Contents Information Events and Results Gymnasts Archive
Contents Archive Archive

Message board

Welcome to the new RSG.net message board! Please behave!
Please remember, that the message board is not responsible for the opinions expressed by its members.
Also don't insult, blame, accuse, discriminate, or debase other people here.
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

COP to be revamped
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Rhythmic Gymnastics Forum Index » Code of Points
View previous topic | View next topic  
Author Message
Juliana



Joined: 12 May 2006
Posts: 715

PostPosted: Fri, 6-May-2011 5:52    Post subject: Reply with quote

Seeing how subjective this sport is, I think it's useless for people to discuss this issue. Judge A thinks this, Coach B thinks that. Gymnast C thinks THIS, and Audience D thinks THAT! So what's the point? Why don't everyone(judges, coaches, gymnasts, audience) just sit back and do whatever they want? Sorry I forgot all the photogs/videogs - thanks for all your hard work and we love you guys!

After all, we audience(no matter newbies or big fans) all know who we think can dance, who has the most difficult elements, who the judges don't like and so on.

I actually think this isn't something easy to solve with all the settings and the nature of this sport. If one has to change something, one has gotta change another thing. In the end, there will be a big revolution and RG will no longer be called RG.

Have people noticed that RG is by far the most complicated sport ever? As much as I've been following it for long, I have to say I do think so. Don't all of us feel proud of ourselves? I do Very Happy
_________________
the sixth sense
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
latvy6



Joined: 30 Jan 2009
Posts: 2746
Location: Seattle; Hometown - SF

PostPosted: Fri, 6-May-2011 6:05    Post subject: Reply with quote

Juliana wrote:
Have people noticed that RG is by far the most complicated sport ever? As much as I've been following it for long, I have to say I do think so. Don't all of us feel proud of ourselves? I do Very Happy


The biggest reason I decided not to go back after recovering from injury. At the very last competition I was in, the girls who placed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd had their mothers AND coaches as the judges. There was sponsorship from local companies too giving prize money and everyone else got "goodie" baskets.

So I pursued ballet and dance instead. It's not complicated, because there are no scores. Just technique and expression.

But of course, if RG was like that it wouldn't be a sport now would it? xD

I fear that I'll be 40 when this RG revolution finally even starts happening... (and I'm still a teenager...well, close to no longer being one but you get the picture).

There isn't much we can do to really change the CoP to be fair that the "big guys" in charge will ever approve of...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ybalka_



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 1538

PostPosted: Fri, 6-May-2011 18:28    Post subject: Reply with quote

Truebluesea wrote:
ybalka_ wrote:
Haven't you think in a code that encourages risks and penalizes drops at the same time? if gymnasts as you say did their routines easier so not to drop the apparatus, that would be actually a reason to leave them out of the podium, who can win with an easy (and therefore boring) routine??? Rolling Eyes

I respect the way you judge it, of course! But sorry, imo you're misssing something...
Let me take as example Merkulova's routines. Who in this freaking world would dare to say that with those simple routines with no big risks and apparatus handling AT ALL she could win something? And yes, she won something. Miteva's gorgeous routines rarely gets 28+ scores and what? Merkulova at her first competitions got those 28's.
RG is so $$$ubjective...


hahah true about the $$$ubjectiveness of this sport, but I was talking obviously assuming the fair judgement. Merkulova can enter the carpet, sit there for 1:30 min scratching her nose and still get 28.xxx so...Leaving out viner's mafia, that would be the RG i'd love to watch Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dalit



Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 4110
Location: Israel

PostPosted: Sat, 7-May-2011 7:22    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree that this is really a subjective sport....
Some people prefer to see routines with less difficult body elements but with more risky appartus handling ,so the only place that the gymnasts can lose points will be with drops and then it will be more clear who deserves to win.(like it was in the past).
Personallly i prefer to see the first amazing pivots in the start of the ball routines of Stanuita or Kondakova(who are the only ones in the world that are able to perform those pivots),then the clean catch of the ball of Maximenko after her difficult 3 rolls.
Or another example i prefer to see the amazing ribbon routine of Kaneava with all her SMALL throws and original touches above Miteva's ribbon that includes big difficult throws.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tchachinafan



Joined: 07 Nov 2005
Posts: 2224
Location: Stars Hollow, Connecticut

PostPosted: Mon, 9-May-2011 0:57    Post subject: Reply with quote

ybalka_ wrote:


Back in the 90s a drop of apparatus left you away from the podium, and believe me when I say they had REAL risks in their throws.

Haven't you think in a code that encourages risks and penalizes drops at the same time? if gymnasts as you say did their routines easier so not to drop the apparatus, that would be actually a reason to leave them out of the podium, who can win with an easy (and therefore boring) routine??? Rolling Eyes

so, or you take the chance or you are out of the medals, that's what the code should encourage. There's no need to perform one hundred of difficulties the half of which are going to be poorly performed ( as the 100% of gymnasts do nowadays, yes kanaeva included), I think people would appreciate much more a beautiful and difficult well perfomed throw than see how many pivots kondakova or X is able to perform, and which is worse, on a plain foot... Stupid


this!



