Skills & Events

The New Skills Submitted at the 2026 Gymnastics Worlds

12 Min Read

Three women brought original skill submissions to the 2026 World Gymnastics Championships in Rotterdam: Charleigh Bullock and Reese Esponda of the United States, and Naomi Visser of the Netherlands. Their proposals include an uneven-bars circle with a turn, a floor pirouette and a floor acrobatic element.

Contents

Two received an E difficulty evaluation, while the third received an A. That difference affects more than potential scoring: only elements rated C or higher are eligible to receive a gymnast’s name under the women’s rules.

These are submitted new elements, with final recognition and naming subject to technical review. This article explains the movements and their significance without treating a proposed name as an already confirmed entry in the Code of Points.

Which New Skills Were Submitted?

World Gymnastics’ October 18 announcement identifies three submissions recognized as new by the Women’s Technical Committee. Two other submissions corresponded to elements already in the code.

Gymnast Apparatus Official name and plain-English meaning Evaluated value Naming eligibility
Charleigh Bullock Uneven bars Clear pike circle backward with 1½ turn: a backward circle in a pike shape, adding one and a half turns E — 0.5 Eligible if the remaining conditions are met
Naomi Visser Floor Triple pirouette with leg at horizontal: three rotations on one foot, holding the free leg horizontal E — 0.5 Eligible if the remaining conditions are met
Reese Esponda Floor Free roundoff from two feet: a roundoff without hand support, taking off from both feet A — 0.1 Below the C minimum for naming

The letters describe the assessed difficulty of the individual elements. They are not the athletes’ routine scores, execution marks or final results.

The values are the ones World Gymnastics announced on October 18. Under the Code of Points, a value given at a competition stays provisional until the Women’s Technical Committee confirms it.

Bullock’s Bars Submission: A Circle With One and a Half Turns

Bullock’s proposal combines two kinds of rotation that can be difficult to separate at full speed. One is the backward movement around the bar. The other is the turn around the gymnast’s own body axis.

The “pike” part describes a body shape: the hips bend while the legs remain straight. “Clear” distinguishes the circling action from one supported by the feet on the bar. The additional one and a half turns amount to 540 degrees of turning; that figure does not count the circle around the apparatus itself.

For a viewer, the most useful first step is to watch the two actions separately. One replay can follow the circle and body shape. A second can follow the shoulders and changes in hand position during the turn. Trying to count every movement at once makes bars terminology harder than it needs to be.

The interest is also in how the element fits between the skills around it. Bars is a continuous routine, so the preceding swing and following movement help a spectator locate the proposed element. A short clip cropped too tightly may hide that context.

An unfamiliar hand position or unusual-looking circle does not by itself establish a new skill. The committee evaluates the complete movement against the existing code. For examples of established elements and terminology, the gymnastics skill explorer provides useful reference points.

Visser’s Floor Submission: Three Turns With the Leg Horizontal

Visser’s proposed pirouette makes dance difficulty part of the Rotterdam new-skills story. A pirouette is a turn supported on one foot; the other leg is the free leg. Here, the intended movement combines three rotations with that free leg held at horizontal height.

The number of turns is only part of the element’s identity. The leg position also matters. A viewer who watches only how many times the gymnast faces the same direction can miss the feature that distinguishes the submission.

The women’s 2025–2028 Code of Points, particularly its technical requirements for turns in Section 8.2.1, explains that a prescribed free-leg position must be held throughout the turn. Failure to show the required position can change which element receives credit.

This gives the audience two separate things to observe: the completed rotation and the shape maintained during it. Neither should be inferred solely from a celebratory finish or a brief slow-motion clip of the final turn.

The submission also broadens what “new gymnastics skill” can mean. Floor innovation is not confined to adding another twist to a tumbling pass. A dance element can introduce a new combination of balance, rotation and body position, with its own technical demands and place in the difficulty calculation.

