So I have been moving for the last few days with no time to blog, but on my LONG drive I was really thinking about the score inflating at Nationals, and after reading a wonderful article that I am sure everyone has read on International Gymnast (click here for it) I have a few concerns for the US Team…
First off, I am concerned because of the obvious; what if the gymnasts are receiving false hopes about their routines? For instance, in 2006 Alicia Sacramone went to Worlds with a floor routine that was docked for missing one of her Element Groups Requirements which kept her out of Event Finals. This sucked for her! And it was unfair. Now I can’t say this happened due to score inflation at Nationals because really I don’t know. The code was SO new at that point. There were a couple of scores at 2006 Nationals that were questionable, but again I feel that maybe the problem was the newness of the code. But the point is that we don’t want this to happen to any of our favorite gymnasts! Here is a look at what I have been thinking about individually:
1. Nastia Liukin
Overscoring at Nationals: She performs bars Night One and receives a 17.050. Okay. But Night Two she perfroms a routine with a dismount ending with a near hands down and gets a 17.100. Futhermore, Night Two on Floor was a inflated as well. Nastia is not going to get a 15.850 on floor in Beijing unless she brings a beefed up A-score of like, 6.5. I don’t think anyone under that score will receive a total of 15.850. I think Nastia’s score will max out in the 15.200ish range.
In a way, I am least concerned about Nastia. I think she is one of the best prepared gymnasts ever, and YOU KNOW she is doing everything she can to prepare for Beijing! She always states how there is always something to improve on, she strives for perfection, and I don’t think too big of a score will stop her from clean up her dismount on bars, or perfecting floor.
Why inflated? I can understand wanting to keep her up with the Chinese on bars, we needed the world to know she can score a 17. But why floor? So that the Nationals AA competition can be closer? To boost Nastia’s confidence on the event? I have know idea but I think it is wrong though to give a gymnast false hopes.
2. Shawn Johnson
Overscoring at Nationals: Well, vault was one thing. A couple of tenths there. But what was up with floor? She performs Night One and gets an inflated score, then Night Two, again like Nastia, gets a HIGHER score for a worse performance. WTF? I think it is really, really, unlikely that we will see a 16 on floor in Beijing. Maybe, but I really think you have to have a 6.6 or greater. And I think Cheng Fei is the only one that will be able to do that. (We will see though, depends what she and Sandra Izbasa bring to the table in difficulty, and how Shawn hits her routine.) But what I am concerned about is why they are telling Shawn she is going to get a 6.6 with incomplete passes. That whip-triple IS NOT completed. Surely her and her coach must be aware that the pass is incomplete.
Why Inflated? With vault, I can sort of understand. Maybe they just want to encourage her on a skill she has nerves with. But I don’t feel the same with floor. That was brutally overscored, but maybe they did that to encourage the high amount of difficulty. Whatever the case is, I think it again is giving a gymnast false hopes if she performs her routine that way.
3. Alicia Sacramone
Overscoring at Nationals: Beam on day two was overscored by only a couple of tenths. I felt a little that way over floor as well. She stepped out of bounds, but I have seen that not get docked before. (Hollie Vise 2003 Nationals.)
Why Inflated? No idea.
4. Bridget Sloan
Overscoring at Nationals: I can’t actually say if there was any! I haven’t seen her Day Two performance on bars, so I don’t know. But my only concern would be IF she was overscored. We need the best possible bars team, and right now I REALLY think that Bridget and Shayla Worley are fighting over that last spot on the Olympic Team. And let’s hypothetically say that come Trials Bridget is overscored and Shalya is not, and Bridget gets a place on the team. Then say the international judges score her much harsher come Beijing, and the US Team is out of a few very valuable tenths that they can’t afford to lose.
Why Inflated? I have no idea again.
Underscoring:
Jana Bieger was hammered by the judges. I had heard rumors prior to Nationals that this was going to happen to her, and obviously it did. I realize Jana has some form issues, but I think it is so awful what they did to her and Natasha Kelley last year. If you don’t want people on the team, DON’T SELECT THEM. Don’t bash their scores. Same thing with Ivana Hong. (Who I think has the most beautiful double front on floor that I have ever seen.) I feel like it sends the wrong message to gymnasts, and furthermore makes an even worse mockery of the new code. The new code is supposed to eliminate favortism and subjective scoring, and harshly underscoring tells me that nothing is changed. So if you are in the “IN” Club, (Nastia and Shawn) we will give you phenomenal execution scores whether or not you deserved them. But if you are in the “OUT” Club, we tell you that you did poorly. It’s just not right.
