Media update - Martha Karolyi 'We cannot have the FIG thinking that only ballerinas can be gymnasts'
What an extraordinary statement. What on earth does Karolyi mean by this?
What does she mean - ballerina? When we hear the word, our immediate associations are - elegance, grace, posture, effortless poise, beauty. Aren't they? And isn't this exactly what we would want from our gymnastics?
Well, I can entirely understand why Karolyi wouldn't want elegance to win. Given the state of some of the gymnastics that emanates from her training camps.
This often gets confused with a question of body type, size, shape, weight or looks, quite a sensitive issue given the age of many of these competitors. But I will take just one example that perhaps even isn't at the extreme end of the scale. America's Rebecca Bross. She has more or less the same basic body type as say, for example, Mustafina - powerful, proportionately long limbs, strong bodied. But look at the differences. Just look at the differences. Consider line, elevation, fluidity of movement, range of movement, expression. What makes them so different? I would suggest it is the training ... nothing personal.
Karolyi goes on to say that difficulty is also important, which I would agree. But, as has been demonstrated here in the Ahoy Stadium this week, it is possible to combine elegant grace with difficulty without compromising the balletic qualities of the sport.
Embedded in Karolyi's statement is a deep assumption that it is possible to exert influence over the FIG as regards what constitutes good gymnastics - that she can control what they think. Hrmph. I certainly hope the other Federations, those with good, elegant gymnasts such as Lauren Mitchell, the Chinese whose team are always well prepared, do not let such ignorance pass without comment.
The whole of Karolyi's discussion can be read here.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/brian_cazeneuve/10/22/karolyi/index.html
What does she mean - ballerina? When we hear the word, our immediate associations are - elegance, grace, posture, effortless poise, beauty. Aren't they? And isn't this exactly what we would want from our gymnastics?
Well, I can entirely understand why Karolyi wouldn't want elegance to win. Given the state of some of the gymnastics that emanates from her training camps.
This often gets confused with a question of body type, size, shape, weight or looks, quite a sensitive issue given the age of many of these competitors. But I will take just one example that perhaps even isn't at the extreme end of the scale. America's Rebecca Bross. She has more or less the same basic body type as say, for example, Mustafina - powerful, proportionately long limbs, strong bodied. But look at the differences. Just look at the differences. Consider line, elevation, fluidity of movement, range of movement, expression. What makes them so different? I would suggest it is the training ... nothing personal.
Karolyi goes on to say that difficulty is also important, which I would agree. But, as has been demonstrated here in the Ahoy Stadium this week, it is possible to combine elegant grace with difficulty without compromising the balletic qualities of the sport.
Embedded in Karolyi's statement is a deep assumption that it is possible to exert influence over the FIG as regards what constitutes good gymnastics - that she can control what they think. Hrmph. I certainly hope the other Federations, those with good, elegant gymnasts such as Lauren Mitchell, the Chinese whose team are always well prepared, do not let such ignorance pass without comment.
The whole of Karolyi's discussion can be read here.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/brian_cazeneuve/10/22/karolyi/index.html
- Get link
- Other Apps
Labels
Russian gymnastics
Labels:
Russian gymnastics
- Get link
- Other Apps
I think you are taking that quote out of context. This is the full quote:
ReplyDelete"We cannot have the FIG [International Gymnastics Federation] thinking that only ballerinas can be gymnasts. We must have the difficulty level. We need the skills to combine both components really well."
She's not advocating getting rid of ballerinas but rather a balance between elegance and difficulty. In a way, she's right. Just as gymnastics would be boring with people who all looked like Shushunova, it would be boring if everyone looked like Khorkina or Boginskaya. And ballet is not the only way of artistry. Look at Maja Hristova. Her pump up the volume floor routine is no less artistic than most floor routines performed by your beloved Soviets, but she had a stumpy body type (as evidenced by her inability to swing bars) and had to work around it.
There is BS from judges judging the women based on how the LOOK versus what they do in terms of SPORTS. Oh..and the leap thing in FX is way overdone. You want rhythmic or ballet, go watch that! But don't convert gym into being that.
ReplyDeleteAnd Nastia was not "elegant" if elegant equals "having good form". She had a grotesque cowboy on flips and crossed legs on twists. Look at the MEN for real "good form". They don't do any fruity ballet crap and they have good form, way better than the women.
But if she is looking for improvement, why de-emphasise artistry when this is clearly the area in which her gymnasts are deficient?
ReplyDeleteAnd why now? We finally have a world all around champion who is at least moderately artistic and undoubtedly powerful. Surely gymnastics is getting back on track again after the artistic horrors of Johnson, Memmel and Ferrari.
Isn't this just an implicit admission of failure on Karolyi's part - she still hasn't managed to find an American who can combine difficulty with artistry and win the world championships and she isn't likely to, with this attitude.
I don't know on what level we should analyze Martha's comment, but it seems to me like, maybe subconsciously, she was getting at something deeper - not so much that every gymnast can't be a ballerina, but that gymnastics can't be ballet. We wouldn't want it to be - that would require getting rid of all apparatus but floor, moving from an arena to a stage, getting rid of the competitive nature, etc (you get the point). While no one is advocating that, I see so many people in the gymternet who are so adamant that gymnastics be balletic, that it seems like they are wanting a different sport entirely. If only one team, for one brief era, was able to "properly" compete the sport - are the expectations off, or is the sport off?
ReplyDeleteNow, don't get me wrong - I think artistry is critical, and under-appreciated, and undervalued, etc, and I think gymnastics can learn a lot from dance. (And I was as thrilled as anyone at Russia's artistry at worlds.) But I also think that gymnastics artistry can be achieved in ways that dance artistry cannot. And I think if we define gymnastics as "the more balletic the better - and it must achieve a minimum standard of balletic to qualify (or score well)," we risk defining gymnastics out of existence.
"And I think if we define gymnastics as "the more balletic the better - and it must achieve a minimum standard of balletic to qualify (or score well)," we risk defining gymnastics out of existence."
ReplyDeleteWell said.