FIG President Bruno Grandi has recently published one of his regular addresses to the gymnastics community, a new year’s letter which can be found here. I frequently struggle to follow the logic of much of Grandi’s writing; I think it must be written in the Italian originally, and then suffers from poor translation. I also find many of his ideas distorted and misplaced.
Grandi has been President of the FIG since 1996 and I therefore guess that he must have the support of a fairly significant body of gymnastics federations in order to survive. I suppose this isn’t that surprising when you consider they experience a better chance of medalling under his regime. It is rather sad, however, when you consider how the women’s sport has degraded artistically under his presidency. Despite what he says, the artistry of gymnastics has not improved since 1989, and artistic gymnastics is not the sole domain of the more physically mature woman. His age limits and competition format changes have weighed greater pressure on the gymnasts, and an injury rate that seems to have accelerated since their introduction.
Grandi speaks fulsomely of the principles of promoting fairness and diversity in sport, and these are undoubtedly highly admirable aims. However, in nailing his colours to the mast of diversity, Grandi appeals to federations not on the basis of the social benefits of improved participation rates, rather to the self interest the federations might have in winning medals. His concept of ‘universality’ is restricted to the geographical distribution of participants in apparatus finals. The merits of this suggestion are lost on me. His ideas of the ideal of gymnastics marking as ‘objective’ and ‘without bias’ are, furthermore, fundamentally flawed if one takes into account that he links it to his aim of universality. This pre-supposes that marking has an aim above and beyond the evaluation of a gymnast’s efforts.
When Grandi took over the Presidency in 1996 the sport had recently been broken apart by the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a country which had provided much artistic and technical leadership over the previous 40 years. Prior to 1992, I would suggest that the sport was led from within by gymnasts and coaches. The Code followed the sport, and administrators were there as figureheads and facilitators. After 1992, with the brain drain of coaches away from the Soviet Union, the former power house of gymnastics effectively surrendered its leadership. This, along with the inexorable international tendency for globalisation and towards commodification of world sport, propelled administrators into the power vacuum.
Administrators of any kind have managerial, rather than creative aims. Their concerns are more than purely sporting, and by the very nature of their role, they tend not to be in touch with latest practice. Grandi's hands-on approach to his role has extended to introducing changes to competition formats, and during his tenure the technical committees have introduced far-reaching changes to the Code of Points. I venture to suggest that the degree to which these changes have influenced the sport is inappropriate. The outcome has been largely undesirable. If we see the sport as a form of creative activity, and see the Code as a kind of blueprint for the sport, who should control the Code? Surely, asking administrator to draw up a blueprint for a gymnastics routine is rather like asking the Director of Tate Modern to give Tracey Emin an outline drawing for her next work of art.
Today, the Code attracts almost more attention than the sport itself. Of course it does - the Code determines who qualifies to finals, who wins and who comes last. Gymnasts and coaches follow the Code slavishly. It is an anonymous dictator in their lives, something that the sports administrators' can manipulate to ensure that the ‘right’ gymnast from the 'right' country wins. It is valued by the FIG for its 'objectivity' and clarity but, much like Grandi’s letters, veiled in a cloak of often contradictory detail and unstated assumptions. Its writers are confident in the unspoken power of the Code. Sporting participants and spectators complain, but none of them seem ready to question its fundamental authority.
Earlier in this blog, I have questioned whether there is a link between sporting codes and sporting identities. Is the shape of the sport today dictated by the shape of the Code of Points? My personal opinion is that the Code is responsible for the generally rather dull pallor of the gymnastics we have witnessed over the past decade or so. I would moderate this by adding my opinion that the degree to which the Code can shape the sport depends on a variety of factors: (i) the extent to which gymnasts and coaches follow the Code, (ii) how they interpret its various terms of reference and (iii) how judges ultimately reward the sporting interpretation of what is basically a verbal and codified expression of their sport. However, I think most gymnasts and coaches are so consumed by the chase for medals that they don’t pause to think about this. And I doubt that many judges consider the assumptions behind the current Code; they are all too busy trying to keep pace with all the changes. It has also been made fearsomely difficult - almost impossible - to raise any objections to Code renewals or judging decisions.
I would now like to turn my question round to one of sporting fundamental: should the Code reflect the sport, or lead the sport? Should power rest in the hands of those who write the Code, or those who develop and perform the sport at its highest level? Who should control the Code? What do you think?
