WAG Level 4 bars - overhollow?

[IreneKa]

At DD's meet this past weekend I saw the coach telling DD something after she finished her bars routine. I asked her later what the coach said. She said he told her she was "overhollow". She thinks he was talking about her tap swings. But I remember reading here that being hollow on tap swings is a good thing for safety reasons. If she peels off, she will land on her feet, not on the low bar. What I think he was talking about was her casts. Because when she is hollow like this, she is not really horizontal, her torso is horizontal, but her legs point down. But DD insists that this is correct, and he was talking about her swings. I know nothing about gymnastics other than what I learned here on CB, so would like some opinions of the experts.
Here is the video:

 

[profmom]

Nice routine! I think it was the casts, but she should check with the coach.

 

[IreneKa]

Nice routine! I think it was the casts, but she should check with the coach.

I told her to check with the coach, but she is just so stubborn sometimes - "no, I know what he meant!"
I'm not trying to coach her, I know that the coach will eventually correct what he thinks is wrong. Just curious for myself if I'm right.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Okay, just to be clear, anyone peeling in the back swing is probably not going to land on feet. But a slight hollow is much safer as compared to arched, and if you hollow or pike too much you will do a straddle back peel... So we teach a normal hollow position unless the child is too big and has to hollow more.
So yes based on her size the counter swings can open a little more for my liking . Not sure what her score was, but it will really go up if she puts all the focus on the elbows in the kips casts and the squat on (not to mention pointing BOTH toes during the kips and keeping her feet together on the squat on).
Casts are low but body shape isn't bad.

 

[gymdog]

I think he was probably talking about her casts. I prefer a straighter line on the hip myself for various reasons. But it could have been the swigs, though I would describe those as slightly piked.

 

[IreneKa]

Okay, just to be clear, anyone peeling in the back swing is probably not going to land on feet. But a slight hollow is much safer as compared to arched, and if you hollow or pike too much you will do a straddle back peel... So we teach a normal hollow position unless the child is too big and has to hollow more.
So yes based on her size the counter swings can open a little more for my liking . Not sure what her score was, but it will really go up if she puts all the focus on the elbows in the kips casts and the squat on (not to mention pointing BOTH toes during the kips and keeping her feet together on the squat on).
Casts are low but body shape isn't bad.

Thanks! Her score was in the low 9s. Not bad, but definitely room for improvement.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Ideal cast position (according to the rules, at least) is perfectly straight. She should get a .1 deduction for shapes on both of those casts -- maaaaaybe .2 from a very tough judge (though if that routine scored in the 9s, it wasn't a tough judge). However, the over-hollowed shape also causes her to get a deduction for cast height, probably another .1 or .2.

 

[gymdog]

Ideal cast position (according to the rules, at least) is perfectly straight. She should get a .1 deduction for shapes on both of those casts -- maaaaaybe .2 from a very tough judge (though if that routine scored in the 9s, it wasn't a tough judge). However, the over-hollowed shape also causes her to get a deduction for cast height, probably another .1 or .2.

I would expect this routine to get in the low 9s. I don't see any major element with more than .2 deduction, and really not even that. Most of the deductions are small.1 deductions, although there are a few of them. .2 on those casts for body shape is a little draconian, although shape plus height I could see .2 total on the cast which is likely what they took, plus .1 on the swings and some other little deductions for slightly bent arms, the rhythm of the high bar kip, feet apart in some areas.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I would expect this routine to get in the low 9s. I don't see any major element with more than .2 deduction, and really not even that. Most of the deductions are small.1 deductions, although there are a few of them. .2 on those casts for body shape is a little draconian, although shape plus height I could see .2 total on the cast which is likely what they took, plus .1 on the swings and some other little deductions for slightly bent arms, the rhythm of the high bar kip, feet apart in some areas.

Two different scoring regions. CA is pretty harsh. Apples and oranges then mix in personal technique. I like a hollow cast , so long as it is not too hollow. Some people teach arch, and everything in between.

 

[gymdog]

Two different scoring regions. CA is pretty harsh. Apples and oranges then mix in personal technique. I like a hollow cast , so long as it is not too hollow. Some people teach arch, and everything in between.

Sure, it's going to vary, even within a state I have had the scores for virtually the same routine vary up to a point. The areas of deduction on this routine aren't huge though. She should get a small deduction for her body position when jumping to low bar - .05-.1. Then .2 on cast, .05 arms, .1 rhythm, high bar cast I suppose they could take .3 but I think most judges would do .2, .1 rhythm and shape on back hip, .1 on both swings for excessive piking. Then some foot form in places, .05s. Max you have a little over a point in deductions so 8.9 on the low end and up to 9.1 on the high end.

