Gymnastics Examiner has the full list – Who made event finals at the Canadian Championships?
Full results are linked from Gym Score Depot.
Elise Bolger – Photo by Grace Chiu on Facebook.
I felt the Junior competition was comparatively good. There were falls, especially on Bars, but the small group of competitors showed a lot of potential, much good gymnastics.
Some disagreed, calling it a splatfest.
The Senior competition was a splatfest. Especially on Bars. Read the LIVE blog on Gymnastics Examiner.
On the upside, gymnasts who were able to hit 4/4 ranked high in the all-around. Congratulations. Sarah Flett (age-21) made a strategic decision to try to go clean, leaving out her double layout on Floor (VIDEO), for example. It worked. Sarah finished a best ever 7th AA.
Having flown directly to this meet from the USA Level 10 Jr Olympics, it’s obvious that the American system (out of a perfect 10) is superior. Coaches and gymnasts are happier, healthier.
The Level 10 / NCAA requirements are reasonable. There’s some bonus for doing very difficult routines, but only a tenth or two. Chris Waller from UCLA noted that J.O. has written bonus, and unwritten bonus.
The Canadian Elite system streams some gymnasts (of about Level 10 ability) into FIG requirements. There’s too much incentive to compete high start values for those girls. Yet if Canada does not, how can they produce a National Team to compete at Worlds against Russia, USA and China?
It’s the dilemma faced by all the middle nations of the world.
Coaches will do what they must to win under any set of rules. The FIG rules we have now do not serve the best interests of our athletes and coaches.
When will they be improved?
13 comments ↓
Could any of the athletes help the US team? You know, 51st state and all.
Having worked in both systems I can say this – that compulsory system that many clubs use in the US, is not a great system to prepare kids for higher levels. Too many coaches don’t get the fact that kids need to be identified at a young age and “fast tracked”, so to speak, towards the higher optional levels and Elite. Parents are equally lost and don’t realize that all kids who are level 4 for example, will not necessarily make it to level 10 one day. Those lower compulsory levels should be ignored for high potential kids. A system like employed by Australia and England are ideal.
Not claiming to know how any other systems work, but will say that the opportunity to reach elite is open for all, and that is the beauty of the USA system. Some gymnasts are late bloomers and in a system that picks the kids at 4 yo, it discourages those who may not be the robotic compulsory gymnasts at that young age. Also, natural born talent does not always equate to success at level 10 or elite. Fast tracking also isn’t always the best way to produce a top athlete – in any sport. Think burn-out and injury.
“Chris Waller from UCLA noted that J.O. has written bonus, and unwritten bonus.”
I really hate cheating. There are enough rules without people making up extra ones.
“The Canadian Elite system streams some gymnasts (of about Level 10 ability) into FIG requirements. There’s too much incentive to compete high start values for those girls. Yet if Canada does not, how can they produce a National Team to compete at Worlds against Russia, USA and China?”
Streaming only some kids into elite at 10 cuts down on the total talent pool for elite. Maybe they would do better if they tried to get maximum potential out of all their gymnasts rather than just a few.
The USA has a crap development system but it doesn’t matter as far as elite success because they have a huge talent pool coupled with enough coaches who know how to develop elites and want to participate in the elite program. There are many coaches in the US who don’t even want to be involved with elite.
This is kind of off topic, but it’s stunning to see how many Canadian athletes thrive in a JO/NCAA setting once they compete in college. It seems like Canada could field a whole Olympic team using just current NCAA gymnasts right now.
Rick, you don’t make any sense. You have said that gymnasts who opted for cleaner and safer routines did better. Then you complain that there is too much incentive to compete high start values.
Normally the gymnast with the highest start value wins under the current code. That’s Savona in this group.
But she and the other girls with high starts had so many errors that girls like Flett who hit 4 for 4 had best ever AA rankings.
I’m happy about that. I ran over to congratulate Sarah and concur that she had made a smart decision, that day.
There’s no contradiction that I can see.
Rick, the issue is that you seem to think that the penalty for falling and errors is not large enough (and hence it encourages gymnasts to go for too much difficulty). Yet you point it out during a competition where the winners were the ones who went for safety and less difficulty. This result suggests that the penalties are large enough and that the risk/reward ratio for extradifficulty is adequate. This doesn’t make your argument look good.
Almost every girl had falls. It was not easy to watch.
Why?
Because every coach there (aside form Sarah Flett’s) believes that start value determines score.
Why?
Because of FIG rules.
That’s why I don’t like FIG rules.
Second day only half the girls fell. The results were more NORMAL. Savona fell, but she had the highest start score so she still finished 2nd AA.
To me it’s like Figure Skating in the past. The skater would Fall … and still get a Silver medal.
That’s not safe. Its not smart. The rules are at fault.
My point in that post was that Day 1 was an aberration. A rare case when doing clean, consistent gymnastics was rewarded.
I agree with the cheating comment, it is not fair what so ever.
The conclusion of this article is that the American scoring system (out of a 10.0) for gymnastics is superior to the FIG scoring system, meaning elite gymnastics has a different scoring system then the Junior Olympic scoring system. The author is saying the Junior Olympic scoring system, which is the American scoring system, is better. The reasons this proposes a bad argument, one is that there is not enough evidence stated throughout the article to explain why the American scoring system is superior. The premises are weak premises when trying to support the conclusion. The statement, “the coaches will do what they must to win under any set of rules” is a rapid generalization because although some coaches may do so, not every gymnastics coach out there will do absolutely anything to win. This falls under the category of fallacies. The article also mentions how some Canadian gymnasts are being brought to use the FIG scoring system but they are being forced to use this system against their will. When bringing inductive reasoning into play, if Canada decides not to use the FIG system and they stick to the American system or system they believe is “fair” they will never be able to produce elite gymnasts and be able to compete internationally or even go to the Olympics. If they are happy with only reaching the Junior Olympic level in gymnastics, then they will be able to use the American scoring system, the one they believe is fair. “The FIG rules we have now do not serve the best interests of our athletes and coaches.” This statement is a hasty generalization because some gymnasts are rewarded more when using FIG scoring system. The FIG scoring system benefits the gymnasts who are willing to try the dangerous skills that are worth more instead of playing it safe. With that statement, the author is over generalizing from limited evidence that does not have a correct conclusion.
Very logical, response.
It’s my opinion. Take it or leave it.
Leave a Comment