You can now become a Patreon member and support this channel for as little as a 1$/month. Your contribution will be deeply appreciated. Thank you so much 💛 patreon.com/gymnasticsmasterclass
@@CameronD123 It should definitely be an E based on precedent within the code. The stretch jump with hand support is a B, the stretch jump without hand support is a C, the stretch jump 1/1 with hand support is a D, so the natural progression would be for the stretch jump 1/1 without hand support to be an E. The WTC should be required to release their justification for valuations, because so many of these make no sense.
@jorgesteingruber661 That is a really good idea! If they had to be accountable and explain why they gave a skill a particular rating, then I think it could help bring more nuance to the code of points as having to provide a breakdown justifying why you gave one skill a higher valuation over another and show why the current code of points doesn’t make sense by valuing uneven bar transitions with one twist the same as a transition with one and a half twists.
so the regular butterfly is valued at B and the butterfly with a full twist is valued at.. B? it's not even the front support landing because the Moerz and a pike jump 1/1 are both C, the FIG sucks at promoting individuality
My fav is the Adasteindottir because it's a skill I made up for my imaginary Hungarian gymnast in 2003. ... ...Her name was Sonja Tenkova She also did Shaposhnikova to in-bar Deltchev and pike Fan dismount...all before these trends were in use. I'm the kind of gymnastics nerd that has always had one or two imaginary gymnasts that I make up careers and routines for in my head when I get bored.
I can’t even picture an in-bar Delchev. How would you get in position to release the bar at the right time with momentum in the right direction?! I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a toe on Delchev. Anyone?
@@tasty_diva Oh gosh no. In my head I've made up, "competed" and designed routines for gymnasts since I was a kid. Just when I'm bored and killing time and my mind wanders, I kind of add to the gymnast I'm currently working on in my mind. It started in the 90s when I was injured with a fractured foot. I did a current one first, but then made up a Hungarian who competed 75-84 and won 1980 vault title before pulling an Annia Hatch and switching to the USA for 83 and 84. Then an American named Sasha Turner who was kind of the USA answer to Boguinskaya. Not the most powerful gymnast, but clean and fluid with razor toe point and unique skills ; there was a member of the Mag7 named Sara Tinereii who did Yurchenko 1/2-on front tuck 1/1 off on VT, mounting UB with an Arabian FHS to handstand on low bar...yeah...anyway. that's the kind of gym nerd I am.
@ I have a spreadsheet with an alternate code of points featuring named skills from fictional gymnasts I made up, some from a country I invented too 😭. I used to run fully fictional competions a few years back, but now I don’t have the time. Favourite skills I had them compete were an aerial cartwheel beam mount, a piked tkachev 1/2 and a 1.5 double layout on floor. Anna Berezova deserved better!
B skills should be named in the CoP. It provides a basis for gymnasts to "invent" a new skill by adding some technical difficulties out of these skills.
I really love the Adalsteinsdottir and have enjoyed it each time I've seen it so far. If they could make it an F, it would encourage more gymnasts to train it. For me personally, the Gebeshian mount looks so much better than the Petrova. Without touching the low bar, there's a bit of an in-air "sag" that looks messy to me. Utilizing the low bar also helps control the swing and form upon catching. I have a suspicion the Petrova will be one of the many skills where someone else will come along and do it more cleanly than the person it's named for, and maybe that will change my opinion of it. The Esponda works for me when she immediately connects into something else. It'll be nice in a high-energy, up-tempo FX.
Heron appears to be a powerful gymnast. Though she would be an even more successful one if she equally focused on her form - flexed feet and leg separations being the main issues. I'm rooting for her.
What i love about these is that three of them are *actually unique* new skills. I feel that lately they aren't new skills anymore, they are new combinations of two existing skills. The Adalsteinsdottir, for instance, is a Wieler into a Jaeger. Does that make it less cool, of course not, but I still don't see it as a new skill. But i am happy to hear other perspectives. ❤
The Petrova is a Gebeshian without low bar support, so that's another example of something not being completely original. I agree that it's a lot more fun when things are truly new, but it's so rare now.
Wasn’t Shilese Jones training a Heron? I seem to recall her wanting to have that skill named for herself but she didn’t get around to competing it at Worlds.
To be honest---though it is cool to freshen things up a bit with interesting new skills (and I don't know the reason it seems SO MANY current gymnasts REPEAT the SAME skills as other gymnasts---can anyone explain the "Wolf Turn" overload??? 🤔)---I don't get WHERE & WHY the originality of individual gymnasts disappeared to begin with. When u view gymnastics routines from decades ago---it seemed as if they were all different from one another & really cool to watch. The were exciting and you didn't see "everybody" executing the SAME skills. The ones featured in this vid, were kind of "yawn" worthy, though I did kind of like the uneven p.b. one...
