6 key changes in the *new* 2022-24 gymnastics Code of Points (CoP) 

That is once again some stupid decisions by FIG...a .2 for a D dismount is pathetic, make it worth it, meks sure they can perform at least a F before rewarding that .2...and a 3 plus series for another .2!!!

@@kevinjewell233 Built-in bonuses should only be awarded to fwd BB dismounts and rare vaults. As fwd BB dismounts are the rarest and hardest in the sport; there's only one E and one F, respectively and even to connect a B skill to a C-valued fwd dismount is difficult. Whereas we see far too little variety on vault. Look at the Khorkina (tucked Cheng) it's a 5.4 and precursor of several bigger vaults, yet its skipped over it as if it weren't even there. For every other appartus they are undermining the point of it, which is to show apparatus-work. This is why I much prefer the Chinese balance beam programme to anyone else's, their focus is on the beam-work. Yes, they need to upgrade their double fulls, and I'm sure several will by Tokyo. But again the emphasis is on the beam-work with them, not the dismount--which is important but should not be given such an inflated value for no reason.

Really don’t like the emphasis on skills that utilize going around the beam. We already have uneven bars. The point of beam is what skills can you do on top without falling off? I don’t really get that

I am not a fan of the Vaults downgrading and would have liked to see them add .2 bonus for E+ dismounts instead. What I was wondering though is if FIG does any survey even among gymnasts or fans so as to get a sense of what changes should be made if any in a new code. If not then I would like to see them put out a PROPOSED change code first, get some feedback on it and then come up with the actual code. I read comments on here and the people here seem to have more sense than those whose job was to come up with this code. I think it was poorly thought out.

Me too! Especially compared to a simple full turn, people are incentivized to throw more interesting and rewarding moves.

Would the Valdez full twist fulfil it

@@kishmishkashmiri I would love to see that skill come back

@@pillowmuzictv That and even the regular Valdez should be common as they can even be used to start 2-4 skill acro series; it's ridiculous how they've disappeared from the sport. But I'd also like to see them come back on floor as they can be incorporated so fluidly into choreography.

Bring back the Li Lis

I think that you're right. It's frustrating to see them trying to fix a problem (abnormally high E scores on vault) by dealing with a completely separate issue. It's also important that we have more variation in vault E scores anyways in order to differentiate between stronger and weaker vaulters performing the same vault. Personally, I wish that there was more than a 0.4 step up from DTY to Rudi/Amanar, but that's just my opinion. No one seems to go for the Amanar anymore, and even Rudis are rarer :(

@@GymAnalysis I sort of understand but I don't think there really is a way to make high e-scores harder on vault. That's just in the nature of that apparatus. You're only doing one skill that takes no more than 10 seconds. Every other apparatus has multiple skills and each one can have its own deduction. I hope I made sense, but there's no way to be anymore strict on vault when there's only 1 skill that you can deduct points from.

@@womwom6774 I think you're right, but at the same time, I would love to see things like slow motion review and more levels of deductions/more specific deductions. I don't like that an Amanar, worth a whole 15.4 (or 15 now haha), is only eligible for so many tenths of form deductions, even if it could have the same twist form issues as a triple twist on floor that is worth 0.5. I guess it would make things more subjective, but not all crossed legs or flexed feet are made equal (in my eyes), and even if it's not possible, I wish there was a way to account for that nuance and variation in scores.

@@GymAnalysis the problem with nuance scoring is the nature of the E scoring system. Where the e score can only be calculated via eye sight. No slowmo cam can be used to judge. And changing that would mean a whole sweeping change to the way you evaluate e scores. (Unless restricted to Vault only or FIG / Olympics - not every competiton can have slowmo cams). But I do understand where they are coming from with the D score adjustment.. It must be on an equal footing with the rest of the events. Bleh.. Let 'em keep tweeking it.

I suspect it's harder to control the judges than the points.

