If you happened to watch Sam Mikulak’s floor routine from the Pacific Rim Championships and saw his final score of 14.55 with a D-score of 5.7, you were probably very confused.  His routine was packed with difficulty and, aside from the easy double full dismount, appeared to have everything it needed for a D-score well above 6.0.

Sam Mikulak Floor 2012 Pacific Rim Championships Team Finals

Let’s take a look at what probably happened.  The calculation below shows his intended D-score:

Difficulty and Connection Points

Element Groups:

The wide-arm press handstand fulfills EG 1.

The front full twisting 1 3/4 fulfills EG 2.

The double-double fulfills EG 3.

The Thomas fulfills EG 4.

The back double full partially fulfills EG 5 (0.3 instead of 0.5)

Total Element Group Points: 2.3

Total Expected D-Score = 4.0 + 2.3 = 6.3

He was given a 5.7 instead.  What happened?

I believe he didn’t get credit for the wide-arm press handstand.  To get credit, he must hold it for at least one second (although there would be a deduction).  For no deduction, he must hold it at least 2 seconds.  If you watch closely, he has a slight arm bend and struggle while trying to hold it, giving the impression that it never stopped completely for at least one second.  Personally, I would have counted this and taken a deduction rather than taking away credit altogether, but I can see how this was certainly questionable.

If we take away the value of this skill, he then counts the whip back for difficulty instead (loses 0.1 for counting a B instead of a C), and he loses the 0.5 for the element group altogether.  Note he does not have another “nonacrobatic skill” to count for element group 1.  If we take away these 6 tenths, the D-score drops from a 6.3 to a 5.7.  Make sense?

Not holding a wide-arm press can be an extremely costly mistake, especially if it’s your only non-acrobatic skill.  The tumbling is absolutely fantastic, and I love his overall look here – clean, sharp, and well-presented.  Hopefully Mikulak won’t make this unfortunate mistake again, and we can see this routine score well into the mid-15’s.  I also fully expect he’ll upgrade that dismount to a D skill and gain 0.3 more tenths, giving him a D-score of 6.6.  That’s what he’ll need to prove he can challenge Dalton or Legendre for a spot in Team USA’s Olympic floor lineup.

More to come on Mikulak, Dalton, and Brooks in my next blog.

The post From The Judge's Chair…What Happened With Sam Mikulak's Floor? appeared first on American Gymnast and Ninja.

But there are several other gymnasts whose fates have not yet been sealed, and a large part of that fate will depend on exactly what happens during tonight’s women’s finals. Below I’ve highlighted the ten routines that will have the biggest impact on the selection of this world team:

1. Mattie Larson’s beam. The only event where Mattie wasn’t stellar on Day 1 was beam, and after also recently falling on her dismount at the Covergirl Classic, Mattie really has something to prove with this routine. Marta loves great beam workers, so a nailed set from Mattie might win over Marta for good.

2. Mackenzie Caquatto’s bars. It’s no secret that Team USA is in desperate need of a great bar worker for worlds, and if Bridget Sloan doesn’t get healthy we may need two. Caquatto has now twice placed 2^nd on bars behind Rebecca Bross, hitting the magic 15 mark both times. If she does it again tonight it would be hard to justify not putting her on the team.

3. Vanessa Zamarripa’s vault. The popular UCLA gymnast stunned everyone in Day 1 by sticking a world class Cheng vault – a monstrous 6.5 value vault that only a handful of gymnasts have ever competed. If she hits it again tonight, she could become the most shocking member of the 2010 world team.

4. Kytra Hunter’s floor. Earlier this year, Kytra unveiled a full twisting double layout on floor that could put many of the top male tumblers to shame, and she’s competed it consistently all year long. After being outscored by both Larson and Raisman on day 1, she may need to nail floor cold to prove her true value to the team.

5. Aly Raisman’s beam. Marta’s love for solid competitors on beam is probably one reason why she took so well to Aly earlier this year, when she seemingly didn’t know how to wobble. With Sloan’s status up in the air, Team USA needs a strong beam worker almost as badly as a bar worker. Aly could fit the bill, but she’ll need to be a bit more confident and solid than in Day 1…and outscoring Larson and Hunter certainly wouldn’t hurt.

6. Mattie Larson’s bars. Although it’s never been her strongest event, Mattie has shown significant improvement on bars this year and scored well at both the Covergirl and Visa’s Day 1. If she hits three in a row, a case for putting her in the bars lineup might very well be justified.

