The most important thing at this time of year is to wish you all a very Happy Christmas!
And I have to record some more thoughts further to Thursday's post on Clive Palmer's thesis. My work on this prophetic piece is ongoing, but there is a considerable volume of thought to digest. To provide the necessary emphasis to each of the author's points, and add currency to his thoughts, will take more than a few days.
Palmer's work had me thinking about the degree of authority the FIG wields over the sport, yet seemingly without any consciousness of the gravity of the decisions it takes competition by competition and year by year. The FIG constantly reminds us of the 'accuracy' of judges' decisions, yet recent events and media coverage only serve to stress how wrong this simple assertion is. One example is the ease with which the E or execution judges can award inconsistent and unfair marks without risk of reproach.
This is in stark contrast to the closely policed the D or difficulty judges. Dominique Moceanu's interview with judge Oscar Buitrago concentrates on Buitrago's frank admission of a mistake which ended with the erroneous gift of the 2004 Olympic title to American Paul Hamm, an error so serious that it was investigated by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. Since then, Buitrago has served an eight-year suspension from judging at international competitions, at the behest of the FIG.
What is implicit in this interview is the degree of freedom and anonymity that the E-panel judges enjoy. The E-score is becoming notorious as an easily manipulated vehicle at the hands of incompetent or unscrupulous judges. The judges' tactic of 'boxing' is clearly and frequently evidenced in the relatively meagre differentiation between execution marks of very good and mediocre performances. A recent post on Gymnastics Coaching exposes just two of the unfair execution scores awarded at the Tokyo World Championships. The differences can amount to a great deal over four apparatus and distort qualification and competition outcomes. It is a general truth that fine execution is rarely rewarded to the extent that it overcomes a D-score advantage with merely competent execution.
Palmer has some pretty interesting suggestions to make as to how the FIG can improve things by a whole restructuring of the marking system, but that deserves a post to itself. In the meantime, I will merely point to how he has remarked on the apparent lack of knowledge judges have of simple terminology relating to aesthetic form, expression and execution. Surely, the judges cannot be expected to mark fairly and consistently if there is no common vocabulary and definitional framework through which a rationale for their scoring decisions can be elaborated. Palmer describes vividly a discussion with former high profile Olympians during which the 1976 Olympic Champion stormed off in embarrassment and confusion at her own lack of understanding. Hardy Fink's impatience with his own judges' inability to grasp his Code was clear during an oral commentary Fink gave of a competition video, yet his own grasp of aesthetic concepts and the likely consequences of his own judging decisions seemed somewhat moot. An ignorance of the relationship between dance and gymnastics seems widespread amongst the gymnastics community, including primarily the FIG who have at least some responsibility for ensuring the education of judges and coaches. An inability to articulate the aesthetic has resulted in its omission from the CoP and hence the aesthetic remains unacknowledged in the scores and increasingly in the sport as a whole. It is apparent that aesthetic knowledge cannot filter down to the judges as it does not exist at the highest level.
The FIG (my observation) seems to wallow in this ignorance. It is almost as though it has decided to cull the fine and artistic from gymnastics and would rather see the sport degraded into a branch of sports acrobatics. The participation emphasis (stemming from the US independent model of sports development) has overcome the cultural emphasis developed during the era of the Soviet Union. Given the widespread migration of Soviet expertise to the West, I am surprised at how quickly and easily the aesthetic voice has been stilled, but perhaps they have given up in exasperation.
In addition to preparing and enjoying the Christmas celebrations, I must also devote the bulk of my academic time to grading student papers, an important job that these days seems to be almost continuous, so please bear with me as I integrate my thinking, reading and writing time with the demands of everyday life!
In the meantime, a timeless floor exercise for you all to enjoy :
View it on Youtube.
And please don't forget to comment, if you get the time!
And I have to record some more thoughts further to Thursday's post on Clive Palmer's thesis. My work on this prophetic piece is ongoing, but there is a considerable volume of thought to digest. To provide the necessary emphasis to each of the author's points, and add currency to his thoughts, will take more than a few days.
Palmer's work had me thinking about the degree of authority the FIG wields over the sport, yet seemingly without any consciousness of the gravity of the decisions it takes competition by competition and year by year. The FIG constantly reminds us of the 'accuracy' of judges' decisions, yet recent events and media coverage only serve to stress how wrong this simple assertion is. One example is the ease with which the E or execution judges can award inconsistent and unfair marks without risk of reproach.
This is in stark contrast to the closely policed the D or difficulty judges. Dominique Moceanu's interview with judge Oscar Buitrago concentrates on Buitrago's frank admission of a mistake which ended with the erroneous gift of the 2004 Olympic title to American Paul Hamm, an error so serious that it was investigated by the International Court of Arbitration for Sport. Since then, Buitrago has served an eight-year suspension from judging at international competitions, at the behest of the FIG.
What is implicit in this interview is the degree of freedom and anonymity that the E-panel judges enjoy. The E-score is becoming notorious as an easily manipulated vehicle at the hands of incompetent or unscrupulous judges. The judges' tactic of 'boxing' is clearly and frequently evidenced in the relatively meagre differentiation between execution marks of very good and mediocre performances. A recent post on Gymnastics Coaching exposes just two of the unfair execution scores awarded at the Tokyo World Championships. The differences can amount to a great deal over four apparatus and distort qualification and competition outcomes. It is a general truth that fine execution is rarely rewarded to the extent that it overcomes a D-score advantage with merely competent execution.
Palmer has some pretty interesting suggestions to make as to how the FIG can improve things by a whole restructuring of the marking system, but that deserves a post to itself. In the meantime, I will merely point to how he has remarked on the apparent lack of knowledge judges have of simple terminology relating to aesthetic form, expression and execution. Surely, the judges cannot be expected to mark fairly and consistently if there is no common vocabulary and definitional framework through which a rationale for their scoring decisions can be elaborated. Palmer describes vividly a discussion with former high profile Olympians during which the 1976 Olympic Champion stormed off in embarrassment and confusion at her own lack of understanding. Hardy Fink's impatience with his own judges' inability to grasp his Code was clear during an oral commentary Fink gave of a competition video, yet his own grasp of aesthetic concepts and the likely consequences of his own judging decisions seemed somewhat moot. An ignorance of the relationship between dance and gymnastics seems widespread amongst the gymnastics community, including primarily the FIG who have at least some responsibility for ensuring the education of judges and coaches. An inability to articulate the aesthetic has resulted in its omission from the CoP and hence the aesthetic remains unacknowledged in the scores and increasingly in the sport as a whole. It is apparent that aesthetic knowledge cannot filter down to the judges as it does not exist at the highest level.
The FIG (my observation) seems to wallow in this ignorance. It is almost as though it has decided to cull the fine and artistic from gymnastics and would rather see the sport degraded into a branch of sports acrobatics. The participation emphasis (stemming from the US independent model of sports development) has overcome the cultural emphasis developed during the era of the Soviet Union. Given the widespread migration of Soviet expertise to the West, I am surprised at how quickly and easily the aesthetic voice has been stilled, but perhaps they have given up in exasperation.
In addition to preparing and enjoying the Christmas celebrations, I must also devote the bulk of my academic time to grading student papers, an important job that these days seems to be almost continuous, so please bear with me as I integrate my thinking, reading and writing time with the demands of everyday life!
In the meantime, a timeless floor exercise for you all to enjoy :
View it on Youtube.
And please don't forget to comment, if you get the time!
Nellie Kim is not sensitive to artistry. She hates the Russians!
ReplyDelete