2017 JESOLO: A SCONRFUL RANT

For the ordinary fan, this new code had brought about a change in the way we perceive scores- the constant leveraging of the old CoP to gauge whether we see progress or deterioration in the new quad- but on Saturday an extra layer of mathematical frustration was thrown on us by the unreal scoring at the City of Jesolo tournament. People have no clue what to make of these nonsense scores! Both the junior and senior team came away with team bronzes and while I found myself frustrated by Russia's inability to cope with competition pressure, I was more upset at the officials by the end of Day 1 truth be told. Regarding the results, it's a paradoxical reality for me: the junior team bronze represents a miracle after such an abysmal group effort while the senior team bronze, won with more dignity, fills me with bitterness when I consider the caliber of the team.


The highest ranked Russian gymnast from the senior session was Elena Eremina with a 55.75. But how? If we add in the 1 point deducted for the fall, she's coming out two whole marks ahead of her average thus far this season. The scoring for the juniors was just as bad with much of the 9+ e-scores going to the American team; the senior session was wildly erratic and subject to personal favoritism rather than one team (although Americans still got the biggest bump up). I struggle to conceive how anyone could have gotten a score over 8.550 in execution yesterday. There's a level of mastery attached to e-scores in the high 8's and I personally didn't feel I saw that. The open ended code came into existence to do away with exactly the type of subjective scoring I saw- each girl was given a score in relation to how others performed and particular to what the judges felt she deserved (rather than what the code says she earned). It starts out feeling ludicrous until it you realize the serious affect it has on a gymnast being underscored or overscored. One could see how the judges were grappling to find hidden tenths whenever the Americans shocked us with a mistake (the score always took extra long to come in). That kind of scheming is not necessary! A performance need not be boosted just because it "looked better'' than someone else's; the deductions are lain in cold concrete and the difficulty of the routine ought to temper a complete nosedive in rank if mistakes are made. It should be the gymnasts calculating what they need to catch up, not the judges.

Now allowances have to be made for improvements that develop over time, and certainly, Elena was better on two events in Jesolo than she was at past competitions. Her floor routine was beautiful and had better accuracy after she removed the triple twist, and vault was  just slightly off to one side but almost stuck. But how she received a 14.85 on bars, when it was one big misshapen effort to hold on and survive, is the question to ponder. Considering that two teammates fell, she still would've made finals with something reasonable to match her current skill set (14.0- 14.4 I'd say). And while they completely overcompensated her on UB she was given just a tenth over some Americans on floor who struggled with their landings.

An FX case study:
Elena has a 5.2 d-score
Trinity Thomas has 5.6 d
Morgan Hurd has 5.3 d

Of these three girls Lena was the only one to not incur neutral deductions. She was the only one with controlled landings (a pace back on her first and last passes and a stuck combination pass) and who completed her dance turns with good form (note: Hurd does not perform turns in her fx). Want to know the difference in execution they got? Lena received an 8.35, Hurd received an 8.2 (.3 ND), and Thomas an 8.250 (.6ND). Let me explain my problem with this: the neutral deduction is separate from the the execution of the skill itself. Thomas bounced out of bounds like she was on a trampoline but suppose she had slipped and landed out of bounds or she took the tiniest of steps and had just her pinky toes out of bounds- doesn't matter. Once you go over the line you get deducted based on one thing: if one or both feet are out. That has nothing to do with why you went out of bounds, hence why it's a "neutral" deduction; a separate evaluation must deduct the competency of the skill performed, and so for Trinity Thomas and Morgan Hurd to still come away with an e-score so close to Eremina's is highly unfair. Trinity took huge strides before she went out of bounds and Hurd landed all her passes with low chest positions. These things were not accounted for because the judges felt they had done enough by giving them the ND. At any worthy competition, they would have received e-scores in the 7's and the neutral deductions.

Jesolo has always been one lopsided competition favoring the Americans to ensure their return to Italy. If someone deserves to hold the gold medal let them earn it with accurate scores. I don't want to be spoon fed 9's in execution or be told the ranking is more important. Why should I be complacent about the lack of professionalism on the judges part, and at what point will people comprehend that overscoring and underscoring affects the all-important rank? We have an objective code of points that specifically tells us what to look for when evaluating a routine and when to deduct, yet still the judges found ways to be partial. I'm not complaining because Russia didn't win, I'm complaining because the judges think it's impossible anyone besides the Americans should win (the EF's now underway are further proof of this). But when I dwell further on it, I come to realize that this type of judging is most harmful to country's with depth because up and coming girls depend on international meets to balance out domestic favoritism. Thanks to the inaccuracy of the judging panel the whole competition served no purpose in clarifying who was actually the best in the sport.


Full results for juniors at 2017 Jesolo are here.
Full results for seniors at 2017 Jesolo are here.