Of course the judges can do whatever they want and in some cases judges do what they want. But using the text that is about where it should be. The USAG presentation on compulsory scoring which we had presented in our state was very informative (USAG put it together, not my state - they had experienced judges judge routines that had been videotaped across the US, with input from the compulsory committee, then they put it together in the presentation showing the range they were at). They did an excellent job. Where these judges really succeeded was in differentiating between the quality of the routine. Yes, in some states this might score a mid 8, while another routine without the same quality of swing would get a low 8. There is no meaningful differentiation between the quality of the movement. And some of those judges and compulsory committee members gave some routines, even with visible (but less significant technically) errors high 9s (9.7s). So they weren't afraid to do it. They just used the text, and that differentiated bad from good from great. On the other hand they showed a more or less competent level 5 floor routine. The child landed everything successfully, no squats, no falls. Somewhat loose but the tumbling wasn't bad. This routine would get an 8 something pretty much any meet in those country and I watch YouTube obsessively including CA, never seen a routine like this get a 6 or 7, but the committee gave it like a 7.1 or something. Again differentiating loose from tight with some errors to tight with great amplitude.

By their scoring, which they did as a range, they ranged level 4 bar routines like this from 8.8-9.0. You don't have to be amazing to get a 9, you just have to have a point of deductions, which if most of your major elements don't have severe issues isn't that hard to do.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Sure, it's going to vary, even within a state I have had the scores for virtually the same routine vary up to a point. The areas of deduction on this routine aren't huge though. She should get a small deduction for her body position when jumping to low bar - .05-.1. Then .2 on cast, .05 arms, .1 rhythm, high bar cast I suppose they could take .3 but I think most judges would do .2, .1 rhythm and shape on back hip, .1 on both swings for excessive piking. Then some foot form in places, .05s. Max you have a little over a point in deductions so 8.9 on the low end and up to 9.1 on the high end.

Of course the judges can do whatever they want and in some cases judges do what they want. But using the text that is about where it should be. The USAG presentation on compulsory scoring which we had presented in our state was very informative (USAG put it together, not my state - they had experienced judges judge routines that had been videotaped across the US, with input from the compulsory committee, then they put it together in the presentation showing the range they were at). They did an excellent job. Where these judges really succeeded was in differentiating between the quality of the routine. Yes, in some states this might score a mid 8, while another routine without the same quality of swing would get a low 8. There is no meaningful differentiation between the quality of the movement. And some of those judges and compulsory committee members gave some routines, even with visible (but less significant technically) errors high 9s (9.7s). So they weren't afraid to do it. They just used the text, and that differentiated bad from good from great. On the other hand they showed a more or less competent level 5 floor routine. The child landed everything successfully, no squats, no falls. Somewhat loose but the tumbling wasn't bad. This routine would get an 8 something pretty much any meet in those country and I watch YouTube obsessively including CA, never seen a routine like this get a 6 or 7, but the committee gave it like a 7.1 or something. Again differentiating loose from tight with some errors to tight with great amplitude.

By their scoring, which they did as a range, they ranged level 4 bar routines like this from 8.8-9.0. You don't have to be amazing to get a 9, you just have to have a point of deductions, which if most of your major elements don't have severe issues isn't that hard to do.

==
It's all subjective, here the deductions would be greater on the arms and height of casts. Don't get me wrong, I would love for the judges to take less!

 

[IreneKa]

Sure, it's going to vary, even within a state I have had the scores for virtually the same routine vary up to a point. The areas of deduction on this routine aren't huge though. She should get a small deduction for her body position when jumping to low bar - .05-.1. Then .2 on cast, .05 arms, .1 rhythm, high bar cast I suppose they could take .3 but I think most judges would do .2, .1 rhythm and shape on back hip, .1 on both swings for excessive piking. Then some foot form in places, .05s. Max you have a little over a point in deductions so 8.9 on the low end and up to 9.1 on the high end.

Thank you! This is very informative! She got 9.05, most likely one judge gave her 9.0, another 9.1, so you are very close.
But looks like I'm right that her casts caused her more deductions than her swings, so that's the area to concentrate on.

 

[Kcanflip]

Does opening more on the swings = less of a pike?? Novice question...I know. Really learning a lot from these posts!

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

In general, we refer to forward bends in the body (be it a pike, a hollow, or a shoulder angle) as "closed," and backward bends (ie an arch) as "open."