Because FIG has decided that UB isn't saturated enough with double tuck 1/1 dismounts 🙃😂

@@honeyfromthebee Yeah, it's stupid. They should increase several dismounts and releases like deltchev, markelov, khorkina, Mo salto, Seitz, etc. UB is the most predictable apparatus nowadays.

It's not even that popular of a dismount to get a downgrade. I reeealy didn't get that.

maybe they just don't like Asians lol

Agreed, that one made no sense whatsoever.

I was quite worried that they were going to limit all turns, but I'm glad they've only limited wolf turns (as far as I'm aware!). I have no problem with multiple L turns or Y turns (especially because they usually don't come right after each other).

Wolf turns are honestly not attractive to watch and the execution is usually terrible. I don’t understand why the gymnasts don’t create a larger variety of turning skills

@@earthlingphilosophy3531 bc it was easier to gain D+E skills on both beam+floor by really working on wolf turns and they don't often get deductions compared to other elements

🤣🤣🤣🤣

I agree. I feel like the rule was only put in to penalize the Chinese gymnasts who love to perform the double twist (and perform it well too!). It just seems unnecessary to make D dismounts suddenly worth the same as an F skill. I think E+ would've been a better implementation (although I dislike double pikes off beam and it would definitely encourage that 😆).

Yes what is the point when almost all do D anyway?

@@bw2082 The goal is to penalize gymnasts who don't perform D (mainly those who use double twist on beam and floor) in order to incentivize them to switch. In older codes, there used to be a requirement for a D+ dismount, but it seems that FIG are hesitant to add another requirement back in, given it could make D scores more unbalanced/require more effort.

@@GymAnalysis i hate to say it but if you were doing less than a d dismount on anything you are kind of irrelevant anyway.

@@bw2082 I mean the chinese commonly do it on beam and they are far from irrelevant on it. I guess it's just double pikes from here

I agree with you on all those counts -- I'm hoping that we do see more Clear Hip Hecht 1/2s, Mo Saltos, and Hristakievas, but I doubt we will. I feel like the style of bars won't change even if the rules do slightly.

I read once the Mo salto has a built in deduction due to the intermediate swing that results from it so it isn’t worth the risk to the athletes. I miss it though.

@@MrGemini1983 intermediate swing? Like dead hang or a wasted swing? I guess that would make sense

I agree, haha -- make the numbers bigger! It'll be fun.

Interesting way of looking at it, and hopefully so. I'm doubtful though as the 0.2 bonus means that almost everyone gets at least an F skill for a D...but I really hope your prediction comes to pass. I would have rather that they'd introduced a series bonus for 3-skill direct connections instead, but hopefully someone will take advantage of the code the way you've suggested and make good of this silly new bonus.

@@MD-722 It's my understanding that just the dismount of a D+ skill gets a 0.2 bonus, and not all D+ skills throughout the routine. Practically all elite gymnasts can dismount with a D+ for a third and possibly final tumbling pass. My thinking is that if this would lead to only 7 skills worth getting credit for with their current routine construction (would be sad to have to count an A or B for example) they could make up for it with an additional dance skill or acro skill added in combination to one of their three passes.

I'm also disappointed by the vault rules change. I also wish they would upgrade the Amanar and Rudi to incentivize gymnasts to actually compete them ://

@@GymAnalysis The Amanar and Rudi are fine this quad, the problem was the tariffs they were given in 2013-16. Their start values were so high that they absorbed too many of their deductions resulting in far to many sloppy ones that could easily outscore cleanly executed less difficult vaults e.g. Raisman's Amanar outscoring Mustafina's DTY in the Rio AA final. Because if their E-scores were kept the same but their DVs were adapted for this quad Mustafina would outscore Raisman, and rightfully so; especially as the difference between those vaults is only one half-twist. But now things are a joke. Every specialist should be able to score a least above a 6.0 DV on their respective apparatus; especially if that's what they rely on the most during an AA final (e.g. Nina Derwael coming 4th with an FTY and two-pass FX because her A-bar DV was so high). So if that's still the case for other apparatuses it should have remained the same for vault.

