Tue, 15 Feb 94 Volume 2 :
[COL] GA v. UCLA results
Bits & Pieces (2 msgs)
Bud Wilkinson passes away
Clive nails Texx to the wall ! (2 msgs)
gymn judging (4 msgs)
Huston now in good condition
More Bits & More Pieces
Nutrition & sponsorship laws
This is a digest of the firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 03:55:24 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [COL] GA v. UCLA results
UCLA Head Coach Valerie Kondos staked her ground in the national
collegiate women's gymnastic arena: "It should come down to Georgia and
us; we are the top two teams to be reckoned with this season." The Lady
Bruins were certainly a force for Georgia to reckon with, going into
the final rotation within four tenths of a point -- the closest any
team has come to Georgia so late in a meet this season. In the past
two meets, the Lady Bulldogs have gone into the final event with very
comfortable leads -- two points over LSU, and two and a half over
Alabama -- and watched those leads be cut in half. Georgia responded
to the challenge, however, defeating UCLA 195.725 to 194.525.
After suffering falls for three straight meets, Georgia
freshman Leslie Angeles stayed on her beam routine and received a
perfect 10.0 on floor to tie for top honors in the All-Around with a
39.425. Senior Kelly Macy continues to sprint down the come-back
trail, winning both events in which she competed: bars (9.925) and
balance beam (9.825). Macy was the national champion bars worker as a
freshman, but has since struggled. Fellow senior Hope Spivey-Sheeley
fell on bars and stepped out on floor. Spivey-Sheeley, currently
ranked number one in the nation on the floor exercise, had been out of
town and was unable to practice most of the week. Also, during floor
warm-ups, junior Nneka Logan fell and suffered a strained Achilles
tendon, forcing her to miss competition.
UCLA's Kareema Marrow also tied for first in the All-Around,
scoring a 9.975 on a floor exercise which included a flawless double
back layout and four tumbling passes. She also performed three
connected switch leaps on balance beam and a piked double back dismount
on bars. Several girls on the team exhibited double turn to Poppa on
floor, but several of them also had trouble with leg separations on kip
to handstands. Another disappointment for UCLA was Liz Lahey, who fell
from beam three times during her routine. Still, Head Coach Scott Bull
remains optimistic. "Out of the 24 routines tonight, 14 were performed
by freshmen. We're extremely pleased with how [the team was] able to
perform. I definitely know that [the Georgia team] took notice; rarely
is Georgia in that position [of being followed so closely], and we're
very, very pleased that we were able to hang with them."
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:13:21 EST
Subject: Bits & Pieces
> 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?
It's not that much less risky. A D is still a difficult move, still easy to
fall on. Also, you're talking about trying numerous D's in just one
routine... that's a lot of opportunity to mess up. A Gaylord I is a D, and a
Gaylord II is an E. Would a gymnast rather risk throwing a Gaylord I twice
(two chances to mess up) or a Gaylord II once (one chance to mess up, but
higher risk)? I don't really know the answer to that, but I would guess that
a gymnast would do a Gaylord II.
Also another factor to consider is strength and stamina. A routine would be
considerably longer if a gymnast had to do twice as many D's... they'd have
to have incredible endurance. Plus it would just be wearing to have to psych
yourself up for that many more tricks.
These routines both add up to 1.0 of bonus on high bar (according to my
unofficial calculations-- Bruce, can you check it for me?). Which routine
would you rather do?
Tkatchev laid-out, Tkatchev, Gienger (2nd and 3rd release moves are
value-raised from C to D because they're consecutive flight elements)
D+D+D = .3 in difficulty
Special combination = .2 (first D+D=.1, second D+D=.1)
==>total for sequence = .5
Gaylord I (D)
==> .1 in diff.
C+D = .1 in diff.
Special combo = .1
==>total for seq. = .2
toe-on Tkatchev (D)
==> .1 in diff.
full-twisting double layout (D)
==> .1 in diff.
Tkatchev laid-out, Tkatchev, Gienger
==> total for sequence = .5
one-arm giant to Gienger (D)
double-twisting double layout (E)
OK, I *think* I calculated everything right... (used _IG_'s "Decoding the
Code" for the values).