Wolf turn is FIG's favourite turn. While it's difficult, it has no technical requirement like other turns. Gymnasts are penalized by *not doing a wolf turn* in the D score on floor. The point system is designed to find gymnasts who are more talented, not gymnasts who have originality. Simone Biles was a unique example to incorporate difficulty and originality (no one else can do) to win. Sanne Wevers was a unique example to have originality and refreshing style to win.
Well, the Jesus II, at least. The Jesus I already exists - it's where you stand on the high bar, T-pose, and then fall to your death, only to return and finish the routine three days later. It's rated H - but should probably be higher, because Resurrection skills are REALLY hard, and only a select handful of gymnasts can do it at all. Sorry in advance for this VERY stupid joke, I couldn't resist 😅
Given how each of these named skills were evaluated, I'm not convinced this will lead to a run on newer skills. All of them could've easily been rated 1 or 2 tenths higher, but the WTC chose to lowball all of them. If innovation isn't going to be rewarded, people are going to stick to the tried and true.
The Women's Technical Committee has to give final approval to all submitted skills, and they (sadly, but correctly) determined that Zhang shouldn't have received layout credit in Cottbus where she'd gotten it provisionally named. To receive layout credit in a Tkatchev, your feet have to get under or behind your hips as you travel over the bar, and her feet were in front of her hips , so it should've received piked credit. She's definitely shown in training that she's capable of getting layout credit though, so I'm willing to bet she'll get it named soon.
Idk about the Heron… you mean women have competed double doubles, full ins, and now triple doubles all before someone thought to do a 1.5 double? I find that very unlikely. This had to have been a skill already…
They have to officially submit it to get it named after yourself so things can have been done before but the gymnast didn't want to submit it or they thought it was a routine already used by someone before or something like that. I thought the Heron wasn't a particularly pretty move even though the technical aspects are impressive.
@ I get that I’m just very surprised. I thought the same thing about the Biles (double lay half). The Moors (double double laid out) existed for nearly a decade before the Biles. Even though you can’t learn the Moors without first doing the Biles. So the skill was definitely being done regularly in training for decades before Biles “invented” it.
Gymnasts have been training and competing the double tuck 1.5 for quite some time. London Phillips competed it in the US (along with a double layout 1/2, now the Biles I). Since then, gymnasts like Rebeca Andrade, Shilese Jones, and Joscelyn Roberson have all competed the skill, just never at a name-eligible competition. The problem is that it's really never been worth it to compete, as it's arguably at least as difficult as the double double, especially with the blind landing, but it was always going to be rated lower. So every gymnast who could do the double tuck 1.5 ended up dropping it.
You can now become a Patreon member and support this channel for as little as a 1$/month. Your contribution will be deeply appreciated. Thank you so much 💛 patreon.com/gymnasticsmasterclass
I’m obsessed with the Petrova. It reminds me of the unique skills and mounts from old school gymnastics and I love how mesmerizing it looks.
That mount only being a D rating is why no one will train and perform it. That should be an E in my uneducated opinion haha
@@CameronD123 It should definitely be an E based on precedent within the code. The stretch jump with hand support is a B, the stretch jump without hand support is a C, the stretch jump 1/1 with hand support is a D, so the natural progression would be for the stretch jump 1/1 without hand support to be an E.
The WTC should be required to release their justification for valuations, because so many of these make no sense.
@jorgesteingruber661 That is a really good idea! If they had to be accountable and explain why they gave a skill a particular rating, then I think it could help bring more nuance to the code of points as having to provide a breakdown justifying why you gave one skill a higher valuation over another and show why the current code of points doesn’t make sense by valuing uneven bar transitions with one twist the same as a transition with one and a half twists.
It looks like it will draw mega deductions though. It is pretty.
I love the Sayer, even though it's only rated C. It brings back some originality and looks cool.
Love the creativity of the Esponda because it makes dance and floor refreshing, interesting and fun!
The Petrova is amazing. It’s great to see a return to bar mounts.
I'm so impressed new skills are still being discovered. You'd think by now everything and anything has already been done.
so the regular butterfly is valued at B and the butterfly with a full twist is valued at.. B? it's not even the front support landing because the Moerz and a pike jump 1/1 are both C, the FIG sucks at promoting individuality
It's not a butterfly with a full twist, it's just a regular butterfly to front support.
@@jorgesteingruber661 a regular butterfly does not include a 360 turn like that
this channel is so good, for lifelong gymnastics fans and newcomers alike. thanks!
I really like the Esponda. Wish athletes get to have moves named after name regardless of the difficulty rating.
My fav is the Adasteindottir because it's a skill I made up for my imaginary Hungarian gymnast in 2003. ...
...Her name was Sonja Tenkova She also did Shaposhnikova to in-bar Deltchev and pike Fan dismount...all before these trends were in use. I'm the kind of gymnastics nerd that has always had one or two imaginary gymnasts that I make up careers and routines for in my head when I get bored.
