Home > Online Features > Opinion > Guest Opinion >

The Gymnasts Deserve Better

Saturday, June 07, 2008 By Lorraine Hoey
print Print Comment Comment
email E-mail This Article to a Friend
Lorraine Hoey
The Visa (U.S.) National Championships are finally over, and I have to admit, I'm a little bit confused. I thought USA Gymnastics officials wanted to send the strongest team to Beijing in August. I thought they wanted the team to seriously contend for several gold medals. So why are they putting the gymnasts at such a disadvantage during the selection process? Why do they insist upon egregiously overscoring the best U.S. athletes?

Overscoring Americans isn't new to the U.S. Championships, or the American Cup, or just about any competition held within the U.S. But judges, coaches, and USAG officials have got to start realizing that such overscoring only puts their gymnasts at a disadvantage in international competitions.

I understand that American audiences like to see high scores from American gymnasts. But by allowing media hype to override fair judging, gymnasts and audiences alike are misled. The judges are disrespecting the audience, the athletes and the sport when they engage in this kind of blatant favoritism.

Applying the correct deductions helps gymnasts and coaches identity and address weaknesses. On Saturday, Shawn Johnson received a 16.2 for her floor exercise performance. Her A Score was credited at 6.6, and she received a 9.6 for the B Score. While her B Score is certainly debatable, her A Score is what confuses me the most. How did she receive credit for her whip "triple" full? She didn't pull it fully around (on either day). I hope the Johnson camp recognizes this and continues to work on that pass, because as far as I'm concerned, her 6.6 A score is only theoretical at this point.

Johnson wasn't the only one who misled by the judges. Nastia Liukin received a 17.100 on bars Saturday, which breaks down to a 7.7 A Score and a 9.4 B Score. I'm sorry, but did you see her dismount? Her feet were flexed, her legs were wide apart and uneven, her landing was low and she took an uncontrolled lunge forward. That alone is more than six tenths in deductions, never mind the smaller deductions within the routine itself. Don't get me wrong — Liukin is absolutely wonderful on this event. But she's not perfect. By taking minimal deductions at most, the judges are falsely promoting her routine. Unless Liukin cleans up her dismount, she won't break a 17 in Beijing.

Disrespectful judging wasn't limited to the A and B Scores. Even the neutral deductions took a hit. On the floor exercise, Alicia Sacramone went out of bounds on her second pass. I saw it. The commentators saw it. The 12-year-old girl sitting next to me saw it. The judges conveniently didn't. Sacramone was clearly the audience favorite, but she went out of bounds. Deductions like this shouldn't be ignored. The gymnasts shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt just because they're performing on American soil.

So why are the judges overscoring the top gymnasts? Are they afraid that a relative unknown will surpass the "chosen ones" in the rankings just prior to Beijing? Or is this just a misguided attempt to intimidate the Chinese team? Because all the Chinese have to do is log on to YouTube to judge the routines for themselves.

With the Olympic Games only months away, scoring is critically important. The athletes have only a limited amount of time to fix the major issues within their routines, and they need to know the problems exist. I hope Johnson, Liukin, Sacramone and the rest of the American gymnasts do their best to succeed in Beijing. This is why the judging in Boston was so disappointing. These gymnasts deserve better: They deserve to be judged with respect.

Boston resident Lorraine Hoey is a former gymnast. She holds a Bachelor of Arts in Creative Writing and a Master of Fine Arts in Writing For Young People.
Rate this article
4.08

Comments (18 posted):

suemas on Sunday, June 08, 2008
I totally agree except I was there for floor and I would have credited SJ for her 3/1...I thought that Sacramone and Liukin were incredibly overscored where as Memmel and Beiger were scored much lower....It really just isn't fair and it dosen't help anyone....these girls need to know where they can imporve and by inflating scores it just gives them a false sense of readiness.
alexandrite105 on Sunday, June 08, 2008
I completely agree with you; I also would not have given Shawn Johnson credit for her (not so) triple twist. As far as Alicia Sacramone's floor goes though, I don't think you can fault the judges for that because as far as I know they're not allowed to deduct for out of bounds unless they see the flag up since from where the judges sit it's hard to see and be sure if someone stepped out of bounds or not. But I agree that it did look like she went out of bounds, and whoever was standing at the corner of the floor watching didn't do their job and should've raised the flag.
Morgan on Sunday, June 08, 2008
Thank goodness for this article--I thought I was losing my mind! I watched it with a friend who knows nothing about gymnastics and she asked if Liukin fell on bars and all I could say was apparently not. On night two, it appeared that the judges had blinders on when it came to Liukin and Sacramone. If you put Liukin's bar routine up to Kexin He's (who has also scored in the 17s) there were would be HUGE differences. Hopefully Trials will be more of a reality check.
kitty on Sunday, June 08, 2008
Actually, I agree with the list of overscores you gave. It was sad to see someone like Mattie Larson get UNDERSCORED on vault compared to the "known" gymnasts.

