Watching videos of this weekend's competitions - the qualification and all around rounds of the Russian championships, medal winners from the American Cup - I am struck, more and more, by the huge difference between the American and Russian schools of gymnastics. It led me to ask the question : do artistry and acrobatics have to be mutually exclusive?
(I am afraid that I think naming 'American' gymnastics a 'school' is perhaps lending an undeserved dignity to work which has become excessively obsessed with the difficult and the consistent, but I am using the word here so as not to label unfairly those individual gymnasts who are blameless in the direction of their training.)
The FIG's vision for gymnastics is said to embrace more artistry; at least the publicity it has put about on the subject of its new Code makes that fairly plain. So perhaps the Russians, with their inconsistent brilliance and superior body carriage (Mustafina, Komova, Grishina, Afanasyeva) will be able to fight closely with the upcoming new generation of Americans (Ohashi, Biles) whose powerful acrobatic talents and energy are NOT beautifully complemented by the usual aesthetic dimensions of the sport of artistic gymnastics.
Does acrobatics have to stand at odds with artistry? I think not. Let's think of the wonderful USSR sports acrobats who graced the world during the 1980s and 1990s. Despite the focus of their efforts on acrobatics, even the most muscled, statuesque acrobat could perform with artistry. See here, where the powerful base man can perform with grace and line, easily matching Ohashi in this department!
Coach to Carly Patterson, Evgeny Marchenko, somewhere close to six foot tall, shows even greater artistry in this presentation with his pair, Natalia Redkova.
Have the American women taken their emphasis on difficulty, consistency and energy too far? Will they eventually be stymied by a Code which professes to care about aesthetics? The Russians need to find more power and consistency in their tumbling and vaulting, that is for sure; they need to find more mental assurance in the big competitions; but then they are attempting so much more than acrobatics.
Come on FIG, have the courage of your convictions - artistry and acrobatics can be combined - but this does need to be reflected in the way that you mark your competitions. Artistry will, otherwise, die out - for sure.
(I am afraid that I think naming 'American' gymnastics a 'school' is perhaps lending an undeserved dignity to work which has become excessively obsessed with the difficult and the consistent, but I am using the word here so as not to label unfairly those individual gymnasts who are blameless in the direction of their training.)
The FIG's vision for gymnastics is said to embrace more artistry; at least the publicity it has put about on the subject of its new Code makes that fairly plain. So perhaps the Russians, with their inconsistent brilliance and superior body carriage (Mustafina, Komova, Grishina, Afanasyeva) will be able to fight closely with the upcoming new generation of Americans (Ohashi, Biles) whose powerful acrobatic talents and energy are NOT beautifully complemented by the usual aesthetic dimensions of the sport of artistic gymnastics.
Does acrobatics have to stand at odds with artistry? I think not. Let's think of the wonderful USSR sports acrobats who graced the world during the 1980s and 1990s. Despite the focus of their efforts on acrobatics, even the most muscled, statuesque acrobat could perform with artistry. See here, where the powerful base man can perform with grace and line, easily matching Ohashi in this department!
Coach to Carly Patterson, Evgeny Marchenko, somewhere close to six foot tall, shows even greater artistry in this presentation with his pair, Natalia Redkova.
Have the American women taken their emphasis on difficulty, consistency and energy too far? Will they eventually be stymied by a Code which professes to care about aesthetics? The Russians need to find more power and consistency in their tumbling and vaulting, that is for sure; they need to find more mental assurance in the big competitions; but then they are attempting so much more than acrobatics.
Come on FIG, have the courage of your convictions - artistry and acrobatics can be combined - but this does need to be reflected in the way that you mark your competitions. Artistry will, otherwise, die out - for sure.
Then is it ironical that that acrobatic and all-muscled Ohashi of American school is coached by the classical and graceful Valery Liukin of Russian school?
ReplyDelete(1) Liukin was not particularly renowned for his grace, however (2) yes ... I think America is strategically training its gymnasts for difficulty, energy and consistency which has proved to be the most effective way to secure medals but which is also, as applied recently at least, contrary to the FIG's declared vision for the sport of artistry.
Deleteok this is going to be little long and is coming for someone who reads your blog and loves it. but quite simply i think is comes down to the fact that in your mind if is not russian is simply not good enough. and that is fine, but it does not make you someone who is capable of being unbiased when judging other gymnast. to call Ohashi all power and muscle is ludicrous, you can say that about biles no doubt. but to continue with this discussion, to me gymnastics is both the mixture of both artistry and acrobatics. and to me you have to reward both in a equal way. the best gymnast is the ones that combine both in a amazing matter. that is why Mustafina to me is the best all around gymnast of this generation whe she hits and have the difficulty like in 2010, but even she has a moments of ugly gymnastics ( her triple twist on floor, bend knees on her vaults, some bend arms on bars). and that simply just pointing out hers. we can sit here and mention the many other ugly forms of many other russian gymnast, and there is were the problem lays. you cannot simply just point out the weakness of the Americans, Chinese, Romanians, and so on and ignore those of the Russians.
ReplyDeleteto close out. there is a huge amount of ways in judging artistry. a tap dancer, a ballet dancer, and a hip hop dancer definitely dont look the same, but does that mean that all 3 are not artistic. say if you have khorkina, yang bo, raducan, and miller on beam whom would you choose that is more a misture of both artistic and acrobatics.
mather of fact i will make it more interesting. if you put gutsu and komova on floor, who is more artistic in your opinion.
I agree with you anonymous poster! Elizabeth I really do like your posts and follow your blog regularly but the occasional post really irks me. I understand that your blog is erm "polarized" to a strong supporting of the Russian team..heck that's great because if we weren't all intrigued by the Russian gymnasts, why would we be here following the blog? The problem I have is your inability to realistically judge certain situations and instead provide information that is ultimately dramatic and inaccurate. I DEFINITELY see the problem that many of the American gymnasts have. Watching someone like Price or Biles perform is a major turn off for me....that is absolutely what you would say a disgraceful, lack of artistry performance. However, agreeing with this poster, not all American gymnasts are that way. Kaitlyn Ohashi is actually quite a graceful, light gymnast who performs beautifully on beam and floor. I would actually say her tumbling is not that strong...but her turns, leaps and connections are fluid and beautiful. They may still not be equal to that of a couple of the Russian girls, but definitely not what would fit in that category of "power acrobat" in place of artistic gymnast.
