All-Star Is It The Judges Fault That There Is No Change At The Top

[glitterdiva]

I am very proud of the strides my gym has taken as well as the advances of so many of my close friends programs.
I have learned a lot from the responses here and my opinion has changed from when I first asked the question. Execution and cleanliness is so important I am just still so anxious about that being the "catch phrase" since every person interprets that differently.
I am proud of our industry, from the originators or "big names" to those of us that continue to raise the bar in our own way. And as we continue to evolve I will hope and pray that the education, training, and perception of our judges does as well.

I think your gym has made huge strides and I really true do respect your gym mysterious is one of my favorite teams. I'm glad your opinion has changed and I'm excited to see that in your gym. PCM has the biggest possibility to become one of those top three gyms. Good luck!

 

[ultimatelegacy]

Here's a question maybe someone can answer for me. It's nice that we can see the score breakdowns in each category at worlds. I AM ONLY DOING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE and not to target any certain team. I'm using Cali & Top Gun because they are well respected programs that have been well established as a powerhouse for a very long time. I was very confused at the placement of UA in the large coed division because I thought they were one of the teams with the most difficulty in that whole division. This is where I do question what the original poster had posted. Do names really come into play when judging? I know execution is a big factor, but let me put this out in a number sense and maybe someone can give me an answer as to why UA was scored the lowest in the large coed division in stunts and tumbling. I will use tumbling as an example to back up the theory and compare the 10th place team to the 2nd and 3rd place team's scores. I went back and rewatched the videos many times to come up with numbers. Numbers can give a general sense of solid proof, only lacking execution. By doing so, we get a general sense of how teams should score in comparison to others.

Standing fulls/1 to fulls
Cali: 15
Top Gun: 18
UA: 18

Standing to doubles:
Cali: 8 plus 5 tumbers go twice, totaling 13. 5 1 to doubles, 4 3 to doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles.
Top Gun: 8 total: 7 3 to doubles, 1 2 to whip double
UA: 12 plus 3 tumblers go twice, totaling 15. 2 double punch doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles, 3 2 to doubles, 3 1 to doubles, 2 3 to doubles, and standing full bounding pass ending in a double

Synched tumbling:
Cali: 18 fulls/doubles
Top Gun: 26 fulls/doubles
UA: 28 fulls/doubles

Running doubles:
Cali: 12
Top Gun: 8
UA: 17

As you can see, UA had very high numbers in each of these sections, and if you get a chance to see to video, watch it. In my opinion the skills were performed with great execution, as did Cali and Top Gun. But the numbers are there.

Cali scored a 97.93 in tumbling.
Top Gun scored a 93.63 in tumbling.
UA scored an 87.70 in tumbling.
-->More than a 12 point difference between Cali and UA, and almost a 6 point difference between Top Gun and UA. It doesn't make any sense considering UA had the largest quantity of tumblers in all categories (tied with Top Gun for standing fulls/1 to fulls).

I don't understand how a smaller named gym (UA in this example) can score so significantly much lower than the bigger name gyms did with a significantly larger amount of tumbling unless there was a HUGE execution difference, which again IMO there was not.

To me this is solid evidence that big name gyms do get generally scored higher. Sad to see that this may be true, but in this case it definitely seems like it is. Just putting it out there.

 

[BlueCat]

Here's a question maybe someone can answer for me. It's nice that we can see the score breakdowns in each category at worlds. I AM ONLY DOING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE and not to target any certain team. I'm using Cali & Top Gun because they are well respected programs that have been well established as a powerhouse for a very long time. I was very confused at the placement of UA in the large coed division because I thought they were one of the teams with the most difficulty in that whole division. This is where I do question what the original poster had posted. Do names really come into play when judging? I know execution is a big factor, but let me put this out in a number sense and maybe someone can give me an answer as to why UA was scored the lowest in the large coed division in stunts and tumbling. I will use tumbling as an example to back up the theory and compare the 10th place team to the 2nd and 3rd place team's scores. I went back and rewatched the videos many times to come up with numbers. Numbers can give a general sense of solid proof, only lacking execution. By doing so, we get a general sense of how teams should score in comparison to others.