I wish deductions for this were a lot bigger, a lot more, reward clean gymnast instead of dirty ones danm it!!.......that is to me a far bigger problem than a gymnast dropping an apparatus and winning. mostly because why to even bother to be cleaner if the deductions are so small??, it doesn´t encoyrgaes cleaness and what worries me is that younger gymnast will end up the same and so on and so on


Grandi is probably working his way into re-election(can he be elected again, I feel like he´s been there forever Laughing ), last week he released a statement for AG too, admitting that the code is a time bomb and blah blah blah………...words are words, wanna see actions because a press release is not enough specially because it brings me to think that he´s might as well just trying to save his ass.
_________________
♥Staniouta, Halkina, Kudryavtseva, Pazhava ♥
No more dreaming like a girl so in love with the wrong world
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rhythmic fan84



Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Posts: 277
Location: Deutschland

PostPosted: Mon, 9-May-2011 6:12    Post subject: Reply with quote

Coming from a finance background, I feel they have to be more strict on independence issues and controls eg back in the day when Viner was on the panel of judges as Head Coach of Russia judging her gymnasts out of her gym?
I agree with most of you about increasing the deductions for dropping the apparatus. The only concern I have is gymnasts like Mitrosz then scoring much higher in ranking because she won't drop her apparatus as her risks are not as high as those of Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Belorus and Israel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Eulucil



Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 524
Location: Spain

PostPosted: Mon, 9-May-2011 14:08    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rhythmic fan84 wrote:
The only concern I have is gymnasts like Mitrosz then scoring much higher in ranking because she won't drop her apparatus as her risks are not as high as those of Bulgaria, Ukraine, Russia, Belorus and Israel.


But she is only scoring high because there is a POL judge as technical comitee president... Before nobody noticed her.

Despite I agree that a different COP should score gymnasts in a different way, I think that everybody knows that gymansts will recieve similar scores no matter what COP we use. No fair judges = no fair results, and that can't be changed.

So, if a COP that encourages artistry is used, the only difference will be the routines, not the results.

Of course, all of this is only a opinion, who knows what will happen?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Anna Kull



Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 5153
Location: Switzerland

PostPosted: Wed, 11-May-2011 13:49    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a few things I'd like to see in a new cop. One thing is that you may not repeat a particular structure. For example: You may only ad a walkover to a dicciculty once in a routine. You may only do a fouetté balance once or you may only do one fouette pivot in a routine. Imo this would give us more polyvalent gymnasts, more vairity in the routines and people would be forced to re-include the tours lents, something that has totaly been replaced by the fouetté difficulties mainly because there are restrictions on howmany tours lents you may do that are more strict then for other structures.
_________________
RG is the true reason to go on in my life!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
andres



Joined: 29 May 2005
Posts: 533

PostPosted: Thu, 19-May-2011 6:03    Post subject: Reply with quote

*Kalinka* wrote:
dalit wrote:

I don't think that he meant to say that if gymnast dropped her apparatus she can't win .

Unfortunately Bruno Grandi sayd this in the Italian TV.
And, anyway, I understand that the public would enjoy more RG if drops were penalized more than now, but we must think to the gymnasts too! It's not fair that a gymnast who performs a perfect routine, but she drops the apparatus, must take a small score!
And there are other mistakes, not only the dropping of the apparatus! What about losing the balance, for example? Bruno Grandi doesn't even mention it!
And I think it would be stupid to penalize drops so much, because in this way gymnasts would perform easier routines to reduce the risk of dropping the apparatus, and so we would have very boring routines!


Kalinka i am agreed totally with you in both post of you .

I think that Mr. Grandi is wrong because RSG is a sport not an spectacle neither is performed in a casino in Las Vegas , i think that the idea of attract the sport to the people is not bad but we must think that not to all the people like RSG also people who likes rsg is because like the sport like it is and the way that RSG is performed and their roots on ballet .

If Mr. Grandi sees that a gymnast that drop her apparatus but anyway get medal is unfair that just is one of the stuffs that are unfair but not all .. there is situations more unfair than the expressed by mr. Grandi By example it was very unfair that in the WC moscow 2009 underscored Bessonova's routines or that sometimes routines of Miteva is underscored . that is very more unfair .

We must remember that gymnast invest her time in training and improving and many times sacrifices some years of their life because loves rhythmic gymnastics ,do a very hard work and are human not clowns that works for entertain to the judges and people neither robots that never can do mistakes , this is a sport not a fight between gladiators on the Roman coliseum that people is hungry for sees who penalize more . i think that are being disrespectful with all the gymnast .