I can’t even picture an in-bar Delchev. How would you get in position to release the bar at the right time with momentum in the right direction?! I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a toe on Delchev. Anyone?
@@jesb3973 My bad. I meant to say _in-between-bar_ Deltchev. As in the way post Shaposh Geingers are being done _toward_ the low bar.
i thought i has the only person who did this 😭
@@tasty_diva Oh gosh no. In my head I've made up, "competed" and designed routines for gymnasts since I was a kid. Just when I'm bored and killing time and my mind wanders, I kind of add to the gymnast I'm currently working on in my mind. It started in the 90s when I was injured with a fractured foot. I did a current one first, but then made up a Hungarian who competed 75-84 and won 1980 vault title before pulling an Annia Hatch and switching to the USA for 83 and 84. Then an American named Sasha Turner who was kind of the USA answer to Boguinskaya. Not the most powerful gymnast, but clean and fluid with razor toe point and unique skills ; there was a member of the Mag7 named Sara Tinereii who did Yurchenko 1/2-on front tuck 1/1 off on VT, mounting UB with an Arabian FHS to handstand on low bar...yeah...anyway. that's the kind of gym nerd I am.
@ I have a spreadsheet with an alternate code of points featuring named skills from fictional gymnasts I made up, some from a country I invented too 😭. I used to run fully fictional competions a few years back, but now I don’t have the time. Favourite skills I had them compete were an aerial cartwheel beam mount, a piked tkachev 1/2 and a 1.5 double layout on floor. Anna Berezova deserved better!
B skills should be named in the CoP. It provides a basis for gymnasts to "invent" a new skill by adding some technical difficulties out of these skills.
The Petrova is so cool!!
I really love the Adalsteinsdottir and have enjoyed it each time I've seen it so far. If they could make it an F, it would encourage more gymnasts to train it.
For me personally, the Gebeshian mount looks so much better than the Petrova. Without touching the low bar, there's a bit of an in-air "sag" that looks messy to me. Utilizing the low bar also helps control the swing and form upon catching. I have a suspicion the Petrova will be one of the many skills where someone else will come along and do it more cleanly than the person it's named for, and maybe that will change my opinion of it.
The Esponda works for me when she immediately connects into something else. It'll be nice in a high-energy, up-tempo FX.
I wish we could see more elements like Esponda on floor. It looks amazing!
i love the petrova it reminds me of how they used to do gymnastics in the late 20th century
I love all of these! Innovation makes me happy :)
I love all the new skills, so creative
For me, it's a tossup between the Petrova and the Sayer.
So the Petrova is basically a Gebeshian mount without hand support on the low bar?
I love the care you always take to pronounce gtmnasts' names correctly 💖
Heron appears to be a powerful gymnast. Though she would be an even more successful one if she equally focused on her form - flexed feet and leg separations being the main issues. I'm rooting for her.
There's a lot of frustration amongst fans that Carlos Rafael Gil isn't giving her the coaching she needs. He's a good coach but she needs a great one.
What i love about these is that three of them are *actually unique* new skills. I feel that lately they aren't new skills anymore, they are new combinations of two existing skills. The Adalsteinsdottir, for instance, is a Wieler into a Jaeger. Does that make it less cool, of course not, but I still don't see it as a new skill. But i am happy to hear other perspectives. ❤
The Petrova is a Gebeshian without low bar support, so that's another example of something not being completely original. I agree that it's a lot more fun when things are truly new, but it's so rare now.
Finally mount on bars is comeback Petrovas is soo pretty.
These skills look like old school gymnastics it looks beautiful
The full twist over low bar to hang is actually a skill named after Houry Gabeshian from Armenia. She did it in 2016 Olympics at age 28.
These are all so awesome! The head kip
As an Australian, I absolutely ❤ the Sayer! 🇦🇺🦘
Petrova looks so cool
These are really cool! I hope artistry makes a comeback but I'm not holding my breath. I can't wait to see this next quad.
Obsessed with the Sayer
I really liked the last one. It reminded me more of the old days
The Esponda is so cool!!!
These are great!!!
Hillary Heron is such a rising star ❤
I'm surprised the Petrova and the Sayer were given such high value.
ياروحي كل مشاركات جميلات حبي مووووت ❤❤❤
Can i know the difference between the petrova and the gabeshian?? The full twisting mount
Petrova - does not touch the low bar
Gebeshian - touches the low bar
@gymnasticsmasterclass ouhhh i see
Is it possible to connect the Adalsteinsdóttir to any skill?
As far as connections that would actually get CV, you could probably connect a Pak out of it
@@jorgesteingruber661 Thanks a lot!!