I would not have given Shawn the triple either night as well. Her vault is coming along, but still was a few tenths too high. Alicia definitely went out of bounds. Nastia should have scored no more than a 9.0 for a B score on bars.

I don't feel that Bieger was underscored on bars however. She got a B score of 8.95 which seems almost generous when you take her loose body and a maximum toe point deduction on her. She also had several leg separations on her bar routine (this is the only routine I saw).

I feel that the judges treated this meet like a college meet, where they give the benefit of the doubt and take the minimum deductions.
gymn96 on Sunday, June 08, 2008
While I can understand where you're coming from, I'll have to respectfully disagree with this article. The three locks (barring disaster), Shawn, Nastia, and Alicia, have all but packed their suitcases for Beijing. Nationals and Trials are really not even necessary for them.. they will make the team regardless of how they perform. Does it really hurt for them to see some high scores to build their confidence and excitement for the Games? If you look at the scores from the recent Chinese Nationals, you'll see the same thing.. gymnasts receiving scores that they would never get in international competition. Shawn and Nastia were so far ahead of the rest of the pack, it didn't matter if they were overscored or not.. they still would have finished on top.

Regarding the obvious deductions that may have been overlooked - do you not think that Shawn's camp knows that her triple twist isn't perfect, or that Nastia's dad doesn't realize her dismount could use work? Just because they weren't severely deducted here doesn't mean that the coaches will be overlooking these areas and continue to improve for the Olympics.

Yes, many of the top gymnasts were overscored. However, did it really matter or affect anything? The rankings would have been the same (maybe a bit closer, but so what?) and we all know those three are all but locks at this point anyway. They know exactly what to work on for the Olympics and only when they get there will we see exactly how everyone around the world matches up.
gymmy5 on Sunday, June 08, 2008
I think Nastia may have been overscored a little on bars, but you have to give credit where credit is due. She's a gorgeous gymnast....and she is one of the very few "watchable" senior gymnasts in the US. There were so many form breaks and ugly leaps among even the top gymnasts, that Nationals were often painful to watch. I'm thinking of Bieger, Sacramone, Memmel and Peszek, to name a few. Is it too much to ask to have them point their toes in a leap or keep their legs straight in a pike somersault on beam? I'm not a fan of Johnson, but at least she makes a little bit of an effort and her flips look clean. I wish the team the best in China, but I'd be embarrassed if we win with overscored "ugly" gymnastics. With that context, slightly overscoring a gorgeous bar routine is okay with me.
success08 on Monday, June 09, 2008
Don't worry about the athletes believing these scores. Reports from the arena suggest that Nastia, Shawn and Alicia were all quite bemused by some of the marks they received. Laughing and joking when some were flashed. They know the sport well enough to know that they can't afford to make some mistakes like they did at Nationals and get those results at the Olympic Games.

Shawn's whip triple twist and rudi pass are both big worries however. She was short on both through both rounds. That will cost her 0.4 off her A score for Beijing. If she scores a 16 for her Amanar in Beijing I will also be very surprised. I didn't think she even got it all the way around on Night 2.
alexandrite105 on Monday, June 09, 2008
i was thinking about that too, success08; shawn is dangerously close to not getting credit for the 2.5 twist on her yurchenko. and gymn96, the article is not saying the placements are off, the article is about them having a false sense of readiness. shawn's floor a score was first at a 6.5 night one, then was raised. i wonder what happened, because if it was the triple twist, and the judges gave in after the inquiry, that's horrible. and i'm not worried that the coaches won't know what the athletes need to work on, but if it's a matter of a score versus b score, they might be aware that the b score was generous, but they probably won't think twice of the a score in terms of a skill getting credit when it shouldn't have. for example, chow may know that shawn's floor execution was high, but as far as her getting credit for the triple twist when she shouldn't have, i think he'll probably trust the judges with that sort of thing. that is the sort of thing that's one of the biggest problems with the scores at nationals.
armchr quarterbk on Monday, June 09, 2008
Gotta agree with gymn96 & gymmy5... when someone like Liukin, who performs a beautifully executed bar routine with a sub-par dismount scores 9.4 execution, and someone like Bieger, who performs with really sloppy form THROUGHOUT, scores 8.95 execution... I have to say I think Nastia's routine was better executed than the 0.45 difference indicates. The fact is, even very subtle errors are quite noticeable in a "perfect" routine like Nastia's, whereas it's easy to disregard Jana's constantly unpointed toes, bent knees, and not-stuck-together legs. Since the B scores are all relative anyway, I can't say I had a problem at all with Nastia's 17+ scores on bars. And yes, the U.S. is hardly the first country to inflate scores at their own meets - I think we all had a laugh when we saw the scores from the recent Chinese nationals. I wish all these girls good luck (and fair judging, which may take some luck) in Beijing.
Caroline2146 on Monday, June 09, 2008
I would have to agree that if this competition had been scored by international judges, the placement would have been exactly the same. Liukin, shawn, alicia, and chellsie all would have dominated the meet anyway. I do think that B- panel judges were very lenient but as long as it's all in proportion I am ok with that. (e.g. liukins UB was overscored but it evened out when shawn's VT was overscored)

