National Team Rankings – December 2017

How It Works
Taking into account all scores recorded at competitions in the last six months, each nation is given a team total based on how its best-scoring group of five senior gymnasts would do in a hypothetical 3-up, 3-count team final.

Each individual’s best scores may come from any official competition (they need not all be from the same meet), and whichever group of five gymnasts would produce the highest score is the one selected.

Countries that have not shown enough senior routines in the last six months to fill a 3-up, 3-count team on each event are not included.

Rankings will be updated on the 1st of each month, and scores will expire after six months in order to provide the most up-to-date snapshot of where nations are at the current moment. These current rankings include only scores from June 2017–November 2017.

Entering the rankings this month were Chile, Peru, and Panama, while leaving the rankings were North Korea, Poland, and India,  temporarily without enough scores on each event in the last six months to put together a team.

Last month’s ranking is in parentheses.

Previous rankings
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017

1. (1) RUSSIA – 176.866
Elena Eremina 14.000 15.175 14.450 14.275
Angelina Melnikova 14.625 14.966 14.825 14.425
Anastasia Ilyankova 13.600 15.275 14.150 0.000
Maria Paseka 15.000 12.700 0.000 0.000
Maria Kharenkova 13.725 12.100 15.350 14.500
176.866 43.625 45.416 44.625 43.200
Only minor changes for Russia and the US at the top as a few scores come in for Russia and a few scores drop out for the US. August’s scores remain the defining factor for both teams, Russia’s giant scores from the Russian Cup and the US’s scores from nationals.
2. (2) UNITED STATES – 175.215
Ragan Smith 14.466 14.550 15.350 14.433
Riley McCusker 13.400 14.550 14.500 13.900
Jade Carey 15.066 0.000 14.050 14.400
Jordan Chiles 15.150 14.000 14.200 13.700
Trinity Thomas 13.300 14.350 14.200 14.200