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 09:04:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bits & Pieces
> Andy asked:
> > 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?
> It's not that much less risky. A D is still a difficult move, still easy to
> fall on. Also, you're talking about trying numerous D's in just one
> routine... that's a lot of opportunity to mess up. A Gaylord I is a D, and a
> Gaylord II is an E. Would a gymnast rather risk throwing a Gaylord I twice
> (two chances to mess up) or a Gaylord II once (one chance to mess up, but
> higher risk)? I don't really know the answer to that, but I would guess that
> a gymnast would do a Gaylord II.
> Also another factor to consider is strength and stamina. A routine would be
> considerably longer if a gymnast had to do twice as many D's... they'd have
> to have incredible endurance. Plus it would just be wearing to have to psych
> yourself up for that many more tricks.
> These routines both add up to 1.0 of bonus on high bar (according to my
> unofficial calculations-- Bruce, can you check it for me?). Which routine
> would you rather do?
> routine 1
> Tkatchev laid-out, Tkatchev, Gienger (2nd and 3rd release moves are
> value-raised from C to D because they're consecutive flight elements)
> D+D+D = .3 in difficulty
> Special combination = .2 (first D+D=.1, second D+D=.1)
> ==>total for sequence = .5
Ok ,only .4 3 moves in a row can only meet one connection-middle d in
sequence can not be used twice only .1 in connection bonus
> Gaylord I (D)
> ==> .1 in diff.
> Gienger, Deltchev
> C+D = .1 in diff.
> Special combo = .1
> ==>total for seq. = .2
> toe-on Tkatchev (D)
> ==> .1 in diff.
> full-twisting double layout (D)
> ==> .1 in diff.
Don't forget special requirements- I don't see a dorsal grip .4 deduction!>
> routine 2
> Tkatchev laid-out, Tkatchev, Gienger
> ==> total for sequence = .5
Same as routine 1 .4 bonus not .5
> Kovacs (E)
> ==> .2
> one-arm giant to Gienger (D)
> ==> .1
Actualy must pass through bottom 2x in 1 arm for d
> double-twisting double layout (E)
> ==> .2
> OK, I *think* I calculated everything right... (used _IG_'s "Decoding the
> Code" for the values).
>Ok not bad, Rachele! Both routines had .9 in bonus.First routine missing
dorsal special requirement. Second routine missing
both dorsal and in bar b special requirements.
(Excuse me if I'm not too with it this morning. Because of the snow storm I've
been up for 27 hours+!
Starting value for routine 1= 9.5
Starting value for routine 2= 9.1
Other than that you did a good job! BOTH routines have a lot of difficulty! I
think it would depend on the gymnast and his ability to do certain skills
which routine would be preferable However I would like to point out that
routine 1 has 7 flight elements and routine 2 has 5 flight elements! I don't
care who the gymnast is No one is going to do EITHER routine. Any coach
designing such a routine would be lynched by his gymnast. Your point is well
made butone of the problems with the code is that there are "D's" and there
are "D's". Some are much easier than others. Same thing with some E moves.
Let's take High bar. A d that is used alot and ,in my humble opinion, is no
where near as hard as a straigh reverse hecht is the combination-
wrong way endo immediate pirrouette.That's a d, I'm sure anyone that has been
to a college meet or above has seen a few of these!!!
I'm fading fast so I'll have to let some other comments wait (or probably
forget them!0 untill another time. My brain cries for sleep!! Bye!
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:36:28 EST
Subject: Bud Wilkinson passes away
from USA Gymnastics:
The President of the United States Gymnastics Federation from 1982 through
1984, Bud Wilkinson, died Wednesday night (2/9/94) in St. Louis after a long
illness. He was 77.
Wilkinson, a member of the National Football Coaches Hall Of Fame, former
senate candidate, and former coach of the St. Louis Cardinals of the NFL, was
named President Emeritus of the USGF following his tenure as president of
organization and continued to serve the sport of gymnastics as a volunteer.
Wilkinson's son, Jay, notified the Daily Oklahoman Newspaper of his father's
passing. "Bud was a true legend, and he will be greatly missed," said Sandy
Knapp, current USA Gymnastics Chairman of the Board. "His work with the
Federation helped lead us to the successes we have enjoyed since 1982."
