Hey everyone, I prepared this little paper about implementing bonus on Parallel Bars. I would love to discuss this and see what you all have to say and if it's good or bad or what I have overlooked or whatever.

Thanks!

Method For Awarding Bonus on Parallel Bars Under the Open Code Scoring Systemfficeffice" />>>

By

Dominic DeCoux>>

> >

Lack of parity in the scoring of the six events in men's artistic gymnastics is a well-known fact. Part of this is just a consequence of going with an "open" code, and part of this are the rules that the Technical Committee has in place that restrict some events. This has been well documented in a paper by Russ Fystrom called "Why the Six Events Need to Be Equal." Although Parallel Bars has more C and higher valued skills than any other event, there were only three scores over a 16.0 at the Aarhus World Championships. The purpose of this paper is to propose a method of awarding bonus for connected skills on Parallel Bars with the hopes of bringing up the scores and increasing the viewing pleasure of the event by encouraging risky connections (this is similar to the reasoning for awarding bonus on the Horizontal Bar).

> >

The proposition for bonus is as follows:
Connection will be awarded for all skills D + D, or E, or F, or vice versa as long as the skills are performed in direct connection. This includes a pause to demonstrate a handstand position (see Code of Points Part II Article 44 #3a). The award would be granted in this fashion:
D + D = +0.1

D + E = +0.1

D + F = +0.2

E + E = +0.2

E + F = +0.3

F + F = +0.3

> >

Here are a few examples:

Healy - Gatson 1 = D + D = +0.1 bonus

Peters to English handstand - Healy = no connection bonus because the Peters is required to show a 1 second handstand hold.

Tucked Belle - Tucked Dimitrenko = E + E = +0.2 bonus

Giant with Diamidov - Peach with 1/1 = no connection bonus because the Giant with Diamidov must show a finished handstand position (see Article 44 #3a).

Also demonstrating this rule would be Peach - Tippelt = no connection because the Peach must show a finished handstand position.

Healy - Urzica - Back uprise front salto piked to support = D + E + D = +0.1 between the Healy and the Urzica and +0.1 between the Urzica and the Back uprise front salto for a total of +0.2 bonus awarded for this combination.

> >

It is my hope that this rule would increase the viewing pleasure of this wonderful event that has the potential for so much creativity that is not utilized. One routine with excellent creativity is from Vasileios Tsolakidis at the 2006 World Championships (video can be found at http://youtube.com/watch?v=AXRwdbV5s2s). He could have very well performed some of those skills in combination (for example Front uprise Makuts - Double front piked to upper arm = E + E = +0.2). An example of a very uncreative routine (with one exception), but one with lots of difficulty is Huang Xu from the 2007 World Championships (video can be found at http://youtube.com/watch?v=NHhLZ4VWe-A). Count how many front uprises he does. It is an enjoyable routine because he does a lot of big tricks (however sloppy they were), but boring because of no connection.

> >

Thank you.

How FIG scoring adjustments affect medal placementfficeffice" />>>

By Fred Turoff

 >>

It amazes me that, in an age of computers and electronic scoring systems, the FIG has insisted in rounding off average scores that exceed three decimal places downward rather than keep the fourth place. For example, if the scores for a performance average 9.6875, the FIG says it is 9.687. This procedure came about when the FIG began using 6 judges and averaged the middle four to arrive at a final score. Three incidents of incorrect placement come to mind that show the flaw in this system.

 >>

In 1991, Vitaly Scherbo placed 2^nd on vault at theWorld Championships with a two-vault total of 19.399. The victor, Ok Youl You of South Korea, totaled 19.400. The averages of each performer's two vaults were: for Vitaly, 9.687 and 9.712, for Ok, 9.700 and 9.700. But Scherbo's true averages were 9.6875 and 9.7125, which add up to 19.400. However, since the FIG system insists on rounding down, Scherbo placed 2^nd rather than tying for first.

 >>

In 1999, Blaine Wilson placed 4^th all-around to Jordan Jovchev at the World Championships. Blaine's a-a total was 57.211, while Jordan's was 57.212. Looking at the individual scores that each earned, we see several cases of rounding down:

Jordan - 9.712, 9.600, 9.600, 9.450, 9.350, 9.500 = 57.212

Blaine - 9.600, 9,487, 9.325, 9.687, 9.612, 9.500 = 57.211

 >>

Were the scores not rounded down, they would be:

Jordan - 9.7125, 9.6000, 9.6000, 9.4500, 9.3500, 9.5000 = 57.2125

Blaine - 9.6000, 9.4875, 9.3250, 9.6875, 9.6125, 9.5000 = 57.2125

 >>

Most recently, Chelsie Memmel won the 2005 World all-around title over Nastia Liukin by .001. If one considers the scores added together to get each a-a-total, we again see where rounding-down breaks the tie:

Chelsie - 9.325, 9.537, 9.425, 9.537 = 37.824

Nastia -    9.137, 9.587, 9.587, 9.512 = 37.823

If rounding down were not used, they would have tied for the all-around title:

Chelsie - 9.3250, 9.5375, 9.4250, 9.5375 = 37.8250

Nastia -    9.1375, 9.5875, 9.5875, 9.5125 = 37.8250

 >>

The point of this is that several athletes have been denied rightful placement in the mentioned competitions because of an FIG policy that could be easily corrected. Why the arbitrary policy of rounding-down was adopted, I don't know. But it has affected several athletes unfairly.