When I began this blog, it was my intention to discuss Russian gymnastics and Russian gymnastics alone. Obviously the premise of this blog is my loyalty and feeling for the Russian and Soviet school of gymnastics and everything I write is published with that bias clearly declared. I try to make sense of this as I progress, with reference to various published sources providing perspectives on definitional frameworks of such terms as artistry, dance, ROV and so on. This is try to separate out a critical view of the broader conceptual issues so that the various angles on them can be examined clearly, both here and in other sources. Bias is widespread amongst gymnastics, both within the sport itself and in the media, but it is rarely recognised or declared.
One thing I have, thus far, not intended to do is to write about the American school of gymnastics. This is largely because I generally do not like American gymnastics much, if it is possible to generalise in national terms. America leads a movement towards the athletic and away from the artistic - not only in my view.* This is, admittedly, a direction that most of the rest of the world seems to prefer - a simplified, pared down version of artistic gymnastics that emphasises the tangible and measurable at the expense of the consummate qualities of artistry and virtuosity that distinguished the sport so wonderfully during the 70s, 80s and 90s.
It's relatively easy to follow this model to competitive success in international competition. When British gymnasts discuss their competitive performances they use its rhetoric, reducing medal winning to a matter of 'going clean', 'being solid', praising 'consistency' and attributing failure to 'mistakes'. This rhetoric reflects the reality of the pared down sport also apparently preferred by the FIG whose Code of Points and competition formats have been edited and culled repeatedly. Avoiding mistakes has become the aim of gymnastics, rather than risk, originality and virtuosity. Routines have become dull and repetitive as the quest for a higher start value drives gymnasts to include more and more difficulty (quantity, it seems, not quality) in their routines. The sport seems to be in the process of becoming uprooted from its shared heritage of dance and circus. It even seems fashionable in some quarters to revel in the sport's denegration - a recent Deadspin article entitled 'The Fallacy of Artistry' contended that as artistry could not be evaluated easily, better to dump it entirely.
It is not really possible to emphasise the value of artistry to the sport without identifying the outcome of where its considerations are absent, which is what brings me to the present point of discussing the current American gymnasts on a blog about Russian gymnastics. The American team's strategy in preparing for the forthcoming Olympic Games could not be more different than the Russians'. One prefers positive bluster and giving big scores to its competitors on home ground, while the other embraces a fair deal of self-doubt, fuzzy PR and paranoia. Physical differences in the presentation of the sport, and the way they are evaluated, are also clear. Which approach is more likely to lead to gold medals is moot.
These differences have been evident for some time, but the American team's performance at the current 2012 Visa Championships really set me thinking. The whole demeanour of the American gymnasts and coaches, allied to solid competitive performances that are well scored almost everywhere, lends the impression that the Americans are front runners for the team title in London. Indeed, their consistent, confident performances, their energy and nerves of steel do make them the most likely team to secure gold.
Furthermore, the powerful Americans have an additional weapon - the Amanar vault, which if performed adequately provides a .7 bonus over the nearest equivalent vault each time it is seen on the podium, regardless of performance level. This spring, during the annual international American Cup competition (known as 'Scam Cup' by most devoted afficianados of the sport for its history of fudged American gold medals), America proudly unveiled multiple Amanar vaults by its leading competitors, thus making an early start in the Olympic race with its nearest declared rivals, Russia, who have yet to leave the starting blocks. Sporting media and the gymternet was saturated with stories of the Americans' strength in depth at this particular skill, and the fight for gold medals in the team and all around events became focussed on whether a competitor could perform the vault. The Americans' weaknesses on the three other pieces were barely even mentioned.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, far into the European Continent, we still do not know if any of the Russian team can perform the Amanar vault in competition. Leading competitors are described as 'lacking experience' by team coaches, injury problems are held responsible for poor competitive performances, senior team spokesmen openly declare the judges hostile. A sense of uncertainty clouds the air ... can the fragile Russians pull it all together? Can they hold their nerve under Olympic conditions?
