Skip to main content
Update
Non-financial boards have been closed.

Non-financial boards have been closed but will continue to be accessible in read-only form. If you're disappointed, we understand. Thank you for being an active participant in this community. We have more community features in development that we look forward to sharing soon.

Fool.com | The Motley Fool Community
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
So what does everyone think about the new format for the gymnastics team events -- only having three people go on each piece of equipment, so there's no safety net, no score to drop? The commentators argued that the new format rewarded those who played it safe rather than the risk-takers, but I have to say, it seemed like the Japanese went for it with some difficult moves and were rewarded.

I have to admit it made last night very nerve-wracking knowing that every score counted. One big mistake -- see Rom on the high bar -- and you lose a lead in an instant. Two+ big mistakes and you end up like the Chinese- gold in Sydney, but 5th in Athens.

I hope the ladies do well tonight.

Fi
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The commentators argued that the new format rewarded those who played it safe rather than the risk-takers, but I have to say, it seemed like the Japanese went for it with some difficult moves and were rewarded.

I think it only hurts the risk takers if they mess up. If they do it right, then playing it safe won't be able to beat them. I like it that way. Why do something if it isn't going to count.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
It does make the Olympics a little more intense to watch. I'll tell you though, even with the new rules, I really believe the Japanese deserved to win last night. Those routines on the high bar were incredible. I didn't know some of those things were even possible.

A lot of other positions might have been switched around if they had been able to drop a score, but I don't think it was a terrible rule. I've heard the gymnasts sure don't like it. I think it might have played in favor of the U.S.A. since silver is about as high as they were prepared to win and they managed to get it.

-4
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have to admit I don't like it. To me, winning a team competition should mean more than three routines. That is one reason why Romania and Russia have usually beat the tar out of the rest of the world as far as Women's gymnastics go. Their teams have always had incredible depth, and they have profited from other countries only having a couple of good all-around gymnasts and having to fill in with not-so-good gymnasts.

It is really tense watching three routines, knowing that all three count. I was so nervous last night before the last rotation. That was so close!

And yes, those Japanese men were clearly the best on high bar. Even the relatively simple giant swings were better. I'm still agog at that last release move. Wasn't he a cutie?!?

cathy
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I have to say I like the format. It may be severe, but it means you are either on your game, or not. The team must select who they think is best at the various apparatus.

The Japanese were excellent last night, and deserve to win. The US was fine, and the silver was well-earned.


Charlie
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Well, I like it and I don't like it. I hold my breath anyway during routines even if I know they can drop one score. I like the margin of safety that dropping a score provides, especially when I'm rooting for "my" team (that is usually my university's team, but now, of course the US team). I like the new format in that it makes things less predictable. I mean, given a fall or two by the world leaders Australia could win. Upsets like that aren't as possible under the old format.

I do know that regardless all of the teams look great this time around. At Worlds last year there was some sloppiness everywhere. For women, at least, the US was clearly more prepared than most of the other teams. Everyone seems to have timed their peaks for the Olympics and it is just wonderful to watch. Of course that could be because they mostly show the top teams on TV and stuff seems different live when you see every single competitor.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think does make things more exciting, I'm holding my breath and grimacing at every little mishap. Like QA Steph said it makes things less predictable.

I don't think that the new format rewards people who take it safe, anything can happen in competition. Knowing you can drop a score gives you a little security, but when you mess up twice, that net is gone anyways.

=) Megan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't really care for it. I think it does reward teams who play it safe, and I wonder if there will be a lot more of that in the future. The commentators made several remarks about how the Romanian coach discouraged risk-taking. I also enjoy seeing more team members compete. I wonder if it may encourage more gymnasts to specialize in one event - it seems Annia Hatch was brought along strictly for her vaulting.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I don't really care for it. I think it does reward teams who play it safe, and I wonder if there will be a lot more of that in the future.

I'd guess that while playing it safe may win some events, in the long run it would just result in mediocre results. It's still possible to screw up a "safe" routine, and it only takes a couple of other teams with "riskier" routines to perform them well and you're looking at bronze or worse.

Also, this format seems a better measure of a team. A team that has 4 near perfect "hard" routines is better than a team that has 3 near perfect "hard" routines and one bad routine, but in the format where you can throw out a score, both teams would score near the same.

Brian
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Also, this format seems a better measure of a team. A team that has 4 near perfect "hard" routines is better than a team that has 3 near perfect "hard" routines and one bad routine, but in the format where you can throw out a score, both teams would score near the same.

But they only perform 3 routines now. Before they performed 4. It seems to me that a team that has 3 mediocre routines will beat a team with 2 great routines and one bad one. I suppose that the team with the 3 mediocre routines is a better team, but that goes back to encouraging mediocrity again. Yes, the team that performed 3 great routines would score even better, but why bother when you can just be mediocre and wait for someone else to make a mistake?

I also just like seeing more routines from more people.
Print the post Back To Top