Sun, 16 Jan 94 Volume 2 :
Do you read these intros?
FIG 9.0 vs NCAA 9.5 (3 msgs)
insurance for gymnasts
Training camp in Col Springs
Trivia Set #7, answers
Trivia Set #8, topic
West Point Open (2 msgs)
Winter Games; NCAA-W pre-season rankings
This is a digest of the email@example.com mailing list.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 94 09:31:26 CST
Subject: Broken heart
My daughter broke her arm last night while practicing her vault. She
was supposed to partisipate in her first meet next Saturday. She just
started Gymn about 18 months ago and has been training happily and
steadily everday for the last year. She is taking it better than I
though,my heart aches for her.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 09:31:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Do you read these intros?
Do people actually read the intros others put on? Just wondering.
I guess in keeping with custom, I'd better put out my own intro. My
name is Vic--I've just graduated from Stanford with a degree in
Mechanical Engineering, and am looking for a job right now. I didn't
start gymnastics until my freshman year when I joined the Schaumburg
High School team in Illinois. Gymnastics has been pretty amazingly
good to me--I started out as a 94 pound skinny dork whom everyone
picked on and by the time I graduated high school had put on fifty
pounds of muscle. I guess my crowning moment of physical achievement
occurred when I made it onto the American Gladiators Live Tour at the
San Francisco Cow Palace (I did well on The Wall, well on Assault, and
got creamed in Powerball)--that was sort of my "15 minutes of fame" at
Stanford. I'm currently 5'10", 165 lbs.--kinda oafish for gymnastics,
but it doesn't hinder me too much.
I sort of walked-on to the Stanford team my freshman year, but found
that I was a little bit unnecessary due to the presence of some guys
named Jair Lynch, Tim Ryan, and Conrad Voorsanger, so I sort of
walked-off. I've still stayed active in the sport, however, and
haven't skinnied up yet. I have this goal in the back of my head to
be the only 80 year-old man who can still hold a cross. Right now I
assistant coach a girls HS team, and have coached for eight years. I
also judge, and got to judge my first NCAA meet last week (wasn't as
intimidating as I expected). At Stanford, I took my gymnastics skills
to cheerleading instead--it's actually a ridiculously fun pastime
(correction: putting girls up in stunts and tumbling is really fun,
cheering is really lame). My best experience with cheerleading was
working out with the U. of Cincinnati's cheerleading squad--where the
women are all gorgeous and the men are all huge. Those guys pretty
darned well almost juggle those girls.
My level is respectable, but not outstanding. My favorite events are
rings (L-cross, with pull-out when I'm in shape, inconsistent
deltchev, double-pike, and I still haven't been able to manage a
lock-arm just yet) and floor (double-full and cheezy stuff). Then
come P-bars and pipe, okay vaulting, and really horrendous pommels.
My gymnastics philosophy tends to be "if you don't have technique, you
can always muscle it through with strength." Notice my best and worst
events, and you can see the correlation.
I'm looking forward to Stanford's season again this year; it's going
to be really tough without Lynch and Jeff Bender, but we've got an
amazing frosh, Keith Wiley (layout full-in) and still have returning
monsters like Mark Booth (layout double-twisting front, whip to
immediate triple-full) so hopefully we should be all right.
Incidentally, if I could give myself a plug, I NEED A JOB! Sorry if
that wasn't too subtle, but I'd like a job. Location is pretty
incidental to me. I've got three summers of work experience--one as a
plant engineer with Citgo Petroleum, and two as an engineer for
Procter & Gamble (I'd be working for P&G right now, but they decided
to cut 10,000 jobs--mine included). I'm basically interested in
engineering work that has some business aspects to it so I can grow
technically as well as in business savvy. I've got most of my
experience in consumer products (paper towels and diapers), but I'd
certainly be willing to consider other things--it's not as if I've
locked myself into one particular discipline in three summers. So if
you happen to know of any openings for mechanical engineers or
applications engineers, I'd really appreciate it if you let me know.
That's about it. Thanks for reading if you got this far. I enjoy
this newsgroup a lot.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:33:28 -0600 (CST)
Subject: FIG 9.0 vs NCAA 9.5
In general, the base score in men's gymnastics is a 9.0. This is in
the FIG's Code of Points.
