Pity Points?

[GetaGrip]

Being a bit older for my level, I've seen a lot of little gymnasts get not so little scores. One in particular, was my old teammate, lets call her Danika. Danika was 9 to 10, but she looked like she was six. She was a good clean gymnast, but what ever she did was extremely small and not out done at all. Her jumps were small, her casts were small, her vaults had no block, yet the lowest score I've ever seen her get was an 8.5, while I was stuck with a score 2 tenths lower, while every one agreed with me that my routine was better. I'm not just being picky, I've seen this happen so many times. One time I even seen a little girl fall on her beam routine and still get a 9. And her routine was still not that great.
Gymnasts, have you ever seen this happen?
Parents, same with you.
Judges, have you ever given out pity points, just because a little girl seemed so cute?

-GCG

 

[gymkat]

Judges, have you ever given out pity points, just because a little girl seemed so cute?

Um, no.

I've given "pity points" for gymnasts who get injured and stop their routines (i.e. "Hey, the average is a 0.7. Wanna give her a 1.0? Okay!").

 

[Bobby]

I recall watching the olympics (decades after the fact obviously) where Nadia Commenci got all the 10.0s, thinking that her scores seemed really disproportionate. Yes she was good - but so were many others who just didn't look that young/small/cute.
I also snooped at our state comp scores and noticed the 'under' division winners way outscored the 'opens' in every level (as a generalisation). It does seem a bit odd to think that late starters don't get to the same standard as their younger counterparts.
So yes I personally think you might have a point there somewhere. I'm not sure whether it's favouring cuteness though - or just the unfair reality that faults are magnified in taller girls (eg: slightly bent long legs just look more bent than slightly bent short legs; poor height on a split jump stands out more on a tall girl, a cast or handstand not reaching the required perpendicular to fllor/bar is more noticable in a taller girl). Maybe it's more about height than age, an maybe that's another reason shorter girls tend to do better in this sport??

 

[CoachTodd]

Assuming there are no politics involved (that would be an entire thread on it's own), the judges have point to play with for artistry, presentation, rhythm, and dynamics. I've seen really good routines get ok scores and ok routines get really good scores. I think we sometime focus on the routine itself while the judges are focused on many small pieces to the routine to make it a whole.
I do know that if you have really long legs, the judge will know when they aren't straight. And depending on where you are in your growing development, you may have big knees to go with the long legs making it really hard to look like you have straight legs. This could be costing a taller gymnast 7 tenth or more in the coarse of one floor routine.
I used this as an example because I saw it happen and asked the judge. She'd lost .7 in bent legs alone but that was as straight as her legs got at that time.

I think the little ones get cute points not pity points since the coach that put together their routine should be taking advantage of the fact that they are smaller and give her cute routine.

 

[MdGymMom01]

Being a bit older for my level, I've seen a lot of little gymnasts get not so little scores. One in particular, was my old teammate, lets call her Danika. Danika was 9 to 10, but she looked like she was six. She was a good clean gymnast, but what ever she did was extremely small and not out done at all. Her jumps were small, her casts were small, her vaults had no block, yet the lowest score I've ever seen her get was an 8.5, while I was stuck with a score 2 tenths lower, while every one agreed with me that my routine was better. I'm not just being picky, I've seen this happen so many times. One time I even seen a little girl fall on her beam routine and still get a 9. And her routine was still not that great.
Gymnasts, have you ever seen this happen?
Parents, same with you.
Judges, have you ever given out pity points, just because a little girl seemed so cute?

-GCG

As a parent, I have noticed some really cute little gymnasts getting some big scores but they also had the skills to back them up. Especially on floor, if you are expressive, smiley and really feel the music and look like you are enjoying yourself--you may score higher just because it is the overall package and presentation that the judge is looking at. Also, I agree with the other poster that mentioned height as a possible reason for different scores. On a smaller shorter gymnast, the bent knees and legs don't look as drastic as on a taller gymnast. The same goes with casts and leaps and jumps. But on the other hand, the taller gymnast can make gymnastics look very impressive when they do have very straight legs and pointed toes. I would think that if the taller gymnast was very tight they would look more extended possibly scoring higher.

