If there were an obvious formula to constructing championship-winning routines, we’d quit our day jobs and become legendary college coaches.
That said, there are certain skills and combinations that have become so ubiquitous to the point of seeming like requirements. We’re also seeing more and more “streamlined” routines that minimize deductions by leveraging workarounds in the Code of Points.
It stands to reason that these routine constructions are driven by results, but what does the data say?
We’ve broken down every routine from every gymnast who’s placed first through third at nationals since 2016 to see what skills are the most common and what, if any, patterns emerge.
Why 2016? It’s the year the Yurchenko full was devalued from a 10.0 start value to a 9.950. It’s also the year that NCAA championships moved from a panel of four judges to six, changing the dynamic of risk/reward in postseason routines.
Let’s see how closely this year’s winning routines stack up to the data-based predictions.
Individual Vaults
Year |
No. of winners | Yurchenko half | Yurchenko full | Yurchenko 1.5 | Yurchenko double | FHS pike half |
| 2016 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2017 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| 2018 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 2019 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 20 | 1 | 0 | 14 | 4 | 1 |
| Total % | 5.00% | 0.00% | 70.00% | 20.00% | 5.00% |
All-Arounder Vaults
| Year | No. of winners | Yurchenko full | Yurchenko 1.5 | Yurchenko double | Lopez |
| 2016 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2017 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 2018 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| 2019 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2022 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 18 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| Total % | 27.78% | 44.44% | 22.22% | 5.56% |
No surprise here, the overwhelming majority of vault champions since 2016 have started out of a 10.0 SV (with Alabama’s Katie Bailey—who scored a perfect 9.950 in 2016 for her Yurchenko half—being the sole exception). Of those remaining 19 vaults, the Yurchenko one and a half is the clear favorite coming in right at 70%.
The Yurchenko one and a half is still the go-to vault for the bulk of top all-around competitors. However, since all-arounders have a bit more of a scoring buffer than specialists, we do see some gymnasts opting to stick with the Yurchenko full (particularly in the years immediately following the rule change) or risking the more difficult Yurchenko double full.
Winning Formula: Yurchenko one and a half
Individual Bars
| Year | No. of winners | Toe-on | SBR | Maloney | Pak | Hecht shoot | Bail to handstand | DLO | FTDT |
| 2016 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 2017 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 5 | 3 | 3 |
| 2018 | 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
| 2019 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 6 | 3 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 |
| total | 26 | 14 | 16 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 15 | 15 | 8 |
| total % | 53.85% | 61.54% | 34.62% | 34.62% | 38.46% | 57.69% | 57.69% | 30.77% |
All-Arounder Bars
| year | No. of winners | Toe-on | SBR | Maloney | Pak | Hecht shoot | Bail to handstand | DLO | FTDT |
| 2016 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 2017 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| 2018 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 |
| 2019 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2021 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| 2022 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Total | 18 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 8 | 8 |
| Total % | 50.00% | 55.56% | 44.44% | 44.44% | 27.78% | 50.00% | 44.44% | 44.44% |
The majority of both event and all-around winners in our dataset competed a single bar release (SBR), though their frequency has tapered off among all-arounders. The Ray is the most popular choice by far among gymnasts who competed an SBR, appearing in approximately 30% of winning routines.
Interestingly, five individuals with straddled Jaegers have landed on the bars podium since 2016, but not a single all-around winner has competed the skill.
Winning Formula: toe-on, Ray, bail to handstand, hecht shoot, double layout dismount
Individual Beam
| Year | No. of winners | BHS LOSO | Full turn* | Switch leap | Front aerial | Beat jump | Side aerial | RO back double full | Side gainer full |
| 2016 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2017 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 2018 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2022 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 21 | 18 | 18 | 16 | 15 | 11 | 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Total % | 85.71% | 85.71% | 76.19% | 71.43% | 52.38% | 47.62% | 23.81% | 23.81% |
*Denotes 360 degree turn completed on one leg with free leg below horizontal
All-Arounder Beam
| Year | No. of winners | BHS LOSO | Full turn* | Switch leap | Front aerial | Beat jump | Side aerial | RO back double full | Side gainer full |
| 2016 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| 2017 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2018 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| 2019 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| 2021 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| 2022 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 18 | 10 | 14 | 13 | 13 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 2 |
| Total % | 55.56% | 77.78% | 72.22% | 72.22% | 27.78% | 44.44% | 22.22% | 11.11% |
*Denotes 360 degree turn completed on one leg with free leg below horizontal
Beam is the event with the least variety, where upwards of 70% of specialists and all-arounders alike performing a switch leap, front aerial, and traditional full turn—as opposed to a wolf turn or other variation—to satisfy acro and dance requirements
Dismounts, however, are a different story, with nine discrete dismounts factoring into podium placements. It’s also worth noting that a third of all-around winners competed a RO double tuck.
Winning Formula: Swing over mount, front aerial to beat jump, back handspring layout step-out, full turn, switch leap to split leap, side aerial to side gainer full
Individual Floor
| Year | No. of winners | Double tuck | Ddouble pike | DLO | RO back 1.5 | Switch fullor tour jete half | Wolf full | Popa | Switch ring | 3 passes |
| 2016 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3 |
| 2017 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 6 |
| 2018 | 4 | 0 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 2019 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 |
| 2021 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| 2022 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Total | 23 | 7 | 16 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 9 | 19 |
| Total % | 30.43% | 69.57% | 43.48% | 43.48% | 30.43% | 34.78% | 21.74% | 39.13% | 82.61% |
All-Arounder Floor
| Year | No. of winners | Double tuck | Double pike | DLO | RO back 1.5 | Switch fullor tour jete half | Wolf full | Popa | Switch ring | 3 passes |
| 2016 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| 2017 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| 2018 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2019 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| 2021 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
| 2022 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Total | 18 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 8 | 10 | 2 | 6 | 6 | 14 |
| Total % | 33.33% | 55.56% | 27.78% | 44.44% | 55.56% | 11.11% | 33.33% | 33.33% | 77.78% |
A whopping majority of approximately 80% of both individual and all-around winners compete three acro passes, and well over half of the gymnasts sampled include a double pike somewhere within their routine.
Unsurprisingly, there’s far more variety of skills and combinations when it comes to dance elements, but nearly half of all-arounders favor either a switch full or tour jete half.
Winning formula: Round-off back handspring double layout, round-off back one and a half twist to front layout, switch ring to switch full, round-off back handspring double pike
Read This Next: Data Deep Dive: Simulating 2023 Nationals
Article by Claire Billman
Like what you see? Consider donating to support our efforts throughout the year! [wpedon id=”13158″]
One comment