175.215

44.682 43.450 44.050 43.033
3. (3) JAPAN – 172.900
Asuka Teramoto 15.000 14.000 14.400 13.766
Mai Murakami 14.700 13.900 14.350 14.800
Sae Miyakawa 15.100 0.000 0.000 14.100
Yuna Hiraiwa 13.850 11.150 14.200 13.850
Hitomi Hatakeda 14.150 14.500 13.400 13.300
172.900 44.800 42.400 42.950 42.750
4. (4) CHINA – 171.132
Wang Yan 14.500 13.400 14.133 13.800
Luo Huan 13.500 14.566 14.533 13.150
Liu Tingting 14.300 13.967 14.867 13.500
Mao Yi 14.367 13.700 13.000 13.433
Fan Yilin 0.000 15.166 13.567 11.467
171.132 43.167 43.699 43.533 40.733
The Chinese, particularly Liu Tingting and Luo Huan, take a major hit this month as scores from both the Chinese Championships and the Asian Championships expire, though China still enjoys a significant buffer over the teams outside the top 4.
5. (9) GERMANY – 167.833
Kim Bui 13.600 14.233 12.600 13.050
Tabea Alt 14.500 14.200 13.650 12.933
Pauline Schaefer 14.100 13.050 14.150 13.500
Sarah Voss 14.300 11.750 14.100 13.150
Elisabeth Seitz 13.700 14.900 13.400 13.000
167.833 42.900 43.333 41.900 39.700
Germany makes a significant move this month, from 9th all the way up to 5th, on account of a whole heap of new scores from the Bundesliga and the Cottbus World Cup.
6. (5) BRAZIL – 167.400
Rebeca Andrade 15.150 14.450 0.000 0.000
Flavia Saraiva 0.000 0.000 14.000 13.850
Thais Fidelis 14.100 12.800 14.000 14.200
Jade Barbosa 13.400 13.200 11.250 13.000
Daniele Hypolito 14.100 12.750 13.750 13.800
167.400 43.350 40.450 41.750 41.850
Brazil is entering a difficult portion of the calendar as the useful scores from Flavia Saraiva begin to drop off since it has been so long since she competed.
7. (6) FRANCE – 166.365
M De Jesus Dos Santos 14.550 14.650 13.066 13.550
Lorette Charpy 13.500 14.350 12.900 12.933
Marine Boyer 13.766 13.200 14.250 13.200
Juliette Bossu 13.633 13.733 13.150 13.500
Coline Devillard 14.600 0.000 0.000 0.000
166.365 42.916 42.733 40.466 40.250
France also took a hit this month as the important scores from May’s French Championship, particularly on beam, expired from the rankings, but the loss was mitigated by a couple season highs on various events from MDJDS, Bossu, and Charpy at Massilia.
8. (20) UKRAINE – 166.124
Diana Varinska 13.716 14.583 13.650 13.250
Anastasiya Belyaeva 13.775 10.100 10.650 13.550
Valeria Osipova 13.900 13.800 14.150 14.150
Angelina Radivilova 0.000 13.300 10.800 12.250
Valeria Iarmolenko 13.300 11.700 13.800 13.750
166.124 41.391 41.683 41.600 41.450
Yeah, don’t overthink it. Ukraine held a national championship this month with some of the most inflated scores you’ll ever see in elite gymnastics. It’s not real, but just let them have this one.
9. (8) CANADA – 165.698
Brooklyn Moors 14.166 13.200 12.266 13.866
Shallon Olsen 14.400 0.000 0.000 13.133
Brittany Rogers 14.500 12.900 13.266 0.000
Rose Woo 13.450 13.250 13.050 13.166
Ellie Black 14.650 14.400 14.400 13.550
165.698 43.550 40.850 40.716 40.582
Canada was another nation bit by having its national championship from May drop off the rankings this month, losing the beam score from Onyshko in particular, which had been propping up that total.
10. (7) ROMANIA – 165.512
Carmen Glavan 13.266 11.666 13.600 12.900
Carmen Ghiciuc 12.066 12.833 13.000 12.166
Larisa Iordache 14.800 14.533 15.566 14.266
Laura Jurca 13.666 12.866 11.150 12.200
Ioana Crisan 13.666 12.600 13.766 13.050
165.512 42.132 40.232 42.932 40.216
Ponor did a crying goodbye performance at the Mexican Open, so I’m giving in and considering her retired, at least for the moment. Her scores have therefore been removed from Romania’s picture. It’s much less pretty now.
11. (12) GREAT BRITAIN – 164.198
Amy Tinkler 14.533 13.600 12.800 13.500
Phoebe Turner 14.333 10.900 11.600 12.650
Alice Kinsella 14.000 13.533 13.033 13.150
Georgia-Mae Fenton 0.000 14.533 12.500 12.250
Claudia Fragapane 0.000 12.900 13.250 13.933
164.198 42.866 41.666 39.083 40.583
12. (10) ITALY – 163.515
Giada Grisetti 13.650 13.800 13.566 12.666
Desiree Carofiglio 14.050 12.700 12.900 13.633
Vanessa Ferrari 0.000 0.000 13.500 13.600
Elisa Meneghini 13.900 12.900 13.950 13.050
Lara Mori 13.500 13.466 13.050 13.500
163.515 41.600 40.166 41.016 40.733
The final pre-injury Serie A scores for Martina Maggio fell off the rankings this month, accounting for Italy’s drop of multiple points and two ranking spots.
13. (13) BELGIUM – 163.365
Axelle Klinckaert 13.700 12.100 11.950 13.150
Nina Derwael 13.566 15.033 13.900 13.366
Maellyse Brassart 13.800 13.300 12.933 13.066
Rune Hermans 13.600 13.900 13.400 13.133
Senna Deriks 13.350 13.450 10.800 12.300
163.365 41.100 42.383 40.233 39.649
Axelle Klinckaert and Senna Deriks are back and competing the all-around again, providing a little bit more depth and allowing Belgium to remain steady in 13th while other nations plummet.
14. (15) NETHERLANDS – 161.933
Eythora Thorsdottir 14.300 12.667 13.067 13.033
Sanne Wevers 0.000 13.933 14.100 0.000
Tisha Volleman 14.500 12.333 12.733 13.433
Naomi Visser 13.400 12.900 13.000 12.833
Elisabeth Geurts 14.167 12.500 11.725 12.033
161.933 42.967 39.500 40.167 39.299
15. (14) SPAIN – 161.614
Claudia Colom 13.467 13.150 12.850 12.900
Nora Fernandez 13.666 13.466 12.900 12.450
Ana Perez 14.600 13.733 13.833 13.700
Ana Palacios 13.600 10.866 11.833 12.266
Cintia Rodriguez 12.633 13.133 12.900 13.166
161.614 41.866 40.349 39.633 39.766
16. (17) SWITZERLAND – 159.881
Ilaria Kaeslin 13.533 11.933 12.850 12.750
Giulia Steingruber 15.100 13.300 13.200 13.633
Jessica Diacci 13.400 13.050 11.300 11.800
Fabienne Studer 13.500 12.866 11.666 12.100
Thea Brogli 13.566 12.066 13.200 12.833
159.881 42.199 39.216 39.250 39.216
Ilaria Kaeslin is back from the dead this month, getting a very useful beam score at the Swiss Cup that reinvigorated Switzerland’s total, a whole point just because of that one routine.
17. (16) HUNGARY – 158.183
Zsofia Kovacs 14.000 14.100 14.000 13.067
Dorina Boczogo 13.600 11.267 11.600 12.900
Dalia Al-Salty 13.000 12.300 12.800 12.500
Boglarka Devai 14.266 12.500 11.300 12.650