If the Russians know they can, we certainly do not know the answer. One advantage the Americans have is the familiarity judges have of their routines and the expected marks associated with them; these are broadcast loud and clear. Broadcast start values then become the expected norm for that gymnast, daring the judges to contradict the accepted view on a particular skill or combination. On the other hand, the Russians will certainly not be easy to judge in London. Even the scores at their most recent domestic competitions cannot be taken as a guideline. As A.Sidorova Fan today commented at the IG Forum on scores at the upcoming Russian Cup :
The Russians' almost secretive approach to certain aspects of self publicity may well be informed by a corresponding lack of empathy held by their overseas rivals at a political level. The Soviet Union's past dominance of the sport was resented by many and Russia has inherited a legacy of sporting political tension. If recent changes to the sport have favoured the American, athletic approach to the sport, they have certainly disfavoured the softer, more aesthetic approach of the Russian school. Borderline - or sometimes not so borderline - decisions that often go in the favour of the Russians' rivals makes their occasional claims of unfair play plausible.
Not only that, the balance of the sport has decidedly shifted away from an appreciation of fine technique towards a more powerful model. A BBC commentator recently said that the value of performance in the air didn't matter at all - merely the landings and how they were controlled. She may overstate the situation somewhat, but little emphasises the differences between the two schools more. The Russian school is all about fine technique, lightness and line in the air, with perfect landings resulting from perfect technique. In performing their routines error-free, the best Russians attempt to reach the heights of virtuosity and when their routines go well, few can rival them. And then there are the times that their routines do not go well ... The American school, on the other hand, is all about competence, risk minimisation and powerful landings controlled by strong muscles, an altogether more pragmatic approach. The Code of Points does not know how to differentiate between the two, leaving the Russians with poor pickings when their landings and connections fail, and endorsing weak choreography, body line and plasticity in the Americans when they finish their routines without obvious errors.
The Americans' emphasis of vault as the battleground of the forthcoming Olympic Games is wise - the vault favours the powerful acrobatics for which they are renowned and is free of the nuances of shape, presentation and combination so important to the more complex routines on bars, beam and floor. The Americans will doubtless dominate this apparatus in London. The best vaulter in the world, McKayla Maroney, is American - though many doubt if she will make the team such is America's strength in depth.
The scores for the Americans at the first day of this weekend's Visa Championships are impressive - three gymnasts achieved over 60 points, with 60 being the likely target for those wishing to compete for medals in the Olympic all around competition. The Americans value consistency greatly, and rewarded those gymnasts who finished their competition without error. Gabrielle Douglas scored equal with World Champion Jordyn Wieber, her flighty bars routine the best on the American team and surely worthy of a place in the Olympic final.
Take a look at the floor and beam routines of Jordyn Wieber and Alexandra Raisman - you will find them at USA Gymnastics' Youtube channel. Mute the music and concentrate on the performance level. Much has been made of Raisman's form improvements, yet I think they are marginal if existent. Neither can I see any improvement in Wieber's work - the leaps still lack extension, the choreography is cursory and, in common with most floor work from the American style, consists of arm waving and foot wiggling. There isn't really time for much else when you are chasing an elevated start value, but what this emphasises then is the inherent line and plasticity of the gymnast, and the inventiveness of the choreography, both of which are severely lacking in both these gymnasts. By the time we get to London, will Alexandra have bettered Jordyn? Will we have Raisman as Olympic champion?
Will the Americans' strategy of emphasising consistency over technique backfire?
*If you want a fuller account of this, try to find the time to read Dr Clive Palmer's PhD thesis on artistry in men's gymnastics - it is available online via the British Library.
One thing I have, thus far, not intended to do is to write about the American school of gymnastics. This is largely because I generally do not like American gymnastics much, if it is possible to generalise in national terms. America leads a movement towards the athletic and away from the artistic - not only in my view.* This is, admittedly, a direction that most of the rest of the world seems to prefer - a simplified, pared down version of artistic gymnastics that emphasises the tangible and measurable at the expense of the consummate qualities of artistry and virtuosity that distinguished the sport so wonderfully during the 70s, 80s and 90s.
It's relatively easy to follow this model to competitive success in international competition. When British gymnasts discuss their competitive performances they use its rhetoric, reducing medal winning to a matter of 'going clean', 'being solid', praising 'consistency' and attributing failure to 'mistakes'. This rhetoric reflects the reality of the pared down sport also apparently preferred by the FIG whose Code of Points and competition formats have been edited and culled repeatedly. Avoiding mistakes has become the aim of gymnastics, rather than risk, originality and virtuosity. Routines have become dull and repetitive as the quest for a higher start value drives gymnasts to include more and more difficulty (quantity, it seems, not quality) in their routines. The sport seems to be in the process of becoming uprooted from its shared heritage of dance and circus. It even seems fashionable in some quarters to revel in the sport's denegration - a recent Deadspin article entitled 'The Fallacy of Artistry' contended that as artistry could not be evaluated easily, better to dump it entirely.
