"You need a degree in advanced calculus to understand the new COP!!11!1!!"

The whole "Two numbers? HOW WILL WE EVER BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND!!!!" thing has always been annoying to me, and I decided to do a rant about this after two things lit a fire under me:
1. The fact that USAG apparently felt the need to do a giant "It's not out of a 10 anymore because you're all stupid sheep" PSA at American Classic
2. This 2006 Worlds AA recap by Spencer which involves a fair amount of ranting on this same topic, so I decided to do it too

Seriously, this has to be one of the most understandable scoring systems out there! Hear me out on this: It's a number
And a number
AND YOU ADD THEM!!
It's just addition! The numbers aren't any higher than 10!
There's an ACTUAL STANDARD unlike in freestyle skiing or whatever the heck that sport is the just pulls arbitrary numbers out of its butt.
There's no multiplying by a factor of 3.5 or whatever the heck it is diving uses. Or some changing factor depending on what kind of program you're watching like in figure skating.
Seriously. All you have to do is comprehend two numbers (which won't be higher than 10!!!... or, you know, 8.5, let's be real) and then the final score they add up to (which will be less than 20!!) We learned how to do this in... what... first grade? Maaaybe second with all the decimals?

"But you can't expect the casual fans to remember an over-decade-old scoring change!"
Figure skating does. When's the last time you turned on an NBC broadcast of a figure skating competition which opened with 10 minutes of "But they did away with the SIIIIIIIIX!! (side note- what a random number was that to pick for your max score? why not 5?) How will anyone ever understand again?!?!!1?" And while we do have the ubiquitous quadriannual "What is this 80-some/100-some nonsense?" articles, THE BROADCAST DOESN'T TREAT THE AUDIENCE LIKE IGNORANT PIGS. It expects them to remember things that get presented to them over and over again OVER A DECADE, or at least be able to pick up on the basics of this scoring system (there are DOO DUMBERS!) when they see numbers that... are definitely higher than 6. And they see more than one of them.

The figure skating broadcasts respect the sport and its audience. So what do they do that gymnastics broadcasts don't do?

• They meet the scoring system on its own terms. Skating commentators talk about what is important in the rules of the current system. They describe the skater's performance entirely using the vocabulary of the current system and how it affects the score the skater will receive. Compare to gymnastics: How frequently do we hear commentators using 10-system vocabulary?
• They address the viewer on the scoring system's terms. Going off the idea of the last one. The commentators explain the score's mechanics in terms of GOEs and components. Even the stoplight box system is based on how this system evaluates the technical aspects of the program. Compare to gymnastics: NBC's entire presentation of the score is pretty much a perfect illustration of this. "Start value" is a term that applies solely to the 10 system, and the way they present it actually makes way less sense than the separate D score. Also notice how the stoplight scoring applies only to the E score, aka the 10 score in the current system, instead of the overall score which will determine placing. All of this prevents the viewers from absorbing the components of the current scoring system.
• And, really at the basis of it, they don't let nostalgia make them refuse to accept change. The entire way the broadcast interacts with the technical aspects of the sport, and therefore allow the viewer to do so, is tailored for how the sport works. Gymnastics presents the open-ended code as a hindrance, limiting the viewer's ability to accept its rules and absorb them.

The open-ended code isn't prohibitively difficult to understand. As complex systems go, it's even simple enough that lay fans can get a far better grip of the particulars of it than in most others. If the commentators stop putting on a drama that the viewers can't possibly grasp the scoring then they will.

(Another) Scoring System Idea

Because this dropping one of the CRs makes this the perfect time to convert the D score to an ROV score.

Now, admittedly, I've thought out the "O" part of this quite a bit more than the "V" part. But still, the basic idea behind this is slide in the originality and virtuosity scores right where that dismount CR used to be.

