How long with this gymnastics crap? Like 3,000 world wide do it. Enough with Simone!
What I want to know is would she win the gold if everyone did the same vaults and we had the 1996 scoring system? Like les't all do a 1996 vault - is she better than everyone else?
Ib the brief part I watched tonight, I hated how they said, "She doens't even need to land it. It's so difficult, she just needs to try it."
Ridiculous scoring system. Is she truly way better than everyone else?
I seems it's no longer about who is the best gymnast - just who is the most athletic. Or am I totally off based?
What I want to know is would she win the gold if everyone did the same vaults and we had the 1996 scoring system? Like les't all do a 1996 vault - is she better than everyone else?
Ib the brief part I watched tonight, I hated how they said, "She doens't even need to land it. It's so difficult, she just needs to try it."
Ridiculous scoring system. Is she truly way better than everyone else?
I seems it's no longer about who is the best gymnast - just who is the most athletic. Or am I totally off based?
Gymnastics has changed a lot. It you used to be more about a fusion of balletic grace and doing tricks "beautifully". The emphasis was on form. The tricks have definitely taken over, and its now more formulaic and about difficulty. Different people are certainly advantaged by the new system, and Simone is one of them.
But yes Simone would still win (at least be the favorite) using the 1996 code of points. Consider final tumbling pass (double flip in the straight body position) she basically sticks every time at the end of an exhausting routine with 4 passes. This used to be the most difficult tumbling pass anyone did in the 1992/1996 olympics. The best gymnasts (gold medal contendars) struggled with it as their first tumbling pass (when fresh). Shannon Miller famously botched it 2 out of 2 times at the 1996 olympics (team and all around) and it cost her the all around medal.
On floor in 1996 women were also allowed to take graceful lunges back out of tumbling passes, so they didn't have to stick cold. The mistakes are more obvious now because they are not allowed to take "graceful" steps. Graceful steps are still allowed in NCAA gymnastics, if you want to see a relic of times past.
Now to your point if Biles did the exact same routines would she win in 1996? No. But she wouldn't attempt these routines. Because back in 1996, you basically only were allowed one small hop's worth of mistakes per routine in the olympics, and the moves they were doing are so trivial compared to what she is doing. If she were in 1996, she'd do simpler routines, with perfect landings, and sky high amplitude and power. She'd likely be scoring 9.9-10 on vault with a trivial (to her) double twisting yurchenko. She'd be scoring similar on floor. With so much time to spot the landings on these simpler skills she would probably win. But its hard to say for certain. There was little margin of error back in 1996 (even more so in the 1980s). So there was a chance she could take a huge step and be done. But on average she'd still win.
Gand power has always been rewarded in gymnastics, and judges would also give subjectively smaller deductions for the same step on a harder skill. The new system is more objective/fair. Unfortunately some of the grace has disapeared, which is unfortunate.
TLDR: Simone Biles would win in pretty much any code of points as long as she was able to design her routine to match that year's codes. Atheleticism and power has always been rewarded, and Biles is more graceful than the Mary Lou Rettons and other power gymnasts of the past. But she wouldn't be winning by such large margins. Her current routines would be too risky for some codes of points, depending on the year.
Thank you for a great post. I think I prefer the old scoring system.
I mean under the new system, how does she lose? How bad does she have to be to not lose?
I have a second question since you seem to be so knowledgeable. What has changed in gymanstics so now women like in their mid to last 20s are still able to be great? Back in the day, it seemed like once you are were past 19 you were screwed. I mean Nadia Comăneci won her 2nd Olympic gold at age 18 - younger than before Simone even won her first.
How long with this gymnastics crap? Like 3,000 world wide do it. Enough with Simone!
Why does this thread exist? If you're American, you back American athletes. The Olympics are a mass appeal event. I promise you most people are hyped to watch her & will be impressed by her comeback story. I don't get the blanket hate for her on here. All of us can relate to pressure/nerves. It got so bad that she couldn't jump. Now she's fixed that & is back. That's awesome. Why not support her.