Standing fulls/1 to fulls
Cali: 15
Top Gun: 18
UA: 18

Standing to doubles:
Cali: 8 plus 5 tumbers go twice, totaling 13. 5 1 to doubles, 4 3 to doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles.
Top Gun: 8 total: 7 3 to doubles, 1 2 to whip double
UA: 12 plus 3 tumblers go twice, totaling 15. 2 double punch doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles, 3 2 to doubles, 3 1 to doubles, 2 3 to doubles, and standing full bounding pass ending in a double

Synched tumbling:
Cali: 18 fulls/doubles
Top Gun: 26 fulls/doubles
UA: 28 fulls/doubles

Running doubles:
Cali: 12
Top Gun: 8
UA: 17

As you can see, UA had very high numbers in each of these sections, and if you get a chance to see to video, watch it. In my opinion the skills were performed with great execution, as did Cali and Top Gun. But the numbers are there.

Cali scored a 97.93 in tumbling.
Top Gun scored a 93.63 in tumbling.
UA scored an 87.70 in tumbling.
-->More than a 12 point difference between Cali and UA, and almost a 6 point difference between Top Gun and UA. It doesn't make any sense considering UA had the largest quantity of tumblers in all categories (tied with Top Gun for standing fulls/1 to fulls).

I don't understand how a smaller named gym (UA in this example) can score so significantly much lower than the bigger name gyms did with a significantly larger amount of tumbling unless there was a HUGE execution difference, which again IMO there was not.

To me this is solid evidence that big name gyms do get generally scored higher. Sad to see that this may be true, but in this case it definitely seems like it is. Just putting it out there.

I'd have to see your actual scoresheets to be able to give you a definitive answer. Without knowing anyone else's difficulty/execution breakdown, you can't know that your difficulty breakdown was as different as you are assuming.

Also remember that the score from the tumbling panel is NOT the same "your tumbling score". Those judges had more than just tumbling in their scoresheet.

Also, the difference between your and Cali's score was closer to 10 than 12.

 

[AndrewSky]

I'll give you that. However it does not appear that way and this thought had to come from something. I feel by the words that have been said that its from not placing as well at worlds.

We're happy by how we placed at worlds. Well, for the most part, what happened to fantasy was sad. If we read into every comment here, then there's a lot of things we could call people out on here..

 

[I<3cali]

It is its own category. You have a difficulty score and an execution score that it totaled together. Unless I am completely misunderstanding the scoresheets on the USASF website, it is separate from difficulty. There is an execution and a difficulty score for every section of the scoresheet.

i know that but cali had way better tumbling and they got score lower than many teams and those teams dont have near the tumbling cali does. they have had a couple errors but not enough to score that low

 

[I<3cali]

I'll give you that. However it does not appear that way and this thought had to come from something. I feel by the words that have been said that its from not placing as well at worlds.

agreed i actually thought the same thing when i saw the very 1st post

 

[ztaprincess]

i know that but cali had way better tumbling and they got score lower than many teams and those teams dont have near the tumbling cali does. they have had a couple errors but not enough to score that low

There is more to it then the number of doubles and speciality passes thrown. Cali has phenomenal athletes but they only have a handful that tumble with amazing technique. It isn't about having errors it is about all around technique. A team may have had less doubles then Cali, but the fulls that the other team threw were cleaner then the doubles that Cali was throwing.

 

[Aussiekat]

I have an idea... This comes from my time spent in science classes and labs, etc. Going back to pure scientific method. Lots of studies of one product versus another are what they call "blind studies". Here's my experiment. (Mind you, I'm not saying Worlds should be done this way, but I think it would be fun to do just one comp this way and look at the outcome.) Have every team wear the same thing. Black shorts and white shirts, for example...something plain and neat. NO team names anywhere. Assign each team a number and have them compete in the proper division, etc. This way, there is no bias on gym name, just execution. If there are well known people associated with teams who would give away the team name by being there, then they cannot go anywhere near the team when they are on the mat. Keep it top secret. Then this would get rid of the bias, theoretically. I'm not saying this would work, but I'd be interested in the outcome. Just an experimental idea...

And they would all perform to the 8-count man! At least the whole crowd would know the voiceovers, not just the fans ;)

 

[cheercurl]

Questionable scoring happens in all subjective sports, like ice skating, gymnastics, diving etc. I guess it's what you do to overcome that obstacle that will make you stand out. U.S. Women Gymnasts Fall Victim to Questionable Scoring - Yahoo! Voices - voices.yahoo.com This is an article about the 2008 Olympic Gymnastics Competition. There was questionable scoring going on through the entire event but ultimately "Americans Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson overcame the questionable scoring to take first and second place respectively".

Our sport is not perfect but I think it has come so far in such a short time. The evolution continues as they re-vamp divisions, rules, attire etc. As long as the people in charge are in it for the right reasons, I think we are going to be just fine...maybe not always happy but ok never the less.

 

[AndrewSky]

This is a perfect time to throw in Orlando, they may not have the most doubles, but every single one they put out on that floor is completely rotated and is executed well.

