This picture, of 1985 Soviet World Championships team member Irina Baraksanova, is a symbol of what is now lost to gymnastics as a whole, and Russia in particular. Black and white, the picture was taken at another time when imagery came at a premium, technology was simple and memory and emotion played an important part in documenting sports history. A similar picture taken today might be more colourful and have a sharper focus, but lack the nostalgic significance, the scope to challenge the imagination. For all its lack of precision and technical sophistication, this box brownie snap captures the feeling of a unique moment. Baraksanova, in common with many of her team mates, used floor exercise to tell an enigmatic and gentle story built on line, air and just a little bit of acrobatic magic. The position of the head, the asymmetry of the position, the downcast eyes, all speak to me. She combined grace and power, innovation and tradition to make the extreme difficulty of what she was doing vanish. Virtuoso described her and her team mates.
Oh dear. Perhaps I am just in a sad mood. It is Olympic year and I should feel more optimistic than this. After all, things on the Russian team are looking up. In training for the Olympics are the veterans, Afanasyeva, Mustafina, Komova, Paseka. In reserve are young leaders Spiridonova, Kharenkova, Tutkhalyan. Scaling the walls of the Olympic team are newcomers Melnikova, Kapitonova. And that's forgetting such talents as Dmitrieva, Sosnitskaya, Skrypnik, Shelgunova. For once, Russia has a reserve team!
But what is the point of Russia without that unique artistic identity? Watching the film Faster, Higher, Stronger (a Russian language drama documentary about its sports heroes) I am reminded of the magnificent character, the inimitable originality of the artist Khorkina and her coach Boris Pilkin. She was perhaps the last true artist to dominate the competition arena, though, and gymnastics has changed irreparably since her retirement after the 2004 Olympics. The tail end of Khorkina's legacy limped on in the form of such gymnasts as Viktoria Komova, but the truth is that not even Russian artistry could possibly survive the relentless attacks of the FIG. Precision, power and endurance are now the markers of a sport that once took such qualities for granted, but which now values them to the exclusion of all else. A sport that has always emphasised quality of movement has now become tainted and spoiled by distorted shapes, little line and even less air.
Given the FIG's mindless adherence to its own substandard rules, anyone can now win gymnastics competitions by executing the elements as listed in the Code of Points and avoiding the errors prescribed there. If this means bouncing up and down fifteen times in a row or throwing the most difficult tumble or vault, as long as the gymnast lands in a reasonably competent position, the gymnast will record the score, regardless of what the end result looks like or the relationship it bears to anything else in the routine. It matters not if the vault is dangerous to life and limb, if the jumps are little more than muscled bounces, if the leaps are flat and airless. All that matters is that the gymnast picks 'skills' that she can 'execute' 'without error' and the scores will follow.
The advantage of this is that the 'scoring' is said to be more 'transparent' and 'objective' and 'fair' (all of this is rather contentious, by the way). Another side effect, I might add, is that it requires little thought and judgement from the judges - in fact, why not just replace them with a computer programme? (This idea has been mooted more than once by FIG President Bruno Grandi and might not be a bad idea, considering the length and complexity of the Code and the unlikely expectation that a human can remember all the details, observe critical features such as angle, and write them down, all at the same time.)
The tragic consequence, however, is that women's gymnastics has, by and large, lost its verve. Artistry cannot compete with the mediocrity of a few bureaucrats determined to impose their Utopian vision of uniformity. The only way you can fight these bureaucrats is on their own terms. Sport, after all, requires that you play by the rules. But let's not forget a more universal rule - argue with an idiot, and you will only descend to his level.
So, Russia, can you argue with the idiot, buck the trend, fight the uniformity, maintain your level?
I am always one to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. I admit it, I love them. But I think that the Rio Olympics are probably their last chance. Not just to show that they can fight for medals, but also to demonstrate how artistry can co-exist with this Code.
We have to wait. The Russian Championships for women begins on the 4th April - two weeks' time - and there we hope to catch a glimpse of Mustafina, Afanasyeva, Komova and Paseka. European Championships open on the 1st June. Mustafina is still in recovery from her knee surgery late last year. Afanasyeva has been suffering ankle pain. We do not know how the others are progressing. If these gymnasts made it to Rio as the core of the Olympic team, in good shape, a team medal may well be a possibility. Artistry? There's something intangible about Mustafina's gymnastics, inimitable about Afanasyeva, and then there is Komova with that unrepeatable line and rhythm. So perhaps artistry would survive, for just a little bit longer.
