Coaches Technique discussion: Front Layout

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I've seen this skill taught in several different ways, and I wanted to see if we could get a discussion going about the merits of the various techniques.

Some coaches coach a hollow front layout. I'm not entirely sure why.

I coach a heel-drive front layout; I coach it not as the forwards equivalent of a back layout, but of a whipback. The reason is that, while back tumbling is better for having one super-difficult skill at the end of a pass, front tumbling is better for connecting a series of lower-level skills -- which often adds up to higher value. An ideal front layout can function the same as a bounder within a tumbling pass.

That's my theory. Thoughts?

 

[JBS]

I teach a tight arch (heel drive). Not really sure about the hollow technique, but I have seen it. In my opinion, a perfect layout is straight...not hollow or arched.

If you line them up side by side a hollowed out back layout and an arched front layout are the same. During both, you drive the lower part of your body (toes or heels) over your head. If you taught a hollow front layout you would not be driving the lower part of your body up, you would be dropping the upper part of your body down. Hollow front layouts are completely wrong if you ask me. Anyone else have an opinion on this one?

Great thread!

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I teach a tight arch (heel drive). Not really sure about the hollow technique, but I have seen it. In my opinion, a perfect layout is straight...not hollow or arched.

If you line them up side by side a hollowed out back layout and an arched front layout are the same. During both, you drive the lower part of your body (toes or heels) over your head. If you taught a hollow front layout you would not be driving the lower part of your body up, you would be dropping the upper part of your body down. Hollow front layouts are completely wrong if you ask me. Anyone else have an opinion on this one?

Great thread!

Interesting; as I said, I think of a front layout as being more akin to a whipback than to a back layout; that is, I aim for no higher than head/shoulder height, with fast rotation, rather than going high and slow like a back layout. This, it seems to me, sets you up better to punch into another skill afterwards. Is this different from how you coach it, or are we just saying the same thing in different ways?

(though to be fair; people are far more likely to throw it too low than too high, so I do coach my kids to get their chest up and try to set it upwards)

 

[JBS]

Depending on where the front layout is in the combination, I teach it differently. If it is the last skill in a series, then I would want the layout as high as possible. If it is a connection, then as you said, not too high.

For example, if I was teaching FHS, Front Layout, Rudy...I would want the Rudy to be like a layout, not a whip. The middle layout, on the other hand, would be more like the whip.

It sounds to me like we coach them the same way.

The talk in elite level competition is about layouts being straight. Should a gymnast that can throw a straight double layout off bars get a higher score than the gymnast that has a tight arch? I keep seeing that question, however, I haven't really seen a perfectly straight double layout, yet.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I guess that's more or less how I'd teach it as well; to be honest, I've never coached anything past a front layout punch front; none of my kids is at a high enough level to be working a series of several layouts.

 

[hammy]

I was taught a front layout as a tight arch heal drive.

A few drills I did was bonders (flysprings) on the tumbletrak. I also did a front handspring punch up to a handstand on a resi mat--eventually doing a front handsrping on the floor then bonder on the mat (hands hitting the mat). Usually, those who could do that drill were good front tumblers.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

The talk in elite level competition is about layouts being straight. Should a gymnast that can throw a straight double layout off bars get a higher score than the gymnast that has a tight arch? I keep seeing that question, however, I haven't really seen a perfectly straight double layout, yet.

I actually think the arch in a double layout (at least on floor) makes it look far more beautiful than it would straight.

I've seen exactly one person do a straight double-layout; there was a girl throwing them into a resi pit at woodward when I went this past summer.

 

[JBS]

I actually think the arch in a double layout (at least on floor) makes it look far more beautiful than it would straight.

I've seen exactly one person do a straight double-layout; there was a girl throwing them into a resi pit at woodward when I went this past summer.

I agree...I love the arch. Gymnastics should look human, not robotic.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Just started working one of my boys on a punch layout. He's an interesting case: his front handsprings are mediocre at best, and he's not ready to even think about working a handspring front, but he can punch high enough to do a tuck (or, as was the case last night, a layour) well above head height without effort.

 

[JBS]

Just started working one of my boys on a punch layout. He's an interesting case: his front handsprings are mediocre at best, and he's not ready to even think about working a handspring front, but he can punch high enough to do a tuck (or, as was the case last night, a layour) well above head height without effort.

Go with what works. Now he'll always be excited to front tumble...that's a great thing in itself.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

I'm looking forward to getting this kid up to optionals; he's only a level 6 right now.