@@MD-722 Yes! The whole point of this new system was to separate and reward gymnasts for throwing the harder skills and doing it well. Vault scores have been lowered, beam and FX are always lower execution/scores, so I guess if you can't swing bars you're screwed lol I'm being dramatic but I really hate the constant score changing every 4 years. A little adjustment here and there is understandable but I hate to think this is something they are going to do every 4 years...

No the FIG just sux has for decades.

FIG hates uneven bars fans. Vault changes doesn't mess anything up. It's just a number. The vaults still have 0.4 difference between them.

I think that would've been another way to "address" the wolf turn problem. Stricter deductions would've discouraged them while not penalizing girls who can compete the triple and double well and consistently.

In McKayla Skinners video where Tom comes to watch her he mentioned that they will not allow the girls to overturn anymore. So if a girl does a double but goes 2.5 that is a deduction. That may lead to coaches having their athletes be more precise with how they end the turn.

@@rebeccaspellmeyer5761 that’s encouraging to hear!

Hah -- there are some wolf turns that I like, so I'm glad they aren't all gone. I think this change prevents (most of) the code abuse we're seeing today, which is good :)

If every vault was downgraded the same amount, it will have no effect on vault rankings, it was just a sleazy attempt to bring average vault scores closer to the other events for AA purposes. Vaults have considerably higher E scores because the skill is done in like 3 seconds so there’s not much to deduct from in real time. It was either increase how much each deduction was worth or just downgrade the vaults altogether. It’s mostly for AA purposes so that someone that is really good at vault does not have an advantage over the rest like how in 2008 the bars d scores were remarkably higher, so good bar workers had an advantage in the AA. I mean Simone can and has gotten near a 16 on her Biles vault when it’s rare to even crack 15 on the other events. That’s an extreme example, but a 9+ execution just doesn’t happen on bars, beam, and floor so even though the d score is lower, the scores themselves should even out a little more. As for vault EF, the rankings shouldn’t change since everyone is affected the same regardless of what vault they do (the only exception is the front handspring layout vault only for downgraded 0.2 while the rest is 0.4).

Looks like the Chinese will actually have to do elite dismounts instead of NCAA ones to compete. Bravo 👏 It was embarrassing for world medalists to do double twisting dismounts. It was a step way back in the evolution of gymnastics.

All downgrades seem to be by 0.4 points. So perhaps the prudonova will be 6.0 if it’s difficulty in Cop 2021 was 6.4

The produnova is so under valued in my opinion, I feel it should be higher than Simone’s double back vault

The Fan dismount should stay as a D, the Dos Santos II should be upgraded to an I/J, the Produnova vault should be upgraded to at least a 6.6

Agree with you on all of those points! An E+ bonus would've actually been interesting, but it seems like they're just going after double twist-using athletes. Knowing FIG, I doubt we'll see most of these changes in 2024, but I'm hopeful ://

@@mht4908 I agree! I think with the Dos Santos II and even with other front tumbling (ie Podkopayeva, Dowell), upgrades would create so much more variety and uniqueness in routines. The Fan downgrade seemed unreasonable in my opinion.

@@GymAnalysis Why is FIG so annoying? Clearly lots of people don't like some of these changes, so why do they always go through with them anyway? Who makes the rules? Is their justification public? This is dumb

Vaults getting downgraded again is criminal.

Glad you like them! If you have any questions, please feel free to let me know :)

Me too :( I wish that FIG would give the Li Li an E valuation. Of all skills that should be at an E, I feel like the Wolf Jump 2/1 was not the best choice for a surprise upgrade.