DeleteI think there needs to be a way you continue to point out the great strength of the Russian girls AND the strengths of their competitors. Only then can you truly be unbiased in judgement. Or perhaps point out the flaws where they exist and give credit where it is due. I could point out the fact that Grishina fell on her head on vault in the recent Russian championships in the team phase, nearly so on floor, and wobbled on virtually every move on her beam routine in the all around. However I can also be honest in noting her bars looked confident and clean and quite spectacular. When she is clean she is very light and fluid, but her falls are not just the odd day...they are almost scary in terms of safety concerns.
Long winded as well but agree with the poster above me!
Love your site, as you know.
ReplyDeleteBut Ohashi and Ross are closer to what you are calling the "Russian" school.
No doubt Marta is waiting to see if the FIG judges are ACTUALLY going to start rewarding Artistry. I highly doubt it. In that case, you'll be seeing more Americans like Raisman, Biles, etc.
While I don't think Ohashi is specially graceful (I do like her beam, though, or at least her previous years' beam), I have to agree that she belongs to the best America can produce. Of course, their training is different, and it's part of their practical approach, but I'd rather watch her or Bross or Wieber or Maroney instead of other girls with glaring form breaks everywhere, like Biles, Price or Skinner (this quad's Raismans, it seems).
ReplyDeleteOf course I LOVE soviet and russian gymnastics, but if America can't -and, encouraged by the CoP, most likely won't- produce what we call artistic gymnastics, I can bear some Ohashi/Maroney/Ross. If they can achieve the consistency and difficulty that russians can't reach most of the times, I'd rather watch them win than Raisman/Price.
On another topic, what are your thoughts on Gabby Jupp and Victoria Moors?
Thank you all for such interesting comments. I am not ignoring you, just incredibly busy at the moment and hope to get back with a comment of my own soon! (which I'm sure won't surprise you).
ReplyDeleteIn the meantime, any more for any more???
Hi all, Just to say thank you, we all have good points to make here.
ReplyDeletePlease bear with me in my stubborn support of the Russian school of gymnastics. Ohashi is not bad, she has a few interesting poses in her floor routine, but I do not find her an artistic gymnast - any more than I appreciate the work of Evgeniya Shelgunova. Artistry is about more than fluidity and connecting combinations.
But I do want to add that it is a problem when picking out individual gymnasts as examples - except for where the example is extreme. It WAS a bit unfair on Ohashi in this case as my real frustration is felt with the rules, which while deducting for execution errors do not take into account issues of carriage, expression, aesthetic, artistry and provide a bonus when they are all really good. Extreme example : Komova.
I know that some people prefer the athletic, power model of the sport - and I do think that Ohashi is on this spectrum more than she is on the artistic spectrum - but my real point was not to diss Ohashi but to emphasise that it's possible to embrace both athleticism and artistry - we had this before and surely we will have it again, but perhaps not before I enter the retirement home :-)
I acknowledged that the Russians have their limitations in terms of consistency and, sadly, tumbling and vaulting power - yet their (generally) superior artistry does not gain them much advantage while gymnasts like Biles and Raisman achieve high marks in the total absence of any artistry.
Hi Elizabeth,
ReplyDeletevery much appreciate your consistency on this aesthetic issue.....if readers aren't familiar with it, I'd refer them to YouTube....google "Soviet Men's gymmnastics compulsories 1988."
THAT'S what elegant, flowing, aesthetic, arguably never to be surpassed human movement looks like.
LOL here we go again! Just because certain gymnasts have "graceful" moves they think those gymnasts are artistic hahaha! Please, I wont even consider Nastia Liukin as an artistic gymnasts. She may have (more like had) great lines and good jumps but still moves like a god damn robot! I laugh when American fans get all excited when they see a few juniors with good routines, but when they get older they forget about artistry and choose power. I'm sorry, but all of you will probably end up artistically disappointed when those juniors get older. Well, at least you will win again! That's what matters, right?
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who said "Valery Liukin is her trainer", I go to tell you one thing. I see on the internet many American gymnasts bragging about how ex-soviet gymnasts are their choreographers. Just because you have an ex-soviet gymnast or coach as a choreographer it doesn't mean you are going to be graceful and artistic like the Soviet gymnasts were. It all depends on the training that person had as dance teacher.
The Russian artistic training is clearly superior to the American, so comparing their level of artistry is absurd. Now, that doesn't mean the Americans can't come to that level. The only thing they need are good dance teachers and real choreographers. I see it more easy for the Americans getting more artistic than the Russians getting more powerful... They just need to pick some good dance teachers and choreographers from Russia just like they did with the coaches LOL
But that is exactly the point that most of us are really pointing out. most Chinese and Russians have exquisite extension, elegance, flexibility and great lines. but that does not mean they are artistic or the thing to say is fluid in dance. Mustafina and ksenia afanaseva are artistic or fluid in dance, komova is not. sui lu is artistic and fluid in dance, deng ling is not. there is a difference that we seem to miss. but on the other side of coin, i like to see a gymnast who is able to compete the hardest tricks, has power, amplitude, and can be consistent in their execution and that is what the Americans and Romanians are good at. so my question to queen elizabeth is are we looking for all gymnast to be balletic and good fluid dancers or we are speaking about to actually have extensions, flexibility, and elegance and some type of choreagraphy, which is more attainable than expecting every gymnast to be great artistic dancers. to me you cannot put a gymnast like raducan, douglas, ponor, gutsu, or iodarche who may not be as fluid dancers but have a elegance, flexibility, and great form. in the same category as a biles, rainsman, de lo santos, or a shelgunova all power beacuse that they are not.