For the originality part, the idea is an actual new CR. So, you'd have the four normal CRs for each non-vault event, and then there would be a fifth originality CR which would be selected from a list of options. I've done a little bit of brainstorming, and here are some ideas I came up with:

Uneven Bars

• Mount of B+ difficulty (the non-straddle vault over the low bar would probably need to be downgraded)
• Elements showing at least three different non-giant circling elements (German giants count toward CR- this would probably need to get FIG-ified and would include the phrase "root element")
• A combination of two same-bar flight elements
• An F+ same-bar release
• A one-armed pirouette
• A 1.5(+? please someone do a double?) pirouette
• A C+ dismount which had been performed in 10 or fewer routines at the previous Worlds or Olympics (maybe this would need to be more 7-8-ish)

I think this list gives enough options for the less technically advanced programs which tend to struggle on UB(/Romania).


Balance Beam

• A mount of C+ difficulty
• A scale held for 2+ seconds, not including a needle scale
• A side-stand element
• A handstand with unique position not in the mount (by "unique position" I mean not a basic legs together or split position, FIG can figure out how to word things)
• A triple acro series
• A hip circle element
• A D+ spin element

I would hope that first option would lead to a large increase in the number of those good difficulty pretty, non-splat-risk mounts which no one performs because they take a while. A fair bit of this is "more flexibility and balance/strength elements, please," but can you really blame me? So much lovely originality isn't being utilized currently.

Floor

• A D+ forward-entry tumbling element (notice the sneaky "forward-entry" wording to keep arabians from counting)
• An indirect acro combination with an E+ salto or a direct acro combination with a D+ salto
• A triple acro combination
• A dance element not in cross split position in the leap series (MORE DANCE POSITIONS PLEASE/why were butterflies downgraded?)
• A turn in Y, attitude, or scorpion position or an illusion turn or back spin (except apparently FIG got rid of the scorpion turn and the double illusion WHY- ah well, that's not hard to rectify)
• A group 3 (hand-support) element in the choreography (this would also probably need some refining and paring down before becoming the law of the land, but whatever)
• And I'm stuck to make it 7 like the others.....

This one was harder to come up with ideas for, but I think this covers all the bases decently. I'm even okay with Mykayla's "I'm doing an L-turn in the air" hop counting toward this if it means more than 1% of routines don't have a leap series with two cross-split variations (plus I needed some options for less technically advanced programs). Also some encouragement for forward tumbling and combination passes.

Again, the virtuosity part of the score hasn't really been thought out as well. I feel like making it a full five tenths would sort of counteract the whole bringing-scores-back-to-where-they-were concept, but at the same time any less wouldn't really make it have much impact on the score. But then again, making it five tenths would answer the complaint that the D-score makes execution less important by making virtuosity part of that score. So let's make the virtuosity score five tenths. I do like the virtuosity score better in my old scoring system idea, but the part of this idea that really got me thinking was the replacing a CR aspect.

2017-2020 COP draft thoughts

Glory Hallelujah
Handspring fwd on-tucked double salto off: If the 2nd salto is not completed because the gymnast lands on feet and bottom simultaneously, then the vault will be recognized as Handspring fwd on-Tucked salto fwd off (VT): So, FIG finally started putting regulations on splatty Prods. Only took them an extra quad. I hope it really does make it harder for splatted Prods to count and we don't have a bunch of inquiries where they recheck and go, "Oh, on the slo-mo replay your feet did hit the ground a nanosecond before your bum, guess you get the full difficulty value!"

FIG is seriously trying to encourage more varied and exciting UB routines. Yay! Hopefully that will pan out.

Arabian UB mounts have been upgraded to F and G, because duh. Still, no one's going to do them. But the principle of the thing.

The layout Jaeger has been upgraded to an F! Along with this, the piked Jaeger was upgraded to an E, but honestly I would have preferred to see the layout upgraded, the pike still at a D, and the straddle down to a C because that means we are still in the clutches of the straddle Jaeger onslaught.

The triple flair BB mount is a D! Still, no one is going to do it... but more incentive!