I would love to see it again, but it does not fulfill the turn requirement (only one footed turns do) so the gymnast would have to do another turn element to get the 0.5 CR, so I don’t see many doing it. I was reading the code and it explicitly states elements satisfy it and unfortunately the Li Li is not one of them

@@jacksonxu9901 Yeah, when I saw the CR at first, I was hopeful that the Li Li would fulfill the requirement, but it unfortunately does not :(

Her and the judges too, I imagine. I would not want to deal with deductions for dozens of wolf turns during a competition 😩

I'm glad too as I hate them as well....even when preformed well, I think they are ugly and awkward looking.

Just Nastia? Oh NO. WE ALL hate it.

@@r.m.2737 What about if you do SIX WOLF TURNS together?

I hate them too. Even when Simone does one it looks clunky and ugly. I wish they’d been banned completely.

Love the Ruflova! Hoping so 🤞 there's some good coming out of this code

I thought that since they upgraded the back extension roll to C that you could do a Rulfova + Back extension roll combo for 0.2 CV, but it is not a flight element so it is not eligible

Hip circles on beam done terrible will be the new wolf turn. Wolf turn : I'm the fuggest gymnastic skill Teza on beam: hold my beer

Rufolvas coming back will be a dream come true.😍

@@nabojsa " So you basically get 4 wolf turns per gymnast who does that skill." LOL that is so true. If you see one on beam you WILL see one on floor too. It's sad. lol

I'm also saddened by the vault changes. I think you and your partner may be the only people in the world who love those turns, lol :)

@@GymAnalysis We take twisted pleasure at watching aesthetically questionable gymnastics moves and routines. :P

I’m waiting for someone to break out a bhs +Woorley, one of my favorite skills in WAG! I think it’s valued the same as Onodi, but it’s so rarely performed that I’d have to look it up.

I'm super happy you found it informative! If you have any questions or requests, please let me know :)

Not only bonuses, they should impose a mount of a certain rank onwards as mandatory.

@@r.m.2737 every time I watch Biles beam I want a mandatory mount

I'm glad you found it informative! If you have any questions, please let me know :)

Some of these skills are so antiquated that there are no videos of modern gymnasts competing them, haha! I'm glad to see the Code giving some "older" style skills upgrades; maybe they'll see new use :)

Speaking of "older skills", I would love to see the Miller on beam.

@@1MALICIOUSDIETY The "Miller" was never in the code. They considered it a continuation of the Omelianchik (which it wasn't) and refused to name it after her yet adding a half to any skills gets it named after everyone these days.

@@GymAnalysis They need to do something because every bar and beam routine looks the same and I am becoming so bored with this sport.

I'm just glad that they got rid of multiple wolf turns in a routine. I'm pretty fine with wolf turns being one of many dance elements, but I can't bear watching gymnasts sit in tuck stand for ten seconds spinning five times and then not doing another turn the rest of the routine 😆

Yeah me too.

I don't hate them as such, I just hate that it seems 7 out of 10 gymnasts use it.....

I would have been okay with just not getting credit for the skill unless the body was held pencil straight vertically for 2 full seconds. Most were not straight or had pike at the hips or weren’t held long enough. It kinda ruins the whole point of doing the skill.

Me too! I hope someone will go for it. One has to be a bit tentative, though, given that an under rotated one would result in 0.1 precision and a 0.3 downgrade!

Thanks hah -- I had some stuff to procrastinate on today, so I figured I might as well make a video :)

@xilo An F signifies that something js very difficult, whereas G+ is meant to signify extreme difficulty to the point of rarity (e.g the Mo Salto, which should be an H). The counter-Kim should be G as it's way nore difficult than a Nabieva. The toe-on Nabieva has become way too common and there are several new versions set to be introduced in upcoming quads that much greater warrant G+ values.

@@MD-722 i said that it’s not as common as it seems. literally only 2 people are actively competing it, training it doesn’t mean anything

@@xilomp3 It's still set to become more common, and it was never extremely difficult to begin with. The counter-Kim, Mo Salto and Hristakieva are all superior in difficulty. But where the latter two should be Hs, the counter-Kim should be a G. A clear-hip Nabieva could be a G, but the toe-on needs to go down to an F.