I don't think you understand how good Simone Biles is. I watch a lot of male gymnastics and can confidently say she is in the top 50 in the world on both vault and floor (the women don't compete the other events). She would definitely have a shot at winning the NCAA mens champs in vault and floor. Could you imagine if a woman was good enough to win the mens' NCAA champs in track? It would be like a woman running a 3:33 1500m right now because that is the level we are talking about with Biles.
Would she win the mens vault final at the olympics? No. But I think if a woman ran a 3:50 mile we might be calling her best of all time, even if a handful of men could beat her.
No, Simone Biles would not be a top 1000 male gymnast in the events that males also compete in (even though they need to compete in 4 events that she doesn't).
You are wrong. There are not that many male gymnasts that can do a yurchenko double pike, double front with half, tsukahara double pike, yurchenko triple twist etc. vault or similiar difficulty. Most olympic level men do tsuk 2.5 twists if they are solid all-around olympic contenders, which is objectively an easier vault than Biles does and they get no where near as high. Yes there are several men around the world who can do a better vault than her, but its somewhere between 10 - 100 and definitely no where close to 1000. You are either an idiot, at troll, or so unfamiliar with gymnastics that you just don't understand the sport. Its hard to tell which.
Her tripple double on floor, and her front full twist through to double double are extremely difficult in mens gymnastics. Only a handfull of men have ever attempted a tripple double on floor and I have yet to see a single man do a front full through to a double double. Yes there are several elelite floor specialists in male gymnastics who can perform more difficult, powerful and athletic floor routines, but again the numer is in the 10 - 100 range. It definitely isn't even close to 1,000. Please name the 1,000 men caple of a triple double on floor, that have the height to open out of it with ease. There is no question Biles can add a half twist to that skill (but womens code wouldn't reward it). That would make it the 3rd hardest skill in the history of mens floor exercise behind the tripple pike and the Jarmin.
Gymnastics has changed a lot. It you used to be more about a fusion of balletic grace and doing tricks "beautifully". The emphasis was on form. The tricks have definitely taken over, and its now more formulaic and about difficulty. Different people are certainly advantaged by the new system, and Simone is one of them.
But yes Simone would still win (at least be the favorite) using the 1996 code of points. Consider final tumbling pass (double flip in the straight body position) she basically sticks every time at the end of an exhausting routine with 4 passes. This used to be the most difficult tumbling pass anyone did in the 1992/1996 olympics. The best gymnasts (gold medal contendars) struggled with it as their first tumbling pass (when fresh). Shannon Miller famously botched it 2 out of 2 times at the 1996 olympics (team and all around) and it cost her the all around medal.
On floor in 1996 women were also allowed to take graceful lunges back out of tumbling passes, so they didn't have to stick cold. The mistakes are more obvious now because they are not allowed to take "graceful" steps. Graceful steps are still allowed in NCAA gymnastics, if you want to see a relic of times past.
Now to your point if Biles did the exact same routines would she win in 1996? No. But she wouldn't attempt these routines. Because back in 1996, you basically only were allowed one small hop's worth of mistakes per routine in the olympics, and the moves they were doing are so trivial compared to what she is doing. If she were in 1996, she'd do simpler routines, with perfect landings, and sky high amplitude and power. She'd likely be scoring 9.9-10 on vault with a trivial (to her) double twisting yurchenko. She'd be scoring similar on floor. With so much time to spot the landings on these simpler skills she would probably win. But its hard to say for certain. There was little margin of error back in 1996 (even more so in the 1980s). So there was a chance she could take a huge step and be done. But on average she'd still win.
Gand power has always been rewarded in gymnastics, and judges would also give subjectively smaller deductions for the same step on a harder skill. The new system is more objective/fair. Unfortunately some of the grace has disapeared, which is unfortunate.