The men build up to a 10.0 by executing extra difficulty. D elements
add one tenth, E elements add two tenths, and combinations add either
one or two tenths depending on the elements. You need to execute 1.0
of bonus difficulty to have a start value (SV) of a 10.0.
In NCAA men's gymnastics, they use a base score of 9.5. So, a gymnast
needs .50 of bonus difficulty to be scored out of a 10.0.
One would think at first that this means that scores are automatically
just .50 higher. This is not so though... the difference comes in
with those gymnasts who have more than .50 bonus in their routines;
they get shafted with the 9.5 rule. Example:
Gymnast A, on floor, has .3 bonus of difficulty. Under NCAA, his SV
is 9.8, but under FIG rules, he starts from a 9.3.
Gymnast B has .7 bonus of difficulty. NCAA starts him from a 10.0
while his FIG SV is a 9.7.
Now, let's say that Gymnast A has .35 of deduction when he executes
his routine. NCAA score = 9.45, FIG score = 8.95.
Gymnast B has, say, .6 in execution error. His NCAA score would be a
9.4, while his FIG score is a 9.1.
Under NCAA rules, Gymnast A wins by .05; FIG rules, Gymnast B wins by
There are a whole lot of factors that come into play here, of
course... it seems the easy decision to just say "well hey, no biggie,
just plan for .50 of difficulty and not take any unnecessary risks".
But the gymnasts in NCAA are a large part of the National team... they
will be competiting internationally so it is difficult to have to
prepare for two sets of rules. They need to practice competing their
difficulty-loaded routines, but this puts them at a disadvantage for
NCAA. It's just difficult to prepare with two different goals in mind.
Btw, the NCAA uses 9.0 rules for event finals because they really need
to. The guys who make the event finals at Nationals are supreme; they
often specialize just in that event. They need the 9.0 system to
separate the gymnasts. The event finals is a really fun session;
awesome routines and a really relaxed atmosphere.
Btw, having gotten the extremely fortunate luck of a cooperative
finals schedule, I will be able to attend the NCAA Men's Nationals
again this year! Hooray!
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 15:45:06 EST
Subject: FIG 9.0 vs NCAA 9.5
>In general, the base score in men's gymnastics is a 9.0. This is in
>the FIG's Code of Points.
>In NCAA men's gymnastics, they use a base score of 9.5. So, a gymnast
>needs .50 of bonus difficulty to be scored out of a 10.0.
>One would think at first that this means that scores are automatically
>just .50 higher. This is not so though... the difference comes in
>with those gymnasts who have more than .50 bonus in their routines;
>they get shafted with the 9.5 rule.
Is it possible that they do this specifically to discourage guys from
trying stuff that is too difficult for them and thus unsafe, by refusing
to reward it?
>There are a whole lot of factors that come into play here, of
>course... it seems the easy decision to just say "well hey, no biggie,
>just plan for .50 of difficulty and not take any unnecessary risks".
>But the gymnasts in NCAA are a large part of the National team... they
>will be competiting internationally so it is difficult to have to
>prepare for two sets of rules. They need to practice competing their
>difficulty-loaded routines, but this puts them at a disadvantage for
>NCAA. It's just difficult to prepare with two different goals in mind.
I don't really buy this argument -- I don't know men's gymnastics that
well, but I'd guess that it would be easy to cut the risks by simply
replacing the tumbling passes with simpler ones to give only .5 bonus
and cut the chance of execution error. Since you have to work your
way up to working on your hardest tumbling in any workout, it would be
pretty easy to practice a few simplified tumbling passes on the way up
to working on the FIG competition versions. Do guys really continue
to compete routines with >.50 bonus in the NCAA meets?
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 16:11:53 -0600 (CST)
Subject: FIG 9.0 vs NCAA 9.5
| Is it possible that they do this specifically to discourage guys from
| trying stuff that is too difficult for them and thus unsafe, by refusing
| to reward it?
