gymn Digest Thu, 10 Feb 94 Volume 2 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
Bits & Pieces (3 msgs)
Buckeye Classic Preview
Huston again
Larissa Fontaine (2 msgs)
More Bits & Pieces
smorgasbord
Trivia Set #11, topic

This is a digest of the gymn@athena.mit.edu mailing list.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 21:59:05 -0500 (EST)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: Bits & Pieces

1984 Mens Olympic team beat the then ranked number one team in the
world- the Chinese. They had taken the number one ranking from the
Soviets earlier that year. Don't take anythng away from the
acomplishment of the men's 84 team. They performed. In team comp
(comp1) they hit something like 68 of 72 routines. If the soviets had
been there it would have been an interesting meet but they we not and
the USA Men did a fantastic job. This was the final triumph of a rise
that started with the 3rd place finish in the World Champs in 79 in
Dallas. The problem today is keeping kids interested in the sport. We
need to keep kids in the gym at a young age. If the NCAA program goes
we lose ypoung kids too. Less gymnasts=less
coaches,officials,interested parents! We need to get the sport back
into the public school physical education programs throughout the
country.
The mens code is not that difficult to understand. Here's a quick
breakdown: Difficulty - 2.4 point- 1d=.6 2c@.4 each=.8 3b@ .2 each=.6
4a@ .1 each=.4 =2.4

Special Requirements- each event has 3 special requirements at .4 each

Fx rearward tumbling series containing c element
forward tumbling series containing b element
Balance on one arm or one leg

Ph b on each end (leave one out .4 deduction reqiurement is both or none!)
move with 3 hand placements on one pommel
2 scissors

SR C swing hand
B strength handstand
b static strength move

PB b through support
b through hang or peach (underbars)on 2 rails
b release of both hands and regrasp

HB b in bar skill
b flight
b move in or out of dorsal grip

Only one move can meet one requirement. If a move could meet two, you only
get one of them. Code specifies which skills meet which requirements. Not up
to the judge. If the code says a skill does not meet a special requirement it
does not.

Exercise presentation= 5.4 points - This is all the old combination
deductions,intermediate swings,routine construction ect. and all the execution
deductions.

Total = 9.0
Bonus = 1.0

Bonus .1 for each d skill
.2 for each e skill
as long as there is not a large error (.4 deduction) on the skill

.2 of the 1.0 can be connection bonus D+E= .2
c+d= .1

E skills have no value of their own- can replace any skill and good for
bonus

Hope this gives you a QUICK (and I repeat Quick) overview of the new Men's
Code of points!!


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 1994 22:35:38 -0700 (MST)
From: ***@sosi.com
Subject: Bits & Pieces

>
> 1984 Mens Olympic team beat the then ranked number one team in the world- the
> Chinese. They had taken the number one ranking from the Soviets earlier that
> year. Don't take anythng away from the acomplishment of the men's 84 team.
> They performed. In team comp (comp1) they hit something like 68 of 72
> routines. If the soviets had been there it would have been an interesting
> meet but they we not and the USA Men did a fantastic job. This was the final
> triumph of a rise that started with the 3rd place finish in the World Champs
> in 79 in Dallas. The problem today is keeping kids interested in the sport.
> We need to keep kids in the gym at a young age. If the NCAA program goes we
> lose ypoung kids too. Less gymnasts=less coaches,officials,interested parents!
> We need to get the sport back into the public school physical education
> programs throughout the country.
> The mens code is not that difficult to understand. Here's a quick
> breakdown:
> Difficulty - 2.4 point- 1d=.6 2c@.4 each=.8 3b@ .2 each=.6 4a@ .1 each=.4 =2.4
>
> Special Requirements- each event has 3 special requirements at .4 each
> Special Requirements- each event has 3 special requirements at .4 each
>
> Fx rearward tumbling series containing c element
> forward tumbling series containing b element
> Balance on one arm or one leg
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I've wondered, why do they have this requirement? It seems kinda silly to
me to see a male gymnast do this incredible, jaw-dropping tumbling and
then go to a corner and hold his leg up for a few seconds. Talk about
a continuity break, as George noted. Also, like anyone would choose to
balance on one arm rather than one leg. (_Has_ anyone done this?)

> Bonus .1 for each d skill
> .2 for each e skill
> as long as there is not a large error (.4 deduction) on the skill
>
> .2 of the 1.0 can be connection bonus D+E= .2
> c+d= .1

Another thing I've wondered:
What's to stop a gymnast from doing twice as many D elements and no E
elements? (ie, get 1.0 in bonus from only D's or C+D transitions). It
would seem to be much less risky and you could theoretically start from a
10. Right?