A hip or Stalder entry is more difficult than the toe on entry, so the downgrading of value is fair to me. I don’t think it’s right to downgrade value for the sole reason being frequency performed, which seems to be the case with the Navieva however. And it’s true that it’s still not all that common like a Moloney or Van Leeuwen on bars which should be worth less than Chow or Komova transitions to be consistent. The FIG is ridiculous. 🤦‍♀️

@@cantor7723 The point of downgrade elements that are frequently performed is to discourage overuse and encourage variety. Top UB routines have become far too predictable in recent quads which is a shame after the London 2012 final. Also there are certain skill which were clearly given values that were too high (e.g. the Nabieva) so it makes them _too easy_ to abuse. Because so far as the uneven bars go, all Tkachevs (bar clear hip and in-bar entries) need to be downgraded by 0.1; a straddled Tkachev should not be a D...(much like the double tuck on floor should go back to being a C).

Is this true??

That was in the draft. It did not make it into the final code

As far as I am aware, the FIG did not add the lunge in, for better or for worse :/

Agreed; they should really upgrade some of the difficult twisting skills! I also wish they'd upgrade difficult front tumbling a la double front, Podkopayeva, and Dowell

@Noah Byrd The Silivas should be an F. If it had remained a G in 2013-16 but still become as overused as it is today it would definitely be on its way to becoming an F by 2022-24. But frankly all double back tucks on floor need to be devalued because up until 2009 the double tuck was a C and all successive values should be based on that. The full-in tuck should be a D, the Silivas should be an F and the triple-double should be an I. Yes, tucked skills can be extremely difficult, but they are the easiset body position to perform acrobatics in and are even easier when performed from bwd entries. But otherwise I am 100% with you on the values of the 3.5 and Maldonado, and I've also said that all other D+ fwd twisting elements should be upgraded by 0.1 as well.

@@GymAnalysis The Podkopayeva and Dowell don't need to be upgraded, bwd skills need to be downgraded. All fwd double tucks are valued properly, but *ALL* bwd double tucks and D+ fwd twists are not.

i thought the same! seems excessive honestly

I'm glad you found it informative! I found the animation on Twitter under user Flip Fly Tumble (also has a great RU-vid channel here!), and the app used to make it is called "FB Curves 3D Gym".

Downgrading vault again definitely targets the American team.

the bonus for a d+ dismount is most definetely a reaction to the Chinese gymnasts mostly doing double twists as dismounts

sonja beebo I wouldn’t say just them a lot of girls have been doing easier dismounts.

@@Appaddict01 I mean vault downgrades have been going on for more than ten years now when good vaulters like Hong Su jong from north korea, Cheng Fei from China and Oksana when she represented Germany were still competing, so you can't really say that...

@@Appaddict01 Yeah but 80% of the gymnasts from china rely on connections and difficult acrobatics on the beam to gain difficulty instead of from the dismount... so it's really obvious that this was targeted to them. But the rest are quite unbiased:)

but downgrading vault might give chinese come advantages. even though their vault level is really poor.

I thought that the downgrade of the Fan was somewhat an attack on Chinese gymnasts :// the rings, the double twists, and even the Fan too. I'm hoping they can adapt to the code and have great results still!

Chinese could do harder dismounts on beam other than double twists, they have tripple and 2.5. They just feel that they don't need them so they got lazy. Now wakeup call.

@@wolve58wolve58 lazy? do they see the rest of their routines - miles harder than the others

@@ansonpang When you have triple，but try double. Downgrade D to C is an encouragement. 你harder还不是一个车间出来的同样的东西，看一个就不用再看下一个。UB和FX也是一样。

Yuri HUH??

