She should have been in the EF . If so she has chance to get the medal . In 88 Olympic, all judges gave the scores not by perfomance but by player's reputation.
@@sallydaniel1023 Guessing that’s why she wasn’t strong enough to do her double layout. Or she was developing into adulthood normally and the double layout became more difficult for her so they told her she was too fat to do her double layout so she starved herself.
In Comp I & II (Team, AA) 85-88, 4 of 6 judges' were averaged (vs. 2 of 4 in 81-84). Deductions were in 0.10 increments, but that's why we saw 0.025 scores for the first time; Voinea: 9.90 (x3) + 9.80 (x1) = 9.875. In Comp III (EF), per the original 85-88 COP, 2 head judges' scores would be averaged in if there was a large deviation. So, we'd see 9.862 from 9.925 averaged with 9.80 from the head judges. But, I wonder if this was changed / judges allowed to deduct in 0.05 increments in EF at some point in 86-88? This version also includes 0.2 Originality, 0.2 Virtuosity as part of the BP structure, which would've meant far fewer 10.0 SVs. It also says to round final scores - i.e., 9.862(5) = 9.863, but I don't think this happened in 1988. Certainly at some point, the FIG / WTC went in the total opposite (and nonsensical) direction of truncating (which cost Nastia Liukin a share of the 2005 World AA title, as 1 example).
@@jjs5056 I looked through the event final results during that quad and found the following: 1986 World Cup - deductions in 0,1 increments; 1987 World Championships - deductions in 0,05 increments and rounding up to the next thousandth; 1988 Olympic Games - deduction in 0,05 and rounding down to the next thousandth. It seems strange that the FIG would make so many changes during over such a short period of time.
She should have been in the EF . If so she has chance to get the medal . In 88 Olympic, all judges gave the scores not by perfomance but by
player's reputation.
I guess the judge who gave this routine a 9.80 was the same who gave Kersten and Klotz a 9.90. Disgusting!
Beautiful! So proud she's romanian
in a same video as this in IT's commentary, people said she should've got 9.9 or something.
Unfortunately she wasn't at her high peak as she was a year before at rotterdam :o(
She developed anorexia
@@sallydaniel1023 😔
@@sallydaniel1023 Guessing that’s why she wasn’t strong enough to do her double layout. Or she was developing into adulthood normally and the double layout became more difficult for her so they told her she was too fat to do her double layout so she starved herself.
My only guess was that the judges knew she was capable of more difficult tumbles therefore awarding an 9.850 and 9.90
In Comp I & II (Team, AA) 85-88, 4 of 6 judges' were averaged (vs. 2 of 4 in 81-84). Deductions were in 0.10 increments, but that's why we saw 0.025 scores for the first time; Voinea: 9.90 (x3) + 9.80 (x1) = 9.875.
In Comp III (EF), per the original 85-88 COP, 2 head judges' scores would be averaged in if there was a large deviation. So, we'd see 9.862 from 9.925 averaged with 9.80 from the head judges. But, I wonder if this was changed / judges allowed to deduct in 0.05 increments in EF at some point in 86-88?
This version also includes 0.2 Originality, 0.2 Virtuosity as part of the BP structure, which would've meant far fewer 10.0 SVs. It also says to round final scores - i.e., 9.862(5) = 9.863, but I don't think this happened in 1988. Certainly at some point, the FIG / WTC went in the total opposite (and nonsensical) direction of truncating (which cost Nastia Liukin a share of the 2005 World AA title, as 1 example).
@@jjs5056 I looked through the event final results during that quad and found the following: 1986 World Cup - deductions in 0,1 increments; 1987 World Championships - deductions in 0,05 increments and rounding up to the next thousandth; 1988 Olympic Games - deduction in 0,05 and rounding down to the next thousandth. It seems strange that the FIG would make so many changes during over such a short period of time.
why she and silivas had that horrible perm?
According to an interview Silivas gave, the Romanian federation forced her to have that hairstyle. She hated it.
Cuz it was 1988!