Tags: 2008 US Nationals, Alicia Sacramone, bridget sloan, ivana hong, Jana Bieger, Nastia Liukun, Natasha Kelley, olympic trials, overscoring, Shawn Johnson, shayla worley, underscoring
June 13, 2008 at 2:50 pm |
Nastia was over scored on every event. Bars had some short handstands and bent knee’s (her giants are a bended mess) her beam had some missed connections and her floor form is atrocious. Her vault is short of height and distance. She has been getting so many gifts in the US it has become sad to watch.
They are trying to make sure she gets that second AA spot behind Shawn and are manipulating the scores to make sure that happens.
Jana was not really under scored. What she was was deducted for every mistake where as others like Nastia weren’t deducted for anything.
Shawn was over scored but she has more of a chance at reaching those scores at the Olympics then Nastia does on any event but bars. (By the time the Olympics comes along the judges might be giving generous scores to those that push the limit in difficulty vs those with clean form and less difficulty)
Never in my life have I seen an organization turn on their best gymnast like USA-gymnastics has. Nationals has always been a mess the year before the Olympics for the favorites but they turned it up a notch this year.
I was pretty shocked when people thought Shawn was over scored to the same point as Nastia. Besides the triple twist on floor I thought she was underscored especially on beam both days and bars. Where as Nastia didn’t deserve a single score she received.
Keep in mind when I say under and over scored I mean in the typical US National sense. I don’t for a second think Shawn will get in the 16’s on floor but when you compare what she did on every event to what Nastia did. Shawn deserved much better scores. IMO
June 13, 2008 at 4:38 pm |
I love how objective you are. I know you have your personal favorites but in posts like this you never bring that in. Its nice, we all have our favorites and ones we’re not as fond of for whatever reasons. Even though you love Shawn you can see that she was in fact overscored.
I know this has been going on for a long time but i agree and think the US got nervous that all the Chinese were scoring high at their Nationals and the US wanted to make sure and send the same message. they wanted to show at least one gymnast can score a 17 on bars ( i think no matter what nastia did she was going to get a 17 – i remember her scoring like an 8.8 for a better executed routine a couple years ago with an almost stuck landing – i wish the judges were just fair to everyone) and that the gymnast doing the 2 1/2 yurchenko can score in the 16’s and they have high scorer’s on floor and at least one in the 16’s and with a 6.6 start value
anyway thanks for all your posts.
June 13, 2008 at 4:50 pm |
Audrey, Nastia’s day two bars routine was actually a 17.1, not a 17.3. USAG’s political tactics are most confusing. First off, the stars get special scoring treatment, but for what? Shawn, Nast, and A-Sac are all HUGE assets to the team and they need to be well-informed about what specific deductions they are getting on each event. I think that all three of these girls are intelligent enough to realize these scores were nonsence, but I am still worried about whether Shawn will go back and get her whip + triple twist all the way around. And then Jana gets low-balled, for what? Martha K. knows what she is doing, and she is unlikely to pick Jana for a team member spot because of her failing to contribute majorly on any event. So do the judges have to be harsh with her to make this clear to Martha? Great post by the way.
June 13, 2008 at 5:04 pm |
MMR- Thanks for pointing out my typo!! I hate posting wrong information!!! And “Shawn, Nast, and A-Sac are all HUGE assets to the team and they need to be well-informed about what specific deductions they are getting on each event.” That is SUCH a good point!
Dave- THanks for the compliment!!! And I think you are right, I think the major overscoring is to send China a message. Awesome point.
Gymnastics080- You made me think of a couple more things I should include in the post!!! Yeah, I think Shawn was underscored on beam. And I think you are right about Jana. Again, it makes me angry how the best gymnasts’ mistakes are overlooked more than the ones they don’t want on the team. It isn’t right.
You guys are all awesome. The comments on the page are always so great and I always look forward to reading them.
June 13, 2008 at 6:03 pm |
That was really well-written. Another point: I think it also insults the gymnasts intelligence. Nastia KNEW they day two routine was worse than day one, Alicia KNEW she didn’t do well on beam day 2 (to the point where she almost laughed when the score came up). They’re not stupid but giving them scores is insulting when they know that it wasn’t the best they could do. They would want to know they can make it on their OWN MERIT not by being the favourites.
