I have been asked to make this document available to download to read and make comments on and then return here to post ideas and comments. So, here you go. Again as a reminder this is not a proposal just ideas and discussions that are forming as to how the present code of points could be improved and refined for the 2009-2012 Quad. 2009-12codeofpointsideasbz-_3.docThanks for everyone’s comments so far, let’s get other coaches to visit here and read the ideas and add their own.
The Coachsinternetcafe’s Blog
-
Recent Comments
davegymnastics on Artistic Gymnastics VS The… joshlevin on 2009-2012 Codes Ideas – … joshlevin on 2009-2012 Code of Points … Mike Burns on 2009-2012 Codes Ideas – … coachsinternetcafe on 2009-2012 Codes Ideas – …
Just as it was stated above, High Bar and Pommel Horse are the lower scoring events. Why? For two reasons. Because the amount of skills in the “E” and “F” columns are much less(Pommel Horse) or are much more difficult or dangerous (High Bar). The easiest way to balance this out is to re-evaluate both Highbar and pommel horse and start at the “F” valued skills first. Start by assigning “F” values to an even amount of skills on Pommel Horse as there are on Rings or Parallel bars. Granted there are not many “F” value skills to choose from in the first place, but the numbers don’t lie. Each event broken down:
Floor: F value = 8 Skills
Pommel Horse: F value = 0 Skills
Rings: F value = 5 Skills
Parallel Bars: F value = 7 Skills
High Bar: F value = 8 skills
From this you see why in my opinion that Pommel horse should either be re-evaluated on values or re-instate combinations such as on floor. Floor is also light on the difficulty side as far as skills, but with combinations and so forth it keeps up with the other events.
I then went a step further and added up the E valued skills in each:
Floor = 10
Pommel Horse = 9
Rings = 20
Parallel Bars = 16
High Bar = 17
Again, a large gap in options. Pommel Horse coming up with the short straw again. After a bit of thinking, I asked myself where are the majority of the “World” level routines coming from? C value and higher. So when I added all of those skills on each event, this is what I came up with:
Floor = 67
Pommel Horse = 59
Rings = 95
Parallel Bars = 98
High Bar = 91
This is a big difference between the numbers. Also take into consideration that 5 of the “F” valued skills on High Bar are releases and 3 are dismounts. This leaves us with 5 usable elements in the “F” value. Regardless of who you are, that would make for one hairy routine. However, chances are that that gymnast doing that routine would never win the event due to execution deductions. I mean really, how many Kolman’s have you seen done with zero deduction? Very few if any.
So my suggestions are:
1.) Re-evaluate the values on Pommel Horse or re-instate combination bonuses as on floor.
2.) Even out the options in the upper values on each event.
Comment by Dave — December 8, 2007 @ 4:03 pm |
Congratulations on a thorough and thought provoking article- my grey cells are working overtime with all the points raised:
I can’t agree with the main philosophy that all events need to be equal. Sure, vault is way off beam and needs to be brought into line by lowering start scores and being more severe on the deductions, but the other apparatus are reasonably together and, so long as we have specialists, will always throw up the odd high score. I make the point again that Decathlon has an open ended system and seems to be working with even greater variance between the disciplines.
The old 10 system had its faults too and was not as equal as some people might think. I remember some analysis from a World Championships just a few years ago that showed that pommels was by far the easiest piece to score 10 with many more gymnasts hitting the mark than on other apparatus. And vault scores always skewed the competition with proportionately higher marks than anywhere else. We suffered in the last Code with up to 8 gymnasts in a p bar final being separated by less than a tenth which, to a coach, did not do justice to each competitors ability. I do take the point that specialists can score high on their favoured piece which can cover a mediocre other event but is this any worse than a gymnast doing, in reality, far more than his 10 start gives him credit, only to be kept very close to his less able counterparts because of the artificial ceiling? The current code makes it harder for some teams who might before have had chances to be in the mix with super powers like China.
A nation would be at an advantage if it fielded a team of high level vaulters rather than a team of competent bar workers but, remember, these guys have to compete on 6 apparatus and the good vaulters will still, in most cases, have to swing around the horse. Every country will do this anyway! Italy, for example, have a strong team on rings and a big advantage, but they still have to do pommel- that is the beauty of our diverse sport. Romania field high scoring vaults and have a big advantage, but those guys still have to follow the same rules on bar as everyone else. We do not need the same number of difficult skills across the apparatus, nor do we need to streamline the special requirements BECAUSE THE RULES ARE THE SAME FOR EVERYBODY. Hambuchen is scoring above 16 on bar because he is brilliant at that piece and has found a way to minimise angular deductions by doing many releases. I am sure that in years to come many others will score above 16 also. If you analyze team totals from Stuttgart you will see that most teams have proportionately higher vault totals, and most teams have bar as their lowest result- why is this not fair?