It is not really possible to emphasise the value of artistry to the sport without identifying the outcome of where its considerations are absent, which is what brings me to the present point of discussing the current American gymnasts on a blog about Russian gymnastics. The American team's strategy in preparing for the forthcoming Olympic Games could not be more different than the Russians'. One prefers positive bluster and giving big scores to its competitors on home ground, while the other embraces a fair deal of self-doubt, fuzzy PR and paranoia. Physical differences in the presentation of the sport, and the way they are evaluated, are also clear. Which approach is more likely to lead to gold medals is moot.
These differences have been evident for some time, but the American team's performance at the current 2012 Visa Championships really set me thinking. The whole demeanour of the American gymnasts and coaches, allied to solid competitive performances that are well scored almost everywhere, lends the impression that the Americans are front runners for the team title in London. Indeed, their consistent, confident performances, their energy and nerves of steel do make them the most likely team to secure gold.
Furthermore, the powerful Americans have an additional weapon - the Amanar vault, which if performed adequately provides a .7 bonus over the nearest equivalent vault each time it is seen on the podium, regardless of performance level. This spring, during the annual international American Cup competition (known as 'Scam Cup' by most devoted afficianados of the sport for its history of fudged American gold medals), America proudly unveiled multiple Amanar vaults by its leading competitors, thus making an early start in the Olympic race with its nearest declared rivals, Russia, who have yet to leave the starting blocks. Sporting media and the gymternet was saturated with stories of the Americans' strength in depth at this particular skill, and the fight for gold medals in the team and all around events became focussed on whether a competitor could perform the vault. The Americans' weaknesses on the three other pieces were barely even mentioned.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, far into the European Continent, we still do not know if any of the Russian team can perform the Amanar vault in competition. Leading competitors are described as 'lacking experience' by team coaches, injury problems are held responsible for poor competitive performances, senior team spokesmen openly declare the judges hostile. A sense of uncertainty clouds the air ... can the fragile Russians pull it all together? Can they hold their nerve under Olympic conditions?
If the Russians know they can, we certainly do not know the answer. One advantage the Americans have is the familiarity judges have of their routines and the expected marks associated with them; these are broadcast loud and clear. Broadcast start values then become the expected norm for that gymnast, daring the judges to contradict the accepted view on a particular skill or combination. On the other hand, the Russians will certainly not be easy to judge in London. Even the scores at their most recent domestic competitions cannot be taken as a guideline. As A.Sidorova Fan today commented at the IG Forum on scores at the upcoming Russian Cup :
They will use bonus and as per usual when they use Russian bonus, they won't show the actual scores on the score sheets though they do show them in the arena so the scores will be ambiguous. Everyone who wasn't actually attending will be suitably confused on how well the girls have done; who's making their connections, whose connections are or are not getting credited, who's wobbling and who's hitting cold, whilst the coaches and team themselves will know exactly.
The Russians' almost secretive approach to certain aspects of self publicity may well be informed by a corresponding lack of empathy held by their overseas rivals at a political level. The Soviet Union's past dominance of the sport was resented by many and Russia has inherited a legacy of sporting political tension. If recent changes to the sport have favoured the American, athletic approach to the sport, they have certainly disfavoured the softer, more aesthetic approach of the Russian school. Borderline - or sometimes not so borderline - decisions that often go in the favour of the Russians' rivals makes their occasional claims of unfair play plausible.
Not only that, the balance of the sport has decidedly shifted away from an appreciation of fine technique towards a more powerful model. A BBC commentator recently said that the value of performance in the air didn't matter at all - merely the landings and how they were controlled. She may overstate the situation somewhat, but little emphasises the differences between the two schools more. The Russian school is all about fine technique, lightness and line in the air, with perfect landings resulting from perfect technique. In performing their routines error-free, the best Russians attempt to reach the heights of virtuosity and when their routines go well, few can rival them. And then there are the times that their routines do not go well ... The American school, on the other hand, is all about competence, risk minimisation and powerful landings controlled by strong muscles, an altogether more pragmatic approach. The Code of Points does not know how to differentiate between the two, leaving the Russians with poor pickings when their landings and connections fail, and endorsing weak choreography, body line and plasticity in the Americans when they finish their routines without obvious errors.