But the veterans' participation in the Olympics is still a moot and distant suggestion, and even if they make it they are the end of an era. Watch the young ones in competition at Stuttgart, and see how Russian gymnastics has sacrificed its artistic identity in an attempt to keep up with the Code. The situation has advanced beyond weak tumbling and vaults, the usual fight our dear Russians have to stay on the apparatus. There are now the endless, awful, Wolf turns, in combination. And, oh, horror of horrors, landing tumbles with arms down. This looks unfinished and ugly even on the graceful Anastasia Dmitrieva. Gorgeous Natalia Kapitonova with all that potential for line, and she does not even use it. The Russian gymnasts are diminished by their attempts to follow these trends and to win on the basis of D - E. They shouldn't even try. They should stick to themselves, to their own interpretation of gymnastics, and give us what we expect, beauty. This is what defines their system and philosophy of sport and by deserting it, they desert what makes them strong.
You can watch all of the routines from Friday's team qualification by downloading the British Gymnastics BGScore app onto your mobile phone or tablet.
Oh dear. Perhaps I am just in a sad mood. It is Olympic year and I should feel more optimistic than this. After all, things on the Russian team are looking up. In training for the Olympics are the veterans, Afanasyeva, Mustafina, Komova, Paseka. In reserve are young leaders Spiridonova, Kharenkova, Tutkhalyan. Scaling the walls of the Olympic team are newcomers Melnikova, Kapitonova. And that's forgetting such talents as Dmitrieva, Sosnitskaya, Skrypnik, Shelgunova. For once, Russia has a reserve team!
But what is the point of Russia without that unique artistic identity? Watching the film Faster, Higher, Stronger (a Russian language drama documentary about its sports heroes) I am reminded of the magnificent character, the inimitable originality of the artist Khorkina and her coach Boris Pilkin. She was perhaps the last true artist to dominate the competition arena, though, and gymnastics has changed irreparably since her retirement after the 2004 Olympics. The tail end of Khorkina's legacy limped on in the form of such gymnasts as Viktoria Komova, but the truth is that not even Russian artistry could possibly survive the relentless attacks of the FIG. Precision, power and endurance are now the markers of a sport that once took such qualities for granted, but which now values them to the exclusion of all else. A sport that has always emphasised quality of movement has now become tainted and spoiled by distorted shapes, little line and even less air.
Given the FIG's mindless adherence to its own substandard rules, anyone can now win gymnastics competitions by executing the elements as listed in the Code of Points and avoiding the errors prescribed there. If this means bouncing up and down fifteen times in a row or throwing the most difficult tumble or vault, as long as the gymnast lands in a reasonably competent position, the gymnast will record the score, regardless of what the end result looks like or the relationship it bears to anything else in the routine. It matters not if the vault is dangerous to life and limb, if the jumps are little more than muscled bounces, if the leaps are flat and airless. All that matters is that the gymnast picks 'skills' that she can 'execute' 'without error' and the scores will follow.
The advantage of this is that the 'scoring' is said to be more 'transparent' and 'objective' and 'fair' (all of this is rather contentious, by the way). Another side effect, I might add, is that it requires little thought and judgement from the judges - in fact, why not just replace them with a computer programme? (This idea has been mooted more than once by FIG President Bruno Grandi and might not be a bad idea, considering the length and complexity of the Code and the unlikely expectation that a human can remember all the details, observe critical features such as angle, and write them down, all at the same time.)
The tragic consequence, however, is that women's gymnastics has, by and large, lost its verve. Artistry cannot compete with the mediocrity of a few bureaucrats determined to impose their Utopian vision of uniformity. The only way you can fight these bureaucrats is on their own terms. Sport, after all, requires that you play by the rules. But let's not forget a more universal rule - argue with an idiot, and you will only descend to his level.
So, Russia, can you argue with the idiot, buck the trend, fight the uniformity, maintain your level?
I am always one to give Russia the benefit of the doubt. I admit it, I love them. But I think that the Rio Olympics are probably their last chance. Not just to show that they can fight for medals, but also to demonstrate how artistry can co-exist with this Code.
