In the thrilling second last routine at the World Championships in Rotterdam, Epke Zonderland went all out to win GOLD in his home nation. He added the Gaylord 2, a skill named after 1984 Olympian Mitch Gaylord (VIDEO).
Or did he?
Geoffrey Taucer of the Apex Technical Corner blog points out that the skill must be done with straight legs for the E value.
Epke did it in the tucked position.
Click PLAY or watch the mad Dutchman again. on YouTube.
Leave a comment if you can confirm. And we still need a judges breakdown of the gold medal routine from Zhang Chenglong, the only Chinese highbar routine I’ve liked since Tong Fei.
_______
UPDATE: Wsvanwijk sends a link to a Code update from FIG (PDF) dated March 2008 referring to the Gaylord 2 in tucked position as being an E, same value as in piked position.
That’s odd. I’ll send off this post to a couple of FIG judges to see if they can confirm.
One FIG judge got back to me. Definitely a D-part, he tells.
15 comments ↓
It seems odd to me that a Gaylord 2 is only an E — I think it would make more sense for this skill to be an E, and the layout gaylord 2 to be an F.
Then we’d have :
Tucked Kovacs = D
Tucked Kovacs 1/2 turn = E
Tucked Kovacs 1/1 turn = F
And
Piked/stretched Kovacs = E
Piked/stretched Kovacs 1/2 turn = F
Piked/stretched Kovacs 1/1 turn = G
Good point. You should run for MTC.
The FIG got themselves all confused with the Gaylord and Kovacs stuff. It’s needed to be clarified for a while, how tuck, piked, laid out (if this has ever really been done) Gaylords should be rewarded. Similarly the Pineda-Kolman thing is just silly. A remnant of when twist timing was considered to differentiate skills.
Agreed — the Pineda and the Cassina should be considered the same skill. Two different techniques for the same skill, but the same skill nonetheless.
Woah, let’s not get crazy here, next you’ll be suggesting that arabian skills on floor should have the same value as their backwards half twisting counterparts.
Hey Rick,
This skill actually was added in July 2008 it is considered the same element as a normal gaylord 2. You can find it in this FIG newsletter:
http://www.fig-gymnastics.com/vsite/vfile/page/fileurl/0,11040,5187-191691-208914-140717-0-file,00.pdf
and here’s a video of Bart Deurloo competing it september 2009:
Zhang Chenglong SV is 7.4 which is a huge HB SV. He got 0.8 in connection alone (flight to on-bar or vesa-versa).
Jeff, what’s so crazy about what Geoffrey Taucer is saying about the tucked/piked Gaylord 2′s values? Let’s actually look at some of the other skills in the high bar code.
Layout Tkatchev: D
Layout Tkatchev with 1/2 (Moznik): E
Layout Tkatchev with 1/1 (Liukin): F
Straddle Tkatchev: C
Straddle Tkatchev with 1/2: D
Tucked Gaylord 1: D
Tucked Gaylord 1 with 1/2 (Pegan): E
Piked Gaylord 1: E
Piked Pegan: F
From the code, it’s pretty clear that flight elements get an increase in value with each additional 1/2 twist. They also get an increase in value when one goes from tucked/straddled to piked/layout. Upgrading the piked Gaylord 2 to an F is simply being consistent with the rest of the code.
And finally, let’s look at the skills on floor. A tucked double arabian is a D. A front half twist to tucked double back is also a D. So under today’s code, a reverse double arabian already has the same value as a normal double arabian.
“Woah, let’s not get crazy here, next you’ll be suggesting that arabian skills on floor should have the same value as their backwards half twisting counterparts.”
Funny you should mention that….
Actually, I have no objections to arabians being counted as different skills from their back twisting equivalents, but I do think it would be good for the difference to be more clearly defined in the code.
Gaylords are a bit trickier to catch and to work out of swingwise. Also since most gymnasts do backflips for dismount, the kovacs is an easier progression trainingwise (although this argument only applies for gaylord 2 and pegan). both arguments apply for gaylord 1. And it’s not like we are awash with people doing gaylords.
So a simple difficulty progression as discussed makes sense.
Bigger issue is what do we do with people doing DT-kovacs and similar craziness. And you know it is out there. We’ve all seen youtube attempts, the recaught triple back, etc. We really need Gs and Hs. (Or do the men finally have at least Gs now?)
I mean Gaylord 1 and Pegan. Anyhow…kovacs and gaylord are both very cool skills. Kudos to the men who tried them first.
I don’t think arabians and back with a half should have different values. Surprised that they do. Let’s just make it simple.
I mean, I could see full-in backout, being considered a pretty different skill from a backin, fullout. But then what do you do with gymnasts that have a halfinhalf out. Or something like a quarter in, 3/4 out. Or whatever. Just consider them the same skill. There are enough moves available that we don’t need to encourage gymnasts to want to get credit for the same thing with differnet twist timing. They can select other things that are more truly different.
Update:
http://gymnasticscoaching.com/new/2010/10/gaylord-2-on-horizontal-bar/
I think a Gaylord 2 is harder than a Gaylord 1, so makes sense to be an E (tucked). It’s actually arguably the same as a Pegan (and maybe harder to train). So E makes sense.
One FIG judge emailed to say, it’s definitely D tucked, E piked.
Leave a Comment