Esponda’s Floor Submission: Why an A Skill Still Matters

Esponda submitted a free roundoff taking off from two feet. In this context, “free” means the movement is performed without hand support on the floor. The takeoff is also part of the description, so identifying the movement requires more than noticing that the hands stay off the surface.

A familiar roundoff normally includes hand contact. Removing that support changes what the audience sees, even if the movement still evokes the recognizable roundoff action. Watching the approach, takeoff and landing as one sequence is more informative than looking at a single airborne photograph.

Its A evaluation makes this submission different from the two E elements. An A-rated skill can be a new recognized movement without meeting the minimum value for an athlete’s name. “New,” “difficult” and “named” describe related but separate ideas.

That distinction prevents an easy headline error. The presence of three accepted new submissions does not mean that Rotterdam will necessarily produce three new named skills. At the published evaluation, Esponda’s element is below the naming threshold. It can still enter the Code as a new element, just without her name.

It also does not follow that a lower-valued movement has no place in a routine. Gymnastics routines contain more than a list of the highest-valued elements. Movement choices can shape rhythm and presentation even when they do not increase the final difficulty total. Its precise contribution must be assessed within the actual routine.

How Much Could These Skills Add to a Score?

An E element has a difficulty value of 0.5, and an A element has a value of 0.1. Those numbers are ingredients in scoring. Introducing an E skill does not automatically increase a routine’s difficulty score by half a point.

Consider a simplified example in which a newly credited E element replaces a counting D element. The difference between their individual values is 0.1. If every other part of the routine stays the same, that replacement contributes a tenth through the element-value calculation, rather than adding the E’s full half point to the previous routine.

A second example produces a different outcome. If a new element is not among the skills that count toward difficulty, adding it may contribute no additional element value. Other effects, such as connections or required content, need separate consideration.

Both examples are explanations of the arithmetic, not predictions of Bullock’s, Visser’s or Esponda’s Rotterdam scores. The difficulty-score guide explains how counting elements fit alongside the other parts of a women’s bars, beam or floor D-score.

Execution is assessed separately. A gymnast can receive difficulty credit for a skill while losing execution points for how it is performed. The reverse is also useful to understand: a controlled-looking movement does not guarantee that the intended difficulty was recognized.

The execution-score guide explains why credit for a movement and deductions within that movement can coexist. A new skill’s presence alone is therefore insufficient to explain a routine’s final score.

When Can a Submitted Skill Be Called Officially Named?

Submission, competition performance and final confirmation are different stages. The published Rotterdam announcement says that the technical committee will review performances and confirm new elements and names after the championships. Under Section 7.2.3 of the women’s Code, a named element must be valued C or higher, count toward the difficulty score, be performed for the first time at an official FIG competition and be confirmed by that committee.

Until that confirmation is available, the clearest descriptions are “Bullock’s submitted bars element” or “Visser’s proposed turn.” Those phrases identify the athlete and movement without presenting an unconfirmed code entry as settled.

The broader guide to how gymnastics skills are named explains the process. For this event, the relevant update will be the committee’s decision on these specific submissions.

Does a Training Video Confirm a New Name?

A training video can show what a gymnast intends to perform. It does not establish that the required competition performance and subsequent confirmation have taken place. The video and the official recognition record serve different purposes.

Does an Apparatus Final Place Confirm the Skill?

No. Qualification for a final is based on the gymnast’s result under that event’s competition rules. It is not an announcement that a submitted element has passed the naming process. Routine results and technical-committee confirmation should be checked separately.

Will the Final Score Reveal Whether the Skill Was Credited?

Not on its own. A total difficulty score combines several contributions. A change in the total could reflect an element, a connection or other recognized content. The final number alone does not identify every decision made about the routine.

What Makes These Rotterdam Submissions Interesting

Together, the three proposals show different forms of invention: combining actions on bars, changing the demands of a dance turn, and developing an acrobatic variation on floor. Following each movement through evaluation, performance and confirmation gives a fuller picture than treating every submission as an instant new name.