We have to wait. The Russian Championships for women begins on the 4th April - two weeks' time - and there we hope to catch a glimpse of Mustafina, Afanasyeva, Komova and Paseka. European Championships open on the 1st June. Mustafina is still in recovery from her knee surgery late last year. Afanasyeva has been suffering ankle pain. We do not know how the others are progressing. If these gymnasts made it to Rio as the core of the Olympic team, in good shape, a team medal may well be a possibility. Artistry? There's something intangible about Mustafina's gymnastics, inimitable about Afanasyeva, and then there is Komova with that unrepeatable line and rhythm. So perhaps artistry would survive, for just a little bit longer.
But the veterans' participation in the Olympics is still a moot and distant suggestion, and even if they make it they are the end of an era. Watch the young ones in competition at Stuttgart, and see how Russian gymnastics has sacrificed its artistic identity in an attempt to keep up with the Code. The situation has advanced beyond weak tumbling and vaults, the usual fight our dear Russians have to stay on the apparatus. There are now the endless, awful, Wolf turns, in combination. And, oh, horror of horrors, landing tumbles with arms down. This looks unfinished and ugly even on the graceful Anastasia Dmitrieva. Gorgeous Natalia Kapitonova with all that potential for line, and she does not even use it. The Russian gymnasts are diminished by their attempts to follow these trends and to win on the basis of D - E. They shouldn't even try. They should stick to themselves, to their own interpretation of gymnastics, and give us what we expect, beauty. This is what defines their system and philosophy of sport and by deserting it, they desert what makes them strong.
You can watch all of the routines from Friday's team qualification by downloading the British Gymnastics BGScore app onto your mobile phone or tablet.
As soon as they rewarded Gabby Douglas with the Gold Medal in 2012, that was the end of artistry - why would any gymnast waste time training to become a dancer when it is simply overlooked by the judges nowadays. Why would any gymnast, for that matter, bother even learning to point their toes...
ReplyDeleteThere's no Olympic Gold Medals for time wasters!
Don't get me on the subject of Douglas. Her FX at America Cup was the most expressionless, robotic piece of work I have ever had the displeasure of seeing.
DeleteMaggie Nichols is almost as bad. They both make Simone Biles look like a consummate artist. At least she enjoys what she is doing, and she does link her moves. So I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.
Elizabeth, I'm curious for your thoughts on this beam routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4DLtI0TBU and this floor routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf40OIKZ630 They are both performances from a Level 8 U.S. gymnast, Mahleea Werline. Her coach recently said that they will not sacrifice artistry in favor of difficulty once she reaches the elite level. She has hopes for the 2024 Olympics! I think they are beautifully artistic routines - your thoughts?
ReplyDeleteIf you care about my opinion:
DeleteThe moves under the beam are quite original tho I don't think she could use them later on unless is somehow on her mount but is that even allow? On floor is always the choreography that I have a problem with the Americans but I really did like some parts where her dance skills shows. Good flexibility, etc.
Now, the question is will she make it? Honestly, I find it hard not impossible but hard. Maybe she and her coach haven't sacrifice artistry (for now) but those who select the team have. She will have to increase her d score in the years to come and that could change the plan. That or she could become a Komova like gymnast or better.
That little girl, Mahleea is a beautiful performer! I love her ballet in the routine on the floor and I would very much prefer this style. Pointed toes, expression, and ballet artistry. Wish her well!!
DeleteWhat are your thoughts on the team from the Netherlands? To me, they seem to be the ones desperately holding on to artistic gymnastics. Thorsdottir, the Wevers, etc...they are the only true artistic gymnasts right now.
ReplyDeleteWow, immediately start bashing the Americans because they adhere to the code. Why not "pick on" a lesser gymnast from another country? Love to hate on Americans! Which is why we love to win. I'm sorry, I love mustafina and komova. But gymnastics has changed and there is NO need to smash the Americans because they keep up!! And PS...they DO take dance, but only for a fee years for the basics needed for GYMNASTICS! I'm glad they keep it exciting
ReplyDelete¿Why? One simple reason, Americans are the perfect and most fittable example for the fact that a gymnast can win without the need to be artistic. ¿Why not to mention other countries? because other countries report at least minnimum strives to construct artistic routines.
