Spread the love
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

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)

Was there ANOTHER MISTAKE MADE in the 2004 men’s Olympic all-around???

JAN22

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?