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 21:34:56 PST
Subject: Clive nails Texx to
the wall !
Clive has given me a "reality check" here. He's dumped the whole ice chest
down my neck! With all my smartmouthed quips, I guess I kinda deserve it...
This is a resend because our braindead mail here ate the first try.
>Evian spring water is available almost worldwide.
Never seen it yet, but then I dont go shopping for water.:)
Hes got a point but life is different accross the pond;
But Clive! you dont have trichlorethelyene & carbon tetrachloride in your local
water supply! Here in the silicon valley, we paved over some of the finest
farm land in the country to build computer factories that until recently have
been poisoning the aquifer from where our drinking water comes. Actually I
dont buy water either. I hate the stuff, even bottled tastes awful.
Besides you ever heard what WC Fields said about water ?
Next I quipped:
>McDonalds includes something from all the food groups including
>the grease group.
Well maybe they do, but a recent Government Health report (this
means it was official and can be trusted to be correct)
(Smile when you tell jokes like that !)
actually pointed out the average McDonalds burger contains a large amount of
protein, nutrition and tons of vitamins which are sometimes not found in
(Please tell me more before I flame you on this point?
I dont beg to differ, I DEMAND IT!)
It also stated that the McDonalds burgers happen to be the healthiest burger
you can eat, except the french fries aren`t very good for you.
OK, Ill concede you this one point. But remember, mercury exposure is less
severe than plutonium. Just because McDeath is the best junkfood on the
market, I still bristle at gymn being associated with them.
>I thought Quaker oats was pretty worldwide.
(Extra point inserted here: Oats were a staple of the Scottish diet for
Cant disagree with that one but they are not as popular
as a bowl of Kellogs Cornflakes.
(Somehow the thought of British eating Kellogs Corn Flakes strikes me as
hilarios ! (Next I mentioned Dole Fruit & Ocean Spray. And here Clive got me
I have never come across Dole fruit or Ocean spray, I only eat
oranges and they come from Spain, apples which are English and
sometimes French and finally grapes which are French. I
would have to say most fruit in England is either English
or imported from Europe because there is no duty tax on them.
ACK! Hes right ! I clean forgot all about the dreaded European Common
Market. The sliced up the entire european market and assigned certain products
to each country. So anyone can grow oranges, but only spanish oranges are duty
free throughout europe.
What does this have to do with gymn ? My suggested sponsors are getting
squeezed out of Europe because American products are subject to duty,
being that USA is not in the common market. My whole argument is down the
(I asked about Fosters grand prix & carling priemership)
Both are physical sports yet there isnt a conflict
of interests as seems to be the case in America.
Hmm.. Well as for me I dont see a conflict between football
and beer, nor with hockey or rugby or soccer & beer.
But I am gravely offended by gymnastics & beer.
What I find particularly upsetting is that I can not justify my position!
I can not find a good reason why I SHOULD be offended. I just AM !
(Hey I told you Clive dumped an ice chest over my head here!)
>From my own personal viewpoint I would certainly
approve of any association that let money into
and enabled further recognition of gymnastics.
But I think because of the culture of America and
the licensing laws in America, a beer related sponser
would not be a good idea .
While I dont like the idea of beer companies being associated with gymn,
what is the licensing concern you mention here?
One last thing about my "beer views"; I enjoy a good beer, but when Im in
training, it is one of the first things crossed off my grocery list.
Pity that the Fosters available in UK & US is not the same as the Fosters
brewed down in "OZ". "OZ" Fosters is MUCH better than the Fosters in Europe
& US. (Yeah I know Im getting close to off subject, but I need to make sure
I am not being mistaken for a "goody 2shoes tee-totaler" )
Clive needles us "yanks" ;
Don`t forget when Atlanta 96 comes around you don`t
need to be Einstein to work out which famous Atlanta
based company is going to sponsor the Olympics and
we are not talking about CNN.
[ Texx looks with horror at the red can of soda on his desk, and the 4 empties
he has consumed so far this morning....]
Face down, 9 edge first !
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 09:54:18 GMT
Subject: Clive nails Texx to the wall !