DeleteWhy?? Why bash "just" the american? There are so many more gymnasts out there on the elite stage lacking so muuch more dance and eh hem "balletic style" than the Americans. I say this because it seems the balletic style is what the writer is interpreting at artistic. Its true, the waif like gymnasts of days past. Most of then would have lacked the tremendous power needed to accomplish much of today's tumbling. Please...stop referring strictly to the Americans! Why not list Elisabeth black, Canada? The Downey's, england. On and on. This is aimed at the commenter s
ReplyDeleteWhat other style? Please, think before you answer that. Now, I do agree that England, Canada and plenty of Western European countries should be added and not just the U.S.A.
DeleteWow, immediately start bashing the Americans because they adhere to the code. Why not "pick on" a lesser gymnast from another country? Love to hate on Americans! Which is why we love to win. I'm sorry, I love mustafina and komova. But gymnastics has changed and there is NO need to smash the Americans because they keep up!! And PS...they DO take dance, but only for a fee years for the basics needed for GYMNASTICS! I'm glad they keep it exciting
ReplyDeleteThe Americans are leading the way at the moment, which is why we have gymnasts from less successful gymnastics nations mimicking the type of robotic gymnastics that is coached in America and rewarded at the highest level of competition. It is my point that, if you want to win, being artistic will get you nowhere.
ReplyDeleteI don't think anyone is bashing the Americans. They are the most powerful country in the sport now and the Code goes hand in hand with their vision of gymnastics.
ReplyDeleteI have always thought that it is a good code for accountants, and as the Olympic mandate is for more countries to participate, it is a code that can be learned and acted on without prior knowledge of much dance or artistry.
It is very sad for me that the sport has evolved this way. Russia can't hold out for more artistry if it wants government funding, they want medals. The country is very poor and can't throw money away without result. It would be great pleasure to have a return to real artistry and less tricks...but then I am old.
Russian is not very poor. They just don't throw billions and billions of dollars into sports because they have more important things to pay for. Sports is not a huge industry in Russia, things like getting an education and being faithful are much more important in Russian than sports. Sports recieved their funding from the government as you mentioned and the sports that bring the most success and fame for Russia receive the most funding. Just because Russia has other prioritizes as a country than the US, doesn't make it "very poor". I do agree with you regarding artistry.
DeleteThat can be only changed if D-scores priviligeted artistry and not technique.
ReplyDeleteHi Queen Elizabeth, a few weeks ago this NCAA floor routine went viral on the internet. I'm not sure if you've seen it but I'm curious as to your take on it. It is Sophina DeJesus. It certainly is not anything near the same as the classic 80's Soviets, but I suppose what I like about it is that she completely encapsulates the hip-hop style and uses it to emote and express. Sure, her movements might not be quite as soft as say Mustafina, but you can still see her attention to detail and precision in her dance. Perhaps her leaps look a bit chucked, but I think overall it is a progressive but still artistic routine.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efttzj5VtXE
I remember the days when they did not have to calculate the real genius of artistry. It was evident and respected. I remember when Omelianchik burst on the scenes and Titov was so proud and announced to someone I know that they had not had one like her for a very long time, and indeed if you see her beam routine, the rhythm is incredible...no place in the code for this ...again a code for accountants. Artistry is technique plus a bit of soul.
ReplyDeleteI sense a strong bias towards Russia, which is natural. We all are biased in our own ways. However, "artistry" is a subjective term. Honestly, the sport has gotten more difficult over time. Gymnastics has evolved. Routines used to mostly be just about dance, but then women started tumbling and the sport took off.
ReplyDeleteDo not blame the Americans for the lack of artistry. If you have to point fingers, point them at the FIG. They are the ones who ultimately decide what needs to go into a routine. If think that if they had not required the women to stick their tumbling passes, floor exercise would be just as artistic.
'I sense a strong bias towards Russia.'
ReplyDeleteThat isn't surprising. The title of this blog is Rewriting RUSSIAN Gymnastics, and that isn't the only thing you have missed.