Andy

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:10:22 -0500 (EST)
From: ***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: Bits & Pieces

There is nothing to stop a gymnast from doing d skills to get bonus but since
you can only get .2 for connection bonus that means doing at least 8 d skills.
D's are still difficult even though they are easier than E's!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 16:18:44 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Buckeye Classic Preview

Hey Gymn,

Received information today about the Buckeye Classic:

What:
The 1994 Red Roof Inns Buckeye Classic is the world's largest women's
gymnastics competition featuring USA National and Canadian National gymnasts.
This is the 11th Annual competition.

When:
Fri. Feb 18 9:30am to 10:30pm
Sat. Feb 19 9:30am to 10:00pm (International welcome ceremony 4:45pm_
Sun. Feb 20 9:30am to 7:00pm (Open Finals at 2:20pm)

Where:
The Celeste Center at The Ohio State Fairgrounds
717 East 17th Ave.
Columbus, OH 43211

Who:
More than 2,000 female gymnasts from 136 US and Canadian teams, including:
Kellee Davis (7th USA, American Twisters), Jenni Beathard (8th USA, Brown's),
and Kim Arnold (13th USA, Desert Devils). Also Yvonne Tousek (1993 National
Champion of Canada).

Title Sponsor:
Red Roof Inns continues it's role as the primary sponsor of the Buckeye
Classic.

How much:
All-day admission price: $8 adults, $6 children
Call (614) 895-1611

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 02:10:45 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Huston again

Talked to USAG today. Huston is in pretty good shape... he now has feeling
all over his body. I was told that it was a "very good outlook".

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 15:41:33 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Larissa Fontaine

In response to Rachele's request, an analysis of Larissa Fontaine's bars
routine:

First, I should say I didn't see Fontaine's official start value; this
is my calculation (but it makes sense, considering her final score).
Second, I should emphasize that I'm talking about *Competition III*
(finals) requirements. She would start at a 10.0 in Competitions Ib
and II.

The base score is a 9.4. To start at a 9.4 in C-III, the gymnast has
to do: 2 B's, 1 C, and 2 D's, plus special requirements: two flight
elements, three bar changes, a change of direction (excluding mount
and dismount), and a D dismount. Then there is 0.6 bonus. That's
broken down into 0.3 maximum for special connections and 0.3 maximum
for extra D's and E's. C+C and C+D get 0.1 if the C's either turn or
have flight. D+D get 0.2 (E's can replace D's in special connections
but the bonus is the same). Extra D's are worth 0.1 and extra E's are
worth 0.2.

Larissa's set had a Tkatchev-Gienger-flyaway to LB combination, a
"wrong-way" Tkatchev, and her 1/2-in dismount. A Tkatchev is a D, a
Gienger is a D. Her flyaway to LB should have been at most C (it's not
in the Code, or at least I can't find it), because the "Pak" salto,
which is a D, is a flyaway to *handstand* on the LB, which Larissa's
flyaway clearly wasn't. I don't know what her dismount was worth,
because it's not in the Code either. It might be in the USGF element
supplement (as might the flyaway to LB), but I don't have that with
me. In any case, I can't imagine it's more than a D or less than a C.
(Note-when a gymnast is going to do something not in the Code, she
submits it to whomever is in charge of the judging, and they assign it
a provisional value. The USGF takes care of some of this, though, with
its element supplement, which is a Code of moves not in the FIG code,
including both difficult, original tricks and easy ones, like squat
vaults).

Given these values, and assuming the dismount is a D, she has a D+D+C
series and two more D's. All the minimum difficulty and special
requirements are fulfilled. For bonus, she has 0.2 for the D+D and 0.1
for the D+C (A series of 3 elements can be split up like this with the
middle element counting twice). So she has the full 0.3 in special
connections. However, she has only 2 *additional* D's at 0.1 each, so
she gets 0.2 in extra D's, which, added to her 9.4 base and 0.3 for
connections totals a 9.9 start value.

If her dismount was a C (which is what it would be if it were up to
me), then
1) her base is a 9.3, because she's missing the D dismount
requirement, which is -0.1, and 2) she has only 1 additional D. So, to
the 9.3 would be added 0.3 in special connections and 0.1 in
additional D's, giving her only a 9.7 start value.

If her dismount were an E, or if it were a D *and* one of her other
tricks were an E or she had a fifth D somewhere, then she'd start from
a 10.0.

I hope this was clear enough. : P

As to Michelle Campi's beam, I don't know everything that's in it, so
I can't say what the start value is and why, but on the subject of the
ff-layout-1/2, that's only a B+C if she turns on her foot, no
different than just a plain ff-layout. If she turned before landing,
then the layout would be a D, which might make a difference.