>But Clive! you dont have trichlorethelyene & carbon
>tetrachloride in your local water supply!
You have tipp-ex in your water, yummy, well I guess it beats
our ammonia nitrates and traces of aluminium and all
the raw sewage that gets pumped out to sea and then dragged
up on the beaches, but Jaques Delores says our waters safe
to drink so it must be.
>Besides you ever heard what WC Fields said about water ?
Can`t say that I have heard what he said.
>(Please tell me more before I flame you on this point?
>I dont beg to differ, I DEMAND IT!)
Well our benevolent Government commisions reports on how
healthy food is for you (they only really started this
after the egg poisoning thingy and the contaminated
sheep, sick chickens and mad cow disease) and this
particular report was on Junk Food, they reported back
that Junk food isn`t as bad as previously thought and some junk
food is even quite good for you because of the large
amounts of vitamin E and iron found in the burgers,
which you no longer find is being provided by other sources
of food. They also pointed out though that the small diddy
chips they give you are very unhealthy and the healthiest
chip is found at local fish and chip shop even though it
might have been sitting around all day in congealed batter
They also reported once that if you drink 40 pints
of beer a week rather than clogging up your arteries
it helps clear them up.
>(Extra point inserted here: Oats were a staple of
>the Scottish diet for centuries)
Still are, along with haggis.
>Somehow the thought of British eating Kellogs Corn
>Flakes strikes me as hilarios !
Why ? Kellogs Conrflakes are an institution just
like Mr Kiplings Apple Pies.
>ACK! Hes right ! I clean forgot all about the dreaded
>European Common Market.
Fabulous organisation the common market but don`t forget the
free trade that the European Community members also enjoy.
But hey you have got your Pacific Alliance.
>What I find particularly upsetting is that I can not justify
>my position! I can not find a good reason why I SHOULD be
>offended. I just AM !
Dont you just hate it when that happens. :)
>While I dont like the idea of beer companies being
>associated with gymn, what is the licensing concern you
Well I was under the impression that you had to be 21 to
even walk into a pub let alone buy a drink in the US and
the average age of the female gymnast cant be higher than 16
and so most people would be unwary, nay suspicious of an
association between 16 year olds and beer
which is really for people over 21. (NB, the age
to legally buy a drink in the UK is 18).
This is an assumption so if its wrong then don`t
blame me, from all the TV and films from America
the general picture is that people in America
don`t go down the pub and drink large quantaties
of beer on a week to week basis, instead
they seem to like to drink spirits and enjoy drinking
at home. I don`t know you tell me.
>Pity that the Fosters available in UK & US is not the same
>as the Fosters brewed down in "OZ". "OZ" Fosters is MUCH
>better than the Fosters in Europe & US.
Well Fosters is ok to drink in the UK but there are plenty
of better stronger beers available, especially the exported
European lagers and then there is the good old local real ale.
>Texx looks with horror at the red can of soda on his desk, and
>the 4 empties he has consumed so far this morning
Yes its the real thing you know :)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 1994 17:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: gymn judging
A short question for gymnasta (or anyone
else who has judged).
exactly do judges keep track of a gymnast's score during a routine? How
do you keep from making mistakes?
Also: someone mentioned that it would be usefull if the starting
value each routine was posted along with the final score. At this school
(U.C. Davis), we have a well informed announcer who frequently tells us
the name and value of various vaults (after completion of the vault).
Though I wish that the announcer gave out that kind of information for
all of the events (and all fo the gymnasts), I think it's much better
than nothing, since it does help put the vault scores in perspective.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 14:29:22 EST
Subject: gymn judging
This should have made it by now and hasn't, so I'm sending it again.
exactly do judges keep track of a gymnast's score during a routine? How
do you keep from making mistakes?
The easiest thing to do, if you have someone else calculating the start
value, is to jot down the deductions (.1, .5, whatever) as you see them, then
add them up at the end and subtract from the start value you're given. But
that's not the best thing to do.
Women's gymn has a shorthand system of symbols for each move. A judge should
write down the routine and the deductions as they happen. That way you can
1) remember what you took points off for 2) figure out the start value
yourself and check it against the one you're given. It's difficult but can
be done with practice. Once you know how to do it it's *so* much better!