I think as competitors they would want to know what they really deserved and giving them the ridiculous scores at nationals makes them go into the Olympics not knowing what a realistic score would be for their new routine/upgraded routines. I think that Nastia would want to know just how close she will get to Shawn in the AA with real scores. Reaslitically, I dont think Nastia is THAT close to Shawn in the AA and I dont think she was better on day two. I think USAGA wants to show these are the top two, these are the locks (especially since they are the two most publicised) but they could have done it by scoring everyone fairly.
Also, to a lay audience its confusing. While I think a non-gymnastics audience would see the differences between Nastia and Jana I dont know how to explain to my non-gym friends why Nastia score SO much higher than Ivana, or why Shawn’s B-scores are higher than Ivana’s. Ivan’s form is beautiful- why doesn’t she get the B-scores to prove it even if her A-scores are a bit lower?
June 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm |
I don’t think Ivana has a chance at all of making this team. Last year at worlds she was killed on all events because of issue’s not related to form and you are right it makes no sense that her B scores aren’t better then Nastia’s.
Or at least as good. IMO she is a lot cleaner then Nastia.
I also want to thank you all for excepting my views on Nastia not being perfect. That is rarely allowed and I appreciate it.
June 14, 2008 at 2:22 pm |
Alot of Nastia hating going on
It is not her fault she is overscored I agree that her second day bar set was overscored! but I think she was underscored for her first day vault how is it she got the same score the next day without sticking the landing
I also think both of shawns vaults were overscored and her floor. But beam she was underscored.
I also don’t think Nastia is at all far behind Shawn by an means her A score is only .3 away from Shawns ahd her lines and flexabilty it much better than Shawns, but Shawn is a better tumbler so I think as far as those to go it all depends on the day they are having
I think its anybodies game!
June 14, 2008 at 4:45 pm |
Sorry for the threadjack, but this makes me look forward even more to Sales Associate Robot
. Good post, smart and accessible for those of us trying to study up before Beijing.
June 14, 2008 at 5:03 pm |
audgator, could you delete the scores I posted previously?
I don’t want to post any score here because I like you and some other bloggers to post them along with your insights and thoughts.
June 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm |
THanks for the info David!!!!
I am going to make a quick post
June 14, 2008 at 5:53 pm |
There is no Nastia hate going on here. There is gymnastics discussion. I don’t think anyone blames Nastia for herself being over scored.
Pointing out the flaws in her gymnastics is not bashing. Just like pointing out Shawn’s leaps is not bashing.
June 14, 2008 at 8:52 pm |
sorry i don’t agree that shawn was underscored on beam at all. they should deduct her for every split leap that she does, her legs come part on her first sequence, she lands her full with the head next to her shins! yes, she does have very good landings on beam but that is not everything. she is and should be getting deducted for her flexibility and chest positions when landing
yes nastia got a big score on bars – there is no point in repeating it but i think that the judges here were only following the trend that happened at worlds. i.e judges would be lenient on routines that were very very difficult with high starts. For example, cheng fei would take a big step on her amanar and still only get 5 tenths off, while someone with a small step on a DTY would get 8 tenths off. If this is in fact a legit ‘thing’ then they should create some parity in ALL the events and make sure they are doing this for ALL routines that OD in start value (including nastias bars) i dont see how its OK and permissible to overscore shawn’s vault (just because they saw this trend at worlds) whereas ppl freakout when nastia gets overscored on UB even tho she is equally OD as shawn’s vault IMO
also i think both gymnasts have those ‘in-grown’ deductions. e.g shawn gets at least a tenth off every time she attempts a split or has a low landing while nastia gets the same for crossing her legs
Let’s consider their starts:
Nastia: 6.2 6.7 7.7 5.5 AA=26.1
Shawn: 6.6 6.9 6.2 6.5 AA=26.2
Note: this includes shawn getting credited for her whip to triple (DV AND CV) as well as her 3/2 straddle (C) which should get downgraded to a 1/1 straddle (B) and her rudi, which she normally does well, but did not complete at nationals day 2. (i forgot what day 1 looked like, someone should check) and getting credit for the amanar. (now some ppl on message boards have claimed that she was about 45 degrees short one night, but not 100% sure about this at all)
say shawn gets .3-.4 less in starts then that gives nastia a big advantage
oh i am forgetting shawn’s ring leap which they DID credit at worlds, but i personally think it should not have been (has anyone seen the pictures??)
regardless i think the favorites are yang yilin and jiang yilin. I know this is contrary to the myth of American Exceptionalism but nastia and shawn do NOT have the most difficulty in the world. If these two chinese girls hit their sets, they are actually a few tenths higher. And i think they are the serious favorites because theyre CHINESE