The gymnasts and coaching do realize this overscoring but I think the American judges were primarily just trying to counter the chinese nationals scoring. Their scores were extremely inflated and we did the same probably just to scare them back.

The two things that worry me is when ppl like shawn don't fix their A value and realize that that won't happen in beijing. I mean she messed up this pass in American Cup and it surprised me at nationals when she still did not fix it.

Another thing is that I am worried about the Chinese women being overscored in the Olympics by the international judges. I mean it happened this year. Did anyone notice how overscored the home-favored German women were??

Lastly, I do think Nastia was overscored but I mean if they gave her a low B score, then to stay fair, they would have been forced to give everyone else even lower B scores. I think she deserved like a 9.0 B score
FIGjudge on Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The gymnasts scores are on the internet for the world to see, and the judges were told to be generous but consistent. This did come after the Chinese scores were posted.

Clarification on Johnson's FX score inquiry- the judges are not involved if the score is raised. There is a video review panel, and they have the final say. The judges usually find out their scores were changed when they get the printour of the results.

Sacramone's out of bounds- unless the gymnast steps out further where the floor mat slopes down, it is very difficult to see the line. Where the line judges sit, they are at eye level with the floor. The camera men also get in the way. We could see this clearly up in the stands, but eye level with the floor carpet is not a great view. Also- try judging from there! It is very different from normal judging.
sprinkls on Tuesday, June 10, 2008
I agree completely with the article. Something needs to be done about this scoring, especially in the Olympic year. Many people are paying attention to gymnastics just because of the Olympics, and it is very confusing of the judges to be throwing out huge scores like this. Also, Sacramone was clearly out of bounds on floor, how could the flag not have gone up?? And Liukin was gorgeous on bars as usual, but that dismount...her knees were just barely off the floor and her upper body was bent all the way over. Ridiculous scoring like this is only going to confuse more people.
gymn96 on Wednesday, June 11, 2008
alexandrite105, my main point was not about the placements (that was just a side thought because of the article's comment about not wanting other gymnasts to finish higher than the top girls). Do you honestly believe that the coaches don't know what to work on with their athletes? Every single one of them knows the code inside and out, how deductions are taken, etc. Do you think they even take any of the competitions at home seriously? The American Cup, Pacific Rim, and all those meets are consistently overscored. The coaches have every idea of what their athletes should be working on, what's close to not getting credit, where they are getting B-panel deductions, etc. They may take judges advice and use that, but in no way do any of these inflated scores affect the amount of time spent on fixing routines. If we, people that aren't in the gym with them everyday, can pick out deductions, do you really think the coaches have overlooked them?
gymcam413 on Wednesday, June 11, 2008
First of all, I absolutely love Shawn Johnson! I think she is an amazing gymnast, and she throws some of the most difficult skills being done. I hope she wins in Beijing, and Nastia gets second. I agree that there were some major overscoring issues. Nastia's bars routine was extremely overscored, but then Shawn's vault was slightly overscored as well. As for Shawn's floor routine, I think she deserved the score she got. Her whip triple full just barely didn't make it around. The lack of completion was negligible as far as evaluating the A score. And what is the difference in value between a 5/2 and a 3/1? In men's gymnastics, they are worth the same. I am pretty sure she knows that she needs to work on that pass and her full punch rudi. This was the first competition I have seen her struggle on the full punch rudi, so I am not worried. And how can Shawn lose .4 from her A score by not making her twisting passes all the way around? Overall, though, I think that the results weren't skewed because of overscoring. Shawn and Nastia are going to dominate in Beijing regardless, and the judges were simply doing what they were told: scaring the Chinese, while keeping the scores consistent.
gymrose on Thursday, June 12, 2008
I respectfully disagree with the article, and agree with gymcam. Here's why: The Chinese are overscored at home. The Germans were overscored at home at the 2007 Worlds. It's a common practice.