There's also a nifty sheet that has a summary of all the value part
requirements, special requirements, and special connection bonus points, as
well as space for judging 4 or 5 routines, so the judge can just check things
off at the end of the routine and quickly figure out the start value and
score. You do have to know the values of the elements, though, but you can
have a copy of the Code handy to check.
I also second the comments on having announcers inform the audience and on
having the start value flashed (the latter is done at least on vault at the
major meets, maybe also on other events; I'm not sure).
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 1994 17:35:39 -0500 (EST)
Subject: gymn judging
> This should have made it by now and hasn't, so I'm sending it again.
> Michael writes:
> exactly do judges keep track of a gymnast's score during a routine? How
> do you keep from making mistakes?
> The easiest thing to do, if you have someone else calculating the start
> value, is to jot down the deductions (.1, .5, whatever) as you see them, then
> add them up at the end and subtract from the start value you're given. But
> that's not the best thing to do.
> Women's gymn has a shorthand system of symbols for each move. A judge should
> write down the routine and the deductions as they happen. That way you can
> 1) remember what you took points off for 2) figure out the start value
> yourself and check it against the one you're given. It's difficult but can
> be done with practice. Once you know how to do it it's *so* much better!
> There's also a nifty sheet that has a summary of all the value part
> requirements, special requirements, and special connection bonus points, as
> well as space for judging 4 or 5 routines, so the judge can just check things
> off at the end of the routine and quickly figure out the start value and
> score. You do have to know the values of the elements, though, but you can
> have a copy of the Code handy to check.
> I also second the comments on having announcers inform the audience and on
> having the start value flashed (the latter is done at least on vault at the
> major meets, maybe also on other events; I'm not sure).
> : )
There is a notation system for men also however most men's judges have
developed their own ways of recording a routine over the years. I do not like
the idea of an announcer giving the start value of a routine. What does he
know/ it also gives the judge an indication of what the gymnast intended to
What happens if the gymnast changed his mind during the routine? The judge
might subconciously hold that against the gymnast. Judge what you see not what
you expect to see. This is also why I think that women's judges are a bunch
of wimps. They need to know the vault before the gymnast performs. Judge what
you see! What if the gymnast feels an error in the run and changes the
position of a vault? Judge what you see not what you expect to see. Don't
penalize the gymnast. Men have no requirement to announce the vault in NCAA or
lower competition and while I think it is done at international competitions
there is no penalty for not performing the announced vault. Don't give the
judge a preconceived notion of what he might see. Coach says layout tsuk,
judge says piked tsuk. If the judges are competent they don't need to know
what vault is done before(or for that matter the starting value or the ratings
of moves or what the gymnast is expected to do.)
Hardy Fink, FIG Tech. Committee from Canada has proposed an open ended scoring
system for the next code. It requires the gymnast to submit his routine in
advance to be evaluated for difficulty.Difficulty would be able to be
multiplied times the execution score like diving. There are two panels of judges, 1 to
see if he does what he says he was going to do and one to evaluate execution.
I don't want to get into it here, too involved but if anyone has seen it they
know what I mean. The same thing goes here as what I said before, let the
judges judge what they see. It's nice to know what may be coming but lets not
hurt the gymnasts be pre-judging them. This is not diving. The public
understands the "10" score. Even in diving the score that is flashed is from 0
to 10 then the scorers multiply the judges award time the degree of difficulty
for the dive. I would be interested to see a diving meet judged without
telling the judges what the diver was going to do beforehand. That would be
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 18:40:54 EST
Subject: gymn judging
> I do not like the idea of an announcer giving the start value of a
> routine. What does he know? it also gives the judge an indication of
> what the gymnast intended to do. What happens if the gymnast changed his
> mind during the routine? The judge might subconciously hold that
> against the gymnast. Judge what you see not what you expect to see.
I think the suggestion was to post the start value *after* the routine
is finished, to post what the calculated start value for the performed
routine *was*. I.e., maybe it would have helped the spectators at the
US Nationals to understand that Larissa Fontaine's bar score was low
because she started from a 9.8 or 9.9, not a 10.0.
