Coaches Scoring rant

[Iwannabemargo]

ah - we tend to have two per event judging and they "agree" on the score

 

[aerialriver]

Well for us it has always be a matter of a couple tenths and for something that the athlete was going for (scoring to the next level, making National's) not to win the meet. And sometimes the coach inquired and they "forgot" to add in the difficulty or your right her last skill was shoulder height I'll give it to her. It is always the supreme judge that makes that call. And sometimes I have heard coaches telling the judges what an athlete needs (She need her 24.6 to move up or she need a 51.0 to make National's whatever) I have seen coaches write these requests down even and leave them on the judges table and some judges do take that into consideration and some don't. But it just seems wrong. And all of our T&T judges are coaches from our clubs and they all know each other. Gymnastics seems so much more formal. It is annoying to win big, get 1st and kick butt all year then go to Regional's or National's where the judging is impartial and lose your butt doing the same quality routines you have done all year.

 

[CoachGoofy]

My boss always gets snarky at me about scoring later.

"Well, it WASNT shoulder height. I even move so I can tell"
"But we want her to make Nationals"
"....sooooo she needs to tumble shoulder high. I'm not sacrificing MY integrity bc a kid I know wants to make nationals/move up. That's not good for the sport or for the athlete".

Yeah. I take "judge the pass in front of you, not the leo or the warmup passes" very very seriously.

 

[bookworm]

To be fair, you can't really compare the compulsory training and scoring of 10 years ago to today...it's a very different ballgame. But I also can tell what gym the child in question is at, and it makes me form my own opinions about the situation anyway. She obviously needs more work on fundamentals, but I think she can get that fine in the new level 6 so that in a vacuum doesn't mean anything to me. And the rest is mostly speculation.

Actually , I don't think the "ballgame" is all that different, even now...the gyms who produce middle of the road gymnasts tend to continue to produce them, and they are scored accordingly. There have been some gyms who have made strides in the last several years but for the most part, much has remained the same.

 

[gymdog]

Actually , I don't think the "ballgame" is all that different, even now...the gyms who produce middle of the road gymnasts tend to continue to produce them, and they are scored accordingly. There have been some gyms who have made strides in the last several years but for the most part, much has remained the same.

Overall, the quality expected of compulsories has increased in the last 10 years. The skills have also been watered down, although maybe your daughter started competing after that happened. There are gyms that are still awful, don't get me wrong, but they're...basically not in it. 10 years ago, a low 9 was good. Now a low 9 is expected and often middle of the road placement. Many, many kids used to compete compulsory and "never get a blue" ribbon. Kids who were fairly decent too. That's not really the case anymore, even with kids who aren't that great. Also, hours have increased. A level 5 and 6 at my gym now go one more additional day than they did 10 years ago, and level 4s go more hours too. This is pretty consistent among any competitive team in our state. Probably not true of the uncompetitive teams, but those are just trying for more recreation I guess.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

Overall, the quality expected of compulsories has increased in the last 10 years. The skills have also been watered down, although maybe your daughter started competing after that happened. There are gyms that are still awful, don't get me wrong, but they're...basically not in it. 10 years ago, a low 9 was good. Now a low 9 is expected and often middle of the road placement. Many, many kids used to compete compulsory and "never get a blue" ribbon. Kids who were fairly decent too. That's not really the case anymore, even with kids who aren't that great. Also, hours have increased. A level 5 and 6 at my gym now go one more additional day than they did 10 years ago, and level 4s go more hours too. This is pretty consistent among any competitive team in our state. Probably not true of the uncompetitive teams, but those are just trying for more recreation I guess.

==
yes I remember my kids getting 9.5's years ago and being enough to win state on bars.... Not anymore! Although vault is a different story all together. The joke here in Cali is vault really starts at a 9.8, not a 10...

 

[Deleted member D3987]

but in Texas, vault scores start at 14.00...lol...