Well, it's certainly possible, and no doubt a factor. I don't think
it's any more than just one of the factors, though. I do definitely
recall a specific discussion on the inferior image of men's gymnastics
which they felt should not be reinforced by awarding scores that were
well below that of the women's. Another reason for 9.5 was that they
wanted a transition between the '89 Code and the '93 Code, so they
chose 9.5 as a halfway mark... they were worried that a sudden huge
drop of scores would be bad for the morale of the athletes. The
concern for the safety of the gymnast is no doubt always there, but
the men do not seem to be as concerned as women. A few injury reports
I've seen indicate that men recover from injuries faster than women-
maybe they just don't need to worry quite as much (not saying they
don't need to worry, of course, just that relative to women, it seems
to be less of a concern).
Last year, team finals were judged from 9.0; this year it will be from
9.5. Coaches complained that it was unfair to compete the entire
season on one system and then switch to a different one for finals.
| >prepare for two sets of rules. They need to practice competing their
| >difficulty-loaded routines, but this puts them at a disadvantage for
| >NCAA. It's just difficult to prepare with two different goals in mind.
| well, but I'd guess that it would be easy to cut the risks by simply
| replacing the tumbling passes with simpler ones to give only .5 bonus
| to working on the FIG competition versions. Do guys really continue to
| compete routines with >.50 bonus in the NCAA meets?
To answer the second one first, yes, they do. Certainly there is some
tweaking of routines and mixing up of the elements, and gymnasts who
are not looking to the event finals of NCAA's or international
competition are probably content with 9.5. Stanford is probably the
best example here; all throughout the season they competed their
difficulty. Reportedly they were falling all *over* the place in the
beginning of last season; people thought they wouldn't repeat for sure
as Champs. But since they practiced their difficulty all season, they
had it down by Nationals, and their routines in the team finals (which
was 9.0) were worth a full 2.0 points more than Nebraska's. This
directly contributed to their win (of less than 2.0). Actually, Sadao
said that their routines had been worth 4.0 more (that's insane!) but
that they realized their margin was large enough that they could
remove the risky elements and still get a 2.0 advantage.
Now, to answer the first one, my guess is that the answer lies in
competition. While the gymnast can practice the 9.0 routines to his
heart's content, he needs the experience of competing them too...
which he can't do in NCAA unless he's willing to accept that risk of
attempting elements that he can only lose points on.
Take for example Brandy Johnson on vaulting in 1989. This was when
they started using two different vaults in finals (I think). Everyone
said she had an advantage because she'd been competing the
piked-front-half as her second vault for a long time (year, more?), so
she had the experience of throwing it in competition many times
before. Other gymnasts had only used the same vault twice and so were
weak on that second vault. Competing it in regular competition gave
her the confidence to land it in finals, which she did for a silver
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 14:43:43 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: insurance for gymnasts
When I was competing (thru 1986 fall) there was a USGF
sponsored (I believe) insurance for something up to $100,000 for
catastrophic stuff, such as paralysis or death. Other lost body parts
were on a declining scale. I remember sitting around the gym one day
joking about which toes we could cut off and claim so we could pay for
training costs for a little while.
I would imagine a gymnast such as Kim or Shannon, since they
have agents and stuff, would also have extra insurance on their
bodies. In music, we have insurance for body damage as well as
instrument and bow insurance, so it wouldn't seem that strange to me
for a top gymnast or skater to have that type of coverage, especially
if they were to plan on using their skills as a source of income in
the future (i.e. pro tours, exhibitions, pro competitions,
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 94 06:44:50 PST
Hi Gymn, I am going to relate that to gymnastics, just watch :-)
What I'm interested in is whether gymnasts's limbs are adequately
insured so that in case of an accident, they at least get adequately
compensated financially. Do gyms take care of this - is it
a standard procedure?
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 1994 20:57:44 -0700 (MST)
Subject: Training camp in Col Springs
The women's National Team was in Colorado Springs this weekend for
training again. I luckily managed to drop by and check it out.
Like last time, Shannon Miller was not there. Interestingly enough,
Kerri Strug was there (she and Shannon weren't last time). Further
proof of her leaving Nunno's I suppose. Dominique Dawes was at the
last camp, but not this one. Amanda Borden and Larissa Fontaine were
Mostly, they seemed to be working on compulsory stuff (floor). They
were even practicing to the music--it's a pretty nice piece. On bars,
they seemed to be practicing more difficult moves. Didn't see any
vault. On beam they were also doing compulsories. Are the next
Worlds going to have a team competition?