I am rather fed up of reading endless posts in message boards that painstakingly deconstruct gymnastics from one perspective of a Code that seems to be unfathomably detailed and ambiguous. I am sick of reading about .1 deductions that should have been taken but weren't, of downgrading of moves, and of poorly edited documents that mislead gymnasts and their coaches. True judgement of gymnastics has flown out of the window. The tyranny of the Code has reduced the role of the judge from critic to computer analyst. The gymnast's role has been degraded from that of original artist to mere crafter, a pitifully limited artisan who must choose her routines from a pre-cut pattern book of predictable, well tested tapestries and is discouraged from showing initiative. As a spectator, my experience of the sport has been severely downgraded. Few routines, little artistry. The thrill of the ten removed from my pallet of gymnastic colours. But I want to see unfathomably brilliant gymnastics routines. Routines that fly in the face of the Code and show it up as a mediocre nitpicking attempt to contain the uncontainable.
It is time for a revolution. However, I suspect that the gymnastics world will be rather underwhelmed by my personal revolution, as Queen Elizabeth possesses virtually no gymnastics power beyond the domain of her personal laptop. I have therefore decided to become a Code Dissident. A dissident is a rebel, a non-conformist. Being a dissident is what people do when they live in dictatorships and have no means of expressing their disgust other than by subversive means. In my case, my subversion is likely to be limited to the verbal, as I do not believe in physical violence. Dissidents are occasionally imprisoned, or sent into exile. I am prepared to take this risk for the greater good of the gymnastics world, because I think you have all become far too obedient to the power of the Code, and because somebody has to be first. Dissidents are often ridiculed in their early days, and characterised as eccentric. As revolutionaries, we have to challenge accepted wisdoms and appreciate that we may appear somewhat strange. We continue with our dissident mission, nevertheless.
And the first step on the path of Code Dissidence is to explore a new vocabulary to codify our attempts to liberate the sport of gymnastics from the Tyranny of Bruno Grandi and his clan. My exploration of a new vocabulary will form the next post on this blog.
Grandi has been President of the FIG since 1996 and I therefore guess that he must have the support of a fairly significant body of gymnastics federations in order to survive. I suppose this isn’t that surprising when you consider they experience a better chance of medalling under his regime. It is rather sad, however, when you consider how the women’s sport has degraded artistically under his presidency. Despite what he says, the artistry of gymnastics has not improved since 1989, and artistic gymnastics is not the sole domain of the more physically mature woman. His age limits and competition format changes have weighed greater pressure on the gymnasts, and an injury rate that seems to have accelerated since their introduction.
Grandi speaks fulsomely of the principles of promoting fairness and diversity in sport, and these are undoubtedly highly admirable aims. However, in nailing his colours to the mast of diversity, Grandi appeals to federations not on the basis of the social benefits of improved participation rates, rather to the self interest the federations might have in winning medals. His concept of ‘universality’ is restricted to the geographical distribution of participants in apparatus finals. The merits of this suggestion are lost on me. His ideas of the ideal of gymnastics marking as ‘objective’ and ‘without bias’ are, furthermore, fundamentally flawed if one takes into account that he links it to his aim of universality. This pre-supposes that marking has an aim above and beyond the evaluation of a gymnast’s efforts.
When Grandi took over the Presidency in 1996 the sport had recently been broken apart by the dismantling of the Soviet Union, a country which had provided much artistic and technical leadership over the previous 40 years. Prior to 1992, I would suggest that the sport was led from within by gymnasts and coaches. The Code followed the sport, and administrators were there as figureheads and facilitators. After 1992, with the brain drain of coaches away from the Soviet Union, the former power house of gymnastics effectively surrendered its leadership. This, along with the inexorable international tendency for globalisation and towards commodification of world sport, propelled administrators into the power vacuum.
Administrators of any kind have managerial, rather than creative aims. Their concerns are more than purely sporting, and by the very nature of their role, they tend not to be in touch with latest practice. Grandi's hands-on approach to his role has extended to introducing changes to competition formats, and during his tenure the technical committees have introduced far-reaching changes to the Code of Points. I venture to suggest that the degree to which these changes have influenced the sport is inappropriate. The outcome has been largely undesirable. If we see the sport as a form of creative activity, and see the Code as a kind of blueprint for the sport, who should control the Code? Surely, asking administrator to draw up a blueprint for a gymnastics routine is rather like asking the Director of Tate Modern to give Tracey Emin an outline drawing for her next work of art.