I'm under the impression that controlled lunges were cut from the final draft. Disappointing to see, but I'd also say that it's good, given how subjective the lung deductions could end up being.

Yup, they should now! Two Flying Flairs (performed by Peng Peng Lee in the video) also received an upgrade from B to C, I believe. Hopefully we'll see more of them in competition!

I would love to see gymnasts do them but I dont understand it being a “turn element” at all, I’d just give it a good value and get more gymnasts doing double turns on beam, they’re really not hard

Like judge it.

I think I'm going to wait until US Classics to make a video about her! She's definitely on the to-do list though :)

The final tumbling pass of a floor routine is the dismount (as shown in all examples here), although you don’t hear it referred to that term as much in women’s gymnastics. you hear commentators saying it more often on the men’s side.

I agree -- the new code has some things that are frustrating, but many of the new changes are actually pretty good! The vault values thing is a mess, but FIG doesn't seem willing to make a practical change there.

@@GymAnalysis hey, just wondering: what would a practical change be, in your opinion?

I hope so! I think they'll be able to do it as well.

If it wasn't a problem they would have them already. Almost nobody in the world is doing 2.5 twists anymore

@@eimardgomes1128 all of them changed from triple to double, cause there was no need to have D+ dismount anymore.

UB connections have also been downgraded for the 2022-2024 quad.

This is the problem with FIG's idea on how to fix vault scoring (in my opinion) -- the problem is not with the vault D scores but with the vault E scores, and constantly lowering the D scores while continuing to give out E scores that are too high seems a bit reckless to me.

I think it was the 2006 or 2007 Worlds. Can’t remember which. Start your search there. ☺️

no. Onodi is a backward element too

@@eimardgomes1128 It's considered a forward element but with a backward entry. In WAG COP, all arabian elements (including onodi) are considered Forward Elements. The new code is too ambiguously written on whether B+D(bwd) means backward elements or backward entry. As long as I love the bhs+onodi combo I think FIG needs to clarify on this. Or if I missed anything on the COP, please correct me!

I'm honestly not sure; that's a really good question. The code lists it in the same family as forward handsprings and refers to it as "jump backwards (flic-flac take-off) with 1⁄2 twist (180°) through handstand to walkover forward", which to me implies a forwards skill. At the same time, I feel like it would deserve CV despite being a forwards skill, given that other forwards skills (ie BHS + rebound front tuck) would also be extremely difficult and (in my opinion) deserving of CV. FIG doesn't specify any CV for backwards B + forwards D, so it may not get any.

@@GymAnalysis what are you guys talking about? If Onodi were considered a foward element it would get 0.2 C.V in this current 2017-2021 Code. It doesn't.

@@eimardgomes1128 the B+D 0.2 CV only applies if both skills are forward, so even though the Onodi is considered a forward skill, the BHS + Onodi combo would not get 0.2. I really think they just mean backwards takeoff for the 0.1 bonus otherwise they would have said both elements must be backwards like they do for the 0.2 bonus.

I agree. If vault scores are high for everyone, there's no impact on people regardless of whether it's their best or worst event -- this change didn't close the gap between gymnasts doing different vaults. I wish FIG would focus on the execution aspect, creating a bigger difference between well performed and poorly performed vaults with the same start value.

Elise Kinsey I couldn't agree with you more. I am so pissed with this decision.

I imagine connecting clear hip Hecht 1/2 to a Pak would be quite difficult, but you could probably tack shoot to handstand + clear hip Hecht 1/2 onto the end of a series and use the D valuation for bonus.

I don't believe that someone in this video did that (Ou Yushan was featured on floor from China doing a double twist, if that's what you're asking about), but Wu Ran from China used Laurie's floor music during her 2020 routine. I'm not sure if she still has it.

@@GymAnalysis Yup, she just used it at Nationals.

The D+ dismount bonus also seemed targeted at their very clean double twists, which are now at a three tenth deficit to a D dismount instead of a one tenth gap. I think FIG would do well to upgrade full twists-you're completely right that they're so rare these days!