7. Kytra Hunter’s beam routine. Just as with Aly Raisman and Mattie Larson, Hunter will need to prove she could hit beam under serious pressure if Marta needed her to. A solid routine tonight could help seal the deal for Kytra.

8. Aly Raisman’s floor. Raisman is one of the better tumblers the USA has, but it hasn’t yet been convincing enough to prove she’d be used in team finals. A score in the high 14 to 15 range could make her case – which is now a bit tenuous – a whole lot stronger.

9. Chelsea Davis’s bars. Probably the biggest surprise of Day 1, Chelsea was solid across all four events and also put up one of the top bars scores with a 14.8. Look for more coverage of Chelsea tonight, and pay attention to the one event that could put her on the team…bars.

10. Cassie Whitcomb’s bars. She’s definitely in the running for this routine alone, but with Caquatto outscoring her twice now, it might be tough for Cassie. She’s been scoring in the high 14 range; it might take a 15 tonight to really get the selection committee’s attention.

The post Women's World Team Alert – Top 10 Routines to Watch appeared first on American Gymnast and Ninja.

If you flipped a coin six times, are you going to get 50% heads? Possibly…but you could also very easily get 4 heads and 2 tails, or even 5 tails and one head, which would make the final percentage of heads very different from the expected 50%. But what if you flipped the coin SIX HUNDRED TIMES? Regression toward the mean takes over, and the overall percentage of heads is going to end up very, very close to 50%. This is because the greater the sample size, the more accurate statistics become. Regression toward the mean has much more of an effect as the number of events increases. Unfortunately, this is exactly why the regression toward the mean phenomenon actually has much more power in today’s gymnastics than ever before.

Today’s gymnastics routines on both the men’s and women’s sides are longer and more skill-loaded than they have ever been. On one hand, it seems that this should create a WIDER range of scores than ever before because there are so many more skills by which to separate the gymnasts. With routines often twice as long as they once were and with so many more difficult skills than ever before, shouldn’t we be seeing scores range from around a 6.2 to a 9.8? Instead, however, in most competitions we’re seeing a much narrower range than ever before…from a 7.6 to an 8.8, for example. WHY? Because the larger number of skills represent a larger sample size, and more opportunities for the regression toward the mean phenomenon to take over. In other words, the more instances of “judging” that take place in a routine, the more areas the judge has to manipulate the score (whether consciously or subconsciously) and bring it closer to average.

Is it possible to change the regression toward the mean mindset in gymnastics judging? Well, addressing it is at least a great first step. This phenomenon is actually exactly why I suggested the radical idea of giving “general impression” execution scores in my proposed code of points last year. I feel that allowing the judges to simply sit back and watch the routine would actually make them MORE accurate in evaluating relative qualities of execution among various performances. It would allow them to use their brains and look at the overall picture rather than have their pen and paper taken over subconsciously by the regression toward the mean/moving target phenomena.

Perhaps making judges more aware that this phenomenon exists might help them evaluate their own judging and become more honest with themselves about how much sense their scores actually make when the chalk dust settles. Perhaps judges DO need to be reminded from time to time that it’s OKAY to give extreme scores for extreme performances, and that in fact that’s exactly what the judges are there to decide. We mustn’t forget that the whole point of judging gymnastics routines is to see where all the performances fall in relation to an absolute standard, not to create some “moving target” that attempts to make them all fall as close as possible to an arbitrary “mean” that we create in our minds.

I know it will probably be a while before we see any drastic changes to either the code of points, the competition formats, the age requirements, or the nature of judging altogether…but it is an important goal of mine to bring issues to the forefront that I often feel are neglected, misunderstood, or simply overlooked. The paradoxical battles that occur between intentions and reality in gymnastics today are universally obvious, but the sources of these conflicts are not always so conspicuous. If we are to bring artistry, fairness, and the connection with the fans back into gymnastics, we MUST address the issue of whether the perfect ten is truly being used as the standard for execution…even if it is baby steps at a time.

All things in moderation, right?

The post All Things In Moderation – Part 3 appeared first on American Gymnast and Ninja.

