Invert Cross only a C-part?

Fred Turoff:

Many young gymnasts can do a Yamawaki, a C-skill, but can’t do a straight arm shoot handstand, also a C-value, and certainly can’t do an inverted cross, another C-value.

Where’s the logic?

When an inverted cross was devalued to C many years back, I, along with many others, asked “Did the evaluator ever try one?” And pressing out of an inverted was also valued as a C until this recent Code, when it was raised to D. That previous C-value was the most ridiculous value in the Code.

What the FIG MTC should do is regularly ask coaches and gymnasts to submit rating change suggestions, then correlate the answers and make changes. So far I believe Steve Butcher is listening, but he has to wade through red tape to effect change.

Dwight Normile – An Interview With Temple Coach Fred Turoff


related – Uncle Tim – Rings Primer: What the H is a Maltese (and other strength moves)?

Published by

coach Rick

Career gymnastics coach from Calgary, Canada.

3 thoughts on “Invert Cross only a C-part?”

  1. Archaev and Suchlin speak eloquently and trenchantly at length in their book at the disconnect between the fundamental principles that govern the evolution of human movement (and it’s competitive arm, gymnastics) and the (mis)direction that consecutive (not limited to 2 by the way) Technical Committees have imposed upon the sport…

  2. Yamawaki is a swing skill and as such is easier for boys who have not yet developed the strength that comes with a man’s body to learn. The code is not a boy’s code it’s a men’s code. The difficulty values are based on the relative difficulty for a fully grown MAG gymnast. For a fully grown man (especially a ring specialist shaped man) swing elements can be harder and strength elements easier relatively speaking. We often see men get as much of their difficulty as possible from strength and boys get as much as possible from swing.

Leave a Comment