into a D skill is interesting - it would be cool to see a combo like a shoot to handstand + clearhip hecht 1/2 + pak + van leeuwen. But I think you'd need to generate good swing to do this.
Also, are lunges allowed on floor without deductions?
I imagine connecting clear hip Hecht 1/2 to a Pak would be quite difficult, but you could probably tack shoot to handstand + clear hip Hecht 1/2 onto the end of a series and use the D valuation for bonus.
Unrelated, but who's the Chinese gymnast using the same FX music Laurie H. used at the 2016 Olympics?
I don't believe that someone in this video did that (Ou Yushan was featured on floor from China doing a double twist, if that's what you're asking about), but Wu Ran from China used Laurie's floor music during her 2020 routine. I'm not sure if she still has it.
@@GymAnalysis Yup, she just used it at Nationals.
Liked and subscribed.
They should have made it E+ Dismounts receive 0.2 bonus
I feel like a lot of the things they changed they’re trying to even the playing field a little more between the strength gymnasts (Vt, FX) and the typical bars beam gymnasts.
As a homage for the change. A single example of the wolf turn wouldve sufficed. We dont need to see more of those.
Hah -- I showed two to celebrate that the second one can't count :P
@@GymAnalysis Lol. As a member of the gymnastics community, I accept this. But only once 😜
The back extension roll upgrade is obnoxious. It should be an A
Thanks ^^
I do not understand the downgrading of skills each year. It seems that popular or even rare skills are guaranteed a downgrade. It does not make sense to me especially if only a handful of gymnasts perform the skill. Can anyone offer insight?
This code is way better ! Love almost every single one of them, except downgrading Fan dismount and the 0.2 bonus for D+ dismount. If anything, they should reward E+ dismounts instead.