I heard that they were considering it, but I didn't see it in the new code? I could be mistaken though.

@@nabojsa its much better to make it look like youre doing something. I hated watching gymnastics in the 2009-2012 quad where literally everyone would just stand there in the corner. It disrupts the flow of the routine

It would be ridiculous to bring back the lounge step. The lounge step would used to hide not able to control a landing. There is zero justification for women to be allowed a lounge step and not men.

@@nabojsa clearly you didn’t see in the past when they lounged forward and they still got perfect 10 scores. It is too subjective to say “that lounge was to cover up but that wasn’t”. The only objective way is to eliminate lunges completely. It is a stupid rule change.

I hope it's back too-so many gymnasts are getting serious ankle and knee injuries from landing stiff legged trying to stick landings.

I agree with alll of those ideas, maybe with the exception of upgrading the Magaña/Triple Back. That seems like a skill where it's justified to keep a low rating to avoid people injuring themselves.

@@GymAnalysis i also would include the one armed gienger in that category. i think all one armed skills were downgraded so gymnasts wouldnt hurt themselves attempting it, correct?

Good question; I'm also a bit unsure. I guess FIG thinks that the difference between pike and tuck on beam is significant enough to be 0.1, but the difference on floor isn't relevant enough? Also, I don't think FIG would want to rate a double back the same as a front full or back 1.5 twist, which may be holding them back from recognizing the double pike's difficulty.

@@GymAnalysis The double tuck was a C-skill until 2009. It was only increased to a D to help close the gap of disparity between UB and FX scores. But to this day that has not happened and instead we've seen the gross inflation in start values of tucked elements across all appartus (esp as of COP 2013-16). All tucked skills (bar the Biles dismount) should be devalued by at least 0.1 with the Silivas going down to an F. Tucks are the easiset body position to perform acrobatic elements in and their values should reflect that in comparison to others. But there should be a 0.1 differentiation between full-in and full-out twisting skills in all body positions. E.g. full-in DLO (G), full-out DLO (H), Moors (I). That way there is a clear system of progession as opposed to the D-->E-->H we currently have for double tucks on floor. Because there is a 0.4 difference between a double tuck and Silivas, but only a 0.3 difference between a double layout and a Moors...How can the easier element group be given a greater increase in progressive values? The same is the case with the balance beam, a double tuck is a D, a double pike is an E, but both of their full-ins are Gs. The double tuck receives a 0.3 increase in value but the pike only gets 0.2...The full-in tuck needs to be reduced to an F, the pike should stay a G and if we ever see a full-out tuck, that too can be a G. The Biles can be an I when it no longer receives 0.2 automatic bonuses (the current B+F system, or the imminent dismount bonus). But most of all the full-in tuck UB dismount needs to be a C. If they have the audacity to downgrade a more original and difficult dismount like the Fan, introduce this nonsense 0.2 dismount bonus, but keep full-in tuck at a D that is *blatant* corruption and inside politics.

@@MD-722 Agree on most of your points except the full-in / full-out one, because it is more or less a preference issue of individual gymnast to do full in / full out / half in half out. Instead, I would prefer Double back 1/1: E, Double back 1.5: F, Silivas: G. And seriously , if anything, the Fan dismount should be UPGRADED. It has a difficult L grip entry and deserves to stay at least at D. I cant help but wonder, if the downgrade is more political than technical.