Today, the Code attracts almost more attention than the sport itself. Of course it does - the Code determines who qualifies to finals, who wins and who comes last. Gymnasts and coaches follow the Code slavishly. It is an anonymous dictator in their lives, something that the sports administrators' can manipulate to ensure that the ‘right’ gymnast from the 'right' country wins. It is valued by the FIG for its 'objectivity' and clarity but, much like Grandi’s letters, veiled in a cloak of often contradictory detail and unstated assumptions. Its writers are confident in the unspoken power of the Code. Sporting participants and spectators complain, but none of them seem ready to question its fundamental authority.
Earlier in this blog, I have questioned whether there is a link between sporting codes and sporting identities. Is the shape of the sport today dictated by the shape of the Code of Points? My personal opinion is that the Code is responsible for the generally rather dull pallor of the gymnastics we have witnessed over the past decade or so. I would moderate this by adding my opinion that the degree to which the Code can shape the sport depends on a variety of factors: (i) the extent to which gymnasts and coaches follow the Code, (ii) how they interpret its various terms of reference and (iii) how judges ultimately reward the sporting interpretation of what is basically a verbal and codified expression of their sport. However, I think most gymnasts and coaches are so consumed by the chase for medals that they don’t pause to think about this. And I doubt that many judges consider the assumptions behind the current Code; they are all too busy trying to keep pace with all the changes. It has also been made fearsomely difficult - almost impossible - to raise any objections to Code renewals or judging decisions.
I would now like to turn my question round to one of sporting fundamental: should the Code reflect the sport, or lead the sport? Should power rest in the hands of those who write the Code, or those who develop and perform the sport at its highest level? Who should control the Code? What do you think?
I am rather fed up of reading endless posts in message boards that painstakingly deconstruct gymnastics from one perspective of a Code that seems to be unfathomably detailed and ambiguous. I am sick of reading about .1 deductions that should have been taken but weren't, of downgrading of moves, and of poorly edited documents that mislead gymnasts and their coaches. True judgement of gymnastics has flown out of the window. The tyranny of the Code has reduced the role of the judge from critic to computer analyst. The gymnast's role has been degraded from that of original artist to mere crafter, a pitifully limited artisan who must choose her routines from a pre-cut pattern book of predictable, well tested tapestries and is discouraged from showing initiative. As a spectator, my experience of the sport has been severely downgraded. Few routines, little artistry. The thrill of the ten removed from my pallet of gymnastic colours. But I want to see unfathomably brilliant gymnastics routines. Routines that fly in the face of the Code and show it up as a mediocre nitpicking attempt to contain the uncontainable.
It is time for a revolution. However, I suspect that the gymnastics world will be rather underwhelmed by my personal revolution, as Queen Elizabeth possesses virtually no gymnastics power beyond the domain of her personal laptop. I have therefore decided to become a Code Dissident. A dissident is a rebel, a non-conformist. Being a dissident is what people do when they live in dictatorships and have no means of expressing their disgust other than by subversive means. In my case, my subversion is likely to be limited to the verbal, as I do not believe in physical violence. Dissidents are occasionally imprisoned, or sent into exile. I am prepared to take this risk for the greater good of the gymnastics world, because I think you have all become far too obedient to the power of the Code, and because somebody has to be first. Dissidents are often ridiculed in their early days, and characterised as eccentric. As revolutionaries, we have to challenge accepted wisdoms and appreciate that we may appear somewhat strange. We continue with our dissident mission, nevertheless.
And the first step on the path of Code Dissidence is to explore a new vocabulary to codify our attempts to liberate the sport of gymnastics from the Tyranny of Bruno Grandi and his clan. My exploration of a new vocabulary will form the next post on this blog.
"I am prepared to take this risk for the greater good of the gymnastics world, because I think you have all become far too obedient to the power of the Code, and because somebody has to be first."
ReplyDeleteDo you take yourself serious because it is impossible to do so when you present these statements. What exactly are you going to do? Will you try to kill Grandi because you as a spectator have hurt feelings? You are close to loosing it, if you ever had any sanity. How old are you? 16? You seem it.
THS.
Gosh, I realised it would be difficult to be a dissident but I never thought that people would expect anything like that.
ReplyDeletePhysical violence goes against my personal principles, and at 16 I doubt I could afford a hitman anyway.
What does THS stand for?
Perhaps you can hold your breath until Grandi changes the code to exactly what you want. Either way a problem will be solved so it is win-win for the rest of us.
ReplyDelete