Another thing is that whether a gymnast gets bonus depends on
execution as well. If she has 0.2 or more in deductions, she doesn't
get bonus. And if she doesn't have enough amplitude or doesn't
complete the required twists (this is usually in the case of dance
elements, but also with triple fulls, for ex.), the move might be
devalued and not get bonus. Even if a gymnast does, say, a D+D
combination but one of the D's is devalued to a C, she does not get
any bonus that a C+D combination might have. Devalued tricks get no
bonus, period. There are fine-line judgment calls to be made. If she's
trying a triple full and does 2 3/4, it' devalued. If she does 2 1/2,
then it's not a devalued triple, but just a regular, non-devalued 2
1/2. Another thing: if a move, say a leap, is devalued, then it
shouldn't get deducted for lack of amplitude. Thing is, the person
calculating the start value might devalue the move, but the other
judges might think it retains the value but should be deducted a
little for lack of amplitude or whatever, so the gymnast might both
have the move devalued *and* get points deducted -- there's no way for
the judges to know what the STC (scientific technical collaborator,
person who calculates the start value) did and vice-versa.

Is this too confusing? : P again.

More on other threads of discussion later -- I need to get some
reading done!

: )
Gimnasta

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 22:58:16 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Larissa Fontaine

My head is spinning...

Let's hope we all have a new respect for judges now.

Despite the intricacy of the items involved, I think that once I sat
down and gave myself time to read Gimnasta's msg line by line... It
actually made some sense.

Anyway, one question I had. Gimnasta remarked that if the value of the
dismount were left up to her, that she would put it at a C. I was a
little surprised by that. Didn't Fontaine do a half twist to double
front? Isn't a double front an E? Do you think that an E is too high
for a double front, or does releasing from back giants make the skill
that much easier that you would take it all the way down to a C?

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 10:40:42 -0500 (EST)

From: <brucet@dorsai.dorsai.org>

Subject: More Bits & Pieces

Ok, a couple of things:

1. One arm handstands have been used to meet this requirement in the
past.(balance move was an old combination requirement.). Japanese used
to do a slow press to one arm handstand! (1960's & 70's)

2. I don't believe the 1984 victory was hollow. The Chinese team was
superb and we beat them. I'm sure the soviets would have taken some
medels but this is all speculation. I'm comfortable saying that the
USA won the gold and beat the #1 ranked team in the world at the time.
I think those of you that say it was a hollow victory are doing a
great disservice to the team, members and the coaching staff. The guys
hit a very high percentage of routines, give them credit for what they
did!

3. Ok, so people are sue happy. Football is potetially as dangerous if
not more so than gymnastics. Football has more prestige, more
opportuinty for scholarships andrevenue and services more people.
Gymnastics is still in some scholls physical education programs. Some
of these schools still have competitive programs (mens and/or womens).
The solution to the lawyers is to have competent people to teach
gymnastics. The less people exposed to gymn the fewer people that come
back to the sport especially as parents that understand the sport and
are not afraid to get their kids involved in the sport. What about
things like being safety certified? What about having been taught how
to teach gymnastics in a competent college teacher preparation
program? Too many colleges don't teach how to teach gymnastics to
potential physical education teachers. Gymnastics is difficult to
teach and too many teachers want the easy way out.Why set up the
equipment when roling out a ball is so much easier and safer?! When
was the last time you saw a fist fight during a gymnastics class? I'm
sure statistics would show more fights happen during a phys. ed.
basketball unit than a gymnastics unit! Let's be real here-too many
programs die because it's the easiest thing to do. The cost of the
sport is no greater than others. Outfit 30 or 40 football players. Ok
maybe cheaper at first than gym equipment but what about
reconditioning tha is REQUIRED of football equipment every couple of
years? Gymnastics equipment lasts for a while if maintained correctly.
Tex takes the easy way out claiming lawsuits are the reason we can't
get gymnasstics back into phys ed programs. What about USA Gymnastics
(or the USGF if you will)? They are missing the boat. They need to be
working in this direction. You need to expose as many kids as possible
to the sport and the best place to do that is in the public schools.
The more kids that try the sport the more kids that may like it and go
to a club to get more. If they are not exposed to the activity they
will get involved in one they are exposed to and then the circle
continues- les people involved to bring lees people into the sport in
the future. There are still schools that try but they need help. USA
Gymnastics needs to get involved with the schools!!!