 

[wandrewsjr]

==
yes I remember my kids getting 9.5's years ago and being enough to win state on bars.... Not anymore! Although vault is a different story all together. The joke here in Cali is vault really starts at a 9.8, not a 10...

I know! At level 6 states in Norcal this season, out of 300+ girls, there was one 9.6(unbelievable vaulter), two 9.4's and five 9.3's. Quite a few state champions of their age group with 9.0 and 9.1.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I know! At level 6 states in Norcal this season, out of 300+ girls, there was one 9.6(unbelievable vaulter), two 9.4's and five 9.3's. Quite a few state champions of their age group with 9.0 and 9.1.

==
yes it's been a problem for ever..... And it really is a problem, no reason why one event should be scored lower than the rest.

 

[gymisforeveryone]

I think that our system here in Finland was nice. You had to score out of every compulsory level and the mobility score was 32.00. That is quite a high AA score for our gymnasts because judging is FIG-based. And when you want to score out of the last compulsory level and move to the elite stream the required score is 33.50 which is very high. And those kids also have to pass one kind of testing (pretty much like your TOPS in US)

So a 8.0 is a good score and 9.0 is very close to perfect. At most competitions no-one scores higher than 8.5, except vault which is very hard to score UNDER 9.0 since the judging rules changed so much this year and they removed to many old deductions.

The kids were working HARD to score higher than 32.00. Some gymnasts spent 2-3 years in one level trying to score 32.00 and it wasn't that uncommon.

No when the routines changed and judging changed in 2013 they dropped the mobility score to 30.00. That's pretty low and now most of the kids get the mobility score at their first competition but aren't really ready to move up. So our gym has stated that for those "elite dream kids" the mobility score is still 32. I'm not fan of these new rules because it makes the kids wonder why they are treated differently. But now we have also a new nice rule that allows 13 year old gymnasts to move up to optionals without going through the compulsories if their coaches makes that decision. I like this a lot and it has allowed us to take in many talented late starters.

 

[Muddlethru]

This whole not good in compulsories but becomes great in optionals is truly all a mystery to me. There are so many arguments on both sides. The gymnast is training at the gym that I have personal experience. They have been coaches for maybe 20 years. They've had one make the Senior National Team in the late 90's. They also had one elite five years ago (maybe two within the last 10 years). They've trained many L10 that made nationals. Though not recently. The coaches are known to move the girls quickly through the levels. They clearly have girls (many!) who should not be competing their levels. But this gymnast, to my inexperience eyes, looks like she has some talent. My question is, it seems like it is the general consensus in this thread that compulsories is a necessary evil to succeed in optionals. This is where they learn good form; they build on the skills, they build strength, etc. Yet, there are many that do horribly in compulsories that turn out to be phenomenal optional gymnasts. So when a gymnast skips out of compulsories (and many elites have done so), it does not seem that necessary. How do you explain those that cannot score above 32 in compulsories and then kill it at optionals?

The gymnasts at this gym are not top scorers though. So, I thought they may have not kept up with the progress gymnastics is making. But several posters have argued, that times have not changed much.

P.S. It does seem sad that the poor little girl, is indirectly, being criticized so harshly. I know the thread is a gripe against judges. But the gymnast is getting the worse end of the stick.

 

[twisting007bigflip]

P.S. It does seem sad that the poor little girl, is indirectly, being criticized so harshly. I know the thread is a gripe against judges. But the gymnast is getting the worse end of the stick.

No one has said anything "hateful" or negatively critical about the child. Only facts. Unless I missed something...(which I've been known to do). The gymnast isn't getting the worse end of the stick here as far as this thread goes...in my opinion, she is getting the short end of the stick by being "scored" into optionals before she is ready. A generous 26 AA score does not show proficiency to move to optionals. You have to learn to add and subtract before you can multiply and divide.

 

[gymdog]

==
yes I remember my kids getting 9.5's years ago and being enough to win state on bars.... Not anymore! Although vault is a different story all together. The joke here in Cali is vault really starts at a 9.8, not a 10...