Boglarka Tombol 12.100 11.200 12.000 11.600
158.183 41.866 38.900 38.800 38.617
It’s been a while since Zsofia Kovacs was at full strength, meaning Hungary has less to draw on than usual and exchanges places with Switzerland.
18. (22) COLOMBIA – 156.199
Melba Avendano 13.350 13.150 10.950 13.000
Dayana Ardila 14.033 11.800 11.650 12.850
Ginna Escobar 13.650 12.750 12.550 13.150
Valentina Pardo 13.466 12.250 12.050 12.300
Marcela Sandoval 0.000 11.100 13.300 0.000
156.199 41.149 38.150 37.900 39.000
Colombia was saved score devastation this month by Marcela Sandoval appearing at the Bolivarian Games with a huge 13.300 on beam.
19. (23) CZECH REPUBLIC – 156.025
Karolina Bartunkova 13.000 9.350 7.600 11.550
Veronika Cenkova 12.800 12.900 13.200 13.200
Romana Majerechova 12.800 11.650 10.700 12.350
Lucie Jirikova 13.500 12.850 13.100 12.950
Aneta Holasova 12.875 12.900 13.100 12.450
156.025 39.375 38.650 39.400 38.600
20. (21) SOUTH AFRICA – 155.650
Claudia Cummins 13.900 12.750 13.200 12.700
Naveen Daries 13.700 12.700 13.050 12.950
Angela Maguire 13.000 12.300 11.900 12.250
Bianca Mann 12.550 12.300 11.050 10.800
Cathy Eksteen 13.600 11.250 12.550 12.200
155.650 41.200 37.750 38.800 37.900
South Africa lost the scores from injured bars specialist Caitlin Rooskrantz this month but still managed to gain one spot in the rankings because most other countries dropped more.
21. (24) MALAYSIA – 154.925
Tan Ing Yueh 13.375 12.450 13.100 12.700
Tracie Ang 13.150 12.650 13.300 12.200
Farah Ann Abdul Hadi 13.450 13.300 11.800 13.450
Nur Azira Aziri 11.900 10.950 11.400 11.750
Lavinia RaymundJayadev 12.850 11.850 0.000 11.400
154.925 39.975 38.400 38.200 38.350
22. (25) NORWAY – 153.950
Julie Erichsen 13.200 10.600 11.700 12.550
Martine Skregelid 13.800 12.350 12.550 13.000
Solveig Berg 12.550 11.050 12.750 12.050
Ingrid Hafenbradl 12.550 12.000 12.950 12.500
Thea Nygaard 13.250 12.150 13.000 12.950
153.950 40.250 36.500 38.700 38.500
23. (18) MEXICO – 153.800
Nicolle Castro 13.900 11.050 12.100 12.500
Jimena Moreno 13.100 12.850 12.300 12.350
Karla Vielma 13.400 12.200 12.950 12.300
Maria Maldonado 13.267 12.550 0.000 0.000
Ahtziri Sandoval 13.550 13.050 9.533 0.000
153.800 40.850 38.450 37.350 37.150
The scores from May’s national championship coming off the rankings have deprived Mexico of those juicy scores from Nicolle Castro, and as a result, the team drops five ranking spots.
24. (40) SWEDEN – 153.150
Marcela Torres 13.800 11.650 12.650 13.250
Alva Eriksson 12.850 12.050 11.150 12.350
Agnes Akerman 13.150 10.950 12.450 12.050
Jonna Adlerteg 0.000 14.200 0.00 0.000
Sofia Malmgren 12.800 0.000 11.950 12.800
153.150 39.800 37.900 37.050 38.400
Sweden hosted a couple events in November, the Malarcupen and the Swedish Cup, allowing the Swedes to gain points upon points from all corners and soar up the rankings.
25. (27) CUBA – 152.933
Yesenia Ferrera 14.450 12.850 13.350 14.000
Marcia Vidiaux 13.833 13.200 12.650 13.000
Yumila Rodriguez 12.900 9.250 11.100 11.750
Norma Zamora 13.450 0.000 11.150 11.650
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
152.933 41.633 35.300 37.150 38.750
26. (29) ARGENTINA – 152.666
Ayelen Tarabini 13.700 12.300 12.200 13.050
Augustina Pisos 13.350 12.750 12.700 12.550
Ailen Valente 0.000 11.950 10.850 11.900
Mayra Vaquie 13.566 11.400 12.050 11.233
Merlina Galera 11.500 10.250 11.850 12.500
152.666 40.616 37.000 36.950 38.100
27. (30) EGYPT – 152.532
Farah Hussein 13.500 12.850 13.000 12.750
Farah Salem 12.550 12.350 12.500 12.033
Sherine El Zeiny 13.433 13.533 11.450 12.050
Mandy Mohammad 11.466 0.000 9.533 12.566
Hana Kassem 12.500 0.000 0.000 0.000
152.532 39.483 38.733 36.950 37.366
28. (33) PUERTO RICO – 151.975
Andrea Maldonado 13.650 12.000 12.350 12.800
Karelys Diaz 13.525 10.650 12.800 12.875
Nicole Diaz 13.175 10.675 10.650 12.700
Paula Mejias 13.950 11.500 11.500 13.050
Bianca Leon 12.750 10.875 12.600 10.475
151.975 41.125 34.375 37.750 38.725
29. (36) SLOVAKIA – 150.350
Barbora Mokosova 13.800 13.433 13.067 13.200
Radoslava Kalamarova 12.100 11.450 12.367 11.600
Dominika Korpova 11.650 11.533 11.367 11.967
Ema Kuklovska 12.850 10.100 10.100 11.850
Maria Homolova 0.000 0.000 12.733 0.000
150.350 38.750 36.416 38.167 37.017
30. (26) SOUTH KOREA – 150.098
Kim Ju Ri 13.433 10.366 11.433 12.133
Lee Eun Ju 13.300 13.200 12.066 12.100
Heo Seon Min 0.000 12.450 0.000 10.300
Sung Gaeun 13.966 0.000 11.500 11.400
Yun Narae 0.000 11.350 12.275 12.325
150.098 40.699 37.000 35.841 36.558
The expiration of the scores from the Asian Championship was not kind to any of the Asian teams this month, particularly South Korea, which lost a number of its previously counting scores. Well, particularly North Korea, which dropped off the rankings entirely.
31. (11) AUSTRALIA – 150.050
Emily Whitehead 0.000 13.150 11.250 12.150
Rianna Mizzen 13.266 11.866 10.166 10.033
Talia Folino 13.400 13.200 10.933 10.166
Georgia Godwin 13.475 13.500 12.666 12.900
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
150.050 40.141 39.850 34.843 35.216
Oh. Oh dear. Australia hasn’t really competed, like at all, in the last six months, so nearly the only scores to choose from right now are the worlds scores, which weren’t great. Onwards and upwards?
32. (39) AUSTRIA – 149.899
Jasmin Mader 13.500 12.700 11.867 12.350
Christina Meixner 11.650 10.250 11.900 12.300
Marlies Mannersdorfer 13.000 12.033 12.800 12.650
Linda Hamersak 12.500 10.650 11.933 11.633
Selina Kickinger 12.400 12.233 10.733 11.567
149.899 39.000 36.966 36.633 37.300
33. (37) IRELAND – 149.016
Meaghan Smith 13.033 11.500 11.100 12.350
Tara Donnelly 13.350 11.800 13.050 12.250
Chloe Donnelly 13.050 8.750 12.700 11.900
Casey Bell 12.966 12.333 0.000 0.000
Megan Ryan 12.400 11.150 11.500 12.100
149.016 39.433 35.633 37.250 36.700
34. (34) SLOVENIA – 148.841
Teja Belak 13.900 0.000 12.500 0.000
Sara Kling 12.400 10.525 11.833 11.533
Ivana Kamnikar 11.400 11.900 9.850 12.000
Lucija Hribar 13.333 12.600 11.800 12.100
Tjasa Kysselef 13.850 0.000 11.900 12.400
148.841 41.083 35.025 36.233 36.500
