Welcome to the second edition of 2017 beam treatments. Following up on the first post, here are a few more comparisons of beam D scores to see how the intended 2016 D measures up to what the routine would be given under the 2017-2020 code, featuring a few gymnasts that you asked for and a few others that I think are interesting.
Let’s start with Ragan Smith. I’ll use the Patterson version of her routine since I assume that perfecting it will be the aim for 2017.
|Double wolf turn – D||Double wolf turn – D|
|Switch + straddle – C+A||Switch + straddle – C+A|
|Bhs + layout – B+E = 0.1 CV||Bhs + layout – B+E = 0.1 CV|
|Full twisting back tuck – F||Full twisting back tuck – F|
|Punch front + sissone – D+A = 0.1 CV||Punch front + sissone – D+A|
|Aerial + pike jump – D+A = 0.1 CV||Aerial + pike jump – D+A|
|Sheep – D||Sheep – C|
|Bhs + bhs + Patterson – B+B+G = 0.1 CV||Bhs + bhs + Patterson – B+B+G = 0.3 CV|
|CR – 2.5||CR – 2.0|
|Acro – GFEDD – 2.6||Acro – GFEDD – 2.6|
|Dance – DDC – 1.1||Dance – DCC – 1.0|
|CV – 0.4||CV – 0.4|
|Total D – 6.6||Total D – 6.0|
The value of the Patterson combination is quite critical in making up for the lost CV from those D+A connections. With the Patterson, the only real hit Smith’s routine takes is from the downgrade of the sheep jump. Without the Patterson, however, her 2017 D score would be just 5.6, which won’t be all that competitive.
Based on what I’m seeing in these D scores, a difficulty in the lowish 6s is about what the top beam gymnasts should be aiming for in 2017. (Later in the quad, expect scores to go higher as coaches learn how to work the new CV/copy the more inventive countries.) A lot of top beamers are looking at 5.8s for their current routines, but most of those 5.8s can be reorganized with minimal pain to get another couple tenths. Continue reading 2017 versus 2016: A Beam Comparison Part Deux