As I understand it, each judge on a panel must determine the start
value on their own. Does this mean that sometimes judges on the same
panel are starting from different scores, or do they collaborate to
make sure they are all starting a gymnast from say, a 9.8?
I agree with your sentiments about the Hardy code. I think a gymnast
should be able to adjust his/her routine as s/he is performing it. For
example, Dawes in the bars final at the last Worlds had a couple
flubs, but to her credit she covered up well. Amanda Borden remarked
in an interview that she had intended to end floor at the Hilton with
a triple twist, but as she went for it she could tell that she just
didn't have it and so only did a 2.5 twist. I think it shows a certain
amount of intelligence and true gymnastic ability to be able to make
these types of decisions. (Sorry I don't have any men's gymnastics
examples, although didn't Bart Conner make up his floor routine in
some big competition? -- someone submitted that for a trivia question,
but I lost it when owlnet crashed.)
Also, it seems to be at least slightly a safety issue, too. If a
gymnast goes for a full-in but can feel s/he doesn't have the power to
pull it around, s/he should be able to opt for a double tuck or such
without too much of a penalty.
Gimnasta, what is the deduction on the women's side for not doing the
vault that one has posted? Like, say Elena Piskun says to the judges
"I'm doing a double-twisting Yurchenko." Then she vaults, but didn't
get a great block off the horse and so does only a single twist
instead. Let's say, however, Piskun did a "perfect" single-twister. (I
know, hardly likely if she didn't get great block.) What would she
score? (FYI to others, a double is worth 10.0, and a single is 9.8.)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 23:36:49 EST
Subject: Huston now in good condition
from USA Gymnastics:
Kerry Huston, who suffered a neck injury while dismounting from
parallel bars in the 1994 Winter Cup February 5, in Colorado Springs,
continues to improve. Here is today's (2/10/94) statement from
Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs:
"Kerry Huston was upgraded to good condition today and continues to
improve. He started therapy today (2/9) at Memorial Hospital and
celebrated some "firsts" - the first time he has been able to get out
of bed and sit up since being hospitalized for the injury. Kerry and
his family, who continue to receive an outpouring of well-wishes
expressed their thanks to everyone who has shown concern and support."
If you wish to send a "get well" card to Kerry, you may send them to
Kerry Huston, c/o USA Gymnastics, 201 S. Capitol, Suite 300,
Indianapolis, IN 46225. We are "overnighting" them on a daily basis to
Also, here's a little bit more detail on the injury he suffered from
an earlier USA Gymnastics press release:
(Indianapolis, Feb 9) Kerry Huston, University of Minnesota gymnast
injured Saturday night during the Winter Cup Challenge in Colorado
Springs, "has made significant improvement since his arrival at
Memorial Hospital," said his physician, neurosurgeon Dr. James Sceats.
Huston, who underwent surgery yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon, sustained
a neck fracture to vertebrae C6 and C7 while dismounting off the
parallel bars. The surgery stabilized his neck.
"Kerry does have sensation in all his extremeties, which is a good
sign," Sceats said during a news conference at Memorial. "It is
impossible to know at this time what the long term effects of this
injury will be.
"Kerry is alert and in good spirits," Sceats said, "With the help of
his family, he is concentrating on getting well." The Huston family
arrived Sunday evening. "Kerry asked me to thank all his friends for
their support and good wishes." Sceats added.
Huston is expected to remain at Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs
for a week. Where he will go after that time for rehabilitation has
not yet been determined.
Note: Huston is ranked 1st in the NCAA rankings on floor (9.84 average!), 8th
on vault (9.37), and 12th (55.21) in the All-Around.
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 11:36:56 EST
Subject: Larissa Fontaine
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?
The way Rachele put it ("half twist to double front") made it sound as
though Larissa does three flips, as the half twist occurs during the
first flip. . . The dismount contains two flips: a back flip with a
1/2 twist to a front flip (a "1/2-in"). The closer comparison is not
to a double front but to a 1/2-in 1/2-out (similar to a full-in). If
Larissa added a second 1/2 twist, she'd have a 1/2-in 1/2-out, which
is a D. A 1/2-in 1/2-out has the added difficulty of another 1/2
twist, and the 1/2-in has the difficulty of a front landing. I think
the difficulty of adding the other 1/2 twist outweighs the difficulty
of the front landing in this case. I don't know that I can explain the
physics of it, and as a gymnast I did neither of these, so I can't
claim personal experience either. It's just not *that* hard.