When He Kexin and Yang Yilin received 17s on bars, people sat up and took notice. Didn't matter whether they deserved those scores or not -- all of a sudden they were the ones to beat. The fact that the U.S. girls are being scored the same way sends the message, "hey, we're competitive too." It's a psychological thing.

It seems like it would be more damaging to give the U.S. girls "realistic" scores that are below those of the Chinese. I'm sure judges and coaches around the world know about what gymnasts are being scored. Does it influence the judges when they judge the same gymnasts? On the surface, probably not. Below the surface, maybe. I think it's a valid possibility.

So in order to keep their athletes psychologically in the game, the U.S. judges had to score high at Nationals (and we'll likely see the same at Trials) in order to give the gymnasts a boost going into the Games. They would have done more damage to the U.S. girls' reputations by not giving them comparable scores to what we saw at the Chinese Nationals.

My two cents only, though. Take it or leave it.
alexandrite105 on Sunday, June 15, 2008
gymn96, what you said here: They may take judges advice and use that, but in no way do any of these inflated scores affect the amount of time spent on fixing routines. If we, people that aren't in the gym with them everyday, can pick out deductions, do you really think the coaches have overlooked them? doesn't make much sense because of course more work will be done on routines the more improvement they need, versus a routine that is already near perfect. though it is true that they will probably be spending the same number of hours in the gym regardless of work that needs to be done. not only that, but maybe something should've been deducted that wasn't and the coach might not even realize it because it wasn't taken off in a meet. particularly on bars where the coach doesn't get a good perspective.

gymrose, i see what you're saying and that's what i was thinking too, that we were just answering the chinese scores, so in that sense i think it's okay. i also think i'd be kind of funny to have judged them as they would've been judged at the olympics and the chinese then aren't as worried, but then all of a sudden we walk in there and are better than they thought. i think either tactic would work.

in any event, i can't wait for trials to start in a few days!!
Caroline2146 on Wednesday, June 18, 2008
gymcam, it doesnt matter that she just barely didnt make it. the point is she didnt make it and it shouldnt receive credit. if they credit whip to 2.5, she loses one tenth in DV and one tenth in CV. when they dont credit the straddle 1.5 she loses one more tenth in SV and when they dont credit the rudi she loses onw tenth in SV. that puts her SV down 4 tenths. and her execution got a 9.6 B?? that is way too high. her ring leap should get hammer, i personally would not credit it. she landed her dismount with a low chest and she bounced out of the whip 2.5. i would have given it
6.1 A + 9.1 B. Total should have been around a 15.2-15.3. thats a full point lower than what she got.

and you should be worried about the rudi because it was incomplete both days at nats
gymcam413 on Wednesday, June 18, 2008
I rewatched her floor routine several times, and in slow motion. When her feet hit the ground on her whip triple full (not 2.5) they were pointing towards the corner from which she started indicating a completed twist. Now her full punch rudi was slightly ?undertwisted? But correct me if I am mistaken, but if the judges give her no credit for a 1.5 twist, then it is a full twist, correct? And if the second one was a full twist, then it would be repitition, which would mean no recognition. So she would lose .3 (I'm asuming rudi is a C) and .1 for connection, therefore making your argument invalid regardless. But I believe she made it around enough to reveive credit with deduction. As for her ring leap, I cannot say. I have no right to debate that because I know nothing about it.

Her B-panel score. I will agree that it was too high, but we have already established that the judges were scoring high on everything. If you compare it to the other gymnasts, her execution was superior. Watch her routine compared to Alicia Sacramone. Now I love Alicia, but she got a 9.65 B panel score and hers did not look nearly as good as Shawn's. Shawn had a medium step on her whip triple full, maybe a small step on her full punch rudi. But that is pretty much the extent of her errors. Her double double was perfect and nobody can deny that. And her landing on her full in was not really low enough to take off mroe than .1. So we are looking more at a 6.4 A panel, and 9.4-9.5 B panel. That gives her a 15.8-15.9 total score, which is only slightly lower than what they actually gave her. But again, we have already established that the judges overscored everyone and why.

ANd her full punch rudi; go watch her floor routine from Tyson American Cup. Although her whip triple was worse, her full punch rudi was fine. She will not have problems with that pass. It is her easiest diagonal tumbling pass that she will fix.

But I guess we will just have to wait and see how it all goes at Trials this week.

And is a back 2.5 worth less than a back triple full for girls? And does a whip tripole full recieve more connection bonus than a whip 2.5? If so, then it is totally different from men's gymnastics where those two tumbling passes are worth exactly the same.

Post your comment comment