The Americans' emphasis of vault as the battleground of the forthcoming Olympic Games is wise - the vault favours the powerful acrobatics for which they are renowned and is free of the nuances of shape, presentation and combination so important to the more complex routines on bars, beam and floor. The Americans will doubtless dominate this apparatus in London. The best vaulter in the world, McKayla Maroney, is American - though many doubt if she will make the team such is America's strength in depth.
The scores for the Americans at the first day of this weekend's Visa Championships are impressive - three gymnasts achieved over 60 points, with 60 being the likely target for those wishing to compete for medals in the Olympic all around competition. The Americans value consistency greatly, and rewarded those gymnasts who finished their competition without error. Gabrielle Douglas scored equal with World Champion Jordyn Wieber, her flighty bars routine the best on the American team and surely worthy of a place in the Olympic final.
Take a look at the floor and beam routines of Jordyn Wieber and Alexandra Raisman - you will find them at USA Gymnastics' Youtube channel. Mute the music and concentrate on the performance level. Much has been made of Raisman's form improvements, yet I think they are marginal if existent. Neither can I see any improvement in Wieber's work - the leaps still lack extension, the choreography is cursory and, in common with most floor work from the American style, consists of arm waving and foot wiggling. There isn't really time for much else when you are chasing an elevated start value, but what this emphasises then is the inherent line and plasticity of the gymnast, and the inventiveness of the choreography, both of which are severely lacking in both these gymnasts. By the time we get to London, will Alexandra have bettered Jordyn? Will we have Raisman as Olympic champion?
Will the Americans' strategy of emphasising consistency over technique backfire?
*If you want a fuller account of this, try to find the time to read Dr Clive Palmer's PhD thesis on artistry in men's gymnastics - it is available online via the British Library.
Oh my what a strong opinion and article !
ReplyDeleteThanks a lot its good to know that someone strongly support Russian gymnastics in the media
thank you so much for this article! i totally agree
DeleteAlexandrov himself explained that it's not that Americans 'tend' to applaud the strength of muscles over their flexibility, it's just that very few of them work with choreographers in the early stages of becoming a gymnast or if ever, then only for the floor and couple of beam movements. Why? It's enough to look at the couple of past Olympic champs- Nastia is Russian but it doesn't even matter, her coach and Dad is a former Soviet Gymnast- old school. But many of the other top gymnasts in US are coached by former US men's coaches or acrobats (Patterson)- let's face it; here power comes first. Unless you've done gymnastics (I have for 6 years), you won't realize just how much artistry can prove to be a challenge. I never use to have a problem with it, but have seen tears of many girls who were told that their bodies will never extend to the given standard, so may as well try something else with their lives. And it is true. Even with the best choreographers, you wouldn't have seen a perfect leg line or a decent shoulder extension on bars from Johnson. In America, gymnasts work to the best of their physical ability, and it often involves putting power over lines. But it's not only Americans that are to blame for gymnastics starting to look like a robot show. Have we really seen any EMOTION behind the motions of the Chinese? (they are brutally stretched you see from a very young age using methods which would be punishable if they were to happen in US) No. It's just that they are flexible. Artistry is far from just being flexible. Romaninas? Please... The faster the better- that's it, it seems to me. Every time they perform I get a feeling that there is some sort of a secret fire burning their feet. Gymnastics has been going in the wrong direction for a long time now, trying to make things more exciting at first by encouraging difficulty, than to 'save the artistry' more 'dancing elements' were in demand. But let's face it, a leap without 180 is a 0.1-0.3 deduction and flexed feet- less than 0.1. Your hands can do whatever, because the judges won't care. Do a peace sing if you will, there is no deduction for that. I could go on.. What I am trying to say is that the New World of post Soviet era seems to have forgotten the difference between FORM and ARTISTRY. We still cherish it at home though and will despite of all the 'trends' or whatever.. There are gyms in the US that care for FORM and that's as close as it will ever come to American elegance if any of their gymnasts will be lucky enough to climb their way to the top. For now, your article has the best place at the FIG CEO's desk. And go Russia for the Olympic gold! With amanars or not, we've got the charm, we've got the class, we've got the magic working for us!!!