Here are some of my thoughts for moving forward:
1. Relook at the difficulty tables- some elements are very wrong!
2. I agree that B Jury deductions should not be above the law and coaches have a right to query them. They need to be applied more strictly!
3. A=1 B=2 C=3 D=5 E=7 and so on.
4. Get rid of the 4 element rule.
5. Increase deduction for falling to avoid World Champions being able to win and still do so!
Thanks for all the stimulation- a wonderful idea to improve thi Code!
Comment by Paul — December 14, 2007 @ 6:26 pm |
Great comments are coming in and this opens the thinking process. It is really appreacited, I hope to see more coaches getting involved. It would be good to send in the most comman agreed changes to help in the development of the code. At this point there are no right or wrong answers just looking for input.
Comment by coachsinternetcafe — December 15, 2007 @ 10:17 pm |
The document prepared by Fystrom, Zunich, & Brant is very thorough in showing the differences in the events and the relative distribution of scores. It’s very interesting how each event has its own set of “issues” that need to be dealt with.
Coaches and gymnasts around the world are experts at maximixing the gymnast’s abilities to provide the best possible score at the conclusion of the exercise. I’m sure in every gym around the world there is a dog-eared Code of Points that has been looked through from cover to cover on a regular basis. With that said it is imperative that coaches and gymnasts both have input to the development of the next Code of Points.
In my opinion, there are a few areas that need to be considered in the next code. They are as follows:
1. Chronological order – this needs to be eliminated.
2. Connection bonus – why is it available on some events but not on others? Either use it on all 5 events or eliminate on all 5 events.
3. Values of skills – the difference between an E and an F skill should not be the same as the difference between an A and a B skill. The difficulty differential in performing these skills is too large at the upper end of the difficulty spectrum.
4. Vault start values are too high.
5. B panel deductions should be changed. The 0.2 deduction should be brought back. There is way too much of a swing in B panel scores if one judge sees 3 medium deductions while another sees 3 small deductions.
6. I like the idea of making a fall worth 1.0 as opposed to 0.8. I don’t like the idea of making falls different values based on the level of skill performed. Too complicated. A bigger deduction for a fall will hopefully create a higher hit percentage.
7. The Men’s Technical Committee should not be allowed to judge every routine on their video monitors and call down to the A1 judge and tell him to change the start values. If they want to run the show then they should be put back on the floor as the head judge and take the heat that was thrown on them in the 2004 Olympics. They sit on their thrones, off the floor, watching every routine, and second guess the A panels. Why do we need A panel judges if the TC is going to change scores as often as they have in the last two World Championships? The video review system should be used as that – a review system when an Inquiry is submitted by a coach; not as a system to manipulate the scores and then change the rules (the high bar invert rule from the 2006 Worlds).
8. Why are some events limited by A-panel rules such as pommel horse where you can only do 2 longitudinal travels and two russian skills, while on parallel bars you can flip to your upper arms as many times as you like? Why not limit the number of front uprises you can do on parallel bars?? High bar is another example of limiting factors. If you do a stalder rybalko to el-grip you may not do a stalder rybalko to mixed grip. Add to that the increased B-panel deductions and it’s easy to see why the scores stay low on these two events.
Paul, I really like your idea about being able to inquire about B-panel scores. This is where the most ‘funny games’ can be played with the biggest possible impact on the final standings. At the same time, if B-panel inquiries were allowed the meets would take forever because everyone would be submitting inquiries. The cost of each inquiry will limit it to a certain point but at this level whats a couple thousand dollars matter???
Thanks for all the great comments thus far and it’s good to know that people are passionate about the next step in the FIG Code of Points development. Whether we can get any of these ideas to the table is the next challenge. The bigger challenge is how to get a representative for the coaches on the FIG MTC.
Comment by Mike Burns — December 27, 2007 @ 7:20 pm |
I am worried that connection bonus will not lead to more exciting routines but rather every gymnast doing the same skills.
Now that there will be connection on P-bars, healy to straddle front 1 1/4 will be the new full tak to yamawaki. I like all of those skills, but I want to see diversity.
I don’t see how the 2.5 in special requirements helps the sport. Let the gymnast decide to do what ever 10 skills they want to do. That will create diversity in skill choice. One gymnast might go on P-bars and do 10 support skills and then the next guy might go up and do 10 underbar skills. I don’t want to see the same 10 skills being repeated by every gymnast.
Comment by joshlevin — July 23, 2008 @ 10:44 pm |