ReplyDeleteThe question is a lot more complex than can be answered here but artistry has more to it than dance. For example just because Komova's movement is sharper than the others does not make her a less artistic gymnast!
DeleteHow you perceive an aesthetic is learned, based on cultural and educational background. This is why an attempt to educate the jdges is a good thing but I do not think one workshop with Cirque du Soleil will make all that difference. The whole marking framework needs to change to embrace a system of qualitative objectivity - but this us not going to happen in my lifetime. The FIG has scandalously deleted much of the key definitional material in the CoP (1997) which has lead artistry to be sidelined in the marking. I will repost a few key references about some research done into this in the near future at a quieter time so people can read up on it if interested, or you could google 'Clive Palmer' if you want to locate the posts sooner.
The key thing is that there should be a way of rewarding artistry but it will never be rewarded under the current marking scheme and philosophical stance of the FIG. This is why artistry is disappearing from the sport and there are so few examples of consummate artistry to refer to since 2000.
"you cannot put a gymnast like raducan, douglas, ponor, gutsu, or iodarche who may not be as fluid dancers but have a elegance, flexibility, and great form."
DeleteDouglas, Elegant and flexible? Komova, not artistic or fluid? Ha!
"most Chinese and Russians have exquisite extension, elegance, flexibility and great lines. but that does not mean they are artistic or the thing to say is fluid in dance."
That goes for the Americans and some of the Chinese but not the Russians and the Romanians. That's why I put Liukin as an example because she was not train like the real Russians and she is not a Russian gymnast. The Russians actually teach the girls how to dance and not only how to have extension and great lines and look elegant.
You have to be really blind to not see how fluid is Komova and how she actually dances to the music unlike Douglas who waves her arms without rhythm.
you may be in love with komova as a gymnast, but trust me as someone who has taken dance for 20 years, there is nothing artistic or fluid about any of komova routines in the past quad either on floor or beam, none are classics that you will want to watch over again. even her olympic routine that is so glorified just beacuse she actually had a floor routine in which she did not look like she was about to pass out. and i will repeat, she has incredible posture, exquisite lines, and is extremely flexible, but she is not fluid or artistic. very few gymnast in this generation are.
Deleteand yes douglas is elegant, flexible, and has the ability to perform the hardest tricks with a airy quality of ease. she has great form on all 4 aparatus. is she fluid or artistic , absolutely not.
so your problem seem to be that you simply don't like american gymnast unlest they are born to russian parents, or they are train under the russian school as you said, so that means that you love ohashi, bross, patterson, vise whom were all trained under the so call russian school of gymnastics. so that makes every russian gymnast and everyone who is train by a russian coach great fluid artistic dancer. you quite delusional.
by the way go see the floor routines of sui lu, ksenia afanseyva, catalina ponor, sandra izbasa, hanna whelan, victoria moors, and aliya mustafina. and you will truly see who are the true artistic fluid dancers, who actually tell a story with their dance and can compete the amazing tunbling passes at the same time, they were not simply posing and doing great balletic stances and posture that are mix with leaps and tumbling. educate yourself.
it seems like the question here then is do you want a dancer? Should we be at a dancing competition? I understand the need to blend dance moves on floor with tumbling but I think strength and flexibility are a huge part of all four events in GYMNASTICS. After reading so many posts it seems like you are not all arguing for artistry but simply for dance. What you want is a rhythmic gymnast. Artistry doesn't have to be just elegant dance moves, it can be an amazing combination of unique moves as well. There are several gymnasts who may not have a light "dance" like nature but some of the combinations of moves they have on floor are breathtaking to watch...they are unique and not just a finger flicking, hip checking move. You can't help but watch. I think a gymnast like Afanasyva is a great example of that. She is a big heavier and not quite so light on her feet or "balletic" but the uniqueness of her moves that are not tough tumbling are impossible not to love.
DeleteArtistry is not only about dance and can manifest itself across all ten pieces of apparatus (men and women). It cannot be quantified but quantification is only one way of evaluation and is not completely necessary to fair evaluation.
DeleteArtistry does, however, need to be defined into commonly accepted constructs, something that the Code fails to do. There are suggestions of how this could be achieved in the work of Dr Clive Palmer whose thesis has been discussed extensively on this blog. You can google his name or search for articles on this blog if you feel inclined.
At present the Code is not objective - it is a measurable construct of a particular subjective judgement of what the sport should be - it is biassed in other words. And it is completely inadequate to judge (yes, judge, not count) artistry.
Jim Holt above posted a good example of artistry in men's gymnastics.
"yes Douglas is elegant, flexible, and has the abilit..."
DeleteLOL of course, a Douglas fan is coming here to say that Komova is not fluid and that she doesn't have artistry, plus to brag about Douglas' difficulty when Komova had more difficulty on the AA.
How can you even say that Douglas is elegant when she doesn't even have beautiful lines? You get those lines with balletic training or any adequately dance training. You get Komova dancing abilities from good Russian ballet teachers and choreographers.
Sorry to tell you this, but you are not the only dancer here. A lot of dancers and experts in the subject have appreciated Komova for her dance abilities, elegance, and artistry and haven't say a single thing about Douglas or any of the Americans.
You said that artistry is not equal to elegant moves? I agree, there are different type of dances and other ways of artistry, but I don't think other way of artistry than dancing can be perform with gymnastics so that's the one you are going to heard the most.
But I should ask you one thing... What the hell did Douglas do on her floor routine? She used a laud and repetitive song as background and the only thing she did was waved her arms and jump around. Was that Hip-hop like some of her fans claim that it was? I don't think so unless she did a failed version of the robot hahaha!
For someone who claims to have been dancing for 20 years you should know that one of the many things that ballet teaches is fluidity. Of course, the Russian gymnasts are not going to be fluid as professional ballet dancers because they train more on their gymnastic elements than anything else. But they do have fluidity, elegance, flexibility, and artistry and compare to the Americans they are wayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy at the top on that.
"I think strength and flexibility are a huge part of all four events in GYMNASTICS."