PS--when I first read your post I had to do a double take because my dd's name is Danica (with a "c") and she is 10 but small for her age and looks much younger!!! LOL

 

[gymmomntc2e6]

Assuming there are no politics involved (that would be an entire thread on it's own), the judges have point to play with for artistry, presentation, rhythm, and dynamics. I've seen really good routines get ok scores and ok routines get really good scores. I think we sometime focus on the routine itself while the judges are focused on many small pieces to the routine to make it a whole.
I do know that if you have really long legs, the judge will know when they aren't straight. And depending on where you are in your growing development, you may have big knees to go with the long legs making it really hard to look like you have straight legs. This could be costing a taller gymnast 7 tenth or more in the coarse of one floor routine.
I used this as an example because I saw it happen and asked the judge. She'd lost .7 in bent legs alone but that was as straight as her legs got at that time.

I think the little ones get cute points not pity points since the coach that put together their routine should be taking advantage of the fact that they are smaller and give her cute routine.

thanks CoachTodd,
makes sense and I have often wondered as my DD is one of those long leg, big kneed legs look bent kids !!! Struggles to get higher than 8.85.

 

[socko]

I don't think it's really a "cute or pity" point issue...a lot of times the younger gymnasts in a level are better than the older ones and that's why they score better...they're generally referred to as the Hot Shots.... Let's face it , if you're a teenager and Level 5 or 6 or 7, you probably don't have the same skill set or presentation as the 8 or 9 year olds in the same level.

 

[gymjourneymom]

I don't think it's really a "cute or pity" point issue...a lot of times the younger gymnasts in a level are better than the older ones and that's why they score better...they're generally referred to as the Hot Shots.... Let's face it , if you're a teenager and Level 5 or 6 or 7, you probably don't have the same skill set or presentation as the 8 or 9 year olds in the same level.

This comment doesn't give credit to teenagers who weren't "pushed" at a young age or may have suffered injuries that slowed their progress. Yes, there are some might impressive "hot shots" out there. But there are also impressive teenagers who got a late start in the sport. Please lets not insult any gymnasts...they are all amazing!

 

[cathiann]

Assuming there are no politics involved (that would be an entire thread on it's own), the judges have point to play with for artistry, presentation, rhythm, and dynamics. I've seen really good routines get ok scores and ok routines get really good scores. I think we sometime focus on the routine itself while the judges are focused on many small pieces to the routine to make it a whole.
I do know that if you have really long legs, the judge will know when they aren't straight. And depending on where you are in your growing development, you may have big knees to go with the long legs making it really hard to look like you have straight legs. This could be costing a taller gymnast 7 tenth or more in the coarse of one floor routine.
I used this as an example because I saw it happen and asked the judge. She'd lost .7 in bent legs alone but that was as straight as her legs got at that time.

I think the little ones get cute points not pity points since the coach that put together their routine should be taking advantage of the fact that they are smaller and give her cute routine.

Totally agree with this. Definitely get cute points, but remember that your longer legs, etc. make the small form deductions magnified--hers don't show as much. And since she's shorter--her leaps and tumblings passes don't have to be as high to look really high.

 

[gymdog]

Another issue is that at these levels the "bare minimum" may well outscore going above the requirements. For example cast handstand in L6. Many coaches encourage this because it's good progressively, but it's not a requirement. In the short term, a gymnast just hitting the requirement may be able to stay cleaner than a gymnast who pushes for more amplitude.

But I have girls at all ages in L5/6 and have not noticed a score bias. If anything on bars I think the deck tends to be stacked against the smallest ones. It can be difficult to hit the tap swing amplitude required at that size without risking peeling. And that's assuming you can even get them there to spot and try to make sure that doesn't happen. All in all my kids who have hit a certain size tend to do better on bars in their first year of L5. You've got kids who did really well with the L4 routine, and then are hit with the jump to the high bar and tap swings, and some take awhile to get those things to proficiency.