I know, it's a Blog for Russian gymnastics, but give me a comment about this, Elizabeth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Utb72mzj9A
ReplyDeleteI personally enjoyed the FX routines of Ragan Smith, Aly Raisman, Laurie Hernandez, Trinity Thomas, Flavia Saraiva, and Emily Gaskins at Jesolo. They were all very energetic, interpretative, and engaging. If we're looking for soviet style gymnastics, none of these girls have it. But what they do have is lovely nonetheless. Personally, I'm most surprised by the amount of choreo in Raisman's routine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JgL7xIxqvQ
ReplyDeleteDear readers Thanks for all the thoughts and links. Of all the routines posted here, Flavia's is my personal favourite. I just do not see how Sophina's work has any real artistic merit beyond entertainment. In no other field of dance or sport are distorted shapes and rushed movement accepted, so why should we encourage it in artistic gymnastics.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the routines posted are of FX and the majority of the comments relate to what is loosely described as 'choreography' or dance, as if this defines the limits of artistry in sport. I have discussed the variety of definitions possible extensively earlier on this blog. As a concept it embraces a variety of qualities across the apparatus, both MAG and WAG and is not exclusively to do with dance, presentation or performance. It bears a relationship to the aesthetic, which is a matter of judgement, and as applied to gymnastics is about a holistic approach, a consummate grasp of technique that takes the sport beyond execution without errors into the realms of expression. Gymnastics is about routines, not individual skills, and it is about refinement and grace so that a double double looks as light and effortless as jumping for joy. It is about a combination of dance and difficulty that flows together seamlessly. Many Soviet gymnasts had power and difficulty that could rival that of many gymnasts today, yet they didn't need to power or muscle through their routines in the manner that is common today. Vault was a field of amazing artistry because of the way that the vaults evolved and the constant quest for innovation. This was also part of artistry. Bars routines were unique and showed a variety of styles and skills. Beam and floor showed a wide variety in approach and content and were individually tailored.
This is a big difference to today when so many skills are repeated and there is such a lack of variety.
I know that the Dutch gymnasts are trying to improve the dance content of their work. This follows on from research published by Oksana Omelianchik into the feasibility of replacing tumbles with turns and other 'dance' moves. Within the context of this Code of Points, it is not without merit, but are these routines winning competitions? We are still restricted in our ability to express by the list of values and the limitations of the interpretation of dance to those items included in the 'menu' of the C of P. Gymnasts and coaches have always traditionally been the great innovators, the ones with the creative imagination. Why desert these talents in favour of a bureaucrat who wants everything to fit into his rather mediocre framework?
Gymnastics was never meant to be calculated. D-E doesn't work as it ignores the intangible A. AG, the FIG and the WTC need to go back to the fundamental assumptions and find another way of satisfying public and bureaucratic demands on their system of marking. Fair, objective and transparent does not have to mean square and inflexible.
Sorry, if I repeat anything already said. I think a good example of the regression of artistry is evident particularly on MAG High Bar. Here is a link to Aljaz Pegan, the last HB World champ under the old code: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKqq8yW-J24 There is a stark difference between his work and common top high bar routines today. Pegan shows such mastery over the bar. His swing is light and smooth, while still maintaining impressive height and power on release moves. Pegan seems to soar through the air effortlessly as if flying. Just look at the way he seamlessly floats through his triple tuck. Even through his pirouettes, he just dances over the bar. Meanwhile, his line is impeccable and is almost always full extended. His works simple inspires awe. This is a true example of virtuosity, going above and beyond the requirements and taking the whole routine to the new level through mastery of technique.
ReplyDeleteCompare this to the current HB champion, Kohei. While I am a big Kohei fan myself, he is still unable to replicate the mastery Pegan demonstrates (not that gymnasts should be seeking to replicate other gymnasts qualities or styles). His skills are big and hard, but he, like most, seems to whip over the bar even if he does manage to get good height on releases. The swing is much jerkier and you can just tell that HB workers today are fighting gravity, not defying. The pirouettes are labored and just happen, nothing more. While watching routines like Zonderland is impressive in its own way and merit, there is something undeniable beautiful about "old school" routines. Routines like Pegan's would not be rewarded today. Gymnasts such as Epke or even Kohei aren't doing anything inherently wrong (some form deductions aside), but Pegan just does everything better.