TLDR: Simone Biles would win in pretty much any code of points as long as she was able to design her routine to match that year's codes. Atheleticism and power has always been rewarded, and Biles is more graceful than the Mary Lou Rettons and other power gymnasts of the past. But she wouldn't be winning by such large margins. Her current routines would be too risky for some codes of points, depending on the year.
Thank you for a great post. I think I prefer the old scoring system.
I mean under the new system, how does she lose? How bad does she have to be to not lose?
I have a second question since you seem to be so knowledgeable. What has changed in gymanstics so now women like in their mid to last 20s are still able to be great? Back in the day, it seemed like once you are were past 19 you were screwed. I mean Nadia Comăneci won her 2nd Olympic gold at age 18 - younger than before Simone even won her first.
I prefer a mix of the old and new system. I'd like to see really artistic gymnasts go against biles all valued for their own excellence. What I really hate is OK gymnasts chucking skills they can barely manage and it just looks gross. In around 1988 - 1996 we hit a sweet spot you had the rettons (powerful like biles), but you also had graceful gymnasts too, and it was cool that they co-existed. In those days there were points for "originality" which was awesome because the routines all looked quite different. Now all the top gymnasts (with the exception of biles on floor and vault because she is in a league of her own on those events) do roughly the same looking routines and its kind of boring. I really like biles because her form is really excellent. She isn't super graceful, but her splits are tight and nicely extended, her toes are reasonably pointed (unless she is really chucking something rediculous like the absolutely insane tripple pike, which the super muscly male vault specialists even would struggle with).
Anyways I digress a bit. To your question ... what changed. Here are the big differences
1. This is the most important one. The lower age limit has gradually been rising. In 1960s/70s you had 13 year olds competing! In the 90s they changed the rules, you had to turn 15 during the olympic year (so you could be 14 years old as long as you turned 15 by December). In 1997 that rule got increased to 16 years as the minimum age requirement. What does this mean? Well I'd argue a gymnast is in their prime from 15 - 20 or so. But if you turn 15 during an olympic year, you can't even compete until you are 19. You try to do 2 olympics if you are really good (3 if you are exceptional and driven), you'd do them at 19 and 23. When before you'd probably do them at 15 and 19, which isn't allowed now.
2. Training has improved. I think you see this in running too. We see people lasting longer in general just because people can optimise their training to avoid injury and equipment has improved which enhances training as well.
3. Gymnasts can get endorsements and still be eligable for the olympics. It used to be you had to leave elite gymnastics so you could make enough money to live. Now the top gymnasts can make money just doing gymnastics (this might atually be the biggest one)
4. Others are doing it, so there is a snowball effect. Just like how in running we think a barrier is impossible until it is broken. Did we ever think there was going to be a 28:XX women 10km, or a sub 4 mile back in the day, but once it happens it eventually becomes common.
But the biggest one is surely number one. Imagine if in track we instituted a minimum age of 22 (at the start of a runners early prime). I bet you'd start seeing older runners as well as 21 year olds were forced to enter their first olympics at 25. When people enter later they want to stay longer and we just see more older athletes.
Gymnastics has changed a lot. It you used to be more about a fusion of balletic grace and doing tricks "beautifully". The emphasis was on form. The tricks have definitely taken over, and its now more formulaic and about difficulty. Different people are certainly advantaged by the new system, and Simone is one of them.
But yes Simone would still win (at least be the favorite) using the 1996 code of points. Consider final tumbling pass (double flip in the straight body position) she basically sticks every time at the end of an exhausting routine with 4 passes. This used to be the most difficult tumbling pass anyone did in the 1992/1996 olympics. The best gymnasts (gold medal contendars) struggled with it as their first tumbling pass (when fresh). Shannon Miller famously botched it 2 out of 2 times at the 1996 olympics (team and all around) and it cost her the all around medal.
