FIG rules

[gymnut1]

It is a horrible idea. Who wants to see more difficult tumbling on a beam. No thanks. I am happy to see tumbling on the floor. I'd rather see dance on a beam.

 

[jenniffir]

I always thought with the evalution of gymnastics, beam, like floor, would become more tumbling and difficult with the added edge of the width and hieght of the beam, and although i love when a gymnast actually dances in her rutine, i trully believed that someday they will be doing double backs ON the beam. But if the beam is to be widen that would defeat the point of that difficulty increasing because it would become significantly easier to land and stay on the beam, not to say that double backs would be easy for that is a power issue, but leap passes on floor could be easily replicated on beam without a second though, it just wouldnt BE beam anymore.

I sincerely hope this issue is anolled for it is not a positive attempt to advance the worl of gymnstics, it is frankly a step back.

 

[Gymnasticgrandkids]

happyfacegrin you are too funny....still likin' the 4"....take it away and you've lost the whole beam routine....and yes, my DGD just got back, about 2 months ago, after breaking her first metatarsel (sp) on a punch front from the beam, using one foot and her big toe from the other...

 

[Kiwi]

I agree with Gymnut1, I think beam would become rather pointless, it would just be 'narrow floor'. Floor should be for the difficult tumbling, beam should be for balance and grace.

 

[Mack_the_Ripper]

happyfacegrin you are too funny....still likin' the 4"....take it away and you've lost the whole beam routine....and yes, my DGD just got back, about 2 months ago, after breaking her first metatarsel (sp) on a punch front from the beam, using one foot and her big toe from the other...

Wow, her first metatarsul? That's tough! I've broken each of my fifth metatarsuls (right and left), doing a round-off on beam and a punch front that landed funny on floor. I'm an expert. :-D

 

[mariposa]

It is a horrible idea. Who wants to see more difficult tumbling on a beam. No thanks. I am happy to see tumbling on the floor. I'd rather see dance on a beam.

I agree, but it seems they want more and more difficulty of skills on the beam and less and less dance and artistry. As a parent that finds gymnastics very scary for her kid, I wouldn't mind the USAG program using it. Though of course, those kids that do USAG and want to be elite would have an issue with transitioning, so that wouldn't work. But for me, it would make me feel much better with the prospects of my DD moving up and doing those scary tricks up there. LOL.

 

[marie83]

Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique : Full Story - FIG have just had a meeting of their apparatus committee and the wider beam isn't mentioned yet, thank goodness!

 

[ZJsMom]

I agree that 8" would be pointless. There's already a lot of difficult tumbling going on on beam. I really can't image what it would be with an 8" beam. I supposed we'd be seeing double fulls.

I hear what dunno is saying about feet, but what about wrists? My dd says back handsprings on beam hurt her wrists the most. Doesn't being able to wrap the fingers around the side take some of the pressure off the wrist? If it was 8", gymnasts would still have to put their hands close together, but I'd think they wouldn't be able wrap their fingers around the side.

 

[All Chalked Up]

Time to get the 2-by-4 out.

 

[gymdog]

8 in seems drastic. I don't really ever even train beam any more and I can still do almost anything on an 8 inch beam pad. I wouldn't go nearly as far as saying "it's the same thing as floor" - it's not, but I don't know that it's the best change ever. Anyway, the idea of widened ends are intriguing, although I'd wonder practically about landing wrong on the edge of one where there is the change, like a toe or heel getting caught on the corner part...seems like it could cause problems, for example a lot of triple series would land there inevitably, unless they would keep the 4 in part the same length, and then just maybe say no "finish and start on the beam" skills would be evaluated if they land in the "dismount zones".

5 or 6 in with better padding seems like a better compromise to me, and certainly not change I'd fight (but I'm not a very reactionary gymnastics person in general). I agree about foot injuries and stress.

 

[B Gymnast]

So would ALL levels compete on the wider beam, or just elites?? I hope they don't make it wider, because I can't even imagine what kind of skills I'd have to do on that beam... :/

 

[JBS]

It seems to me that it would make lower level gymnastics much safer...and higher level gymnastics much more dangerous.

 

[10.0]

It seems to me that it would make lower level gymnastics much safer...and higher level gymnastics much more dangerous.

Possibly I suppose, but that is why there are provisions for lower levels like being able to lower the beam and have extra matting. Also skills are level based in hopes that a new gymnast with less body control will not be doing back hand springs on beam but rather handstands.

I think they should leave it, a lot of cool skills would have to go and beam would just end up being a tumbling platform rather than a balance beam. Even a lot of non gymnasts I talk to are intrigued by the beam, the grace and talent it takes and the "daredevil ness" of it. Making it twice as wide would just take away from that.

 

[ivyagogo]

Did you see the bizarre beam on Make It Or Break It? It was more like a balance plank!

 

[hawaii_gymnast]

Possibly I suppose, but that is why there are provisions for lower levels like being able to lower the beam and have extra matting. Also skills are level based in hopes that a new gymnast with less body control will not be doing back hand springs on beam but rather handstands.

I think they should leave it, a lot of cool skills would have to go and beam would just end up being a tumbling platform rather than a balance beam. Even a lot of non gymnasts I talk to are intrigued by the beam, the grace and talent it takes and the "daredevil ness" of it. Making it twice as wide would just take away from that.

I don't really agree with widening the beam but you have to remember that the states is one of the only places with open equiptment rules (i think), in canada the beam is to be at FIG with only competition mats under, nothing more except for dismount mats. Younger girls do have the beam a little lower but only till they are about 11, then the beam (and vault) are up to FIG with no additional mats.

 

[MissBear]

This is briefly mentioned in this video from janssen fritsen at 6.40. The way they show it is only maybe 30 cm at the end is wider for dismounting. I wasn't sure before, but the beam shown in the video looks fine, and if it can reduce injuries, why not?
YouTube - ‪gymmedia2010's Channel‬‏
The video was only put up recently, but says it is from worlds 2010 and the beam had obviously been produced by then, so perhaps this is coming sooner than we thought.

 

[3rd_time_around]

This is briefly mentioned in this video from janssen fritsen at 6.40. The way they show it is only maybe 30 cm at the end is wider for dismounting. I wasn't sure before, but the beam shown in the video looks fine, and if it can reduce injuries, why not?
YouTube - ‪gymmedia2010's Channel‬‏
The video was only put up recently, but says it is from worlds 2010 and the beam had obviously been produced by then, so perhaps this is coming sooner than we thought.

That was very weird looking. I still don't know about it. What if the girl is doing a series and misses her foot? Now she has this end of the beam sticking out to catch her head on as well. Thanks for posting.

 

[Optionals United]

i dont like the version. there was a b eam somewhere else with the same design idea but not quite the same