35. (35) FINLAND – 148.798
Anna Salmi 0.000 0.000 12.050 12.150
Wilma Malin 12.366 11.500 10.300 12.150
Maija Leinonen 13.233 11.866 12.750 12.350
Annika Urvikko 13.400 10.850 11.350 11.750
Helmi Murto 12.933 12.500 11.866 12.200
148.798 49.566 35.866 36.666 36.700
36. (42) ISRAEL – 147.470
Ofir Netzer 13.850 11.400 10.633 12.633
Gaya Giladi 13.500 9.050 12.500 11.667
Tzuf Feldon 12.347 8.050 11.670 10.800
Shailee Weiss 13.100 10.300 11.133 12.567
Ofir Kremer 13.100 10.850 12.533 12.567
147.470 40.450 32.550 36.703 37.767
37. (27) PORTUGAL – 147.281
Mariana Marianito 11.433 10.633 11.433 12.266
Beatriz Dias 0.000 10.150 10.800 12.500
Filipa Martins 13.400 13.533 13.150 13.250
Ines Romero 12.150 9.800 11.200 11.650
Mariana Pitrez 11.933 11.833 9.866 12.266
147.281 37.483 35.999 35.783 38.016
38. (28) ICELAND – 147.165
Sigridur Bergthorsdottir 13.400 0.000 0.000 11.400
Agnes Suto 12.766 11.500 11.900 12.400
Dominiqua Belanyi 12.600 11.600 11.500 11.366
Irina Sazonova 13.566 12.433 11.550 12.400
Thelma Adelsteinsdottir 12.266 11.650 9.800 12.000
147.165 39.732 35.683 34.950 36.800
The pain of important domestic competition scores falling off the rankings this month hit both Portugal and Iceland, as Portugal lost scores from the national championship and Iceland lost scores from the GK Championship.
39. (48) VENEZUELA – 146.666
Milca Leon 12.950 11.900 12.300 11.300
Pamela Arriojas 12.433 11.466 11.650 12.600
Karla Escorche 12.750 10.550 9.800 11.450
Eliana Gonzalez 13.450 7.650 11.500 11.850
Johanna Sotillo 12.350 11.800 12.500 11.350
146.666 39.150 35.166 36.450 35.900
40. (44) KAZAKHSTAN – 145.800
Anna Geidt 12.800 11.600 8.400 9.650
Yekaterina Chiukina 13.100 10.800 12.500 13.250
Viktoriya Dospayeva 11.800 9.250 9.500 12.000
Aida Bauyrzhanova 12.400 11.100 11.800 12.150
Tamara Kutichsheva 12.100 10.550 12.300 11.450
145.800 38.300 33.500 36.600 37.400
41. (45) SINGAPORE – 145.200
Nadine Joy Nathan 12.700 11.350 11.950 12.500
Mei Togawa 11.800 11.750 10.250 11.200
Colette Chan 11.700 12.650 10.750 11.450
Zeng Qiyan 12.200 12.300 11.600 12.400
Kelsie Muir 12.600 11.350 9.800 11.850
145.200 37.500 36.700 34.250 36.750
42. (43) INDONESIA – 145.125
Rifda Irfanaluthfi 13.225 12.450 13.550 13.000
Tasza Devira 12.250 10.200 12.550 10.900
Armartiani 12.500 9.200 10.600 10.550
Amalia Nubuwah 12.550 10.550 12.550 11.100
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
145.125 38.275 33.200 38.650 35.000
43. (38) CHINESE TAIPEI – 144.425
Fang Ko Ching 11.666 11.300 8.933 10.866
Chuang Shu-Yun 0.000 0.000 11.100 11.700
Chuang Hsiu Ju 13.100 11.325 11.150 11.750
Lo Yu Ju 13.500 9.200 8.933 11.533
Mai Liu Hsiang Han 12.850 12.400 11.300 12.950
144.425 39.450 35.025 33.550 36.400
44. (41) TURKEY – 142.282
Doga Ketenci 13.100 9.133 11.233 11.467
Cagla Altundemir 12.300 9.200 11.767 11.400
Demet Mutlu 13.300 12.033 11.550 12.200
Goksu Uctas Sanli 0.000 0.000 11.000 12.666
Tutya Yilmaz 0.000 10.733 11.966 11.466
142.282 38.700 31.966 35.283 36.333
45. (NR) CHILE – 142.150
Franchesca Santi 14.300 11.200 11.050 12.150
Camila Vilches 13.100 9.450 10.600 11.800
Martina Castro 13.350 11.000 11.150 12.000
Rayen Lopez 12.300 10.250 10.800 9.950
Paula Carvajal 12.600 9.750 9.650 11.100
142.150 40.750 32.450 33.000 35.950
46. (46) COSTA RICA – 141.450
Heika Del Sol Salas 13.300 11.850 11.550 12.150
Franciny Morales 12.850 11.200 11.650 10.950
Mariana Andrade 11.250 11.600 10.900 11.150
Ariana Castaneda 12.300 11.150 8.500 9.750
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
141.450 38.450 34.650 34.100 34.250
47. (47) PHILIPPINES – 139.000
Kaitlin DeGuzman 10.000 12.875 12.300 13.025
Cristina Onofre 12.800 9.500 11.450 12.350
Katrina Evangelista 12.100 8.300 9.850 11.600
Mariana Hermoso 11.800 9.350 9.650 9.900
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
139.000 36.700 31.725 33.600 36.975
48. (52) GUATEMALA – 138.550
Ana Palacios 13.350 11.550 11.900 12.550
Marcela Bonifasi 11.250 9.500 11.600 12.400
Katherine Godinez 12.400 9.050 11.400 11.600
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
138.550 37.000 30.100 34.900 36.550
49. (51) DENMARK – 137.288
Sofia Bjornholdt 12.366 9.250 10.500 11.250
Mette Hulgaard 12.741 12.100 11.550 12.050
Emile Winther 0.000 0.000 10.266 11.433
Linnea Wang 0.000 10.466 9.666 8.500
Mary Petersen (FAR) 12.900 8.800 8.800 8.500
137.288 38.007 31.816 32.316 35.149
50. (54) DOMINICAN REPUBLIC – 136.200
Yamilet Pena 14.050 12.425 11.550 12.125
Sandra Contreras 12.050 10.05 10.100 11.400
Alonda Echavarria 12.200 10.650 8.350 11.250
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
136.200 38.300 32.125 30.000 34.775
51. (53) VIETNAM – 133.250
Bui Nguyen Hai Yen 12.700 10.950 9.600 11.450
Truong Khanh Van 11.750 10.000 12.100 10.800
Long Thi Hgoc Huynh 12.350 9.350 9.650 11.550
Nguyen Thi Nhu Qunh 12.750 4.700 9.050 9.925
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
133.250 37.800 30.300 31.350 33.800
52. (49) THAILAND – 130.150
Kronpreya Frank 10.650 0.000 11.000 10.250
Thidaporn Khanthara 0.000 10.350 11.200 11.950
Kanyanat Boontoeng 12.750 9.100 9.450 11.300
Nasha Mantikul-Davis 0.000 9.500 0.000 0.000
Takyamon Atthavanich 12.500 2.250 9.600 8.750
130.150 35.900 28.950 31.800 33.500
53. (NR) PERU – 129.800
Angela Perez 12.300 10.050 10.750 10.650
Venere Horna 10.700 9.600 12.600 10.900
Katherine Alejo 12.150 9.050 8.000 10.000
Salma Cruzado 10.950 0.000 9.200 9.150
Ana Karina Mendez 0.000 10.650 0.000 0.000
129.800 35.400 30.300 32.550 31.550
54. (55) MALTA – 125.750
Kirsty Caruana 12.000 9.250 10.650 11.450
Sana Grillo 12.200 8.350 11.300 11.100
Suzanne Buttgieg 12.150 8.000 9.150 10.150
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
125.750 36.350 25.600 31.100 32.700
55. (NR) PANAMA – 117.350
Victoria Castro 12.100 9.150 11.400 10.000
Carol Batista 10.900 2.650 9.700 9.900
Ana Laura Wong 12.450 8.750 10.050 10.300
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
None 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
117.350 35.450 20.550 31.150 30.200