Larissa was getting ALOT of individual attention and training. Kerri
Strug, on the other hand, was working all by herself. Man, it's true
what they say about her work ethic. Without any coach nearby, she
would repeat basic skills OVER and OVER. Serious discipline. Around
lunch time, all the other girls would run over to the side, grab their
gear, and head out the door, laughing and giggling. But Kerri was
still out there diligently practicing, probably the last one to leave.
It was also interesting to see her practice--you know how she says
she's much better in practice than in competition. It's really true.
She was extremely relaxed and polished. In competition, she seems to
make really sudden and stiff moves on beam and floor, probably due to
her nerves. Much different in practice.
Another interesting note. I was sitting next to some coaches (sorry,
don't know who they were) who were arguing about political judging and
complaining about how Romanian gymnasts scored higher than theirs,
etc. They were really yelling at each other. Weird.
While I was there, a very scary thought popped into my head. After
the Monica Seles stabbing, Nancy Kerrigan attack, and now some soccer
player stabbing, I started to think how easy it would be for some
psycho to come in and do something like that. There was no security
at all. At times, I was within a couple feet of Kerri, Larissa, etc.
I was really glad to be able to just walk in and watch, but I wonder
if SOME kind of precautions would be in order.
Sorry I don't have very many gymnast-specific activities to report. I
didn't stay long AND I'm still working on names.
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 20:45:23 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Trivia Set #7, answers
# ________ G y m n ________ \ | ___ #
# o __o |o |o (o #
# An electronic forum !__ \! ! ! \. #
# for gymnastics. ====== ====== ====== ====== ====== #
o o o o o o o Gymn Trivia Set #7 o o o o o o o o o o
TOPIC: mid-Olympic years (1990, 1986, 1982...) and how they factor
into the Olympic cycle
Thanks to Cara for #1 and Debbie for #3-6!
--Q1. In 1984, Ecaterina Szabo (ROM) faltered in the Olympic
all-around, taking second, but claimed three gold medals in event
finals. In 1988, Daniela Siliva (ROM) repeated that pattern. The same
pattern also happened in between those Olympics in 1986-which gymnast,
A. Elena Shushunova (URS), Goodwill Games.
--Q2. The World Cup is a very presitigious event held every four
years, between the Olympics. However, it didn't always follow that
pattern. what years have the World Cup been held in?
A. 1975, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1982, 1986, 1990
--Q3. Vera Kolesnikova's (URS) biggest victory came at the '86
Goodwill Games. Which two world champs. did she beat to take the
A. She beat Elena Shushunova and Oksana Omelianchik, the '85 co-world
champs (both URS). Shushunova later won the '88 Olympics.
--Q4. Who was the only US gymnast to win a medal at the '86 Goodwill
Games? For which event?
A. Joyce Wilborn won a bronze medal on V.
--Q5. Which two world champions tied for the '82 World Cup AA title?
A. Olga Bicherova ('81 world champ) and Natalia Yurchenko ('83 world champ)
shared the '82 World Cup AA (both URS).
--Q6. Svetlana Boginskaya (URS) and Alexander Kolyvanov (URS) won
which two junior competitons in '86?
A. They both won the '86 Jr. Europeans and the '86 Youth Friendship
competition. [Note: Kolyvanov, the 1992 Olympic alternate to the
Unified (former Soviet) team, is now an assistant coach at the U. of
--Q7. Why were the Goodwill Games started?
A. Two answers are acceptable: (1) After the boycotts of the 1980 and
1984 Olympics, the Goodwill Games were founded to encourage
cooperation between opposing nations. (2) Ted Turner saw an
opportunity to "stage" his own mini-Olympics and make lots of money,
and took it. However, the Goodwill Games have always lost money.
--Q8. Svetlana Boguinskaya did very well at the 1990 European
Championships. How many golds did she win?
A. Five. She won every gold medal, scoring three 10.0's in the
process (on V in the AA, and then on BB and FX in the event finals).
--Q9. Who won the 1990 World Cup?