 

[ACoach78]

It's important to teach 2 types of front layout. You need to be able to do an arched front layout for connection tumbling. And, a gymnast should be able to do more of a straight/hollow front layout for the purpose of twisting.

As for a double layout on floor, a the arch-arch technique will not twist, either. So, that technique will not produce a full-out.

That's the rationale for doing straight/hollow front layouts and straight backwards double layouts.

By the way, Liz Tricase did very nice straight body double layouts. In fact, in her last year of elite, she did her double layout as her second line in her floor routine.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I find in my own tumbling that I naturally straighten out when I twist. When I do a front full, I don't try to do it any differently than my normal arched front layout, yet I instinctively straighten out when I start twisting. Is this something everybody does naturally, or is this just something I've subconsciouly learned from years of tumbling?

 

[ryantroop]

Talk about digging up old threads, huh?


So, after watching the clip on layout position on gymnastike, it got me thinking- such a late open as his technique uses leaves an awful lot of room for a short landing (but you gotta admit, they do look nice).

It's part of our responsibility to consider the safety of our gymnasts, so I was stuck pondering - how would you prevent lower back injury from a short landing, or even one that gets a little too over-rotated? Personally, I never competed front layouts, and I have only done them into a resi, so Im at a loss for experience here.

Am I over thinking the possiblity for injury? If not, what precautions could we take to prevent such an injury from happening to the lower back?

Any thoughts?

 

[Valentin]

To add my 2c, i am with ACoach78, i teach a accelerator layout (whip one so to speak) first, because this type of layout has 2 merits
1- For tumbling combination (it is an accelerator)
2- For vaulting
Initially i try and encourage a tight arch shape, but as the gymnast develops proficiency i aim to get them to straighten it out.
That being said naturally when twisting you will straighten out. I used to know the reason for this, but i can't remember why this happens now. Just as point of note, twisting in a arch is ridiculously hard, so what you experience Geoffrey its totally natural.

When it comes to teaching the twisting i introduce bringing the arms down to 1/4 (horizontal) way and out to side, in a straight to slightly hollow layout (straight however at this point is what i am after given all the time we have spend by this point working on the layout shape in tight arch and straight). They get confused at first because until this point i teach them to punch type arms. However if i realllly had time to spend on layouts i would also introduce an underarm layout as well which is most specific to vault.

I however personally light the tight arch layouts on floor, they look really floaty, and just beautiful (can't seem to find a better adjective to describe it). I never teach i layout from a run into a hollow shape.. this i consider to be counter productive, and a short fall in the gymnasts development. However i am sure others will argue this, and please do, happy to debate it.

In regard to injury from short landings, yes there is a risk, however, really the best way to prevent this is by really drilling it in the correct take-off and preparation before doing lots and lots. Play it safe at first and slowly let them work it on the FX without mats. Of course the best injury prevention is a strong core, and a tightly held body shape. Strengthening the tight arch shape under various positions you will prepare the body to tolerate and withstand short landings.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Wow, OOOOOLD old thread here!

When I go to teach front twisting, I don't teach it as a progression from a layout; I teach it as a progression from a pike. This forces the gymnast to delay the twist and get a stronger takeoff.

I first teach a front pike half. Once the kids has a feel for the delayed twist (which some kids pick up faster than others), I then have them work a full, 3/2, etc (all into a pit), and once we get past the 1/1, I tend to "forget" to mention that it's a pike. What I've found is that as they progress, the pike naturally tends to turn into a hollow, but they retain that split-second delay before cranking the twist.

 

[BlairBob]

Way old, but I teach front layouts as a front whip. In fact that's what I was taught to call them, a front whip.

Front layout/whip arched into pit. I generally will teach a 3/4 layout to back at the early levels. HS flatback, then 3/4 front layout to back.

Hmm, perhaps there is some hope for one of my boys in front tumbling. I have seen the trend to eliminating the FHS for a front whip into front series.

For twisting a front, I go the hollow/straight layout but generally this is accelerated by a front whip or 1/2 into front.

 

[Valentin]

Humm..interesting Geoffrey, i have seen this approach but never really tried. I teach then to twist as late as possible as, but through land, and jump 1/2 turn. Then we move onto twist sooner.It works quite well, but it can get quite hard. Humm i shall try and use the pike open next time. I know good old Tammy encourages this approach.