You want to talk about artistry in all apparatus? In that case Douglas is way at the bottom with the rest of the Americans! You think her beam is good? You think her connections are good? I still don't know how she got such a high score with so many wobbles and balance checks and no to mention the bend knees, and also the lack of dance skills. The uneven bars, the only thing she did was get high air other than that her score was overrated. Douglas doesn't swing like Komova does on the bars, she doesn't have beautiful connections on the beam either, and her floor besides the tumbling it is a complete disaster and unlike Raisman she doesn't have that much difficulty to made up for her lack of artistry. Vault, Douglas almost when out like Komova meaning that she also doesn't have that much control of the Amanar. That could have gone the same way it did with Komova. So that's three out of four routines in which Komova is better than Douglas in artistry and difficulty. The other two Raisman and Wieber, I don't even bother talk about their beam and even worse uneven bars hahahaha!
I think you shouldn't have brought the FOUR apparatus into this because it turns out worse for the Americans. The only thing they have is a strong vault, difficult elements on beam and strong tumbling. I don't see how they are artistic in general when they don't even have good form with the exception of the vault.
"What you want is a rhythmic gymnast."
LOL and you think Rhythmic gymnastics is only about dance and elegant moves? Go back to your dance studio hahaha!
Of course, the girls are gymnasts and they are not training only for the dance when they have to train in every single apparatus. The dance training however is not only good for the dance, the lines, flexibility, and elegant moves, but also for the form and control of the body.
"your problem seem to be that you simply don't like american gymnast unless they are born to Russian parents, or they are train under the Russian school as you said, so that means that you love ohashi, bross, patterson, vise whom were all trained under the so call Russian school of gymnastics."
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understood my comment. I said, it doesn't matter if your coach is from Russia or if it was a Soviet gymnasts or an ex-soviet coach. If that coach doesn't have what it takes to adequately train girls in the artistic department, then those girls are not going to be near as good as the Russian. Which is the reason why I don't consider Nastia liukin who was born from Russian parents and trained under the "Russian style" artistic like a bunch of American fans do. Also, the reason why I don't like any of the girls you mentioned because they are not train under the real Russian school.
Now, I'm not saying that Russians are the only ones capable to artistically train their girls. You go to Europe and you will find other girls that are just as good as the Russians, but what do they have in common? They have the proper dancing and artistically training. Balletic training to be specific. They actually have dance teachers, choreographers and coaches that know how to do it all properly.
What do the Americans do? Get a coach that "knows about dancing and artistry", get a terrible choreographer, and go to a cheap dance studio. They think that's enough but it is not. They think that just by having some dramatic moves they are being artistic. No wonder why American fans think Bross is artistic hahahaha!
Again, I think the Americans can be artistic, but that will only happen if they really want to because relying only on the coach and going to some dance studio it is not going to do the job.
first make me address the fact that i am not a Douglas fanatic, i have clearly stated that Mustafina is my favorite gymnast because of her amazing ability to combine power, artistry, and execution. but because i love her does not make me blind to her weaknesses. second in no moment did I stated that bross was artistic, i was being sarcastic with my statement about her being train by a russian coach therefore making her artistic. i also am able to enjoy gymnast like, Iordache, jinnan, Douglas, and Moors because i am not monolithic. i am a complex individual who is able to see all the gray areas, i am able to be unbias, when most of you guys cannot be. is either black or white and one size fits all mentality. the discussion was about artistry vs acrobatics. and my statement was that most gymnast in this generation are not artistic or fluid performers. they are not able to sell a floor or dance routine with the elements of telling a story and giving a performance, like those gymnast in the 80's and the 90's. my whole point was that this generation is not fluid in dance. it does not come natural, or effortless or seamlesly. very few of them are able to keep a dance count or the ability to hit a move in conjunction with the beat of the music. they see the choreography as somenthing that is just done to achieve a purpose ( which is the tumbling passes), and i proceeded to name the gymnast that are able to do the artistry and also combine the acrobatics elements that are part of the CoP. Queen elizabeth point was that artistry should be rewarded more, or she felt that it was not rewarded enough which is a valid point. but you cannot blame a gymnast that is simply following the rules that are establish in the amount of requirements that have to be done and the time frame in which they have to be comleted. my fear with this was that artistry is very HARD to quantify, reward, or judge because it really is define by the expiriences and culture of the person that's doing the judging. and i use the example of a hip hop dancer, a ballet dancer, and a tap dancer in which all are artistic but some may find that they dont like tap, or hip hop, or ballet and therefore not reward them porperly.
ReplyDeletemy next point which i may have not express porperly was that gymnastics chose to focus more on the acrobatics and to focus a little less on the artistry, because it was easier to quantify and score the acrobatics elements being performed than those of artistry. they have done this by taking out the compulsary stage that existed before. therefore eliminating the necesity of hiring a choreagropher, and by also introducing things like sticking the landings and not lunging bwds, or eliminating too many hand movements or hand swinging. in little words they have followed the MAG style of gymnastics and i basically think they did it to avoid the things that are affecting the sport of figure skating at this moment in which you reward someone who is so artistically gifted and amazing in the subtle and intricate parts of the choreography, but is unable to execute the elements that are considered to make the sports a actual sport and not a dance competition and you end up creating controversy that eventually kills a sport.
another point is that in many countries the gymnast family is economically responsable for their training, the goverment does not provide for them, even if you make the national team you are still are not giving enough economic support, unless you have sponsors to help you. so if you can hardly pay your coach, and buy your leothards, and pay for transpotation. how are you going to afford a choreographer or dance lessons.
but some oof you want to make this a all USA gymnast are not artistic and all Russian gymnast are ballerinas. or a komova versus douglas thing. which is not was being discuss
With the code that we have right now it is impossible to have routines like we had in the 80's and 90's. And yes the actual routines are not that fluid, but the point is that the ability to do those routines still there. Perhaps the Russians can not perform as good as the Soviets once did, but I'm sure that Komova, Mustafina and the rest of the Russians could do it under the old code. I think anyone would because people wouldn't concentrate only in difficulty.
