- Dec 16, 2010
- 670
- 1,550
So what you are saying is at a certain point trying new or more difficult stuff that is light years ahead of everyone else has extremely small gains in the score (one of my points). In the end it is better to be slightly better than the pack in difficulty, but not light years ahead.
And to your example:
Team 1: Standing squad doubles, running squad doubles executed perfectly.
Team 2: standing squad (minus 1 person) doubles, running squad doubles (minus 1) executed perfectly. That one person NOT tumbling is standing in the middle front of the floor making it obvious they are not tumbling.
Is that worth the exact same?
If worth the same, the extra difficulty is not worth it because there is no reward.
But in practicality would a judge find a way to not allow them to max out in some little way, then how your competition does do matters.
Im not saying dont go for the new and innovative tumbling, Im saying go with the clean and a difficult tumbling..
It will beat out the "new and innovative" 9 out of ten times.
New and innovative has a tendency to be not executed well while its still "new"... It might score a 9.0 on difficulty, but thats no good when you get a .3 on execution.
Clean and difficult will score 8.5-8.7 and will get you a 1.0 on execution.... do you understand what Im saying?
In the particular situation you proposed:
Judges would score one of two ways:
Identical in difficulty, and would reward Team 1 with and extra .1 in performance or routine creativity, (due to there routine was more appealing because they didnt have little Billy standing in the middle of the floor)
Or
Judges would keep difficulty the same, and score team 2 less on performance or routine creativity (because they had little Billy standing in the middle making it awkard) :)
This does not include the obvious fact that both teams would have different execution scores.