Date: Sat, 12 Feb 94 14:51:25 EST
Subject: More Bits & More Pieces
Thanks for Bruce for looking at those two routines. Your posts have been
very helpful! A couple questions:
1. What exactly is a "wrong way Endo"? (or was that wrong grip Endo...?)
2. In an earlier post you have mentioned that only .2 was allowed in
special combinations, but the routines I drew up had .3 each (I think,
can't find the posts anymore) in combo. Is my memory incorrect or are
those further deductions?
3. What exactly is the "dorsal requirement"? Inverted giants,
4. Gimnasta had remarked that a sequence of three release moves in
women's could be broken up to get two special connection bonuses (such
as Fontaine's bars). I guess it's just different in the men's Code?
Any particular reason or is it just a matter of choice?
The routines I drew up were of course not realistic... can't imagine
anyone doing 7 releases. =) I was just trying to stick to moves that
people might be more familiar with (hence my choice of high bar
release moves) to prove my theory that sticking to just D's is not
worth the supposed extra security of not bothering with E's.
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 94 20:57:33 PST
Subject: Nutrition & sponsorship laws
I kinda pushed the envelope in regards to staying on topic. Clive out
did me in his reply. Lets pull this matter back on track and make it
more relevant to gymn.
If a beer company were to sponsor a gymn even, although the gymnasts
were minors, it would be legal. It would even be legal to sell said
beverage at the event. Minors can be present when alchohol is served
as long as food is also being served. The limitation is that minors
are forbidden to imbibe. So there is no law againt such sponsorship,
but I still do not think it would be in good taste to do so.
This morning there was a headline about the alchohol companies coming
under fire for their saturation of the sports sponsorship. The study
has come to the conclusion that the alchohol companies are encouraging
kids to drink before its legal. The study calls for "watering down"
the saturation of alchohol advertising at sporting events.
Now since we are what we eat & drink, a gymnast can only be as good as
what he/she puts in their body.
I have a question for the members of this group who continue to
regularly do gymnastics workouts and those still in competition. How
many of you drink tap water ? How much ? And where are you located
when you do drink tap water? And if you drink bottled water, how much
and which bottled water do you drink? Again where are you located when
you use bottled water ? Do any of you share mi dostatse to for water
bottled or otherwise ? Send replies to this survey to private mail so
we dont clutter the list. Ill post results when I get around to the
On greaseburgers, I dont think ANY of them are too healthy. Someone
rated them all and one was better than the rest only because it had
traces of panothenic acid and the rest had none.
Now what health foods do they think are unhealthy ?
I have yet another question, again replies should be kept in private
mail to ease traffic and I will post results later. If you consider
yourself to be "in training" what do you put on your diet ? (This one
should prove REAL interesting! **GRINS** )
Day brightener: "Twinkies dont have a shelf life, they have a HALF LIFE!"
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 18:13:38 EST
> 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
Now that the first female Gaylord has been thrown (Huilan Mo of CHN),
I feel obligated to point out that if you overthrow a Gaylord on
uneven bars... you crash into the low! (It's impossible to throw them
going the other way, I think.)
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 94 19:15:35 EST
Subject: Women's Code
Ok, I was really confusing with Larissa Fontaine's bars. I'm going to
give an explanation like brucet did (but not quite as brief, that's
because the women's Code is more complicated, I think) of the women's
Code and then try a briefer one of LF's bars.
The 10.0 is broken down into:
Value Parts: 3.00
There are also Special Requirements to be fulfilled.
Execution and Composition are just that and not specifically broken down, so
there's really no need to discuss them to understand start values and scores
(though maybe Special Requirements might be seen as falling under
Composition, but I'll discuss them on their own).
VALUE PARTS (3.00):
Value Parts are the A's, B's, C's, D's, and E's that make up the routine. A
= 0.2, B = 0.4, C = 0.6, D = 0.8. E's don't have their own value, they just
serve for bonus points.