On floor in 1996 women were also allowed to take graceful lunges back out of tumbling passes, so they didn't have to stick cold. The mistakes are more obvious now because they are not allowed to take "graceful" steps. Graceful steps are still allowed in NCAA gymnastics, if you want to see a relic of times past.
Now to your point if Biles did the exact same routines would she win in 1996? No. But she wouldn't attempt these routines. Because back in 1996, you basically only were allowed one small hop's worth of mistakes per routine in the olympics, and the moves they were doing are so trivial compared to what she is doing. If she were in 1996, she'd do simpler routines, with perfect landings, and sky high amplitude and power. She'd likely be scoring 9.9-10 on vault with a trivial (to her) double twisting yurchenko. She'd be scoring similar on floor. With so much time to spot the landings on these simpler skills she would probably win. But its hard to say for certain. There was little margin of error back in 1996 (even more so in the 1980s). So there was a chance she could take a huge step and be done. But on average she'd still win.
Gand power has always been rewarded in gymnastics, and judges would also give subjectively smaller deductions for the same step on a harder skill. The new system is more objective/fair. Unfortunately some of the grace has disapeared, which is unfortunate.
TLDR: Simone Biles would win in pretty much any code of points as long as she was able to design her routine to match that year's codes. Atheleticism and power has always been rewarded, and Biles is more graceful than the Mary Lou Rettons and other power gymnasts of the past. But she wouldn't be winning by such large margins. Her current routines would be too risky for some codes of points, depending on the year.
How bad does she have to be to not lose?
I forgot to answer this question. In the all-around, she'd have to have a "fall flat on her face" mistake twice to lose. Its really insane actually to even think of this. Technically she led Rebecca Andrade by 3+ falls, but in reality when someone falls they usually incure some other deductions as well related to the fall (usually someone falls because something went wrong, so they might get a lack of height deduction or soemthing else correlated with the fall). I am confident she would win the all around even if she flat out fell. This really doesn't happen in gymnastics. Most people lose a medal for something pretty minor. Falling once isn't that rare, but falling twice would be an absolute melt down. Even if she fell twice, she'd still probably win. Its basically a lock. She'd need something really life threatening to lose, like the twisties (which is when you lose spatial awareness for an extended period of time - back in the day most gymnasts would just fall like 3 times if they got that condition, but Biles left last olympics saying - this is dangerous, I'm not going to risk my life given I have this physical mental imparement). This is the only way I see her losing.
Now event finals is different. She could not win gold in any of those events, one fall is enough to mean you lose gold, since it is only one event. The exception is vault. Bile's double pike is so difficult, that she could actually fall on it and still win, which would just be silly and make a bit of a mockery of the sport, so hopefully she lands it and takes the gold on her feet.
I know this is going to get down voted coparing it to running, but she makes Kipyegon level athletes just look like another runner. The equivalent 1500m performance to what she is doing starts with a 3:3X. Just like biles, a 3:3X woman would have to have a disaster lose the 1500m. We will not see another gymnast like Biles in so long I don't think. Its hard to explain to someone who doesn't follow gymnastics just how good she is. But of course gymnastics is inherantly volitile compared to running. Falling 3 times certainly is possible for anyone with bad enough luck.
That is actually not true. Other states have high school gymnastics including Pennsylvania. But clubs are what every actual competitive gymnast competes in. And the number is far higher than 3000.
How long with this gymnastics crap? Like 3,000 world wide do it. Enough with Simone!
Why does this thread exist? If you're American, you back American athletes. The Olympics are a mass appeal event. I promise you most people are hyped to watch her & will be impressed by her comeback story. I don't get the blanket hate for her on here. All of us can relate to pressure/nerves. It got so bad that she couldn't jump. Now she's fixed that & is back. That's awesome. Why not support her.
Exactly.
She (and her teammates) just brought home another gold medal. Most rational people would be supportive of someone jumping up and down with joy carrying the US flag across the arena.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.