Scoring NCAA Gymnastics – Floor Exercise

Before the NCAA season begins, I promised to go into more depth about how NCAA routines are put together and how the judges arrive at their scores for those who want to understand it better. So here we are.

For the full experience, be sure to check out the previous posts about uneven bars and balance beam. Today, it’s the ever-inexplicable floor exercise.


Composing a routine

Routine requirements
  • At minimum, an NCAA routine must include 3 A-valued elements, 3 B-valued elements, and 2 C-valued elements.

You don’t have to worry about this part. It’s very, very basic and every routine you see in NCAA will have met this standard without having to think about it too much, especially on floor with all those round-offs and back handsprings.

Gymnasts must also, however, fulfill a series of special composition requirements, each worth 0.2. On floor, those four requirements are

1 – One acrobatic combination, featuring 2 saltos. The 2 saltos can be directly connected to each other or done as part of an indirectly connected tumbling pass, but they must appear in the same series of acrobatic skills.

2 – Three different saltos within the exercise. Because most gymnasts perform three tumbling passes, one of which is a combination pass, the majority of gymnasts have four different saltos in their routines anyway. Done and done.

Some won’t have four, because they’re performing just two passes or because they are repeating a skill. That can be a jarring experience for watchers of elite, the option of repeating a skill once for credit, but overall gymnasts must show three separate saltos at some point in the routine.

Continue reading Scoring NCAA Gymnastics – Floor Exercise

Scoring NCAA Gymnastics – Balance Beam

Before the NCAA season begins, I promised to go into more depth about how NCAA routines are put together and how exactly the judges arrive at their scores for those who want to understand it better. So here we are.