The sheep jump is now a C! I'm excited because a)I'm the one person who doesn't like sheep jumps, b)hopefully this will greatly decrease sheep jump combos, and c)Yang Bos? Pretty please?

Another skill that I love that still won't be competed got upgraded- the Li Li back spin is D!

Acro bwd and fwd within an acro line (FX): NO MORE RANDOM AERIALS FULFILLING CR!!!! This is probably the top requirement I wanted to happen, and it did!! (Still want a combo acro line requirement, too.)

The corner rule was edited: You can stand on two feet more than once! I think you still can't stand in the corner for more than 2 seconds, and if so, we have finally hit the happy medium of the corner rule! No more stork stand!

Exercise ends with acro element (no choreography after last acro) -.1 (FX): And this was an artistry deduction I've been wanting forever! Grishy's awesome, but that ending of her 2012 routine...

The double laid out Arabian is an H! FIG got their heads on straight!

Within the 8 counting elements there must be a minimum of: 3 Dance, 3 Acro (BB, FX): Well, looky here, FIG is actually responding to an issue arising in one quad in THE NEXT CODE? Who'd'a thunk? And I can settle back and enjoy the Dutch floor rotation this year without thinking, "Is this going to become a long-term trend?"

Insufficient Complexity of creativity in the movements (A complex and creative movement is one that requires training time, coordination and previous preparation) (BB, FX): New artistry deduction. So, FIG is finally requiring beam choreography other than arm-waving after years of whining about there not being enough artistry? But seriously, I hope this is enforced. I hope we see some more exciting choreo to fulfill this (bring back the leg choreo, Afan!)




Not-Glory Hallelujah
C+C or more (dance) (BB): No more C+C mixed connections. Admittedly, this will bring an end to the requisite switch+back tuck connection, which I don't mind, but there were some other cool potential connections from that bonus.

No piked side somi (BB)? Tucked side somis are some of the ugliest things on this planet, but piked ones are the Cinderellas to their tucked ugly step sisters! Please tell me I just missed it.

The missing turn deduction on floor is gone? That just doesn't make sense to me.

The insufficient use of entire floor area deduction is gone? Hopefully that won't really affect anything, and I think that's pretty likely, but still, a safeguard, you know?

The butterfly was downgraded on floor!! Two gymnasts have done it this quad, Kim Janas and Claudia Fragapane, so it's not dead, right? (Side note: oh how I miss Kim Janas). Are two gymnasts becoming too big a trend for FIG? And it was my favorite leap.

In other news of my favorite dance skills (which are never competed) being deincentivized, the double illusion turn is now gone from the table of elements. And I was hoping they'd upgrade it to a D next quad.




Other Thoughts
Support (repulsion phase) with one hand -2.00 (VT): The Mykayla Skinner deduction? The COP previously had "Touch with one hand -2.00"- I'm guessing the difference between "support" and "touch" would be she could get away with her finger-swipe under the 2013-2016 COP and not now?

I like having a general "dynamics" deduction on vault

Only 3 different elements in chronological order from the same root skill (except for Kips, Giants, and casts to HSTD) will be counted for DV, CR, and CV (UB): I'm interested to see just how much impact this will make in construction of routines. I think this may be FIG's way of trying to encourage one-arm pirouettes without encouraging pirouette-fest routines, but what do I know. Looking at Glasgow's UB final, Spiridoz, Scheder, and Harrold all would be in excess of the 3-skill limit (Spiridoz and Scheder with inbars, Harrold toe-ons). For Spiridoz and Scheder, they could just switch one or however many to a toe-on, but then they'd lose difficulty (except for Scheder's inbar shoot). So, it shall be interesting to see what happens.

If kip performed after Shaposhnikova type elements with/without 1/1 turn- apply deduction for empty swing (UB): So, this would seem to be FIG's way of warding off Shaposh-fests next quad. And this should also encourage Tkatchevs, Geingers, pirouettes, etc. connected out of Shaposh variations.

