All-Star Does Execution Matter?

[King]

It seems to me like execution has to matter equally as much as difficulty. 50% for each.

 

[cluna11]

Execution is linked to safety in this sport. When you have children who are supporting eachother in the air and tumbling, the way that each atlete executes the skills is critical. I would love to see compulsory elements added to scoresheets that require a minimum execution score. If you don't make the minimum execution score, you shouldn't just lose points, you should be disqualified. DQ's have massive potential to force coaches to start focusing on the quality of the skills performed, and not jumping into that race to level 5.

I SO agree! Level 5 is the most watched level, no one wants to see janky skills. Execution should be made a top priority for all coaches, difficulty doesn't matter if the skills you throw look like you've never tumbled before.

 

[cluna11]

Execution is linked to safety in this sport. When you have children who are supporting eachother in the air and tumbling, the way that each atlete executes the skills is critical. I would love to see compulsory elements added to scoresheets that require a minimum execution score. If you don't make the minimum execution score, you shouldn't just lose points, you should be disqualified. DQ's have massive potential to force coaches to start focusing on the quality of the skills performed, and not jumping into that race to level 5.

I agree completely, the technique and work needs to be taught to cheerleaders. I know form experience that a hard skill isn't as impressive if it looks horrible. Level 5 is the most watched level at competitions if you're gonna be in it the skills should look solid.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

What did the Supreme Court judge say a few years ago, he could not define pornography but he knew it when he saw it? I guess execution is something not easily defined, qualified and quantified, but a judge knows it when they see it. For a judged sport searching for mainstream acceptance, it does not bode well for consistancy in judging and scoring when 20, 30, or 36 athletes performing literally hundreds of skills in 150 seconds have to have their execution evaluated and graded and scored before the next routine. Seems like a neat concept, but it appears to me execution is in the eye of the beholder, and if this board has taught me anything about cheer, 100 people can look at a routine and see 100 different things.

 

[cupieqt]

(tumbling and stunts)
Poor execution: 1-5
Shaky, bent knees/arms, flexed feet, incomplete rotation/twist, slow pace, incorrect body position, awkward transitions, etc

Average execution: 6-8
Slightly unsteady, slightly imperfect body positions, slightly bent knees/arms, slightly incomplete rotation/twist, medium pace, etc

Excellent execution: 9-10
Solid, legs/arms locked, perfect body positions, complete rotations/ twists, fast pace

Difficulty (running tumbling L2 bc I'm not an expert at L5 and I'm just more intelligent here)

Cartwheels and round offs only: 1-5

Backbend kick overs, single backwalkovers: 6-8

Front walk over step out round off backwalk over step out series 9-10

I believe the more skills involved increase your difficulty score and I'd even like to see specific scores for specific skills (it's actually more impressive to me to see squad mini 1 front w/o bc it's a harder skill to perfect than bwo).

Just an idea off the top of my head. I could take a few days and really tweak this but I'd like to hear others ideas first (ESP abt other levels)

 

[CGAcheer]

Something along the lines of this with the exact numbers tweaked to make it work:
Double is worth 9.5 and depending on execution you can take off up to .5 or add up to .5
Full is worth 9 execution takes away or adds up to .5
So then a perfect full can tie an average double or beat a terrible one

but the problem on scoring with set values is accounting for unforeseen variations in difficult such as:
if you rank a double at the top of the range and then a team does full squad whip double double punch front back through to double. you have to somehow leave room for that

 

[cupieqt]

Something along the lines of this with the exact numbers tweaked to make it work:
Double is worth 9.5 and depending on execution you can take off up to .5 or add up to .5
Full is worth 9 execution takes away or adds up to .5
So then a perfect full can tie an average double or beat a terrible one

but the problem on scoring with set values is accounting for unforeseen variations in difficult such as:
if you rank a double at the top of the range and then a team does full squad whip double double punch front back through to double. you have to somehow leave room for that

Agree and I think thats why a single to double would probaly fall into the average difficulty scoring range (6-8) where as a multiple high difficulty skill would fall in the higher range (9-10). *Are the examples you gave being thrown regularly by entire teams?

