deductions for piked Stalders

For no deduction, piked Stalder should be done with feet stretched throughout and significant hip flexion.

Ragan Smith’s, for example, should be deducted for both flexed feet and lack of hip flexion.

Click PLAY or watch it on YouTube.

The simplest solution for this glaring problem is what was done by FIG MTC some years ago. Devalue piked Stalders. Or consider them the same skill as a regular Stalder.

Published by

Rick Mc

Career gymnastics coach who loves the outdoors, and the internet.

5 thoughts on “deductions for piked Stalders”

  1. The simplest solution is not the cleverest one. Why not accurately judge a skill, instead of punishing those who can actually do the difficulty with a downgrade? Inbars are way harder than regular stalders and those who barely go under the bar shouldn’t count. Ragan gets to have a higher d-score and connection bonus for doing a fake inbar.


    1. You seem to be using the term inbar incorrectly. Inbar refers to bringing the body in close to the bar for a skill. Clear hips, stalders and endos are all examples on inbar skills. You can’t talk about inbar vs regular stalders, since the regular straddled version is an also inbar skill. The skill Rick is looking at is a piked stalder, also referred to as a stooped stalder.


    2. Ideally FIG judges would be able to differentiate between those two techniques. They haven’t in the past, so far as I can tell. I don’t have much faith they will in future.

      Computer video judging would easily be able to differentiate. #Someday


  2. Rick, maybe the correct distinction is between judges who understand the mechanics of movement (what we call ‘gymnastics sense’) and those who are less aware (read: “don’t”)…..this falls in the same category to me as judges who deduct stuck landings (on say huge vaults) because “the gymnast is too low” (neglecting of course the impossibility of some rulebook dictated position)…..

    people forget that the rules are generated by only 7 people in the world

    I know you like technology, but the variables that would go into “computer judging” are so many, that I fear that it would be even more cardboard and cookie-cutter like than the absurdity we put up with now…..

    do the best beam routines in the world r-e-a-l-l-y generate a minimum of 20 deductions? what does that say about the so-called “deductions”, mmmmm?


    1. I have no faith in WAG judges at Worlds and other international meets. I wish they were confident and experienced enough to differentiate between skills.

      Fact is they make the perfect routine a 9.1 and “box” everyone else in as close as possible in order to stay in range.

      Bring on computer judging software. It should be easy to be more accurate than what we have now.

      Computer evaluation of the strike zone in MLB is a good comparison for us.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.