ReplyDeleteGreat piece! I've been following the USA Nationals closely, and in my opinion, the vaulting emphasis IS appearing to backfire already. Aly Raisman, Jordyn Wieber and Kyla Ross had nasty landings on their vaults- Ross so much so in warmups, she vaulted an (excellent) DTY instead in the comp. It truly is a dangerous piece of gymnastics (a fact that has been somewhat obscured by the sheer number of Amanars coming out of the USA these days) and if you ask me, Ross in particular would have been much better off upgrading her floor routine and sticking with her DTY, because that vault for her is an injury waiting to happen.
ReplyDeletegreat article! despite being chinese-american, i hope russia wins the TF this summer.
ReplyDeletePlease, don't even mention the possibility of Raisman being the olympic champion, not on floor and please god NOT in the AA. It's my worst nightmare. Everyone else falls in the finals and she walks away with the gold. PLEASE NO.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we all know that while the americans don't use a bonus system they always overscore their gymnasts in national competitions (not that I think it's a bad thing) and their amanars from VISA, gosh with the exception of Maroney's and Price's they were as scary as it gets especially Raisman's and Wieber's while Ross did not even compete hers because she was having trouble in warmups and their floor scores, (PLEASE), the top 3 (Gabby, aly, Jordyn) all did a great job but they'd never score that high on the olympics. The only wait I'd root for USA for team gold would be if the beautiful Sarah Finnegan (what's your opinion about her anyway?) makes the team. If she is the final performer on floor and win the gold for her team then I'd be thrilled. But if she doesn't, a floor line up of Wieber, Raisman and Douglas(although I love Gabby)? I can't handle hearing crappy floor musics in a row (a eurovision song in the olympics, come on)
Sarah's floor is nicer than Wieber's or Raisman's. But I find her rather stiff - back, legs in particular. I sometimes think these girls are drilled so hard in 'form', that they lose their own natural plasticity.
DeleteSarah Finnegan , the American Anastasia Grishina...
DeleteI hope,Sarah is moe lucky als now and the last years.to improve and give her best.
As a hardcore American fan, I can not explain how biased I thought this was going to be but it is not. I love America's power but I really wish they had more artistry. But I don't blame them for doing what it takes to win. The Americans adapted to the code for winning as the Russians did not. I promise you that if the FIG changed to scoring system, we would see a the Americans changing their routines and using different gymnast. The American juniors are taking a step in the right direction but I still feel America needs more "sparkle" to win over the crowd and judges. As for the routines, I would not be surprised if the US brought out 2 or 3 more tricks for the Olympics although I have to admit I have NO IDEA what the Russian programs will be, and that worries me.
ReplyDeleteGreat Article. I really hope the Russians do well, their thing is to headcase things, they just need to be calm and do their best.
ReplyDeleteAmericans tend to be overscored, especially at their nationals. I don't want the Russians concentrating on the Americans, especially since they have to look out for China and Romania as well, no one knows their routines.
Any links for streams for Russian Cup as yet?
I haven't heard any news about streams but will post a link as soon as possible, if anything becomes available.
DeleteThere is the possibility of daily posts from the stadium by coach Vladimir Zaglada ... dependent on a telephone link so fingers crossed!
Watch this space and I will post links on Twitter (RussianGymnast) and at my Facebook page when news becomes available (www.facebook.com/RewritingRussianGymnastics).
This is a very well written article. The styles are indeed different as a whole. However, I disagree with the Americans having a risk-free attitude. With the Americans high start values I think they take plenty of risks. The difference is the confidence those risks are done with. I LOVE watching gymnasts who look and perform with confidence. I love it as a judge judging the tiny first time competitors and I love it at the elite level. The Americans have so many surefired competitors and it is fun to watch. I hope Russia's girls find that confidence before the Olympics too. They are a joy to watch when their spirits are high and the competitive twinkle consumes their eyes. The problem is I haven't seen that for awhile. Then you look at Ponor and the Romanians - confidence is oozing from them right now.
ReplyDeleteHere's hoping for a great show in London!
Thanks all for your posts and for making this such an interesting blog!
ReplyDeletePlease 'like' my Facebook page, which will help you to keep up with developments.
www.facebook.com/RewritingRussianGymnastics
When you emphasize the 'athletic' advantage, or Amanar vault, of America, you forget it's really Russia who took the lead of this advantage in 2010. They benefited from Mustafina and Nabieva's 'flightless ', poorly executed Amanars and won the worlds. Russia wanted to and did go the simpler, athletic approach of gymnastics once, and succeeded. But did we hear any fuss about Russia going for athletics over artistry and execution back in that time? Not so much even it was so true. And just imagine if Russia kept their vault advantage in 2010, they would have 3 Amanars now, enough to rival Amarica, since only 3 vaults are needed in tf. Then will we talk so much about America's Amanars today and use it as an evidence of how wrong or deviated today's CoP is? Probably not...