Delete"i use the example of a hip hop dancer, a ballet dancer, and a tap dancer in which all are artistic but some may find that they dont like tap, or hip hop, or ballet and therefore not reward them porperly."
Am I still talking with the person that has been dancing for 20 years or are you a different anonymous? A judge and a teacher that doesn't like a type of dance? Why would you put such thing to judge in the first place? Hahahaha! I'm sorry but I don't see how this could be such a brainier! Dance elements, form and position should be awarded according to the performance. We already have that, and the dance should be judge with the rhythm or simply if the gymnasts is actually dancing to the music instead of just having background music like most of the Americans do.
The judges don't even have to like a specific type of dance in the first place because they are no judging the type of the dance. They are judging if you are correctly doing the dance and any expert in dancing should be capable to do that. The interpretation itself is something that should not be awarded because that's up to everyone's single taste, but the fact of a girl actually interpreting the music should be awarded.
For example: We have Izbasa's 2010 floor routine vs Raisman's London routine. Izbasa, beautiful and Raisman, ugly routine. Now, people will argue that it is not fair to award over beauty and ugly, but the difference is that Izbasa actually danced, tumbled, and did the dance elements according to both songs she used. Raisman, did no dance to the music. She did not interpreted the music. She only had background music while she waved her arms and jump around just like Douglas and Wieber did as well. She stood in the middle and when the music got fast she waved her arms. You can take that as interpretation, but that is the only thing she did and the rest was ignore. That it is not interpretation which it means no points awarded for that, simple.
You also have Olga Strazheva's 1989 floor routine as another example. Her dance doesn't come close to the definition of beauty, but it is not suppose to be beautiful or elegant. It is suppose to be creepy, mysterious, and powerful. Anyways, some people call it ugly while others think is the best thing ever, but the point is that she interpret the music and she didn't do something out of place or lacked movements and did the dance elements correctly.
Continuation:
Delete"If you can hardly pay your coach, and buy your leothards, and pay for transpotation. how are you going to afford a choreographer or dance lessons."
Well, I don't think this is a problem for the Americans even if they were short on money. I heard that back in the 70's one of the American girls (I forgot her name) learned how to dance by herself and believe me she is one of the few Americans that I actually like just over the fact that she cared about artistry and presentation. Of course, back then that mattered and it was strong part of gymnastics. Still, you can see how determination and just caring makes a huge difference. It worked for her so why it can't work for the present girls now? Having good dance teachers and choreographers helps a lot, but if you don't have them, then the only option you have is to work extra to put out something good. But then again why would you work extra over something that is not awarded? And that's how you tell who cares or not over artistry and presentation in general. I think if the Russians would only care about gold they would have thrown artistry away and concentrate only in difficulty.
"some oof you want to make this a all USA gymnast are not artistic and all Russian gymnast are ballerinas."
Oh, no! We do think Americans are artistic... in a terrible and disgusting way that you want to take your eyes off and then kill your self after witness such abomination that is hahahahaha! Nah, just kidding we do actually think they are not artistic unless someone thinks jumping and waving the arms around without fallowing the music can be considered as dancing or artistic.
The Russians, who says they are ballerinas? I think only the American fans who are obsessed with difficulty say the Russians are ballerinas in some kind of "offensive" way because the rest of the world simply calls them ARTISTIC GYMNASTS. The Russians dance abilities doesn't come close to the real ballerinas after all, they are gymnasts and train more on their gymnastics elements. If we would wanted to see ballerinas then we would be stuck in the theater instead of our computers watching ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS.
"or a komova versus douglas thing. which is not was being discuss."
LOL and I'm the one who brought Douglas into this? I don't even bother to talk about her or any of the Americans if they are not brought into the conversation by someone else. You or the other Anonymous brought Douglas and the others into this. Are you talking about not being "bias" and more open towards other gymnasts even though you are the one who rapidly accuse me of being a Komova fan? That I "love her"? Are you calling me blind and a monolithic? Please don't be a Hypocrite. If you were actually that, then you would be capable to see that Komova is fluid and artistic something that a lot of people agree of instead of accusing me of being "in love" with her.
You don't have to like everything in a gymnasts to appreciated them. I mean, I like the vaulting, the difficult elements on beam, and the tumbling of the American team, but there is nothing else for me to appreciated because is not even there. I don't see the artistic side so how can I appreciated? The problem with the Americans is that they don't have the right SKILLS to be artistic. I can appreciated their acrobatics but no their non existent artistry. Maybe just Raisman's chicken flight.
Do not want to get involved in what might be a personal discussion ...
DeleteBut I think there are two things going on here.
1 An understanding of choreography and the importance of choreography. It is not just dance composition, it is a whole approach to the sport, and the fact that the Russian girls work with choreographers daily from the very beginning of their careers is one of the things that makes the artistry of gymnasts like Afanasyeva and Grishina possible. I understand that the immersion of choreography within the sport is not something that happens in the USA - perhaps at elite level, once a gymnast has risen, but not at the beginning - by which time it is too late to instil the expression, feeling and basic body carriage which is so fundamental.
2 It is a matter of fact that the Code, and hence the sport, has changed. Abolishing compulsories, deleting certain passages of the Code which related to the evaluation of routines, introducing the open ended marking system have led to a gradual degradation of the importance of artistry to scores and hence artistry has all but disappeared from the sport. It does generally survive in Russia because the system remains pretty much the same as during the Soviet era, and because the classical approach to body comportment and so on is part of Russian cultural heritage.
The Russian team and a few isolated individuals continue to try to superimpose their classical approach onto the athletic model of the sport that now predominates, but they do not receive any benefit for it in their scores. I find it really sad to watch the floor routines of a gymnast like Gabrielle Douglas, or Alexandra Raisman, being scored on the same level as gymnasts like Afanasyeva and Komova, as the latter two gymnasts bring an extra dimension to the sport that is totally absent in the former. two, are attempting to do so much more.