Isn’t full twist jump bars mount named after houry? Or am i getting mixed up
Houry touches the low bar on her way to the high bar
Wasn’t Shilese Jones training a Heron? I seem to recall her wanting to have that skill named for herself but she didn’t get around to competing it at Worlds.
She trained it but never competed it at any international FIG competition
Same with Joscelyn Roberson, who's in the video. I think Heron beat her to it in international competition; Josc only did it domestically.
@@SweetSireniaRebe trained that skill too but never did it in a FIG meet
I believe the skill carries the Jones name in the US JO code.
Faltou o Andrade 🤩 A princípio o Heron era também pra ser um Andrade mas a Rebeca não executa mais por conta do joelho
The last gymnast got ripped off. That is very cool and she should get credit for it.
didn't Khorkina do a version of the last skill in her floor routine in 2000?
Khorkina did a hop 1.5 to front support, which is very similar, but it rotates in the opposite direction and is a hop instead of a leap.
@@jorgesteingruber661 thank you
To be honest---though it is cool to freshen things up a bit with interesting new skills (and I don't know the reason it seems SO MANY current gymnasts REPEAT the SAME skills as other gymnasts---can anyone explain the "Wolf Turn" overload??? 🤔)---I don't get WHERE & WHY the originality of individual gymnasts disappeared to begin with. When u view gymnastics routines from decades ago---it seemed as if they were all different from one another & really cool to watch. The were exciting and you didn't see "everybody" executing the SAME skills. The ones featured in this vid, were kind of "yawn" worthy, though I did kind of like the uneven p.b. one...
Wolf turn is FIG's favourite turn. While it's difficult, it has no technical requirement like other turns. Gymnasts are penalized by *not doing a wolf turn* in the D score on floor. The point system is designed to find gymnasts who are more talented, not gymnasts who have originality. Simone Biles was a unique example to incorporate difficulty and originality (no one else can do) to win. Sanne Wevers was a unique example to have originality and refreshing style to win.
The HERON should have been the "Jesus" if the Brazilian gymnast Merly de Jesus had submitted back in 2001
Well, the Jesus II, at least. The Jesus I already exists - it's where you stand on the high bar, T-pose, and then fall to your death, only to return and finish the routine three days later. It's rated H - but should probably be higher, because Resurrection skills are REALLY hard, and only a select handful of gymnasts can do it at all.
Sorry in advance for this VERY stupid joke, I couldn't resist 😅
Faves are Petrova and Sayer.
im really excited! i have found routines to be super boring - especially beam.
All beautiful-
Given how each of these named skills were evaluated, I'm not convinced this will lead to a run on newer skills. All of them could've easily been rated 1 or 2 tenths higher, but the WTC chose to lowball all of them. If innovation isn't going to be rewarded, people are going to stick to the tried and true.
First one isn't that new. Latter part was being done in 1976. The Esponda was cool.
What happened to the Zhang??
Not recognized because it's technically not a layout.
The Women's Technical Committee has to give final approval to all submitted skills, and they (sadly, but correctly) determined that Zhang shouldn't have received layout credit in Cottbus where she'd gotten it provisionally named. To receive layout credit in a Tkatchev, your feet have to get under or behind your hips as you travel over the bar, and her feet were in front of her hips , so it should've received piked credit.
She's definitely shown in training that she's capable of getting layout credit though, so I'm willing to bet she'll get it named soon.
0:34 esse elemento já não havia sido executado em 2016?
Idk about the Heron… you mean women have competed double doubles, full ins, and now triple doubles all before someone thought to do a 1.5 double? I find that very unlikely. This had to have been a skill already…
They have to officially submit it to get it named after yourself so things can have been done before but the gymnast didn't want to submit it or they thought it was a routine already used by someone before or something like that. I thought the Heron wasn't a particularly pretty move even though the technical aspects are impressive.
@ I get that I’m just very surprised. I thought the same thing about the Biles (double lay half). The Moors (double double laid out) existed for nearly a decade before the Biles. Even though you can’t learn the Moors without first doing the Biles. So the skill was definitely being done regularly in training for decades before Biles “invented” it.
Gymnasts have been training and competing the double tuck 1.5 for quite some time. London Phillips competed it in the US (along with a double layout 1/2, now the Biles I). Since then, gymnasts like Rebeca Andrade, Shilese Jones, and Joscelyn Roberson have all competed the skill, just never at a name-eligible competition.
The problem is that it's really never been worth it to compete, as it's arguably at least as difficult as the double double, especially with the blind landing, but it was always going to be rated lower. So every gymnast who could do the double tuck 1.5 ended up dropping it.
Is pointing your toes passé or something? None of these gymnasts bothered.
Esponda nitidamente copiou o elemento que já existe da Svetlana khorkina
please the old ub mounts again, we need some originality.
Glad to see…gets boring seeing the same routines over and over.