Needless to say, I was angry. But, that’s the situation I was in. Economics being what they are, we couldn’t just buy a new rail. That meant this situation presented a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don’t scenario: If we leave the chip alone, it presents an insurance/liability problem; but if I try to fix it, it may also present an insurance/liability problem by voiding the manufacturer’s liability.  However, I decided that trying to do something was better than doing nothing, and I was concerned the chip might continue to grow if left exposed (thereby turning an already unsightly chunk into a much bigger and even more dangerous problem). So, I thought about ways to fix it.

After considering about a dozen different options, I decided to try a mixture of super glue/sealant and wood. I found some super glue that advertised itself as water resistant and “safe for repeated use and use with children,” since, after all, this would be touched by sweaty kids every day. I also made sure it was recommended for wood and hard plastics (or fiberglass). The back of the box also claimed it dried “solid but flexible” which sounded perfect, given that the rail will bend and I don’t want it cracking more.

Next, I took some old 2x4s and drilled some holes in them to generate some sawdust. I also used a power sander to get some extra fine sawdust. In hindsight, the drilled sawdust was too chunky, and accounts for the patchiness you’ll see below. In the future, I’ll stick with just the extra fine sawdust, but at the time I thought having mixed sizes would either create a grainy appearance similar to the bar, or help the adhesive adhere to the dust. After I felt I had enough, I combined the sealant and the sawdust. I don’t have a measurement for you, but basically it was “all the sawdust the adhesive could handle.”

I cleaned out the notch, dried it off, and then added a layer of the pure adhesive first. Then I took a small piece of wood (basically a popsicle stick) and used it as a trowel to apply the mixed sawdust/sealant. I pressed it in pretty firmly with a rag, trying to get it into every crevice, and let it dry. A couple hours later I came back and sanded it smooth with an extra-fine 200 grit sandpaper:

It might not be pretty, but it’s as smooth as the rest of the bar and it appears to be hardened. And at the very least, I think it looks better than a gaping hole where you can see the fiberglass under the laminate. Once it gets covered with chalk it’ll probably be less noticeable. If it holds up for a month, I’ll consider it a successful repair.

This, to me, is one of the most obvious cases of preventable injury that we have in our sport.  Let me first say that there are probably not many people who are bigger fans of the tap swing being included in the level 5 and 6 bar routines.  I think that the tap swing is simply, the best part of the compulsory routines on any of the four events.  Having said that, it is impossible, in my opinion, to eliminate the risk of the girls peeling off of the bar.  In fact, the better and bigger the gymnast swings, the more likely it is that the result will be a severe injury when she does peel.  The height of the swing is what puts them in that perilous position of “no man’s land”, halfway between landing on their feet and being able to flip over to their backs.  It is NOT about technique, in my opinion, but the size of the girls’ hands in comparison to the size of the rails.  I have seen plenty of girls with great shapes in the back of their swings and excellent “tapping” technique slip off just as much as (probably more than) girls with horrible technique.

For me, this is not a question of an individual gymnast’s ability level.  In my experience, the odds of this happening are the same for all of the gymnasts.  On any given day, it is just as likely to happen to the girl who has done 300 sets of tap swings and never ”peeled” as it is for the gymnast who peels off once a month, in my opinion. 

I would like to note that I am not judging any coaches as I am writing this, and I don’t think negatively of people who have not stood in between the bars during tap swings.  However, I think it is time that we, as professionals who care about our gymnasts’ well-being, really start to rally around the idea of standing in between the bars for every set of tap swings that our kids do.  I know that there will be coaches who argue (Bill Sands comes to mind) about the idea of rescue spotting and reaction time, etc.  The way that our bar coach does it however (and the way I did it when I coached bars), diminishes that argument in the fact that he stands with his outside shoulder (in proximity to the athlete) right beside the low bar, and he stands as close to her as possible.  What this does is to place him pretty much behind the gymnast.  If she does peel, she is basically flying “into” the coach.  Again, the idea here is not to necessarily “catch” the gymnast in mid-air (which is what the studies about reaction time are about), but to slow her down and prevent the catastrophic injury.  Our gymnasts never do tap swings on a regular set of unevens without a coach standing in this position.  When they are in practice, we have a bar that is set up with a mat stack behind it and two wedges stacked up against that mat stack for the girls to do their tap swings.  This way, if they do peel, the elevated surface helps them to be able to land more safely.