Execution scores would then further determine how each team fared in tumbling overall.
I like this idea a lot, and I'm hoping we can continue to look at it from all angles.

 

[cupieqt]

unless single to double is harder idk!

 

[Deleted member 15]

How do you score a team that has a wide variety of passes?

 

[King]

Execution to me is a bell curve. Everyone starts at the top of the bell curve (which is right at 50%). If your team overall is executing better you move up... lower you move down.. average you stay where you are.

It is the definition of what is execution that changes for most. Here is mine:

At Rays hitting and not falling are two different things. Not falling means all the skills did all the required components. The tumbling all landed. The pyramid did all the transitions. But did it hit? Did it give me, as a coach, butterflies (stole that line from another coach). Was every single leg straight. Was everything hitting on the exact same count. Lots of times I look for not what hit and went well... but what looks different. If nothing looks different and no one stands out badly then i can appreciate the whole picture.. and then and only then we hit. Our execution is good.

 

[King]

Happy birthday @Andre

How would you score a wide variety of passes?

 

[StarshipTrooper]

How do you score a team that has a wide variety of passes?

My point exactly. How many skills are thrown cleanly, how many are not? What were they? How do you score a team with 15 clean passes, 7 sort of clean passes and 3 not clean passes? I assume the opposite of poor execution of a skill is clean. It is hard enough to get judges together scoring a single gymnast doing a set of skills. How about 36 at the same time. Maybe we should all judge a competition before we make too many comments.

 

[Deleted member 15]

Happy birthday @Andre

How would you score a wide variety of passes?

Thanks.

The way the score sheet asked me to, otherwise based on the percent of same level teams the performing team out tumbled.

 

[King]

My point exactly. How many skills are thrown cleanly, how many are not? What were they? How do you score a team with 15 clean passes, 7 sort of clean passes and 3 not clean passes? I assume the opposite of poor execution of a skill is clean. It is hard enough to get judges together scoring a single gymnast doing a set of skills. How about 36 at the same time. Maybe we should all judge a competition before we make too many comments.

I go again with the bell curve idea. It is way more accurate to quantify execution. Every team starts out with a .5 out of 1. If out of all those difficult passes you feel the execution was sub par, drop the score. If you saw all these difficult passes that were above par you would reward them by raising the score. Execution works better as a distribution than a set score awarded.

Worlds, for example, just said execution is worth as much as difficulty. 35 points. Go. What does 31 points of execution look like? But you can see if that team executed better than average.

It would take the designer of a scoresheet to realize the concepts of difficulty and execution are different.

 

[StarshipTrooper]

I go again with the bell curve idea. It is way more accurate to quantify execution. Every team starts out with a .5 out of 1. If out of all those difficult passes you feel the execution was sub par, drop the score. If you saw all these difficult passes that were above par you would reward them by raising the score. Execution works better as a distribution than a set score awarded.

Worlds, for example, just said execution is worth as much as difficulty. 35 points. Go. What does 31 points of execution look like? But you can see if that team executed better than average.

It would take the designer of a scoresheet to realize the concepts of difficulty and execution are different.

otherwise based on the percent of same level teams the performing team out tumbled.

I have always been under the impression that judging panels rely less on standards such as numbers of skills and the numbers executed cleanly and rely on the impression of a routine compared to others in the division. I can tell you I knew SE's routine better than anyone except Courtney and Sarah, and there was no way I could comment on specific passes, stunts and how they were executed specifically after the routine was done unless I focused on a certain skill. I just knew if it looked right. And I think the bell curve idea makes sense but it IS NOT PRACTICAL unless you judge a routine by video review. Until you go there, you are relying on judge's impression of a routine over 150 seconds as compared to the impression of a routine they may have seen an hour or 2 before. May be the best that can be done, may be fine IF THE JUDGES are just the very greatest, but no way, no how can you call it predictalbe and reproducable almost by definition.