In Competition Ib (the usual optionals), gymnast must do:
3 A's, at 0.2 each = 0.6
3 B's, at 0.4 each = 1.2
2 C's, at 0.6 each = 1.2
Competition II (All-Around Finals):
1 A at 0.2 = 0.2
2 B's at 0.4 = 0.8
2 C's at 0.6 = 1.2
1 D at 0.8 = 0.8
Competition III (Apparatus or Event Finals)
2 B's at 0.4 = 0.8
1 C at 0.6 = 0.6
2 D's at 0.8 = 1.6
In women's, unlike men's, a single element can fulfill more than one special
requirement (something to be kept in mind as you read this). So, for
example, a Gienger can fulfill both the B -flight element requirement and the
change of direction requirement on bars.
1) Ten value parts
2) Three bar changes
3) Two flight elements worth at least a B (that doesn't mean releases
as commonly thought of; it includes things like straddle backs and California
hops, but not mounts and dismounts)
4) One change of direction (excluding the mount and the dismount).
1) An acrobatic series of at least two flight elements (so ff-ff is
ok, back walkover-ff not ok)
2) A gymnastic series of at least two elements
3) A mixed series of at least two elements
["Holds" (handstands, scales) are not permitted in these series (you can do
them, they just don't fulfill the requirement); also, dismounts don't count]
The following can be done by themselves or in a series:
4) An element or connection (ie, anything) close to the beam
(torso/hips [hips is the Code word for butt] touch beam)
5) A full turn on one leg
6) A gymnastic leap or jump with great amplitude
7) A gymnastic element worth at least a B
1) Two acrobatic series (an acrobatic series consists of at least 3
acrobatic elements, one being a salto)
1a) One of the acro series must contain at least 2 saltos, the other
at least one salto (by definition).
[unlike the previous Code, double backs, full-ins and the like count as a
single salto, at least for these purposes]
1b) The three saltos must be different.
2) One gymnastic series of at least three elements, one being worth at
least a B
3) One mixed series of at least three elements in this order:
gym/acro/gym or acro/gym/acro.
[no Holds allowed in any of these series either]
ALL EVENTS -- Dismount: Comp. Ib: at least a B
Comp. II: at least a C
Comp. III: at least a D
For each missing special requirement, the gymnast is deducted one tenth (0.1)
So far I have listed the value part requirements and the special
requirements. If the gymnast fulfills all of these, her routine starts from
a 9.40. Now for the bonus:
The bonus is divided into Special Connections and Extra D's and E's.
Extra D's and E's (0.30):
When the gymnast has fulfilled *all* the required value parts, the
*additional* D's get 0.1 each and the E's 0.2 each until they add up to 0.3.
She can do as many additional D's and E's as she wants, but she doesn't get
more than 0.3 bonus for them.
Special Connections (0.30):
This follows the same principle that no matter how many difficult connections
the gymnast does, she doesn't get more than 0.30 for them. Each event has
its own list of connections and how much they're worth; it would be too long
and complicated to include here, but I'll be happy to in another post if
Ok, now Larissa Fontaine's routine (Competition III):
Tkatchev -- D
Gienger -- D
flyaway to LB -- C (probably, see other post and see below)
2nd Tkatchev -- D
dismount -- D or C
The Tkatchev-Gienger-flyaway series is a D+D+C, which gets 0.30 bonus for
If the dismount is a D, she has fulfilled all requirements and has 2
additional D's (the 2nd Tkatchev and the dismount). So, she has the 9.40
base + 0.30 bonus for special connections + 0.20 for extra D's (0.10 each) =
If the dismount is a C, she is missing the D dismount requirement (-0.10) and
has only one additional D (the 2nd Tkatchev). So, 9.40 base - 0.10 + 0.30
for special connections + 0.10 for the extra D = 9.70
There are other possibilities, since I'm not certain what they did with the
flyaway to the low bar. I'm assuming it was a C in its own right, but it
could have been an attempted Pak (flyaway to handstand on LB) devalued for
not hitting the handstand, in which case she wouldn't get bonus for
connecting it with the preceding Gienger (devalued elements don't get bonus).
But that would only make her start value lower; she could have started at a
10.0 only if that flyaway were a D *and* the dismount were a D.
Is this better?
End of gymn Digest