But the reality is that the Code of Points has developed in such a way as to allow participation and medal winning by gymnasts from around the world and not just Russia. I think the Code has been used as a blunt instrument to kill off post Soviet Russia's dominance of the sport and to open the door to the US gymnasts to do better. Such a pity another way of 'democratising' the sport couldn't be found that might encourage the sport to take into account its visual and aesthetic aspects.
A totalitarian state shaped gymnastics in its own image and dominated the sport for 40 years, creating an art form of great beauty in the process. A democratic state came along and destroyed it, all with the aim of winning medals.
I do not like it. But it is an existential reality that the sport has changed, no longer can the classical beauty of Russia win, it's so much easier to stick the landings, be consistent and avoid deductions than it is to create unique routines that exploit expression, physicality and technique. The athletic, acrobatic nonesuchness of America and its ilk has won.
In discussing the sport we do not have to go along with the dominant culture. Even if the Code of Points has changed, let's not stop thinking.
PS A good definition of choreography here : http://realresult.com/
DeleteClick on the 'why' and go to the section on definition.
Natasha now works in the USA - as a freelance choreographer - I do not know if she has a permanent position at any particular club, so presumably her influence is spread wide and thin.
I understand that it is not a dance competition, but when people start talking about artistry in gymnastics somehow, they try to put dancing away even though you can't put it away. I understand that artistry is also about showing personality, style, and feelings but how else can you do that in gymnastics?
DeleteI understand that a lot of people think the dance itself is not important anymore under this code (I still think it is and I don't care about the code) since their is barely any dancing on a 1:30 minute routine, but the training is what teach the skills to express personality, style, etc. in all of the apparatus. Again, I can't really think of another way of teaching or performing all of this in gymnastics. I mean, even those who don't put a lot of effort on artistry will take the dance approach when they think is necessary.
I agree, it is unfair that gymnasts that spend years in training to express all those things through their gymnastics have to be judge and award just like those who don't bother and think that just by paying a choreographer with their college money to get something good before the Olympics and smile the whole time they are showing personality and being artistic.
That's not being artistic or showing personality... That's just getting the job done.
Artistry is about more than dance though, it is an attitude and an aesthetic across 10 pieces of apparatus, men and women. It is about evaluating whole routines, not calculating start values and making deductions.
DeleteI think that what has happened is that ad the Code of Points and the sport has changed, a new generation of gymnastics participants and fans has grown up who were never exposed to the classical model. Appreciating a particular art form depends on exposure to it and this new generation simply can't see artistry through no fault of their own. If you like dynamic tumbling the sport today is OK, but if you have had a large dose of Soviet gorgeousness, it will never be wuite the same again.
It's intriguing and I think it's no good fighting about it - if you like tumbling and a bit of stiff dance, that's OK, the sport suits you fine.
By the way you say there is no time for dance on floor and beam. That is one of the problems with an open ended Code. However, the better artistic gymnasts like Iszbasa, Uchumura,, Afanasyeva and Komova do manage to express artistry in their work.
the problem here lies in the fact that it goes behond simply saying. oh i am going to learn how to dance on my own, or taking the time to simply to put a suitable dance routine. it lies in that what you or i may find artistic, others may not. that you can be artistic and still have horrible form on your vault, on bars, and on your tumbling passes on floor. the problem is how much points should artistry gain you. the problem is that the code has gotten harder, in which harder tumbling passes(4) are necessary in order to achieve a greater degree of difficulty in the same amount of time that other gymnast in the past who only had to do 3 and who had greater freedom in creating thoses passes to suit their styles. second my problems lies in still using the Russian school of gymnast has the acceptable form of artistry in the mind of many is not acceptable to me.
Deletethird is that i have a problem with a gymnast who can be as artistic has she can be, but is not consistent in executing a routines or connecting the skills correctly. or with someone who relies only solely on artistry and cannot hit four routines in one night. is still a sport and execution applies to more than form.
and last is that is not easy to judge artistry and we will continue to always have this discussion over and over again in every olympic cycle about artistry versus acrobatics. silivas vs shushunova (still the best all around competition in the history of gymnastics in my opinion. silivas routine on floor still gives me goose bumps and I was 8 at the time)but she got beat by someone who was considered more acrobatic. miller vs gutsu( miller was considered more artistic and to have better form). podkopayeva vs gogean. khorkina vs patterson, johnson vs luikin. douglas vs komova. and we will continue having this discussion over and over.
the answer is simply is ebbs and flows according to the times.
But who says we don't look at all those things you have mention? The falls, the bad form on vault, etc. The topic was on how artistry is practically gone from the code and not how it should be the main aspect in artistic gymnastics or that acrobatics should be ignore.
DeleteRegarding to Silvas and Shushunova, I think Silvas had always been artistically overrated and Shushunova underrated. People talk about Silvas like she was just as artistic as Oksana Omelianchik and Shushunova as bad as the Americans. I think both were a fine combination of artistry and difficulty. Perhaps, Shushunova's routine was not that feminine or pretty, but you can't denied the fine control she had over her technique. Also, you forgetting that Silvas was also very acrobatic or she wouldn't have been head to head with Shushunova.
The discussions and the controversies don't end because the code allows it. If the code would correctly award and deduct difficulty, artistry, and execution, then we wouldn't be having all this.
I take on board all you say about the need to evaluate form and execution but why does that have to exclude artistry, as it does?
ReplyDeleteThe reason the Russian classical style is so often referred to as the epitome of artistry is that it was the dominant influence during the widely acknowledged heyday of artistic gymnastics, during the 40 years from 1952-1992, and a little beyond that. The Russian team is the main one to have carried this heritage forward into the present day. It is founded on ballet, which is less a style, more a fundamental requirement of dance and movement.