I would really like for as many blogs and websites as possible to put this on their pages, or to at least discuss this topic.  Many of these gymnasts will never compete again in the greatest sport in the world  because of these injuries, and all we have to do is “stand in” on tap swings.

If it is not enough for a coach to do this because of the reasons I have already mentioned, it might help to think of the legal aspects as well.  When one of these girls’ parents decides to sue because of this injury, the attorneys for this family are going to investigate what other gyms are doing.  There are many gyms that already “stand in”, and therefore the attorney will want to know why this particular coach was not doing the same.  The second part of this is that when they are trying to prove negligence, the effort will be to prove that the accident could have been prevented by less of a burden than what the risk would be.  In other words, standing in between the bars is a very small effort in comparison to the many, many gymnasts who are injured on this skill every season. 

Aside from all of the legal mumbo-jumbo though, I always try to think of it in this simple way.  If this happened to one of my gymnasts and the parents or the attorney asked me why I wasn’t standing there like that other coach was, what could I possibly say?

With that said, I knew that I had to get something up and decided to provide you with a clip of progressions for the Pak salto.  In my opinion,  it’s rare these days that I see a good Pak salto performed.  Typically, it’s a “head-throw, flippy-thing” down to the low bar that  lacks amplitude and is often difficult for the gymnast to glide out of.

So, here’s another clip from one of my favorite coaches in the U.S. – Boise State co-head coach, Neil Resnick. (I probably have 20-25 of Neil’s lectures recorded ranging from “recreational bars” to “advanced releases”)   This is a bit old – it’s from a 2002 lecture at the Illinois State Congress.  With that said, I still think the points are more than valid and worth checking out.

I hope that you enjoy.

Note:  I pulled this from a VHS and I think that the sound quality is better than the hurdle videos from before.  With that said, I apologize if the sound quality is not ideal – if you use headphones, you shouldn’t have too much difficulty hearing.

I was bored and decided to analyze a couple of different double layouts.  For the past year or two, Ivana Hong has really struggled a bit with this dismount while Bridget Sloan performs it seemingly effortless.  Therefore, I decided to do a little comparison between the two utilizing their routines from the 2009 VISA Championships.  The videos are below.

First, here’s Bridget.

Next, here’s Ivana.

After stopping the video at several points, the following are the noticeable differences that I found between the two performances.

At approximately 45 degrees below horizontal, let’s look at a comparison between the two.

Ivana Near 45 Degrees Below Horizontal To The Bar

Bridget Near 45 Degrees Below Horizontal To The Bar

Notice here how Ivana has already “opened up” whereas Bridget stays more “hollow.”  By staying in more of a hollow shape, Bridget is able to create more deformation (“bend”) in the bar in my estimation.  This additional “bend” in the bar stores more elastic (strain) energy and contributes to her rotation upon release.

Now, let’s look at the two at a position directly underneath of the bar.

Ivana Underneath of The Bar

Bridget Underneath of the Bar

Notice the “bend” in the bar (a slight bit more for Bridget) as well as the more pronounced arch position as compared to Ivana’s position.  Further, in the next sequence of images, you’ll notice the early “kick” into the double layout for Ivana such that she struggles to make the necessary rotations.

Ivana Past Bottom Of Bar

Now, here’s Bridget.

Bridget Past Bottom Of Bar

Notice how Bridget holds the arch past the bottom and “kicks” later into the double layout and is able to easily complete the rotations.

So, how would I fix Ivana’s double layout dismount?  I would work very hard to get her to hollow the downswing longer, “tap” later, hold the “tap” through the bottom longer, and this would result in a later “kick” into the dismount and probably a more successful performance.

Many men’s coaches who have moved over to coaching women’s gymnastics tend to promote the early tap as the men do.  Unfortunately, the womens’ uneven bar rail is a much different apparatus and women in general, are smaller.  As a result, they are unable to produce the degree of “bend” in the rail as the men do.  This is particularly true when they attempt to perform the early, exaggerated tap that the men do.

If you notice, most of the gymnasts who swing as I am describing are performing full-in or full-out types of dismounts or something completely different such as a double front, for example.  The early, exaggerated “tap” swing mechanics for the women will give you a lot of height, but lacks rotation.  If you want your gymnasts to have a good double layout, I encourage the mechanics that I am suggesting and they will likely be a lot more successful.

Hopefully, this gives you a bit more insight into the double layout dismount from a coaching perspective.  Please feel free to share your insights or any disagreements.