The layout Geinger appears to be an E now, though, hey FIG, you still have it under D as well. Switch that before the final draft!

So the C/D+D (or more, without rebounding) CV on beam is gone. Absolutely no CV for non-rebounding connections now.

Mount without DV (BB): So... just Mount not from the table of elements from the last COP?

Onodi Tic Toc (BB): Wait- this is a thing? WHY HAVE I NEVER SEEN IT?

The stricken D-dismount requirement: The dismount is still required to count toward the DV of an exercise, so we son't be seeing an onslaught of A and B dismounts. I wonder if we might see a large number of the gymnasts who currently compete gainer layouts go back to double twists or front fulls since having a C dismount won't count against CR any more. I also wonder if we might see some bigger tumbles on floor since gymnasts don't have to worry about dismounting with a D, especially from gymnasts from lower-ranked programs that have C tumbles not in combination.

And in section 6.2 (Determining Final Score) the composition requirements are still up to 2.5. Oh FIG.

And there it is- the Dowell in the COP!

Scoring System Idea....

This is just an idea that's been floating around in my mind a bit recently. It's an idea for a 10-point scoring system- BUT, instead of being calculated like the old system, this would be an average between a 10-point execution score and a 10-point ROV score.

The E-score would work much the same as the E-score does now (though I'd still want it to be less rigid). The ROV score would have a 5-point D-score (or I guess it would be R-score) and the remaining five points for originality and virtuosity (with artistry included in there, of course). I can hear the complaints now: "Difficulty is being given a higher advantage over artistry!" But the D-score would be similar where eight A elements would still earn a score, if only a nominal one. A gymnast with a full 5 in difficulty(/risk?) but only 1.2 for originality and virtuosity would score lower than a gymnast with the same execution but a 4 in difficulty but a 3.8 in originality and virtuosity. Hopefully the top gymnasts would be scoring higher then 3.8 in originality and virtuosity, but even that with 4 points of difficulty can beat a full difficulty gymnast who is very poor in originality and virtuosity.

How the risk score would be calculated is a bit interesting to think about. First of all, what to do about CR? Should they be included in the risk score or deducted from the total risk score afterward if not fulfilled? Obviously, they shouldn't be .5 apiece in this system, as that would be half the risk score. .3 apiece would be 1.5 total and leave 3.5 to be earned, and .2 would be 1.0 and leave 4 points to be earned. .2 apiece would seem like the option that is best for requiring high difficulty from the gymnasts, but would it make fulfilling all the CR worth it? That's the trickiest part of it for me. Then the question becomes how to calculate the score. Ultimately, it would be similar in difficulty of elements and combination bonus. It should be hard enough to earn a 5 that the average gymnast can't but attainable enough that the top gymnasts on each event can. Perhaps there can be base scores for routines (all A/B elements, all C elements, half D half C elements, etc.) with bonuses for more difficult elements. Or, there could, of course, just be a variation of the current system. Also, perhaps the risk score should encourage risk more then the current D-score and reward gymnasts who do rare combinations of the same skill difficulty value as other more common combinations (Onodi+Yang Bo vs. front aerial+sheep, Ellie's 5/2 to double vs. 3/2 to 5/2) or just add touches of risk such as Catherine Lyons's balance before her full Y-spin.

The originality score would do just what it says- reward originality. These could be the same instances as mentioned above about different combinations of the same difficulty value as common ones and including balances before spins, etc. This could also encourage doing unique mounts/dismounts on bars and beam. Ultimately, this would just reward those who make their routines stand out and dare to be different. It would give gymnasts a reason to put together routines that are exciting and eye-catching when an easier route to the same difficulty is available in the COP. It would reward gymnasts who don't just have a cavalcade of cross split dance skills, who use non-toe-on Shaposh variations, who use high-low transitions other than Paks and bails, and who generally make a statement with their routines.