So often it is simpky body alignment that makes one gymnast look better than another - something that is developed by daily training at the barre from early days. The Soviets recognised the importance of this to gymnastics and emphasised it not only in their training but also in their approach to the judging and Code of Points. This has in turn become the general heritage of gymnastics and the legacy of it can principally be seen in the work of the Russian gymnasts. However the Code has largely annulled its influence on the scores so other countries without this approach embedded in their system ignore artistry resulting in raw gymnastics like that presented by Douglas and Raisman winning Olympic gold medals
my first point is that to me Queen Elizabeth, Douglas and Raisman are not the same type of gymnast, and there is were the problem lies, because we tend to bunch them together simply because they are both Americans. you cannot compare Douglas form and execution to Raisman raw power and ugly form. Douglas is cleaner, elegant, has great form on all 4 apparatus and performs the hardest tricks with ease and amplitude. there is nothing that she does that relies only on power just like Patterson. what they both lacked as you say is that balletic foundation. but just because they lacked a balletic foundation we must negate everything else that theye were good at. and what about the Romanians and the Chinese whom gymnastics is definitely not born out of a balletic influence, and can create amazing gymnastics equally. they are not good enough, or is that raw gymnastics because is not base in the Russian classical style and tradition. that is unfair and completely arrogant and self centered mentality.
ReplyDeleteso when we see a vault by Maroney in which she is straight as a pencil, no bend knees completely clean and high in amplitude, and we see a vault by Mustafina who I adore but whom always has that right knee bended and not the best form in the air, what do we do with that or say about that. her form is ignored because she happens to be Russian. so a balance beam routine by Sui lu and Deng Li is not as good as Komova, is condired Raw Gymnastic. and if you put Gutsu vs Komova, is Gutsu gymnastics also raw gymnastics, because lets be clear there was nothing balletic about any of her routines compared to Miller in 1992. and she is the soviet gymnast that actually has created this new type of gymnastics that you call raw gymnastics. in which a high level of difficult executed without mistakes trupms the artistry, were was the complain back then Queen Elizabeth, is a doble standart, was it ok because she was part of the Soviet Gymnast.
Douglas and Raisman are both gymnasts who have benefitted from the Code's - and the judges' - general insouciance about artistry.
DeleteI did not say that form etc do not matter, but that artistry is one of the component parts that should be taken into account alongside factors such as form and execution, but which is degraded under the current approach taken to 'judging' the sport.
I agree that some (not all) Romanian gymnasts and China's gymnasts have a style all of their own. I think you will find that they follow ballet basics during their training, but the expression is shaped by their own cultural heritage and in China's case is often difficult to interpret for a Western audience. China's tradition has more to do with circus; Romania draw heavily on their folk traditions. I do not exclude some of them from the 'and others' any more than I say that all Russians have a great aesthetic. All I say is that the cultural heritage of Russia is the dominant influence on the style of aesthetic that dominated the sport during its artistic heyday, that that influence continues strongly in the Russians today.
There was no internet in 1992 when Gutsu won the Olympics - none of us had the voice then to have discussions as we can today. I would agree with you that she was one of the less artistic and aesthetic of the Soviet champions. However, in my opinion we had to wait another four years before Shannon Miller began to express the best of artistry in her work. I would disagree with your implicit suggestion that Gutsu takes the blame for Raisman!
Douglas and Raisman are two different gymnasts. Douglas concentrates more in execution instead of just difficulty like Raisman, but she is not elegant or has artistry at all. I don't understand where you see the elegance in Douglas. No really, I think David Belyavskiy has more elegance in his fingers than Douglas hahaha!
DeleteDouglas has just taken the safe way, but that doesn't make her artistically better or any different than Raisman. It is just like lowering down Raisman difficulty make her work on execution, but the rest doesn't change. You still have robot.
"Chinese whom gymnastics is definitely not born out of a balletic influence, and can create amazing gymnastics equally."
Huh, have you seen the Chinese and the Romanian training? It is true that some of them have their own style, but ballet is there now on their training. Just look at the Chinese training. They do ballet.
"were was the complain back then Queen Elizabeth, is a doble standart, was it ok because she was part of the Soviet Gymnast."
First, there was not such a thing as "nothing balletic", even Gutsu had balletic training and you can see that in her form and lines. She may have been less balletic and artistic than other soviet gymnasts, but she wasn't completely out of the style.
Second, I won't even call her gymnastics "Raw" when she performed everything correctly with the exception of one mistake on her first tumbling pass on floor. You are underrating her artistry, form, and execution too much for your own convenience.
Third, you are giving to much credit to Miller. Yes, she was very artistic in fact I like her better than Gutsu and I think she is the best American gymnast and that she is way better in artistry than Nastia Liukin even though she is "Russian" and trained under the "Russian style", but calm down because her routines doesn't compare to other Soviet/Russian and Romanian routines. She was good enough to artistically beat Gutsu in 1992, but that's something Gutsu's own team mates were also capable off and also of beating Miller. Also, we are talking about a time when artistry did matter for everyone including the Americans. They were artistically acceptable even on their own cheesy way (freaking American 80's cheesiness).
Continuation:
DeleteFourth, a "black sheep" like Gutsu can't defined the Soviet Style that was establish by hundreds of Soviet artistic and powerful gymnasts and one girl like Miller and another like Liukin can't define the American style when practically almost every American gymnasts have opted for the difficult and non-artistic style through the years.
Yes, no every gymnast is the same or is under the same style, but we are talking about the actual american predominant style and that happens to be the non-artistic one and just like Raisman and Wieber, Douglas falls under that one.
Finally, why don't you compare Gutsu with Douglas instead of Komova? Hahaha! Is it because you can see how bad Douglas is? Please, the present Americans are that bad that they can't even beat Gutsu on artistry and elegance hahaha!
I pick David Belyavskiy. I want to see him dance and also on the beam. That will be more beautiful to watch hahaha! Oh, yeah!
Lol no i was not saying that Gutsu is responsable for gymnast like Raisman (who like everyone i simply do not like her gymnastics). but she is the base for gymnast like Douglas, Patterson, Iordache, Cheng Fei, Raducan, on so on. these gymnast as you said are less artistic and balletic, but perform the most difficult elements with elegance, good form, amplitude, and consistent execution.
