Technique discussion: Front Layout

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I've seen this skill taught in several different ways, and I wanted to see if we could get a discussion going about the merits of the various techniques.

Some coaches coach a hollow front layout. I'm not entirely sure why.

I coach a heel-drive front layout; I coach it not as the forwards equivalent of a back layout, but of a whipback. The reason is that, while back tumbling is better for having one super-difficult skill at the end of a pass, front tumbling is better for connecting a series of lower-level skills -- which often adds up to higher value. An ideal front layout can function the same as a bounder within a tumbling pass.

That's my theory. Thoughts?

[JBS]

I teach a tight arch (heel drive). Not really sure about the hollow technique, but I have seen it. In my opinion, a perfect layout is straight...not hollow or arched.

If you line them up side by side a hollowed out back layout and an arched front layout are the same. During both, you drive the lower part of your body (toes or heels) over your head. If you taught a hollow front layout you would not be driving the lower part of your body up, you would be dropping the upper part of your body down. Hollow front layouts are completely wrong if you ask me. Anyone else have an opinion on this one?

Great thread!

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by |||JBS||| I teach a tight arch (heel drive). Not really sure about the hollow technique, but I have seen it. In my opinion, a perfect layout is straight...not hollow or arched. If you line them up side by side a hollowed out back layout and an arched front layout are the same. During both, you drive the lower part of your body (toes or heels) over your head. If you taught a hollow front layout you would not be driving the lower part of your body up, you would be dropping the upper part of your body down. Hollow front layouts are completely wrong if you ask me. Anyone else have an opinion on this one? Great thread!

Interesting; as I said, I think of a front layout as being more akin to a whipback than to a back layout; that is, I aim for no higher than head/shoulder height, with fast rotation, rather than going high and slow like a back layout. This, it seems to me, sets you up better to punch into another skill afterwards. Is this different from how you coach it, or are we just saying the same thing in different ways?

(though to be fair; people are far more likely to throw it too low than too high, so I do coach my kids to get their chest up and try to set it upwards)

[JBS]

Depending on where the front layout is in the combination, I teach it differently. If it is the last skill in a series, then I would want the layout as high as possible. If it is a connection, then as you said, not too high.

For example, if I was teaching FHS, Front Layout, Rudy...I would want the Rudy to be like a layout, not a whip. The middle layout, on the other hand, would be more like the whip.

It sounds to me like we coach them the same way.

The talk in elite level competition is about layouts being straight. Should a gymnast that can throw a straight double layout off bars get a higher score than the gymnast that has a tight arch? I keep seeing that question, however, I haven't really seen a perfectly straight double layout, yet.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I guess that's more or less how I'd teach it as well; to be honest, I've never coached anything past a front layout punch front; none of my kids is at a high enough level to be working a series of several layouts.

[hammy]

I was taught a front layout as a tight arch heal drive.

A few drills I did was bonders (flysprings) on the tumbletrak. I also did a front handspring punch up to a handstand on a resi mat--eventually doing a front handsrping on the floor then bonder on the mat (hands hitting the mat). Usually, those who could do that drill were good front tumblers.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by |||JBS||| The talk in elite level competition is about layouts being straight. Should a gymnast that can throw a straight double layout off bars get a higher score than the gymnast that has a tight arch? I keep seeing that question, however, I haven't really seen a perfectly straight double layout, yet.

I actually think the arch in a double layout (at least on floor) makes it look far more beautiful than it would straight.

I've seen exactly one person do a straight double-layout; there was a girl throwing them into a resi pit at woodward when I went this past summer.

[JBS]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Taucer I actually think the arch in a double layout (at least on floor) makes it look far more beautiful than it would straight. I've seen exactly one person do a straight double-layout; there was a girl throwing them into a resi pit at woodward when I went this past summer.

I agree...I love the arch. Gymnastics should look human, not robotic.

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Just started working one of my boys on a punch layout. He's an interesting case: his front handsprings are mediocre at best, and he's not ready to even think about working a handspring front, but he can punch high enough to do a tuck (or, as was the case last night, a layour) well above head height without effort.

[JBS]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Geoffrey Taucer Just started working one of my boys on a punch layout. He's an interesting case: his front handsprings are mediocre at best, and he's not ready to even think about working a handspring front, but he can punch high enough to do a tuck (or, as was the case last night, a layour) well above head height without effort.

Go with what works. Now he'll always be excited to front tumble...that's a great thing in itself.