For the full experience, be sure to check out the first post about uneven bars. Today, it’s my dear child the balance beam.

Composing a routine

Routine requirements
  • At minimum, an NCAA routine must include 3 A-valued elements, 3 B-valued elements, and 2 C-valued elements.

You don’t have to worry about this part. It’s very, very basic and every routine you see in NCAA will have met this standard without having to think about it too much.

Gymnasts must also, however, fulfill a series of special composition requirements, each worth 0.2. On beam, those five requirements are

1 – One acrobatic series. This means two acrobatic flight elements, directly connected, at least one being C value or higher. Or, more accurately, “directly connected.” We’ll get to that in a second.

The most common acrobatic flight series you’ll see is the back handspring + layout stepout series (or loso series). It’s the classic NCAA series, and we see it way too often because it’s the simplest real acrobatic series that can be used to fulfill the requirement. It’s the baseline.

Typically, an acrobatic series must generate connected speed in one direction, as the bhs + loso series does, but much to the chagrin of the gymnerd community, forward + backward series may also be used to fulfill the acro requirement. By far the most common of these is the front aerial + back handspring series.

To a purist, this is not a series, no matter how well executed. It is a skill, followed by an arm-wave pause, followed by another skill. It exhibits neither the continuous rebounding movement, nor the fall risk, of a true acrobatic series. It’s just two skills near each other. Nonetheless, it can be used to fulfill the requirement. Continue reading Scoring NCAA Gymnastics – Balance Beam

Scoring NCAA Gymnastics – Uneven Bars

NCAA judging: the last, most subjective frontier of them all.

NCAA gymnastics takes pride in the idea that—with only a few, relatively clear deductions taken overall—you don’t have to know much about gymnastics to get what’s going on. It’s a great jumping-off point for new fans.

And yet, what if you want to know more? Those who do are often left behind because nothing is explained in any technical detail, and unless you own a JO code of points, you probably don’t know where these scores are coming from. Gymnastics is for more than gymnasts.

So, this season I promised I would go into more depth about how NCAA routines are put together and how the judges arrive at scores for those who want to understand it better. We’ll begin with uneven bars.


Composing a routine

You’ll often hear that NCAA gymnastics uses “a modified version of the JO code of points.” This is partially true. When it comes to composing routines, NCAA gymnastics uses the JO code of points with a few small changes. When it comes to judging the execution of routines, however, the NCAA gymnastics standard is, “We take the JO code of points, and then just ignore all of it. The end. Here’s your score. Fetch.”

That execution part gets a little dicey, so we’ll start with the objective part, the routine composition.

Routine requirements
  • At minimum, an NCAA routine must include 3 A-valued elements, 3 B-valued elements, and 2 C-valued elements.

You don’t have to worry about this part. It’s very, very basic and every routine you see in NCAA will have met this standard without having to think about it too much.

Gymnasts must also, however, fulfill a series of special composition requirements, each worth 0.2. On bars, those four requirements are

1 – Two separate bar changes. This means that you can’t just start on the low bar, get up to the high bar, and then dismount. At some point in the routine, you have to go from low to high, and from high to low.

2 – Two flight elements, not including the dismount. Flight elements include same-bar releases, as well as transition skills in which the body is not in contact with either bar at some point.

Gymnasts will typically fulfill this by using their two transitions (e.g., a bail handstand and a toe shoot; a Pak and a Shaposh), or by using one of those transitions skills along with a same-bar release. Gymnasts do not have to perform a same-bar release, and you’re supposed to have a really strong opinion about that one way or the other.

(The two flight elements usually must both be C-value skills, but one B-value skill can be used to meet the requirement as long as the other element is D- or E-value.)

3 – A turning element, minimum C value. Turning elements normally make us think of pirouettes, but that does not have to be the case. Turning pirouettes do fulfill this requirement, but so does any skill including at least a 1/2 turn at any point. That means a skill like a bail handstand can be used to meet this requirement. It’s not the spirit of the rule, but it does count.

4 – A dismount, minimum C value. This special requirement is a lie. NCAA gymnastics absolutely does not want you dismounting with an isolated C element, despite what the requirement says.

You can, but if the C-level dismount is preceded by two giant swings (as most dismounts are), you lose 0.1. Plus, if it’s not performed in a combination that earns bonus, you lose an additional 0.1. So basically, you can’t dismount with a C.

The requirement should just say a dismount, minimum D value, or C-value in direct bonus combination. That’s what it boils down to anyway.

Missing any one of these requirements is a 0.2 deduction from the start value. Every routine you watch will have been composed to ensure that doesn’t happen. Any gymnast with a routine that includes 3 As, 3 Bs, and 2 Cs, and that fulfills the four requirements above will begin with a 9.50 start value.


Bonus

From there, gymnasts attempt to get to a 10.0 start value by earning up to five tenths of bonus. Bonus is earned in two categories.

1) Skill value – Each D element earns 0.1 in bonus, and each E element earns 0.2.

2) Connection value – There are a few formulae through which gymnasts receive connection bonus on bars.

C+C = 0.1 (if both elements show flight or turn)
C+C = 0.1 (if both elements begin from the clear-hip, toe-on, or stalder roots)
C+D = 0.1
D+D = 0.2

To earn the full five tenths of bonus, at least one tenth must come from each category, so you can’t load up exclusively on one category or another.

But, as long as you get your 5 tenths of bonus, and fulfill all the requirements above, you’ve got your 10.0 start!