Artistry does not need to equal ballet. Musicality and dance to the type of music selected can be just as artistic. Not all Russians are artistic. Not all Americans are incapable of artistry. I think Russian gymnastics is beautiful. I think American gymnastics is more athletic and I am entertained by both. I "miss" Russian (Soviet) gymnastics. I miss Ukrainian gymnastics. But gymnastics evolves and that is what is exciting. Back throughout history, we became accustomed to watching the Russian team win everything. That became the standard. I think many people are upset to see USA becoming "the standard" of gymnastics now. It is hard when things change. But gymnastics will change again, and I am excited to see where it leads.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people keep on mentioning the ballet not being the same as artistry?
DeleteWe already know that, however having ballet training can really help with dancing skills.. Don't you think gymnasts like Raisman, Biles and Fragapane would improve their leaps if they took a bit of it?
Now , yes, ballet is not the only way of dancing but, the thing is that that perception is responsible of people thinking ANYTHING is dancing, for example, Sophina.... Sorry, but her routine is just everything that's wrong with gymnastics these days (specially NCAA )
I think is not that the USA is the standard of gymnastics, is that, that standard is pretty ugly to watch haha.
Just to correct a widely held misconception - ballet is not all tutus, toe point and classical music. It is a dance form of all dance and movement forms. If you want to understand more, try this reading - 'Ballet As the Basis for other dance techniques'. It explains how ballet has an application in many contexts, from hip hop to Jazz. It helps you to improve your technique and prepare your body. https://www.nyfa.edu/student-resources/ballet-and-modern-dance/
ReplyDeleteWhy didn't the super flexible Soviets need large muscles to perform their hyper difficult tumbling? (Remember that Priakhina was competing a double double in 1987, and that in the same time period Laschenova was practicing a triple back.) Because they trained technique superimposed on great body preparation, honed to perfection on a basis of ballet technique. They worked every day with choreographers who shaped their work, not just on floor. They weren't allowed to throw moves that were not fully ready. The idea of posture, harmony and balance was embedded in the Code of Points - in a whole section of wording that disappeared not so very long ago.
The film 'Faster, Higher, Stronger' has a section in which Svetlana Khorkina is made to perform her vault blindfold. Ludicrous? Well yes, a little. But it made the point - the gymnasts trained technique and muscle memory, not strength and muscle. This was the approach to the sport, and the Soviets led it.
Thank You! I been saying this forever but you said it a million times better.
DeleteFor me, the most easily and obviously change should be a bonus for new elements showed and new connections showed. Other change, more difficult, should be a bonus for rare elements, rare connection, and original choreography showed in competition, with the QF for base. This would give to audience a diverse and interesting sequence of routines. Is it could be done, Elizabeth?
ReplyDeleteI do not really see how this would work. Maybe others will have something more helpful to say!
DeleteMaybe, it´s only me, but I can see that bonus for new elements without trouble. When the process to nominate one element is open, the element would receive the bonus throughout the year. The bonus would give 0.2 for new elements with value A, B or C, and 0.4 for value D or more, but I’m not concerned about this difference. For me, all new element requires creativity, time, work and risk of injury. It’s simply fair.
DeleteCreating a nomination for combined elements, the bonus for new connections would be possible likewise.
I agree the current code of points heavily favors difficulty over execution and artistry. I do believe the D and E system can work and prefer it over the 10.0 system. The new system is only 10 years old so it can still be tinkered with.
ReplyDeleteThere are some things that could help the difficulty/execution imbalance. I would like to see judges trained on properly executing a 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.5 deduction system for splits, spins, acrobatics and even dance. Have them shown examples of each type on each apparatus. I would also like to see judges have the ability to take 0.05 off for every toe point not properly done. This should have the added benefit of decreasing the chances of ties (especially 4-way ties).
There are ways to improve the system. Russia needs to pool their efforts with other countries who share this ideal when each quad starts and new rules or changes to existing rules are proposed.
Todd
I agree that the current code has a lot more potential to accurately reflect the quality of the routine but would suggest revisions similar to what has been done in figure skating. There is not an arbitrary maximum score for execution any more than for difficulty, and rather than taking deductions, each element is assigned a grade of execution which can be negative or positive, with the individual judges' scores being averaged and weighted to reflect the base value. Then, there is a separate components score that evaluates holistic categories such as choreography, transitions between elements, originality, and interpretation. Difficulty, execution, and overall quality are thus all evaluated and reflected approximately equally in the overall score. It has taken about ten years for the judges to refine the application of the code, but I think it is now pretty clear that it is pushing the sport in the right direction.
Delete