You must be logged in and have permission to create or edit a blog.
Olympic Champion Nastia Liukin Signature Product Line of Gymnastics Equipment and Mats at American Gymnast
Jan 22

Written by: Andy Thornton
Friday, January 22, 2010 12:34 AM

Could this FINALLY put the Paul Hamm-Yang Tae Young fiasco to rest?

 

I don’t mean to dig up an old grave, but on Rick McCharles’ site, www.gymnasticscoaching.com, I came across some recent comments regarding  the Paul Hamm and Yang Tae Young controversy from the 2004 Olympics.  Paul Hamm did get overscored on vault…plain and simple.  And yes, the judge’s did miss Yang Tae Young’s p-bar start value by 0.1, a difference that would have theoretically put him in first place had they protested the score soon enough. 

 

Some of you may remember Tim Daggett on television pointing out the fact that Yang Tae Young was not deducted the mandatory 0.2 for stopping 4 times during his parallel bar routine.  This was certainly a reasonable argument.  But I’ve found one much stronger.

 

Of course we all remember Paul Hamm’s near flawless routine in the last rotation of the all-around final that clinched the gold with a stunning 9.837.  But have you ever heard any mention of Yang Tae Young’s high bar routine during that same final rotation?  Let’s take a look at it…it begins at 3:40 of this video:

 

Yang Tae Young High Bar 2004 Olympics All-Around Final (at 3:40)

 

What a horrible routine!!!  And I’m not just talking about all those deductions.  He made an error in there that affected his start value.

 

Notice that he did the same skill twice…an in-bar endo full pirouette to MIXED GRIP.  He intended for one of these to go to an el-grip, which was an E.  Since he went to a mixed grip on both of them, he only got credit for the first one.

 

I know it’s been a while since that code of points, but you may recall that the base score for the men was an 8.6, and they were required to get 1.4 in bonus to start from a 10.0.  All D skills were worth 0.1 in bonus, all E’s were worth 0.2, and Super E’s were worth 0.3.  D+D connections were worth 0.1 in connection, while D+E or higher valued connections were worth 0.2 in connection.

 

Let’s take a look at Yang’s start value for this routine.

 

In-bar endo full pirouette to mixed grip

D

0.1

Stalder to laid out Tcatchev

E

0.2

In-bar stalder full

D

0.1

Rybalko to el-grip

E

0.2

In-bar endo full pirouette to mixed grip

No Value (repeated skill)

 

Rybalko to mixed grip

D

0.1

Laid out double-double

E

0.2

 

Connection Points: 0.2 for the in-bar stalder full + Rybalko

 

That’s a total of 1.1…which means the start value should have been a 9.7!  According to the commentator here, he received a 9.8 start value.  Thus, I believe this routine was given a start value that was 0.1 too high.  My guess is they gave him a D for that second in-bar full to mixed grip when it was actually a repeated element and should have been given no value.

 

However, the start value really isn't even relevant to me when we start looking at all of the deductions in this routine.  Even if it HAD BEEN a 9.8 start value, how in the HECK did he get a 9.475 for that?  That had to be the most outrageously overscored routine of the entire Olympic Games.  They only took 0.325 off!!!!!

 

Let’s review the deductions in this routine (if you have a few minutes…)

 

Crooked on the mount (0.1)

Slight pike on the laid-out Tcatchev (0.1)

Form break on regrasp (0.1)

Bent arms on giant (0.2)

WAY past handstand on in-bar stalder full (0.3)

Rybalko finished low (0.2)

Slight form break on Rybalko (0.1)

In-bar endo full too far past handstand (0.2)

Step to the side on double-double (0.2)

 

Total deductions: 1.5

Deductions actually taken by judges: 0.325

 

This was an absolutely IMPOSSIBLE score.  You would have to be completely blind to think there were only 0.3 in deductions in that routine.  I’d have to think the fact that he was in 1st place going into that last event might have influenced the judges into losing their minds…or perhaps there was something even worse going on.

 

Just to compare, let’s watch Paul Hamm’s routine from that same rotation:

 

Paul Hamm High Bar 2004 Olympics All-Around Final

 

Believe it or not, this routine received only 0.162 LESS IN DEDUCTIONS than Yang Tae Young’s!!!!!!