Now imagine that instead of keeping the bull’s eye in the center, the bull’s eye is shifted to the left a bit, precisely to the area of the dartboard that represents the score “8.5.”  The throwers still throw towards the perfect ten, but it’s no longer considered the red bull’s eye; the red circle has simply been shifted to a new location.  Now also imagine that every time a player makes a throw (still aiming for the perfect ten), the dartboard actually MOVES in an attempt to make the dart land precisely on the new bull’s eye, or the “8.5.” Sometimes darts land right on the 8.5 and sometimes they don’t, but they almost always come close.  When the dartboard moves, darts headed for a 9.8 end up landing around a 9.0, and darts headed for a 7.5 end up landing at an 8.1.   Because the target moves with each throw in an attempt to make them all land in the same place, the end result is a dartboard with all the darts clumped together – all around an 8.5.  A couple manage to land in the 9-range and a couple in the 7-range, but all the rest land between an 8 and a 9, with several hitting exactly an 8.5.  No darts land on the perfect ten.

This is what I like to call The Moving Target Phenomenon, and I think it is a great example of what gymnastics judging is like today.  In the spirit of the regression to the mean mentality that seems to overtake today’s gymnastics judges, the “bull’s eye,” or execution standard, is subconsciously changed from a perfect ten to some mediocre score like an 8.5.  Often without even knowing it, judges will “move the target” for each gymnast – or change the way in which he/she judges – in order to make the final score as close to the new mediocre target as possible.

The regression to the mean and moving target phenomena basically mean that we CHANGE THE STANDARD by which we evaluate a routine in such a way as to bring it closer to what we consider “average.” For example, if a judge considers an 8.5 an “average score,” that judge will tend to judge each routine in such a way as to bring it closer to the 8.5 than it actually should be.  So, when that judge is suddenly confronted with “9.6” level gymnastics, the judge will begin to nitpick the routine to justify scoring it lower than a 9.6.  If the judge is confronted with “7.2” level gymnastics, the judge will then become lenient in certain areas in order to score it higher than a 7.2…because, after all, a 7.2 is “too far” below an 8.5.  If a gymnast presents mediocre gymnastics (which in this judge’s mind is an 8.5), the judge will take a middle-of-the-road approach to his/her judging and come up with a score right around an 8.5.  To summarize all this, regression toward the mean causes judges to adjust their standards to match the level of gymnastics they are presented with!

I know at first this might sound a bit wacky, but I wholeheartedly believe this takes place in all levels of judging – including at the world and Olympic level.  Let’s look at a hypothetical example that isn’t all too different from what I see happening all the time in gymnastics today:

“Gymnast 1” does a mediocre women’s bar routine with some minor form breaks, slightly bent arm casts, and slightly short handstands…nothing spectacular in terms of execution, but also nothing really terrible.  The judge will take a mediocre approach and take small and medium level deductions (0.1 and 0.3) and come up with a very average score, which we’ll say is an 8.3.  “Gymnast 2” comes along and does a bar routine with almost perfect form, better casts, and better handstands than the previous gymnast…showing overall MUCH better execution and body line.   The judge will then judge this gymnast more harshly to get her score closer to the first gymnast than she actually deserves! The judge will start looking for more minor feet separations and will deduct for them.  The judge will take off a little more for body positions on the casts, something that was ignored with the previous gymnast.  The judge will find a nitpicky “rhythm” deduction to write down.  And when this second gymnast has a single short handstand, the judge will suddenly deduct 0.5 rather than the 0.1 or 0.3 he/she took from the first gymnast.  Finally, “Gymnast 3” comes to the event and FALLS on a release skill…thus receiving a full point deduction.  According to the regression toward the mean/moving target phenomena, the judge will then evaluate the rest of the routine MUCH more leniently than he/she normally would in order to prevent the score from dropping too low.  Let’s say the rest of the routine had some minor deductions that were about equivalent to the first gymnast, but instead of deducting 0.3 for some of them, the judge will only take 0.1.  The judge will also overlook a couple of body position errors, because, after all, the gymnast has already received a large 1.0 deduction.  The end result?  “Gymnast 1” scores an 8.3, “Gymnast 2” scores an 8.5, and “Gymnast 3” scores a 7.9.  All three did happen to end up ranked in the correct order, but all three scores ended up within 0.6 of each other!!!  How did that happen?

The post All Things in Moderation – Part 2 appeared first on American Gymnast and Ninja.

All things in moderation…

Eating, drinking, exercising, talking, working, playing, and…judging gymnastics?