Mr. Grandi just have eyes for sees apparatus dropped but not loss of balance , neither bad draw of the figures of the ribbon and many other errors that exist
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Eulucil



Joined: 11 Sep 2008
Posts: 524
Location: Spain

PostPosted: Tue, 27-Sep-2011 20:43    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi! Does anybody know something new about the new code? Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashanty



Joined: 19 Dec 2004
Posts: 282

PostPosted: Thu, 15-Dec-2011 16:39    Post subject: Reply with quote

Eulucil wrote:
Hi! Does anybody know something new about the new code? Smile
I know Zaragoza held the first course, I was at the organisation but I asked some people who wa in it about the new code...
I remember they told me, 9 body elements. Max value of single element 0.5. You can do combined elements (leap+balance) adding both values and 0.10 (eg. leap 0.3 and balance 0.2 = 0.6). About masteries there are M1 = 0.1, M2=0.2 and M3= 0.3. But it just what I remember from what they told me... don't trust on me 100% as It's like a broken phone and maybe (sure) I'm missunderstood
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
*Kalinka*



Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 2180
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Thu, 15-Dec-2011 21:44    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashanty wrote:
Eulucil wrote:
Hi! Does anybody know something new about the new code? Smile
I know Zaragoza held the first course, I was at the organisation but I asked some people who wa in it about the new code...
I remember they told me, 9 body elements. Max value of single element 0.5. You can do combined elements (leap+balance) adding both values and 0.10 (eg. leap 0.3 and balance 0.2 = 0.6). About masteries there are M1 = 0.1, M2=0.2 and M3= 0.3. But it just what I remember from what they told me... don't trust on me 100% as It's like a broken phone and maybe (sure) I'm missunderstood

If you understood correctly, body elements will have very little importance! Strange! Shocked And I don't think it's very good, because in this way a stag jump will be worth about the same as a turning split with arch... I didn't think they wanted to make Difficulty less important. Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
canrgmom



Joined: 24 Jun 2009
Posts: 52

PostPosted: Fri, 16-Dec-2011 7:21    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
I know Zaragoza held the first course, I was at the organisation but I asked some people who wa in it about the new code...
I remember they told me, 9 body elements. Max value of single element 0.5. You can do combined elements (leap+balance) adding both values and 0.10 (eg. leap 0.3 and balance 0.2 = 0.6). About masteries there are M1 = 0.1, M2=0.2 and M3= 0.3.


Ashanty, if you are correct in your understanding of the planned changes - this does seem quite odd. Maybe they are planning to recalibrate all the values of elements so that, for example, a "J" difficulty would be valued at 0.5 instead of 1.0. I'm not sure how they would do this....
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
*Kalinka*



Joined: 09 Apr 2009
Posts: 2180
Location: Italy

PostPosted: Fri, 16-Dec-2011 14:51    Post subject: Reply with quote

canrgmom wrote:
Quote:
I know Zaragoza held the first course, I was at the organisation but I asked some people who wa in it about the new code...
I remember they told me, 9 body elements. Max value of single element 0.5. You can do combined elements (leap+balance) adding both values and 0.10 (eg. leap 0.3 and balance 0.2 = 0.6). About masteries there are M1 = 0.1, M2=0.2 and M3= 0.3.


Ashanty, if you are correct in your understanding of the planned changes - this does seem quite odd. Maybe they are planning to recalibrate all the values of elements so that, for example, a "J" difficulty would be valued at 0.5 instead of 1.0. I'm not sure how they would do this....

Well, of course they would change almost all the values. But it still looks very strange, because in this way body difficulty would be very unimportant. I hope they aren't planning to come back to the 10 system. Shocked
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ybalka_



Joined: 10 Oct 2004
Posts: 1538

PostPosted: Sun, 18-Dec-2011 15:32    Post subject: Reply with quote

*Kalinka* wrote:
canrgmom wrote:
Quote:
I know Zaragoza held the first course, I was at the organisation but I asked some people who wa in it about the new code...
I remember they told me, 9 body elements. Max value of single element 0.5. You can do combined elements (leap+balance) adding both values and 0.10 (eg. leap 0.3 and balance 0.2 = 0.6). About masteries there are M1 = 0.1, M2=0.2 and M3= 0.3.


Ashanty, if you are correct in your understanding of the planned changes - this does seem quite odd. Maybe they are planning to recalibrate all the values of elements so that, for example, a "J" difficulty would be valued at 0.5 instead of 1.0. I'm not sure how they would do this....

Well, of course they would change almost all the values. But it still looks very strange, because in this way body difficulty would be very unimportant. I hope they aren't planning to come back to the 10 system. Shocked



So, 9 body elements each of them worth 0.5 = 4.5 for D (considering the gymnast makes the top rated elements!) ?? . If you can add 0.1 for a combination there's only 0.5 (five possible combinations) left to reach 5 points, which leads to think we are getting back to 10.000 system? Is D going to be merged in with A like before? iis execution again the key of the score?...W-E-I-R-D.

Btw, I refuse to think a backscale pivot or a unheld back ring pivot or any beautiful element can be worth the same as thos ugly Weberian cossacks ??
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Rhythmic Gymnastics Forum Index » Code of Points All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum



Contents | Information | Events and Results | Gymnasts | Archive

last Modified: 25. October 2003

Copyright © 1996-2004 Alexander Kochanntrilobit GmbH
trilobit