 

That’s right….Paul Hamm scored a 9.837 out of a 10.0 - 0.163 in deductions - while Yang Tae Young scored a 9.475 out of a 9.8 (which I believe may should have even been a 9.7, but it doesn’t really matter) – 0.325 in deductions.  I don’t think I need to even explain the difference in execution between these two routines.  Any idiot can see that it’s FAR, FAR more than 0.162!

 

Regardless of the reason, this event ALONE puts the whole Paul Hamm controversy to rest for me.  Yang Tae Young was so severely overscored on this high bar routine that the p-bars error becomes a complete joke.  When you’re overscored by WELL OVER A FULL POINT on one event, pointing out a one-tenth judging error on another event suddenly seems quite silly, doesn’t it?

 

Tags:

7 comments so far...

Re: Could this FINALLY put the Paul Hamm-Yang Tae Young controversy to rest???

That is amazing.

Amazing that you are the first I've ever heard mention it.

The two athletes were close in the AA. You could argue it either way, actually.

... But my real problems with the incident was how it was handled by FIG and USAG. I was embarrassed to be associated with Men's gymnastics. No class. No class at all.

Worst judged routine there?

That's saying a LOT.

Right from prelims when the Romanian team was madly over-scored on everything, it was a judging disaster.

By Rick McCharles on   Friday, January 22, 2010 12:57 AM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

Re Rick: I've said it but just never articulated it as well as the above

To Andy: THANK YOU! I've been saying this since it happened! He was over scored and he and his coaches screwed up. Paul won fair and square..

By Katrina on   Friday, January 22, 2010 4:35 PM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

Good arguments, Andy. However, you deduct Yang's high bar routine like you'd deduct in the new Code of Pionts. At the 2004 Olympics the judges NEVER deducted late turns/Rybalkos no matter how low they were caught. His routine was definately overscored, but with the old Code it's impossible to deduct 1,5.

By a gymnast on   Sunday, January 24, 2010 8:35 AM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

Perhaps you should read GGMB, then this would not be news to you.

By Ughh on   Monday, January 25, 2010 1:17 AM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

I prefer to stay away from gymnastics gossip boards, as they are full of a lot of garbage and inappropriate comments. I have been very closely involved with the sport for many years and have never once heard any mention of this mistake on Yang's high bar routine, so I know that it is not widely known. If people at GGMB have picked it up too, then that's great. But it obviously hasn't made it to the mainstream public yet; otherwise the rest of us would heard about it. The goal of all of us American fans should be to get this fact more widely known so that no one will continue to question the validity of Paul's gold medal in Athens.

Thanks for helping confirm it!

By Andy T on   Monday, January 25, 2010 9:44 AM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

Your making excuses for your friend. Hamm was overscored and there is no way in hell he should have won with a fall where he landed on the judges table.

If you are going to do over one routine and make a snap judgment then you need to go back and look at all the routines. FACT is judges are not perfect when it comes to deductions but when they can't calculate a start value they need to be fired.

You have proven in the past on this blog that you ignore mistakes by the Americans to knock down other countries like the UB 2008 blog and you should be ashamed. You are why Americans are called ignorant because every time we lose we make excuses for it

By HammwasOVERSCORED on   Tuesday, January 26, 2010 8:55 PM

Re: Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men's Olympic all-around???

I disagree with the person before me...Andy is a very well educate person that is involve in the gymnastics for several years to give a very professional opinion of our sport. He probe that he can discus and have a great debate, but if you can take his opinion with respect…no come to his blog to insult him…...

I still no sure that Paul Hamm can be considerate a true Champion, but these analyses give a very good point in favor of the Ham's cause... The over- score of the Tae Young on High Bar (because is obvious that exist), is almost in the same magnitude of the over-score of Ham in Vault but the main problem at that time still the attitude of the Judges and the FIG ...corruption is a word that come to my every time that I remember that situation…

By No way Jose... I mean ... on   Wednesday, January 27, 2010 10:04 AM

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Security Code
Enter the code shown above in the box below
Add Comment    Cancel  
Search Blogs
American Gymnast provides top quality Gymnastics Equipment, Gymnastics Mats, Gymnastics Grips, Tiger Paws and Gymnastics Supplies
Home | Shop | Training Center | Blog | Videos | Industry News | GymABstics
| About Us | Contact Us | Customer Support | Advertise | Terms | Privacy | Site Map
Copyright 1999-2009 by American Gymnast, LLC