Just throwing this out there...

As I re-watched the 2008 Olympic team finals, it might be easy to throw the bulk of the blame on A-Sac that the U.S. lost the gold.



HOWEVER,

At second glance, look at the 2007 Worlds. We won the gold here without Shawn's Amanar, and with two mishaps on beam, one from Shawn and one from Nastia. When you look at things in that light, I think you have to forgive A-Sac. She hit as well as Nastia and Shawn in prelims in '08, and hit in '07 when both of them didn't. It's amazing we won the gold in '07. As a whole, we looked better in '08. We got really lucky, and the Chinese were not as good in '07. Just sayin'....


And would someone please, please explain to me how Emilie LePennec not only won the gold on UB in '04, but how she even had a 10.0 SV. BS!!!



Not cool, Em.

MY results

In the world on Liz, HERE are the event finals results from 96:

V
Huilan -- hello, cleaner!
Amanar -- ok, good difficulty but no sticks & sloppy Phelps
Galieva -- clean clean and almost stuck

Something that occurred to me...

I just got a DVD/VHS burner for Christmas, and so I've been going through all my VHS tapes and burning them to DVD, year by year. I have done '92, '93, 94, '95 and am doing '96 now.

Wow, when you are accustomed to the 2-panel scoring system, the 10.0 seems quite odd.
For example, we'll assume that most gymnasts in the top 10 at say the 1992 Olympic all-around had 10.0 start values on all four events. But some of these gymnasts technically have over a 10.0. So, what if they hit everything but one skill, versus a "just barely getting to a 10.0 SV" gymnast... who gets the better score? It seems like there were way more judgment calls back then. Like, well so-and-so did a hard routine, so in spite of her balance check, we'll give her a better score. And then other times, someone went out on a limb with difficulty, and you'd kind of like to see the judges reward that, but not. (i.e. Miller v. Lyssenko on BB finals). Basically, the risk-for-reward ratio was whacked (I'm so articulate) -- back then, why take the risk when it didn't necessarily assure you anything? (Of course the flip side to this is Li Shanshan winning a bronze on BB at the '07 Worlds with a fall...).

I mean, I am basically used to the new system and can't see going back, but watching all of those all competitions solidified this in my mind. And another consequence of the new system: most of the time, not all of the time, winners are more definitive. I mean, what is winning a gold medal by .012 (Gutsu v. Miller), especially when we consider HOW subjective it was?! I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but Liukin defeated Johnson by several tenths of a point.

And another thing: the scoring at the '95 Worlds. A lot of the routines there seemed almost identical to the ones in Atlanta (i.e. Huilan, Gogean, Milo) and yet the scoring seemed a lot losing. We didn't break 9.875 in Atlanta, but there was at least one 9.9 in Sabae. Milo's bar routine was pretty standard in the team competition (or maybe it was all-around) and she had a substantial hop on her double front with a half dismount, and got a 9.875. Umm, what? They were HARDLY giving those out in Atlanta.

I will say that now, it is SO MUCH NICER to be able to actually see HOW the score was derived.

Now the execution scores on the other hand, right now they are still wack. But that's another tirade.

Heated Debate!

I am having a somewhat heated discussion with the fellow fanatics on the IG Message Board.

Fishbulb says: Bleh. I don't understand the execution scores at all. It doesn't make sense to me that a short handstand on bars can be worse than a FALL. I might get pummelled for this, but... why does Ivana get such low scores on bars? Before you freak out, mind you I'm not a code expert, and obviously I didn't get the memo about short handstands = death. I can see that her tkatchev is bad, but other than that (and the HANDSTANDS) how does she barely score better than Jana?

AGREED. Neither gymnast is THAT sloppy. Jana gets picked on, bur seriously, from an 8.4 you'd think she was horrid. But how can Ivana only score .2 higher than that? Yes, handstands and low Tcatchev, but... hmm for YEARS these things didn't matter like they do now. which leads me to his second point...

I feel like the FIG picks one new thing every code to focus on, and kind of forgets about everything else. Now it's this no-lunge landing thing. Can I just mention that this may be the stupidest thing to ever happen in gymnastics. IMO. I spent a million hours as a kid practicing throwing my head back and stepping back just the way the elites did it. Now that's gone. WHY? They give some BS answer about this being the only way to show lack of control, but isn't that the judges job? Aren't the supposed to watch and decide if someone is in control or not? I see it controlling the girls into a bunch of snapped ankles.

So, to be clear, the two most important things in gymnastics are handstands on bars, and landing like a dude on floor. Not so much skills, artistry, creativity, expression, staying on the apparatus... It's a few tenths for a fall, and 72380189710980 tenths for a missed handstand. HURUMPF.

Precisely. This year it's execution. Oh well if you're consistent and hit 8-for-8, like hong. If you can land like a guy, and hit handstands, you're good as gold.

And, I'm sorry but it's ludicrous to say that the "lunge" girls have done for years shows a lack of control. I'm not a judge, but even I know the difference between a lunge that shows a controlled landing and one that does not!!