Some of my highest scorers are "older" for their level. I was older in L5/6 and by L6 was scoring mid-9s, especially on floor. It just depends. I started gymnastics late. All in all some of the little ones really are better at gymnastics, have better lines and a quicker muscle type, which is why they reached any given level so fast. But overall no matter the age for compulsories, and I think many people have made this observation, there are really certain body types and types of gymnasts who consistently do really well, that doesn't necessarily correlate to whether they can stay in the sport. I have kids now who are so-so compulsories that I think will really be good optionals, but there's no ability to hide their less balletic lines behind their power.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

Older athletes are more likely to pick up and understand more about scoring. Just like parents, knowing a little bit about scoring can lead to more confusion. We all know that a fall is a big deduction. As a semi informed gymnast we might assume that because Sarah fell off on her squat on she should get a lower score than Emma who had slightly bent arms throughout. Generally though, the deductions that non judges/coaches don't see are things like dynamics, elements downgraded, extra swings, height of elements, text errors, body position in dance elements, landing position, amplitude, connections not credited.
Some of these are big deductions, while others can add up quickly.

 

[Mack_the_Ripper]

I have definitely seen this happen. On what was possibly my best beam routine in competition this season (I have done a better one overall, but with a fall), I scored .2 lower than a teammate who did possibly her worst beam routine this season. She had many little wobbles, she was overtime, and her rhythm was not connected. She is three years younger and possibly 40 lbs or more lighter than I am. My coaches were shocked at my score and submitted an inquiry. The judges said that it was "little things throughout". My excellent, experienced coaches could not pinpoint these "little things" except that my split leap was not good. (Also note that by the end of the meet, routines similar to mine were scoring much higher.)

At the same meet, I got a gold medal on floor with an 8.65. The winner of the 11-year-old group had a 9.3. This is consistent throughout the season - perhaps it is judging, but more likely the compulsory routines are not suited to older girls (this is level 5). For example, my directions are consistently wrong because I don't have enough room. Also, my straddle jump is never the highest it could be, because when I go higher, I'm late on the music. It simply takes more time for a body of my mass to come up and go down!

 

[bookworm]

I agree with Pineapple Lump...I think this whole issue is a misunderstanding of what is actually going on by the gymnast in terms of her actual deductions...she may perceive that her routine is "way better than the others" but the judges are the ones tallying the deductions for all gymnasts and give out the scores.

Gymnastics is a judged sport and that's what it comes down to.

 

[bookworm]

This comment doesn't give credit to teenagers who weren't "pushed" at a young age or may have suffered injuries that slowed their progress. Yes, there are some might impressive "hot shots" out there. But there are also impressive teenagers who got a late start in the sport. Please lets not insult any gymnasts...they are all amazing!

I don't think that this was an attempt to insult anyone but just stating what is out there...you are correct in stating that there are some impressive teenagers out there as well as the hot shots but that isn't what the OP was inquiring about I believe. She was wondering why she didn't get the same scores as youngers kids.

 

[Optionals United]

yes!! like at my competition yesterdaythis little girl who was 7 got a 9.700 on floor.my caoch said that the routine should of been a 9.4 but the judge just loved the routine so much

 

[gymjourneymom]

"Let's face it , if you're a teenager and Level 5 or 6 or 7, you probably don't have the same skill set or presentation as the 8 or 9 year olds in the same level.[/quote]"
Sorry, but I find this statement extremely offensive & demeaning & false. Please at least put a "JMHO" after a statement such as this. Maybe no one meant to "insult" anyone, but I was insulted by this statement & I'm a parent not a gymnast. Since this a gymnastics website there are many teenage gymnast reading these posts. I ask that posters, especially adults & parents be mindful of this when posting their opinions. JMHO. Thank you.

 

[bookworm]

I don't know if it is the same in compulsories but in optionals , the judge can give up to .3 for "artistry and presentation" which could account for the 9.7 instead of the 9.4...just a thought

 

[tumblebug921]

YES!!
haha
me and one of my other teammates (who happens to be my best friend) is also tall like me. we were at a meet and noticed that the younger girls were scoring waaayy higher than us, and their routines weren't even that great! its pretty frustrating /: