Does she appreciate classical dance in gymnastics?
In view of Nelli Kim's recent interview , Lupita and I thought it timely to revisit the performance of some of the WTC President's judges over past competitions ... this article from 27th August 2012 is reposted here, as a reminder. You will find a link to the FIG's newly published book of results at the Olympic Games here . This year, they have broken down the judge's execution scores so you can see exactly how each judge evaluated the gymnasts' performances. It makes for interesting reading - if only I had more time to analyse each judge's marking. A skim reading already highlights multiple inconsistencies in individual judges' marks and makes you wonder why they bother with the jury at all. I have taken the time to look at the reference judges' scores for the top four in the women's all around. The FIG explains here what their role is, and how they are selected. I even used my calculator, which is a risky thing in my hands. M...
Beautiful picture. Queen Elizabeth, I would love to hear your thoughts on the 2020 4 person team final situation. I have really only heard various American viewpoints at this time.
ReplyDeleteThe new format is about reinforcing the importance of the World Cup circuit.
DeleteI do not really understand the changes otherwise. I know Rodionenko does not like the new format.
I happen to think that gymnastics is at its brightest as a team sport yet this seems likely to sideline the quality of the team and all around competitions. I don't see the point of the specialists if they can't compete for the team. This new format doesn't address the hit and miss nature of three up three count.
I think it is very confusing for the public and apart from the improved emphasis on the World Cup circuit I am unsure what the benefits are. Hopefully the FIG will think twice before filling out the detail.
The best format IMO was 6-5-5 in both quals and finals. Oh and compulsories. And the perfect ten. Nothing ever stays the same. But the sport has been subject to so many random changes over such a short period of time. Why not just have one good format and stick with it.
I like the new rules because it allows 6 girls to go instead of 5. People are arguing that the new format ruins team prestige and will further spread the margin between the big counties but 1. The target of the rule is small country participation and 2. Team prestige has been lost. I mean USA has been winning by ridiculous margins and the silver and bronze teams have been having 3-4 falls. What's the difference of USA winning by 5 or 10 points? Countries like Russia and romania depend too much on specialists and Octavian belu can't have an excuse for not getting a bars coach after that. Also I would kill to see Russians being complete gymnasts again
DeleteCan someone explain the formats mentioned?
ReplyDeleteAs far as TF goes, I think smaller teams do diminish the excitement and "buzz" so that doesn't help. Furthermore, team strategy is now fairly cut and dry for the Big4 as they can't afford to not try to have 4 AAers otherwise you risk not even making the podium if one of your 3 AAers injured and the other person can't put up that one missing routine or is too weak in that one event. I can see a non Big4 team risk putting less than 4 AAers if they have good specialists in an all or nothing bet.
ReplyDeleteAAers become more important due to new TF format for obvious reason. Hopefully China and Russia will adapt and become better producers of 58+ AAers which would be a good thing since right now it seems like US is the only team that can put up 5 or 6 58+ AAers.
EF final will be stronger as it will be dominated by even stronger specialists who doesn't have to train for AA and just for one event.
I still wish that they would have done like a hybrid of 5+1 (with the additional specialist needing to qualify thr cup events for example if they want to increase cup participation) rather than just cutting down team to 4.