 

[TheTalkedAboutMinor]

I would definitely tend to disagree. Their names have nothing to do with it. These teams do not have a success rate because judges know who you are. There isn't anything on the scoresheet that says, "Gym quality" or "Amount of fame" or "Work ethics." It's what you put on the floor.

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Here's a question maybe someone can answer for me. It's nice that we can see the score breakdowns in each category at worlds. I AM ONLY DOING THIS AS AN EXAMPLE and not to target any certain team. I'm using Cali & Top Gun because they are well respected programs that have been well established as a powerhouse for a very long time. I was very confused at the placement of UA in the large coed division because I thought they were one of the teams with the most difficulty in that whole division. This is where I do question what the original poster had posted. Do names really come into play when judging? I know execution is a big factor, but let me put this out in a number sense and maybe someone can give me an answer as to why UA was scored the lowest in the large coed division in stunts and tumbling. I will use tumbling as an example to back up the theory and compare the 10th place team to the 2nd and 3rd place team's scores. I went back and rewatched the videos many times to come up with numbers. Numbers can give a general sense of solid proof, only lacking execution. By doing so, we get a general sense of how teams should score in comparison to others.

Standing fulls/1 to fulls
Cali: 15
Top Gun: 18
UA: 18

Standing to doubles:
Cali: 8 plus 5 tumbers go twice, totaling 13. 5 1 to doubles, 4 3 to doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles.
Top Gun: 8 total: 7 3 to doubles, 1 2 to whip double
UA: 12 plus 3 tumblers go twice, totaling 15. 2 double punch doubles, 4 2 to whip doubles, 3 2 to doubles, 3 1 to doubles, 2 3 to doubles, and standing full bounding pass ending in a double

Synched tumbling:
Cali: 18 fulls/doubles
Top Gun: 26 fulls/doubles
UA: 28 fulls/doubles

Running doubles:
Cali: 12
Top Gun: 8
UA: 17

As you can see, UA had very high numbers in each of these sections, and if you get a chance to see to video, watch it. In my opinion the skills were performed with great execution, as did Cali and Top Gun. But the numbers are there.

Cali scored a 97.93 in tumbling.
Top Gun scored a 93.63 in tumbling.
UA scored an 87.70 in tumbling.
-->More than a 12 point difference between Cali and UA, and almost a 6 point difference between Top Gun and UA. It doesn't make any sense considering UA had the largest quantity of tumblers in all categories (tied with Top Gun for standing fulls/1 to fulls).

I don't understand how a smaller named gym (UA in this example) can score so significantly much lower than the bigger name gyms did with a significantly larger amount of tumbling unless there was a HUGE execution difference, which again IMO there was not.

To me this is solid evidence that big name gyms do get generally scored higher. Sad to see that this may be true, but in this case it definitely seems like it is. Just putting it out there.

I'd have to see your actual scoresheets to be able to give you a definitive answer. Without knowing anyone else's difficulty/execution breakdown, you can't know that your difficulty breakdown was as different as you are assuming.

Also remember that the score from the tumbling panel is NOT the same "your tumbling score". Those judges had more than just tumbling in their scoresheet.

Also, the difference between your and Cali's score was closer to 10 than 12.

BlueCat, can you please explain more - what else does the tumbling panel score?

I'd would also like to understand how you can end up with such a large discrepancy in scoring when the sheer numbers are so clearly weighted in one direction? These numbers paint a pretty strong picture. I also looked at the videos more closely and technique seems to be pretty strong, although I am not a cheerleading judge in the best of circumstances. I look more from a gymnastics scoring viewpoint and I did a visual comparison across several of the other teams, too.

 

[Deleted member 15]

BlueCat, can you please explain more - what else does the tumbling panel score?

Standing Tumbling 15/15
Running Tumbling 15/15
Synchronized Tumbling 15
Jumps 10/10
Overall 10

 

[TheUltimateFan]

Standing Tumbling 15/15
Running Tumbling 15/15
Synchronized Tumbling 15
Jumps 10/10
Overall 10

Thanks, Andre.

So now those scores make even less sense to me. I guess I have to do more studying.

 

[kristenthegreat]

Does there NEED to be movement at the top? Having new people win for the sake of it is stupid, in my most humble opinion lol. Look at almost any other sport- there are countries that are historically better at some sports compared to others. Does a little change add to the excitement, sure. But it's BECAUSE the other teams are so good and so strong that a surprise upset is that much more interesting.

And quite frankly- there are few other teams than those at the top that I would want to see there. Those teams are well-rounded and well-executed on the whole..