Though routines today have adjusted to the rules and now milk the DDB mixed combos e.g. aerial walkover + split ring jump + Korbut. Whether there's too much of a pause between each element is still subjective, so the rule changes didn't really remove subjectivity, they just changed routine composition.
Ling Jie's Tsavdaridou mount 😍 I miss the Chinese rulfova era SO MUCH. I wish the rulfova (fully rotated in the air, chinese-style, not khorkina-style) was upgraded to an E, it's such a beautiful and interesting skill... Seems also harder than an aerial walkover, a kick-over or side somi, and an E value could bring the possibility of a bhs+ rulfova (+0.1 CV) acro serie. One can dream....
@@cyrielle_ Yes, totally! I would definitely love a distinction between a Chinese-style Rulfova and a Russian-style Rulfova (rating them E and D respectively). It's such a cool skill when the full twist is fully completed in the air before the gymnast grabs the beam.
Personally I would like to see complex handstands and difficult turns and other dance elements and interesting original moves like in 1980s. Advancing doesn't need to just be harder tumbling.
I wish gymnasts could bring back the BHS + LOSO + LOSO + LOSO that was popular in the 90s. In particular, Dominique Moceanu's sequence in the Atlanta Olympics was gorgeous. There are no bonus points for it though, so there's no point...even though I think it looks prettier than a lot of what many gymnasts put in their routines.
Why did they even take that bonus away? It's hard enough to fit 2 loso in a bhs but 3? It's like they want gymnasts to be unique and add more flair to their routines but still stop a lot of things that made routines interesting
On a side note, the 2008 Olympic team really was stacked. Sam and Chellsie kind of got overlooked since they both got hurt right before the Olympic competition. But they were as good as Shawn, Nastia, and Alicia. Bridget was also right up there with them. Her floor routine was one of my favorites of that year.
The 2008 US team was a bit underwhelming because they were all pretty injured in Beijing, so the team became "Shawn and Nastia" + Alicia who fell twice in TF, and Bridget DTY. Chellsie was the 2005 World AA champion, Shawn the 2007, Nastia ended up 2008 Olympic champion and Bridget would become the 2009 World AA champion (4 AA World/Olympic champ in one team is insane). Alicia was great on her 3 events (and an event finals world champion), Sam was good obviously, but wasn't adding much to the team (they needed a bar specialist, not another leg-event powerhouse). In comparison the Chinese team was so well rounded with 3 high scoring routines on every events, 2 great AAers and gold medal potentials on every single event (Deng Linlin was considered the weakest gymnast of the team and she still went on to become a key member in Beijing, and a world and Olympic BB champion in the following quad).
They were better- much- than Alicia. She was great on vault but Sam and Chelsea were so much better on beam and floor that year. I knew as soon as I heard they’d both been hurt that we would get silver instead of gold. We also lacked bars specialists. Just like Russia that year, we only had one potential medalist bar worker while the Chinese had several.
It’s wild that adding a split jump in the middle of most of these combos would give them their connection bonus back. They would be less visually impressive and less fluid, but would count as a valid series connection.
In order to keep the variety and excitement in the sport, what they SHOULD do is distinguish between "connections" and "sequences" (similar to what they do in figure skating). In the ISU, a triple lutz followed by a triple axel could not be considered a "combination" because there is a pause and change of direction before the next jump. However, it still gets awarded a higher difficulty value because it's considered a "sequence" of jumps. If they followed similar rules in gymnastics, an areal front walkover into a back-full would still get extra bonus for being an acro "sequence" rather than an acro combination. Perhaps sequences get .1 bonus while connections get a .2 bonus. This would be enough to encourage the more difficult combinations, while still allowing for other gymnasts to have a variety of cool skills in their routines. I hate that the rule changes homogenize the sport and try to make everyone's routine look virtually identical.
Judges these days are so savage they'll give a "slow connection" deduction on 2 consecutive skills that don't even *qualify* to get a connection bonus in the first place. In retrospect Sam Pezsek's combo is pretty dang nimble, but I basically agree with the rationale for not making that connection worthy.
So you get a deduction for not doing something you were not ever going to be credited for in the first place - yeah FIG. Does MAG have all these little rules or is WAG more penalised?
@@manzanitakatznellenbogen2870 There isn't really a perfect comparison in MAG because all connections are on apparatus where constant swinging (PH, SR, PB, HB) are required or rebounding (FX) -- so balance beam is sort of a unique case where the speed is an important element of judging susceptible to human error.
2013-16 had the most boring gymnastic overall imo... In 2006-12 gymnasts still had individual styles and routines were differents from each other, even tho some skills/combos were particularly popular.
@@cyrielle_ Yes the 2013-2016 code was pretty terrible. On floor, gymnasts were no longer required to perform a combination pass at all, and the forward element requirement could be fulfilled by throwing in a random front aerial. Every top bar routine basically looked the same, and beam routines were just a random bunch of big moves stopping and starting, so no flow at all.
Gymnastics gets more and more boring. Uneven bars is really the only interesting event. They devalue so much... Restrict innovation... Restrict difficulty.... It's just boring. Sad
@@igboamaka6142 difficulty with boringness. Little real inovation. Most routines are extremely similar. Today few gymnasts have break this chain of sameness on uneven bars.
@@objetivista686 exactly.. They need to open the code back up so that there are many ways to get to the same destination. Everyone does the same skills.
This is a shame. Constant motion is constant motion. Requiring a rebound is just a different concept than a connection. There is so much beauty in the change of direction and the fluid motion in between. Grr 😡
I completely disagree with this. I've messed around with all of these combinations on the floor beam at my gym and honestly I think the standing full into back pike is easier than the Arabian to backhand-spring. The standing full allows you to see the beam before landing so you know if you are gonna have a balance check or not, while with the Arabian you don't even know for certain if your feet are gonna land on the beam or not.
Gabby never connected those skills and never should have received credit. Neither did Sam Peszek. Neither did Ohashi. If judges weren't biased they never would have received the credit but the US gymnasts almost always received it even when not connected. None of them were appealing, IMO. They were all ugly.
Correct. The one good thing about beam judging this quad is that the judges would deduct if a connection wasn't rebounding. The point of connection is that the elements flow into each other and it's stupid to award credit when they don't.
@@Zuranthium I'm kinda on the fence about this. While I wouldn't give Gabby or Sam a true connection bonus for their combos, what they did was still much harder than just doing the skills separately. So either a slow-connection bonus which is less than the full value, or give the full value and deduct for slow connection, I guess. I don't know...
@@singsongeric None of these videos has any of these gymnasts remotely close to connecting the skills. They shouldn't get credit for something they have not done.
A combo that disappeared I am actually glad it did was the aerial walkover+bhs+loso beacause I thought it was very ugly. I think it still receives a .1 bonus but it's just not worth it
@@gymlandia4467 Um they weren't the only ones that did that combo so how does that person hate them exactly? That was one of the most popular combinations performed by many gymnasts until it stopped receiving the credit I did at the time