A. Tatiana Lysenko and Valery Belenky.
--Q10. How did the 1992 USA Olympians rank nationally in 1990?
Men: Jair Lynch - 1st, Junior
John Roethlisberger - 1st, Senior
Chris Waller - 2nd, Sr
Lance Ringnald - 3rd, Sr (alternate in 92)
Trent Dimas - 4th, Sr
Scott Keswick - 5th, Sr
Dominick Minicucci, 30th, Sr
Women: Dominique Dawes, 3rd, Junior
Kerri Strug, 4th, Jr
Michelle Campi, 15th, Jr
Kim Zmeskal, 1st, Senior
Betty Okino, 2nd, Sr
Shannon Miller, 8th, Sr
Wendy Bruce - injured at the time (I think)
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 1994 21:54:56 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Trivia Set #8, topic
The topic for Trivia Set #8 will be NCAA Women's Gymnastics.
If you have any good trivia questions for the topic, please submit
them to firstname.lastname@example.org by Tuesday night. Questions will be much
appreciated! There are no promises that every question submitted will
be included in the next set, but I'll try my best.
ps. #9 will of course be NCAA Men's Gymnastics...
pps. (non-Gymn related) I am doing a survey concerning unisex
bathrooms at universities...If you know of any universities that allow
co-ed facilities, please let me know-- I'd really appreciate it.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 12:19:16 -0500 (EST)
Subject: West Point Open
I was at the West Point Open last weekend. Good early season men's NCAA meet.
Ohio ST. 274
Penn St. 272
Iowa 267? (all Approx)
All Around Winner Bill Roth
Tie 1st Bill Roth & James Lewis (Army) 9.65
3rd Mike Racanelli (ex-Ohio St) 9.45
Mark Sohn (ex-Penn St.) 9.9
James Knopp (Ohio St.)
Don Brown (ex-Iowa) 9.55
Paul O' Neal 9.9
Gary Denk- Iowa 9.45
Steve Marshall-Army 9.4
Bill Roth 9.6
Mark Cooper- Penn St. 9.4
Bill Roth 9.6
Rick Uptegraff- Iowa 9.45
Mark Cooper- Penn St. 9.35
James Knopp-Ohio St. 9.7
Tom Ellfson- Penn St. 9.65
David Arlequeeuw-Kent St. 9.5
Some good junior performances in the j.o. section of the meet. Sorry
the results are not complete (team score) but thought you would like
to see some results anyway. The NCAA scoring system stinks. The men
add .5 to FIG base score starting at 9.5 rather than 9.0 There is not
enough room to seperate the really good gymnast from a gymnast just
meeting the rules! Take care!!
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 15:10:12 -0600 (CST)
Subject: West Point Open
Hey Bruce, thanks for the West Point Open results. Did Ohio State rock
rings, out of curiousity? They were absolutely supreme in that event
|results anyway. The NCAA scoring system stinks. The men add .5 to FIG base
|score starting at 9.5 rather than 9.0 There is not enough room to seperate the
|really good gymnast from a gymnast just meeting the rules!
There was a long discussion on this between the coaches at NCAA
Nationals in Albuquerque last year. In general the opinion seemed to
be that they preferred the 9.0 scoring too, but they felt a need to
make their scores appear comparable to that of the women's. They felt
it would help the marketing aspect of men's gymnastics to have higher
scores... a 9.5 with a 9.0 base is an outstanding score, but it looks
really poor next to the collegiate women, who were scoring 10's left
and right. Georgia got a 198 last season -- an avg score of 9.9!
The men will be using 9.0 scoring for event finals at Nationals,
however... (team competition is still 9.5).
A general explanation of the 9.0 scoring system follows in another
msg, for those who are interested.
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 1994 19:27:28 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Winter Games; NCAA-W pre-season rankings
Just FYI, I have put the schedule of the Winter Olympics on our ftp
site. It's the same one that was posted a couple times to r.s.o, for
those who read that group.
Also, here are the pre-season rankings for the NCAA women, which is
just their final finishes last year:
5 Oregon State
9 Arizona State
12 Penn State
13 W. Virginia
16 Boise State
18T Utah State
18T Ohio State
End of gymn Digest