Virtuosity is where I believe artistry would be rewarded. The virtuosity score would be about rewarding the icing on the cake: amplitude, oversplit on simple leaps and jumps, exceptional toe point, releve, carriage, flexibility, floatiness (especially on bars), and, yes, artistry. The virtuosity score would reward routines full of confidence and where not even a fingernail seems out of place. This score would encourage gymnasts to go above and beyond in their presentation and to focus on the details- though, ultimately, a routine with huge, obvious errors but great details such as those listed shouldn't be getting a full virtuosity score either. This is the Eythora Thorsdottir score: clean, precise, artistic gymnastics.

So, here's what I'm thinking about how it could break down on each event:
Bars:
R- 5.0
O- 3.0
V- 2.0
-1.0 amplitude
-1.0 general virtuosity

Beam:
R- 5.0
O- 2.0
V- 3.0
-2.0 artistry
-1.0 general virtuosity

Floor:
R- 5.0
O- 1.5/2.0
V- 3.0
-2.5 artistry
- .5/1.0 general virtuosity


The one sticking point then becomes vault. How would scoring for that work? Ultimately, each vault would need a set originality score, and having so much set aside for originality and virtuosity seems a bit excessive. Perhaps originality could be factored into the risk score, and then have (ROV score/2)+(E-score*.75). Then that just leaves the question, what to do about virtuosity? Should that just be left alone in the vault score? Should the risk score just be out of 4/4.5 and then have the rest for virtuosity? That's the one place that would really be confusing and difficult to call. Any ideas?

So, like I said, this is just an idea that I've had for a little while. It's definitely not a finished COP, but I think it could be interesting and might really provide some more reward for the full-package routine. Any thoughts?

Test Fetishism: Classical Music and the Code of Points

At one of my piano lessons, I finished playing Chopin's Nocturne in F Minor, and my teacher told me about a book he was reading which discussed the concept of "text fetishism." Under the original mentality of classical music, the performer was to create a unique and personal expression through alterations to the text that would be abhorred today. The musical text was expected to be treated more as an outline rather than an unalterable absolute. Modern performance of classical music has come to treat the text as untouchable as if it were the Holy Grail and not a dynamic, living source for expression. Immediately, I found my mind flying to the Code of Points.

The Code of Points under which were are currently operating is similar to this view of classical music. The Code is inflexible, unwavering, and unchallengeable. It's detailed list of intricate methods of deduction are rigid and leave no room for interpretation and allows the judges only to robotically and methodically apply prescribed deductions. I used to be in favor of the strictly defined, take-what-is-written approach of this code, and I used to be in the "deductions and scoring need to be even harsher" camp. But there is so much that can't be captured in a tenth here for this form fault, three there for that bad landing, another on this side for x minor error, and the more-deductions-make-for-better-scores approach clearly isn't working. I think we are confusing "harsher scores" with "more accurate and differentiated scores."

Interestingly enough, I believe this deduct-deduct-deduct approach has only served to create parity in the scoring. The lightning-in-a-bottle brilliant routines are so caught in the rigid confines of never-ending deductions they are unable to soar above the rest of the pack and their scores can rarely really reflect the superiority of the the performance. Simone Biles's floor routine from Classics is an example of a routine which suffers from this phenomenon. It was the single greatest routine on any event I'd say since the open-ended scoring system, possibly exempting McKayla Maroney's vault from team finals in London. It's execution score? 9.2. Perhaps this was the "correct" score under the Code. If anything, I'd assume it would be an excessive score based on the precise, technical deducting of points. Yet that 9.2 came nowhere close to representing just how outstanding her routine wan, nor how much stronger it was in comparison to the field. Another example would be Wang Yan's EF beam at this year's Youth Olympic Games, or really just the YOG as a whole. The bars EF saw not a single E score above an 8, and 8.5s took on an almost 10-like elusiveness. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were more 10s at the Seoul Olympics than there were 8.5 E scores at the YOG (vault notwithstanding.) Yet, was there really any significant differentiation between the best and the worst? This approach to scoring has simply lowered scores overall without actually creating a stronger separation between the highest and lowest quality routines.