@@kp395 Late reply here, I lost this thread (apologies). So firstly to answer your initial point, I agree and disagree. I agree that is a preference when it comes to UB dismounts, but for all other events twisting is more difficult in the second salto. Because if it wasn't then we'd see much more full-out double tucks. (we would probably even a full-out double tuck BB dismount, but we see no full-out double tucks and we haven't even seen a tucked Biles; which a skill one could expect to have been in the code decades ago...So I stand by point that it is more difficult to twist in the second salto (0.1 worth more) and the code should reflect that. But now to expand on my reasoning! Even though I fully agree with the term you coined _"the code has been on crack since 2013!"_ There was one good thing that did come out it, and that was the introduction of H and I values. The problem however was that they were not used correctly. Prior to that there were several skills that could not receive their proper tariffs because the start values did not go up high enough to accommodate them. Thus resulting in the mish-mash of elements that should not (and never should have) had the same start values as each other--e.g the full-in tuck, full-in pike and double layout, which prior to 2013 were all Es because the code only went up to G. It would also help to eliminate the issue of inflation (esp that of double/twisting double back tucks) by reinstating a much more clearer system of progression. Then last but not least I personally think it would encourage the use of intricate and original connections again, even in if the rules for CV were kept as they are now. So without further ado, here's a rough idea of how it would look (unadded elements are in brackets) *Floor:* Double tuck - C *(Double tuck half-out - D)* - )because of the blind landing --like the Biles I) Double tuck full-in - D *(Double tuck full-out - E)* Double tuck 2/1 - F (because the Silivas should only be a G for juniors) (*Double full-in tuck - G)* *(Double tuck 3/2 - H)* - because of the intricacy of its blind landing Double tuck 3/1 - I (because it's tucked and we now potentially have a stretched version on the way) *Double tuck 5/2 - J)* - again, because the blind-landing requires much more spatial-awareness than a triple-double. Double pike - D Double pike full-in - E Double full-in pike - H Double layout - F Doube layout half-out - G Double layout full-in - G Double layout full-out H Double layout 2/1 - I Double layout 3/1 - J (because if we have single skills that score over a full point, the code is officially broken). *Beam:* Double tuck - D *(Double tuck half-out - E)* Double tuck full-in - F Double tuck full-out - G double tuck 2/1 - I (as long as there are no built-in bonuses). Fwd double tuck - I (because it's the hardest dismount due to its fwd entry and blind landing). *Uneven Bars:* *ALL* bwd double tucks (from the double tuck to the Fabrichnova) need to be downgraded by 0.1 *NB -* You will notice that I left out fwd elements on the FX, that is because all fwd double saltos are valued properly (minus the Oliveira--piked double arabian 1/2 out--which I personally think that should be a G). So hopefully the above makes sense! But as you can see inflation is eliminated, there is a clear progression in the increment of values (for both shape, twists and landing visibility whilst still allowing for reasonable jumps--e.g the double layout being an F), there is increased incentive to innovate and fill in the _gaps_ in the code (i.e. add new skills) and by way of that new connections.

I'm under the impression that the turn limit only applies to wolf turns, based off of what I read in the code, but I could be mistaken. I also agree with the SIlivas idea -- it's hard, but not a 0.8 skill in my eyes.

Straddle and pike both used to be D and they upgraded it to E this COP, but then literally everyone has started to do it so they're putting it back to D😊

@@ryansargent8618 ohhh okok thank you :))

A few people have trained the Triple Twisting Yurchenko and only Hong Un Jong (North Korea) ever competed it in competition, as far as I'm aware. I honestly see no incentive to perform it right now with the exception of getting the name -- given that an Amanar would be a 15.4, the TTY would likely be a 5.8, and gymnasts would much rather focus on adding a Cheng or a Rudi with an existing Amanar for vault finals.

I agree; it doesn't make sense. Maybe they'd achieve more parity by actually differentiating vault E scores, but FIG doesn't seem to want to do that...

Uhm... the reward will still be the same? If someone tries a triple yurchenko he will get 0.4 more than an Amanar both now and next quad. No one gets screwed or helped if EVERYONE starts with 0.4 less for their vaults. It's just a FIG dumb way to bring vaults scores on par with other events, but in reality literally nothing changes.

If anything, the problem with vault is that the difference between Amanar/Rudi and DTY is too small, not that they were all downgraded.