Judging in gymnastics has been a problem for as long as the sport has existed. Despite efforts to make judging more objective through more concrete point values for skills and fewer subjective categories, judging controversies are as alive today as they ever were.  Though we often tend to blame judging issues on changes in the code of points, the truth is that they have always been there, and there are other factors at play besides the rules themselves.  After studying the sport closely for 20 years now – as a gymnast, coach, fan, and a judge myself, I’ve reached the conclusion that there are some psychological phenomena that cause the frequent absurdities in judging that drive us all crazy.  In this article I’ll discuss one phenomenon that I think plays a fascinating role not only in judging, but in life itself…”regression toward the mean.”

Regression toward the mean is a mathematical and statistical phenomenon that has been described for many years.  Here are a couple of definitions:

Regression toward the mean is the tendency for subsequent observations of a random variable to be closer to its mean (its “average”).

Regression toward the mean refers to the fact that those with extreme scores on any measure at one point in time will, for purely statistical reasons, probably have less extreme scores the next time they are tested.

Though it is most commonly referred to in mathematical and statistical settings, the truth is that regression toward the mean is everywhere.  Regression toward the mean is the reason why a basketball player who scores a stunning 50 points in one game probably isn’t going to repeat that feat in the next game, and it’s why a golfer doesn’t get an eagle twice in a row.  It’s how casinos in Las Vegas make so much money, and why you should quit gambling almost as soon as you start winning because your good luck will magically “expire” as quickly as it appeared.  It’s the reason why a kid who gets his first 100 on a difficult test is probably going to score a little lower on the next one.  It’s why the day after the “best day of your life” might bring a cloud or two, and why the day after the “worst day of your life” usually brings a welcomed ray of sunshine.  It’s why after doing the best routine of his/her career, a gymnast’s next event is probably a little less spectacular, and after having the best competition of a gymnast’s life, he/she can probably expect a little dose of reality at the next outing.  And it’s also why a gymnast should actually feel very encouraged after having the worst meet ever, because things are likely to be dramatically better the next time around.  And, believe it or not, I think it’s why gymnastics execution scores tend to be too close together, despite wide ranges of performances.

Many experts and fans have noticed for years that most gymnastics judges have an innate tendency to AVOID GIVING EXTREME SCORES, regardless of the performance.  And lest you think this mindset only exists to avoid being “thrown out” of the final average (in national and international competition, for example), I can assure you that I see it just as much in small junior competitions, where often only one or two judges exist, and all scores count.

I first became interested in the regression toward the mean phenomenon in judging when I began judging junior boys’ gymnastics almost eight years ago.  As I judged alongside many other judges around the country, I began to notice a trend that I just couldn’t quite understand.  I found that often my scores on the bad routines were often a little lower than the other judges, and my scores on the great routines were often a little higher than the other judges.  In general, I always felt that routines were not being separated NEARLY enough, and that we often trapped ourselves into giving almost identical scores to routines that were clearly very different in quality.  Kids with loose form and poor body positions throughout an entire routine were given 8.4’s (under the old rules), while kids with a couple of noticeable mistakes but beautiful form and body line otherwise were given 8.6’s.  Even WORSE, kids who looked like 9.8’s – in a completely different league than the previous ones – were nitpicked down to maybe a low 9, receiving petty deductions that weren’t even CONSIDERED during the more mediocre kids’ routines.  Typical results included most of the scores in the 8-range, and routines that were probably 2-3 points better than the others scored mere tenths – or at most one point – higher.

I often felt that many of the judges only cared about trying to rank the kids correctly, with little or no regard to the actual separation between the scores.  Scores of 8.9, 8.8, and 8.7 were considered fine as long as they were in the correct order, even if the more appropriate scores would have been 9.5, 8.6, and 7.9!  Even in the unlikely event that individual event rankings turned out correct under this approach, it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to realize that all-around results were going to be seriously skewed because of these inappropriate separations of scores.

So what was going on here?  It’s regression toward the mean at work.  The phenomenon is so pervasive in ours lives and in the world around us that it subconsciously affects many of our actions…such as judging gymnastics routines.  As it manifests in gymnastics judging, I also like to call this mystery “The Moving Target Phenomenon.” So what’s the target, and why is it moving?

To be continued…

The post All Things in Moderation…Part 1 appeared first on American Gymnast and Ninja.