ReplyDeleteI also understand your point in that artistry is important, but i believe that you feel is not valued high enough, and that is were i dont think we are agreeing. what i would agree with, is that the judges are not consistent in deducting someone like Raisman in the execution part for her bad form. the reason i feel that it's valued high enough is that in my opinion Komova is considered the best gymnast at the moment ( I disagree I feel is Mustafina). she enters every competition as the favorite. were she fails in, is her lack of ability in executing when it matters most. she would have beating Douglas, if she had not completely botch her vault. she would have beating Weiber, if she would have stuck her landings and finish that turn in her dance routine. I feel at times that people some how think that the medals should be awarded to her even if she does not execute or performs to the level of her competition at the moment. artistry should not be able to save you if you do not execute or if your level of difficulty is not up to par.
i will use another sport as a example. i don't know if you follow figure skating. but Patrick Chang is what we will call the Komova in male figure skating. he is heads above the the others skaters when it comes to having the artistry and the difficulty in his jumps in his programs. when he hits i agree, that he should beat anyone. but he falls 3 times on his jumps and still beats someone who comitted almost no errors, and performed above him. he is given the gold medal because he is considered more artistic. that does not fly when it comes to sports. you have to execute and and be consistent, is not good enough to be good on paper if you don't hit when it matters, then why have a competition.
Wel I think that argument of the relative weightings is one of opinion. It is the dominant philosophy behind this Code of Points and has resulted in a much less attractive sport. I suppose the only way forward, if you were coaching the Russian team and agreed, would be to abandon the principles of ballet and spend more time on consistency etc. Yet gymnastics is a culture of movement, so why should it not conform with the fundamentals of movement? The Soviets practised far higher levels of difficulty and originality in their routines than is common in gymnastics today and managed to do so with artistry. Yes, you see more quantity and variety of acrobatics in the sport today but the individual moves of greater and greater complexity are becoming as rare as hen's teeth. On thecwomen's side Nabieva stands out. I think the men's side is much less affected. But you only have to look at injury rates to understand why the Soviets stuck with their classical model. Requiring such a significant quantity of content in routines puts an incredible stress on the body as well as making routines look choppy. More follows.
ReplyDeleteBut the Russians and certain others attempt to.maintain touch with the classical tradition and as such are acknowledging the importance of a culture of movement that adheres to a fundamental aesthetic. As such they are trying to do.much more than others who merely satisfy the requirement of no errors and they should receive recognition for this.
ReplyDeleteI fully appreciate that there is an element of artistry in powerful tumbling and stuck landings. But that is sports acrobatics, which is skill led, not gymnastics which is structured as routine led, with individual skills adding up to a routine which is greater than the sum of the parts. This is where the Code is letting the sport down. There is no appropriate consideration of routines as a whole and their aesthetic. You can even see this in the structure of the Code.
In response to your comments re Gutsu, Douglas etc all the changes in the sport have been gradual and incremental - there hasn't been a sudden overnight change. You can see the future shape of gymnastics in Kim Zmeskal's 1991 gold medal over Boguinskaia. Now that really is where you begin to see the destruction of a aesthetic in favour of raw gymnastics.
Apologies for the typos, I am writing this on my phone :-). Pkease could you all be so kind as to put a name in the body of your posts if your user name doesn't appear elsewhere. This will enable users to respind to individual posts more clearly, perhaps using the @ icon.
ReplyDeleteTalking about Komova I had always say that it was her fault for messing her vault, but not because she wasn't capable to pass Douglas on the other three apparatus, but because she gave room for the judges to not let her win. Let's face it everyone thought she was going to surpass Douglas after her bars routine, but it didn't happen. Douglas got over scored on bars and beam. The judges secured her win after Komova mess up her vault.
ReplyDeleteKomova was better than Douglas in the other three apparatus and she was suppose to surpass her and that's the reason why I think she should have won and not only because of her artistry.
"Patrick Chang is what we will call the Komova in male figure skating."
Please somebody hold me!
I'm sorry but that's something you have made up! I have never heard such thing before and that's because Chang's case is different. One, nobody wants Chang to win with exception of the federation. Two, he is not the only artistic skater. Three, even those who have a lot of difficult jumps and good execution have artistry because they are not like the Americans gymnasts who don't have artistry at all. Four, the federation has changed the rules in order to destroy the Russian male dominance in this sport and have Canadian and Americans champions instead.
They give the lack of artistry excuse or the lack of transitions excuse even though powerful jumpers like Plushenko have artistry and transitions. If they really would want to have an artistic figure skater champion, then Johnny Weir would have won a lot of medals by now, but I guess they don't want a gay guy either.
Artistry is located in ART's domain, and acrobatics, well, that is mere ENTERTAINMENT... I'm not a gymnastics expert, but I'm a writer and a poet and I think I know one or two things about ART...Despite gymnastics is, first of all, a SPORT (with all the things involved around this)the artistry criteria should be respected. Art is a matter of CONCEPTION, DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION...but with aesthetic criteria prevailing in every step. It is a fact that gymnasticas is today much more complex and acrobatics-oriented than three decades ago, it has gained as spectacle but not much more...The high artistry standards from mid 70's to 90's seem to have changed in favor of look-how-I-jump-everywhere-everytime standards. I understand that Bars, Beam and Vault necessarily implies acrobatics and for a non trained eye this is the most visible quality on them, but Floor (to me, the REAL THING)is, probably, the most suited event for showing and developing artistry... I love russian high-artistic gymnastics level, USA style is mmmmm.... I think, Romanian team(despite the last times troubles) has found the right mix of artistry and acrobatics...My all time favorite gymnast is Boguinskaia, but very close to her are Pavlova and Ponor (altough she did not bars)...
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about class, watch the Russian and the Romanian leg position when they stand on the podium for receiving the medals or when they are presented and watch the American girls how they stand :) I've watched today the finals on beam and floor from Antwerp. I could have bet that the Americans girls (Ross, Biles, Maroney) would not stand as Mustafina, Iordache, or even Vanessa Ferrari.
ReplyDelete