ReplyDeleteI do agree with you that gymnastics is going more simplified, because even I, only a fan, can do simple judging of routines after reading the CoP: clean landing, stretched legs, pointed toes, amplitude, hight... I think this is exactly what FIG wants: a universal, transparent, quantitatively well defined code that everyone can understand. It's so important because the last thing we want is overly subjective judging and manipulation of score. Does it mean artistry is not important? Not at all! But you got to admit artistry is itself a subjective matter and hard to define, not to mention quantify. This code however, does manage to quantify some requirements of artistry: confidence, expressiveness, creative choreography, dance to the rhythm...but it can't specify what choreography, what rhythm, or expressing what theme. Otherwise the scores will be at the mercy of judges' personal tastes and easily manipulated if someone or country wants. We all know sports under some circumstances are not all about sports.
Talking about its competitiveness, artistic gymnastics is one sport of the olympics, the biggest competitive sports meet around the world. So even artistry has to be numerically measurable in order to be competitive and fair. In fact, artistic gymnastics is NOT called artistic gymnastics in Chinese, Japanese, or Russian(yes, Russian, who are known for their artistry). It's called 'Sporting Gymnastics' in Russian, 'Competitive Gymnastics' in Chinese and Japanese. Rhythmic gymnastics is called 'Artistic Gymnastics' in Russian and Chinese. FIG changed its code 4 times to reduce subjective judging. Objectivity is really the trend of both gymnastics.
Finally come back to Raisman. Her lack of artistry and execution IS penalized heavily. Look at how low her e score was in this year's jesolo, even her routines were rock solid. Don't look at domestic competitions. But her d score on floor is really formidable now and can compensate her lack of artistry. The new CoP in 2013 will increase the CV on floor to .3 in order to boost the general floor start value. So this is another trend: you can build your routines in 2 ways, either by artistry or difficulty, or ideally, both. Now both ends are open, And neither one prevails the other. FIG is trying to be fair to both good tumblers and dancers. Is American school superior in scoring? But Afanasyeva won the world floor title with beautiful dance over Raisman, the bronze medalist. Mustafina also scored very well with controlled landings, despite her poor form. There is probably no schools. Everyone is just playing the game and utilizing the code to her own advantage, be it dancing or tumbling.
I think your post has many good points but I would strongly query the assumption that scoring has to be objective to be fair.
DeleteThe unquantifiable nature of artistry can be assessed fairly by adopting a framework of qualitative objectivity.
The current Code is useless in terms of evaluating artistry. Over time it has been stripped of the old terms and definitions that gave structure to these considerations.
I do not think it is possible to make sufficient clear deductions for the inadequacies in Raisman's work. There are differences between artistry, form and technique. Raisman has problems on every level. Consistency is not consistency if a gymnast cannot perform a somersault without having a crooked body. Such gymnastics is simply at a lower level and should never score enough to qualify to an international final.
I call it the American school because this movement began in America when Bela Karolyi identified the athletic as a strength of the American girls, one which he could cultivate. There have been many outstanding American gymnasts, eg Phoebe Mills, Shannon Miller, Kathy Johnson and Nastia Liukin. But I think the American system has taken the athletic model too far. Gymnasts like Raisman pursue an SV advantage with no consideration of form, skill, execution, technique, elegance - let alone artistry. It is not China, Russia, Romania or Britain who is pushing gymnasts like Raisman and Wieber forward as a model of a gymnastics Oympuc champion - it is the USA. Coach Karolyi clearly values Raisman highly and doesn't give a toss about her complete lack of elegance.
I acknowledge the Americans as the best vaulters in the world.
I agree that most people are just trying to 'play the code'.
But then the Code is an ass and is leading the sport to ruin. The Americans seem rather to relish the ungainly sport that is thus evolving, while other schools do at least try to acknowledge tge tradition of fine technique and elegance that to so many of us is quintessentially the pure essence of gymnastics without which the sport has no meaning.
You are doing a great job and analyzes! The subject about gymnastics is captivating. Good luck!
ReplyDelete