Well I am sure TX and CA have been higher for ages, but in the last cycle (the one that ended in 2005) it wasn't unusual for even low 9s to win states. I won states on floor one year (level 6) and I'm sure it was a 9.3 something, no higher. Again, we didn't practice as much as was typical these days, but the same percentage of time was probably spent on skills and nobody ever repeated level 6 or 7. Now, the "extra" 4-5 hours of practice probably end up being devoted entirely to routines. So I don't know. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other. I'm not sure the trend is for the best in the end, but there are some amazing young kids out there.

 

[bookworm]

I finally was able to access the video in question and I don't think it looks as bad as I was imagining...she definitely would have gotten a 31 in our region ( and scored out of her level). Her bars were a little shaky but it wasn't the horror show that I expected. Maybe 34.5 might have been generous but I don't think it's as out of line as portrayed for her region..

 

[twisting007bigflip]

The deductions don't vary by region as far as I know...like I said, if she had been at an actual meet with real judges, she wouldn't have scored out.

 

[bookworm]

The deductions don't vary by region as far as I know...like I said, if she had been at an actual meet with real judges, she wouldn't have scored out.

I don't get what your issue is with this little girl...I know you say it's all about the judging but you seem quite heated for it to be just that...and I still think she would have gotten a 31 with "real judges" because a 31 doesn't mean she proficient, just that she scored out at the required score. It's a judged sport so it'll never be cut and dried. Looking at some of this girl's videos from other meets, she's scored mid-nines on some events and mid-eight on bars so a 31 or a 34 isn't that out of whack for how she's been scoring...

 

[twisting007bigflip]

I have no issue whatsoever with the little girl. I think she is darling and talented...she's probably super smart (as most gymnasts are) and I'm sure she's as sweet as can be. My issue is with the scoring.

And there is no way that she would have scored a 31 under judges who took the deductions.

if the judge had taken the proper deductions, her scores should be as follows:
Bars: 5.5
Beam: 6.7
Floor: 7.2
Vault: ??? (She would have needed a 15.1 to score a 34.5 and an 11.6 for the required 31.00)

 

[twisting007bigflip]

Looking at some of this girl's videos from other meets, she's scored mid-nines on some events and mid-eight on bars so a 31 or a 34 isn't that out of whack for how she's been scoring...

The cast angles and split requirements are greater in level 6 than in level 5. So are the deductions.

 

[bookworm]

I have no issue whatsoever with the little girl. I think she is darling and talented...she's probably super smart (as most gymnasts are) and I'm sure she's as sweet as can be. My issue is with the scoring.

And there is no way that she would have scored a 31 under judges who took the deductions.

if the judge had taken the proper deductions, her scores should be as follows:
Bars: 5.5
Beam: 6.7
Floor: 7.2
Vault: ??? (She would have needed a 15.1 to score a 34.5 and an 11.6 for the required 31.00)

I think you're being quite harsh...if you look at her videos, her performance is pretty similar to prior posts where she scored in the 8 range for bars/vault and the 9s for floor and beam so I can see where her coaches would put her in a move up meet because she consistently scored above the required move up scores, and not the scores you post. I would imagine if her scores were as dreadful as the ones you have calculated that her coaches would not have put her in the "move up" meet because she would not have gotten the 31...I know the requirements for level 6 are different but her coaches must have felt she was close enough to be able to qualify, and she did.

I guess the bottom line is no, she's not one of the 38 AA level 6 champs from Region 5, but she doesn't need to be to move up..

 

[twisting007bigflip]

Look, I've been coaching compulsories since the beginning of time. I have not taken the exam, but I have lots of friends that judge and I have learned the compulsory deductions. I've seen the kid's other videos. I also realize that the judges never took deductions for lots of "mistakes" in level 5. I could sit here and nit pick her routines, but I will get no where...if you aren't familiar with the deductions and requirements and skill values, then I'm not sure where you're coming from. If you are familiar with those things, I'm still not sure where you're coming from. I am not the only one in this thread who agrees with me....