I believe the meticulous list of deductions needs to be treated the way classical music text was originally meant to be treated. The judges need to view the execution deduction list of the Code as a guide and not as unwaveringly as the Gospel. The judges need to be allowed to reward the greatest routines with scores the reflect greatness. And for all the supposed harshness of the current E score tabulation, the scores for the least outstanding routines seem strangely close to the E scores of the most outstanding- at least in finals situations. With the formulaic structure of the D score, the E score needs to really be able to "separate the women from the girls," if you will.

Gymnastics has been its most dynamic when judges were given the ability to work with the Code instead of by it in this way. The rules governing the sport acknowledged the dynamic nature of gymnastics itself in the "golden age," and innovation and perfection were staples of the top-level elite scene. Now, I am not one of those fans with an "If it isn't the Soviet Union in the 80's, I don't care" mentality and I certainly to not look at the previous eras with overly rose-colored glasses. I use the term "golden age" hesitantly, and if anything I enjoy the gymnastics of the 1980's less than the average fan. And I am certainly not blind to the judging flaws of that time period. Certainly not. However, the dynamic judging system allowed for a contrast in the scores between the most outstanding routines and the mediocre ones. This kind of contrast is lacking and needs to return.

Now, I am not suggesting the judges be given the free reign they had in the 80's. I am in favor of keeping the set deduction list. However, I think the judges should be allowed to be less regimented and more accurately separate the "women from the girls" with their scores. What I am suggesting is a sort of healthy discrimination in the judging which allows the judges to make the proper distinctions in their scores. The judges should be allowed to deduct harshly for egregious form errors and be less heavy-handed for an overall great routine. They should be allowed to work within the direction of the Code, using it as a tool to guide the judges in how they should score and not as the sole deciding factor. The judges need to reflect the caliber of the routines to accurately express the correct rankings. When in the past I asked for harsher E scores, I was really hoping for more specific scores. The difference may seem minor at first, but it really is the greatest possible.

A Note on Lunges.....

Everyone seems to be discussing what could be done to better the code lately. I plan on also writing my own ideas on this, perhaps in multiple installments. Heck, that was a big motivation for my creating this blog (I really need to get down to that)!

Bruno Grandi released a statement about the need for this after Worlds. His comments were perfunctory, stupid, and uninspiring as always, but one small point made its way into a huge number of the comments- lunges.

I've never understood the nostalgia of the lunge among the gymternet. I never thought they were overwhelmingly graceful, beautiful, or artistic. I thought they looked- well, like you couldn't stick your landing. Most strange to me is the thought by many that a lunge added artistry in any way. It was a step back out of a tumble. In no way did it add anything to the overall beauty, emotional depth, performance quality, or musicality of the routine. Lunges simply were an exit to a skill. Not a unique or a creative one, an exit everyone used. A stuck landing (with the proper upright chest position) is much more pleasing to see. It shows ultimate control and is the perfect exclamation point to a glorious tumbling pass. Think of the satisfaction and excitement of the perfect stuck finish to Aly Raiman's mind-blowing first pass or Simone's drilled landing on her eponymous skill at Classics. No lunge could ever compare.

On the other hand, a lunge is infinitely nicer to the muddy steps and other fudged landings which have become common since the debunking of the lunge. While a lunge may not display the pinnacle of control, a muddy landing is just ugly. I think there needs to be a way to reward perfect sticks while encouraging lunges as the alternative. In this way, I think the whole stick bonus thing might not be such a stupid idea. A lunge wouldn't need to be deducted, but a stick could be rewarded. The motivation is still there to stick, but better to lunge than to fudge the landing. A tenth for every stick might be overkill and unfair, as there are four possible tenths there that aren't available on the other events. However, I think a one tenth bonus for sticking at least two passes- and maybe even two tenths if all four passes are stuck- would be fair and reasonable, as well as doing the job of rewarding stuck landings without having to sacrifice lunges. The best of both worlds!