Up to level

Unless. There are several possible routine-composition deductions in NCAA routines, but the one you’ll hear me talk about through the season is the “up to level” deduction.

The wording in the code of points is “Choice of elements not up to the competitive level, 0.1 flat deduction.” Thankfully these days, specific expectations have been delineated to define exactly what being “up to the competitive level” means.

To avoid the 0.1 up-to-level deduction, routines must fulfill ONLY ONE of the following areas.

1 – A same-bar release of D value (e.g., Jaeger, Gienger, or Tkatchev)
2 – A release element of E value (e.g., Ricna, Shap 1/2, or Bhardwaj)
3 – Two D releases (e.g., Bail handstand and Shaposhnikova)
4 – Two E-level skills (e.g., Stalder 1/1 and Double layout dismount)

Achieve any one of those, and you’re good. “Up to level” is also where that 0.1 deduction for a C dismount without bonus connection that I mentioned earlier comes into play. It’s classified as an “up to level” deduction.


Example

Let’s go through a simple example routine, where I’ll point out exactly how it meets each of the composition topics outlined above.

Special requirements

1 – Two bar changes – Kyla opens with a Shaposhnikova + bail handstand + toe shoot, which is three bar changes already.

2 – Two flight elements – Same. Kyla opens with a Shaposhnikova + bail handstand + toe shoot, which is three flight elements already.

3 – A turning element, minimum C value – Kyla does not perform a pirouetting skill in this routine, but the bail handstand qualifies as her turning element.

4 – A dismount, minimum C value – The double layout dismount is an E.

Up to level

Kyla fulfills up-to-level using item #3, two D releases, which she achieves with her Shaposhnikova + bail combination.

Bonus

The opening combination earns all the bonus Kyla needs. The Shaposhnikova + bail handstand + toe shoot is D+D+C, in which Kyla receives 2 tenths combination bonus for the D+D, another 1 tenth combination bonus for the D+C, and 2 tenths skill bonus for two D elements. Done!

The double layout dismount is also worth 2 tenths of skill bonus for being an E element, bringing Kyla up to 7 total tenths of bonus, but she needs only 5.

There are those (and by those, I mean me) who believe that it’s currently too easy to get a 10.0 start value on bars and therefore the NCAA code isn’t really separating the top bars workers from everyone else. Kyla being able to do a routine that is laughably easy for her ability level and still earn more than enough bonus in the process illustrates that.

Requiring a same-bar release is the simplest, most commonly proposed solution to this, but I would also throw in downgrading some of these dismounts to D (like in the elite code).


Skill values

Here are the major skill values you’ll want to know for bars.

Same-bar releases

Tkatchev – D
All other Tkatchev entries (Ray, Hindorff, Ricna, etc) – E
Jaeger straddled – D
Jaeger piked – E
Gienger piked – D
Khorkina – D
Comaneci – E
Shushunova – E

Transitions

Shoots to high bar (toe, Stalder, etc) – C
Shaposhnikova (all entries) – D
Shaposhnikova 1/2 (all entries) – E
Bail handstand – D
Overshoot, not to handstand – B
Overshoot, not to handstand, connected out of D release – C
Pak salto – D
Bhardwaj – E
Straddle back to handstand – D

Priouettes/Circles

Cast handstand – B
Cast 1/2 – C
Giant circle – B
Giant 1/2 – C
Giant 1/1 – D
Toe circle – C
Toe 1/2 – C
Toe 1/1 – D
Clear-hip circle – C
Clear-hip 1/2 – C
Clear-hip 1/1 – D
Stalder circle – D
Stalder 1/2 – D
Stalder 1/1 – E
Giant forward – C
Giant forward 1/2 – C
Giant forward 1/1 – D

Dismounts

Full-twisting double tuck – E
Double layout – E
Double front – E
Double Arabian – E
Double tuck – C
Double pike – C
Double salto, pike-open – D


Deductions

This is where things get rougher. There’s not a great guide to NCAA deductions out there right now, and that includes the actual JO code of points. The reason being that there’s a tremendous amount of subjectivity in NCAA, including an unwritten understanding about which deductions from the JO code actually “count” and which magically don’t.

So, in this section, I’m going to deviate from the letter of the code (deviate from = completely ignore) and instead discuss the actual reality of what I think I see getting taken in routines from meet to meet from my perspective of piecing together where the judges must have found their deductions.

This is not an exhaustive account of deductions, but rather an overview of the main things to look out for. On bars, those main things are handstands and landings. If you sometimes feel like those are the only two areas that ever get deducted, welcome to the club. We have jackets.


Falls

Falls are 0.50 each time. Pretty straightforward.

Sometimes, you will see a gymnast fall on a routine and then receive a number like 8.950 and you go, “Wait, the half point for the fall doesn’t account that whole deduction-scape.” In these cases, the gymnast likely also lost connection bonus and/or skill value for falling on a compositionally critical part of the routine, so the start value was no longer 10.0.


Landings

-The best rule of thumb for landings on bars is that small steps will get .05 off and larger steps/lunges will get .10 off. What defines a larger lunge is fairly ambiguous (like you’re out there measuring someone’s “shoulder width”—you can’t even see it from your angle), but I like to think of it this way: if the step looks larger than that person’s natural walking stride would be, it’s a .10. If it’s a normal walking step or smaller, it’s a .05.

-In general, hops will be punished more severely than steps because they demonstrate less control (two feet moving, rather than one foot moving and one foot planted), but very small hops, little bounces in place, and baby slides back with both feet will typically just get the .05 treatment, which is fine. A hop in place is not a stick and should be (slash usually is) deducted.