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Feb 94 19:00:29 PST
From: ***@hydrogen.geoworks.com
Subject: smorgasbord

> Someone please post what comprises a Gaylord1 & a gaylord2.

In a minute, I've got to answer your next question first...

> I have seen some dismounts that looked like: back swing, shoot legs
> between your arms, legs over the bar, the rest of you follows, you bounce
> your butt off the top of the bar and land on your feet. Someone called
> this a gaylord.

Ouch! Not even close. I think I know (and have seen) what you are
talking about, but a Gaylord (of either variety) is a release move,
not a dismount... :)

Now as for the description, first let me work up to it, which makes
the description easier and informs anyone who might not know some of
these other moves (Andy (hof@sosi.com), please put this in the FAQ if
it is helpful):

Jaeger:

A Jaeger (pronounced "Yayger") is a release move on high bar that
starts with front giants (palm up, thumbs to the outside). On the
upswing the gymnast lets go of the bar, does a front flip and catches
the bar on the way down, reversing their direction and grip.

(o is the bar, 0 is the head of the gymnast, direction of the
gymnast's face is ->)

o o ----0-o |/| o 0|/| o 0 ----0-o o o
| / 0 |/| o / |
0 0 0 0
| / / |
| / / |


A Gienger is very similar to a Jaeger, but starts from a regular
giant, and releases like a flyaway. Because it starts like a back
flip, a half turn is required to be facing the bar on the way down.

(No picture, as ASCII is not convienient to show twisting...)

So a Jaeger is a front flip regrasp, and a Gienger is a back flip
with a half twist regrasp. Occasionally you will see a 1 1/2 Gienger,
but they are rare (when doing a Gienger, because of the half twist,
you can actually see the bar during the entire move. With a 1 1/2 you
are pretty blind).

Those are the easy ones :)


A Kovacs starts in a regular giant, and releases very high on the
upswing. A full back flip is done in the air as the gymnast travels
over the bar (in the direction of the giant), and the bar is regrasped
with the gymnast swinging down in the same grip.

(o is the bar, 0 is the head of the gymnast, direction of the
gymnast's face is <-)

o o 0
| / _\ __ |\| __ _/
0 0 \ 0 /_ /_0 /
| / ----0-o 0 0
| / o o o o o o-0----



OK, hope that picture worked out OK...

A Gaylord (or Gaylord I) can be thought of as a Jaeger where you go
over the bar and continue in front giants: A front giant releasing to
a front flip over the bar and regrasping to continue the front giant.

A Gaylord II is a like a Gaylord I but it starts from a Gienger, not
a Jaeger, so you could think of it as a Gienger that continues over
the bar.

Both of these can be compared to the Kovacs, as all three do a full
flip over the bar and continue in into giants. I've even seen Tony
Pineda do a "Gaylord II with a half twist", which I suppose one could
call a full twisting Kovacs.
(misc. trivia: He once missed the catch with one hand but held on to
complete the move with one arm. Needless to say, I was impressed ;)

I've found that people doing Gaylord I or IIs don't have the height
that people doing a Kovacs do. When regrasping in the under grip you
can see the bar and have more leway (because of the way your shoulders
bend) to get yourself over the bar. For this reason I don't really
think of a Gaylord I as a front Kovacs or a Gaylord II as a Kovacs
with a half twist. Catching in the overgrip (Kovacs, Pineda) requires
your body to be much farther over the bar. This paragraph was in no
way meant to indicate either of the Gaylord's are in any way easy...

As far as being dangerous, as long as either of the Gaylord's are
overthrown, they are quite safe. If the gymnast misses, they are
rotating towards their feet, clear of the bar. The only time it
becomes dangerous is when they are thrown like a Gienger or Jaeger,
and the gymnast has a chance of not clearing the bar (and instead
landing on top of it).

Sorry for the length of this one, hope it clears things up.

Dave
------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Feb 94 01:37:52 EST

From: ***@aol.com

Subject: Trivia Set #11, topic

It's been pointed out to me that I never posted the topic for Trivia
Set #11. I thought I did... either it just didn't come through or my
memory fails (probably the latter).

Anyway, the topic for Trivia Set #11 is "Smorgasbord". (You'll notice
I stole that name from Gimnasta's post. Thought it was too good to
pass up.) This means that anything and everything goes. So, if you
have any good trivia questions (and answers), send them my way
(***@aol.com).

Please note that trivia questions do not have to be historical. They
can be judging items, training questions, and so forth.

Since we've had this delay, the questions for #11 will be posted on
Tuesday of next week. (Will I ever stay on schedule? Maybe I shouldn't
try.)

Rachele

------------------------------

End of gymn Digest
******************************