-College sticks. The college stick occurs when a gymnast hasn’t actually stuck a landing but has enough control to pretend she stuck the landing, trying to cover up the step by sliding into a salute at the same time. This tends to get .05 off, even if the step itself ends up being pretty large, to a degree that would normally warrant a full tenth.

-Awkward landings, like coming in short and jarring the body on landing, or landing lock-legged, won’t get the forgiving treatment, even if the ultimate step is quite small. Those will be punished more severely because there’s more wrong.

-Landing errors can go up to .30, though we tend to see that large of a landing deduction taken only in multi-step, I-do-the-triple-jump-now situations.

-Gymnasts are supposed to be deducted for landing with their legs too far apart and staying there (they are supposed to land, then quickly bring their heels together on salute to show control), but after about half a season of deducting for it, everyone basically forgot about that deduction unless it’s egregious and the legs are super far apart on landing.


Handstands

When gymnasts cast to handstand in NCAA, we’re told the judges are expecting them to be within 10 degrees of vertical to receive no deduction. This “degree” stuff is also quite ambiguous (the human eye cannot tell the difference between 9 degrees and 11 degrees on a handstand), so it basically ends up being “y’all better be vertical.”

At least, if you’re not completely vertical, I’m going to sass about it in a live blog. None of this 10-degrees nonsense. OCD ain’t got time for that.

The SEC Network began providing us with a handy little handstand protractor last season to help everyone judge this particular deduction.

Here is Lexie Priessman hitting a vertical handstand for no deduction in NCAA. (JO might care about a little arch here, but NCAA doesn’t and will consider that an ideal handstand. It only becomes a problem in NCAA if you super-arch and nearly go over the other direction.)

Here is Rachel Schick coming up 10 degrees short.

That Schick handstand is basically going to look like a hit handstand in real time, or very close to it, and can escape without deduction, but any shorter than that cannot.

Far shorter than vertical will get more severely deducted, especially on cast handstands, but a lack of vertical finishing position is also a critical NCAA deduction on skills like giant fulls and bail handstands.

On a giant full, watch the point at which the gymnast officially ceases turning. It’s supposed to be completely vertical and is more often closer to completely horizontal. This is a deduction.

Catching short of vertical on a bail handstand is also a pretty common NCAA deduction.

Judges should also be taking for bent elbows on the catch in this case, but bent elbows are a significant point of argument when it comes to NCAA scores. I don’t really see bent elbows getting taken (especially on skills like giant swings) unless they are symptomatic of other, larger errors.

Keep in mind that if a torso is perfectly vertical but there’s an angle in the hips so the feet aren’t vertical, that’s no good. The position is going to be judged by the feet.


Other deductions

There are many, many other little deductions that will (or more accurately can) be taken on bars routines, but one of the remaining significant ones is leg separations.

This does not get deducted enough in NCAA, an excuse often being the weird-ass angle the judges have to evaluate routines from, depending on the venue. From the exact side view, or looking directly up into the lights, they can’t always see the separations. But, leg separations on pirouettes, transitions, and dismounts should all be deducted, usually small deductions unless verging into crazy-legs territory.

We’re talking legs coming apart on a giant full or a bail handstand, legs flapping apart on a Gienger, legs straddling on a double layout, cowboying a double tuck, or shins splaying apart on a full-twisting double tuck.

You’ll also hear references to mushy, loose, or bent knees on skills when the legs are intended to be straight. This is a similar but separate deduction. Basically, the legs should be making a straight like the entire time unless it’s during a tucked dismount.

Flexed feet is another point of contention when it comes to NCAA judging. My impression is that flexed feet don’t get taken if the feet are flexed on, say, a single release skill. (This came up when assessing Bridget Sloan’s 10s on bars, when her flexed feet on that Ray were not taken.) But, if the foot flexion is pronounced and present throughout the routine, a small overall flexed-foot deduction will be taken.

A lack of amplitude is another key area of possible deduction, if a release skill or dismount is flat (meaning a Tkatchev that clears the bar by only a few inches, or a Jaeger—or dismount—where the hips don’t rise above the height of the bar in flight).

Besides those three key areas, another deduction that you’ll see taken on releases relates to catching close. A gymnast intends to catch a same-bar release with extended elbows, maintaining the same rhythm through to the next element. Catching too close to the bar impedes that rhythm and shows in a stall/pause or a muscled cast handstand. This can be hit pretty harshly, for both the body form errors that will inevitably ensue as well as the break in the rhythm. Bars routines should show continuous rhythm in the swing.

Being too close to the bar can be a problem on dismounts as well, when the gymnast will intend to go both up (hips over the height of the bar) and out away from the bar (so that your feet don’t almost clip the bar). Coming terrifyingly close to hitting the bar on the dismount is a deduction because it’s terrifying.


There is also a tendency in NCAA to judge holistically, taking into account the overall sense of a routine. If a judge sees a little bent elbow rhythm hesitation coming out of a toe-on skill, then some small leg separations in giant swings before the dismount, but nothing else, they may take all of that into account and simply say, “OK there were 2 or 3 things that are borderline deductions, none of which I absolutely HAVE to take, but that also combine to mean this wasn’t a 10. So, I’m going to give it 9.950.”

That’s the level of subjectivity we still have in NCAA gymnastics, which can be frustrating to those familiar with the elite code or who want specific receipts and an account of all deductions to maintain transparency and continuity across all judges. It’s not going to happen any time soon. YOU’RE WELCOME.