I make no apologies for publishing the picture comparisons on this page, which were created by Lifje. Some have seemed to find them rather challenging in the past, but they are not airbrushed or altered in any way. Yes, the pictures are purpose selected for the sake of comparison, but they express a truth about the direction the sport has taken over the past few years. They are not so much about Russia versus America as artistry versus athletics. I do not pretend that Russia today owns artistry in the same way as it once did. Gymnastics has been subject to mass migration since the downfall of the Soviet Union, and as Carter (2011) says, this migration brings with it changes to the cultural form of any sport, resulting in a 'transformation of [its] meaning and value' (p. 189). The Soviet/Russian tradition has survived better in its home than anywhere else in the world, while American gymnastics epitomises the powerful, athletic style that is now the winning model of the sport. Lifje's comparative collages speak more clearly than thousands of words. Just use your eyes.
I have been meaning to reflect on the state of women's artistic gymnastics following the victory of Simone Biles in Antwerp this autumn, but finding it very difficult as the terms of reference within the sport have changed so significantly, even just in the past decade since the imposition of the additive Code. It seems to me that the sport has turned a corner, away from the lyricism of the past, towards a very large question mark in the future. I like Biles; in my opinion, she is a pure and honest expression of the American school of gymnastics, the best gymnast America has produced by far to date, and perhaps their best ever. Her power, spontaneity and energy is, in its own way, as charming as the chutzpah and intricacy of Omelianchik.
I have been meaning to reflect on the state of women's artistic gymnastics following the victory of Simone Biles in Antwerp this autumn, but finding it very difficult as the terms of reference within the sport have changed so significantly, even just in the past decade since the imposition of the additive Code. It seems to me that the sport has turned a corner, away from the lyricism of the past, towards a very large question mark in the future. I like Biles; in my opinion, she is a pure and honest expression of the American school of gymnastics, the best gymnast America has produced by far to date, and perhaps their best ever. Her power, spontaneity and energy is, in its own way, as charming as the chutzpah and intricacy of Omelianchik.
I do wonder, though, what will come next, and whatever happened to the deductions for those oh-so-enormous hops on every floor landing (Simone reminds me of Diane dos Santos in this respect). In 1987 Soviet Alleftina Priakhina performed the double double somersault in her floor exercise at the Moscow Europeans. She never landed it perfectly, and was never the USSR's most graceful gymnast. Trained by Mikhail Klimenko in Moscow after an early start in Almaty, where she had worked with the young Oleg Ostapenko, Priakhina expressed the spirit of innovation that was prevalent in Soviet sport at the time. 1989 World Champion Svetlana Boguinskaia also briefly toyed with the double double, but was forced to drop the move in order to elevate her all around skills to the level that earned her legendary status in the sport.
Difficulty was rewarded then, but the rewards were moderated with an eye to the fostering of properly regulated progress in the sport, encouraging the development of virtuoso performance, difficulty with grace, a position where the mastery of skills was so engrained that it was possible to perform and to embed the skill within a showcase of outstanding technique, form and expression. When Chusovitina first performed her immensely powerful tumbling in 1990, it was tempered with fantastic technique and accuracy. She was not the most artistic or expressive gymnast on the Soviet team, but her technical prowess earned her medals at the 1992 Olympics (and, of course, she is still competing today). Moving back in time twenty years, and shifting eastwards to Moscow, Biles would perhaps have made the same team, with significant improvements to her form and landings. The Soviet choreographers might well have ironed out problems with amplitude, extension and posture in their early years training, but without such improvements she would have remained a memorable member of the USSR display team, or might even have been transferred to another sport more appropriate for her athleticism.
There are those who would say that Biles gymnastics represents progress. A few others who might suggest the removal of 'artistic' from the title of the sport altogether. They are at least the honest ones. The FIG has tinkered with the Code to the extent that expressions of artistic judgement no longer exist anyway. A competition environment has developed which has seen artistry wilt in the main. The Code is now a tool by which exercises are measured, the marking of form, execution and artistry has become so prescriptive as to make it impossible to note in any meaningful fashion. Any gymnast who 'does' skills 'without error' can score highly regardless of how the skill looks. My gymnastics is based on the assumption, 'it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it'. World gymnastics seems to be based on the assumption 'just do it'.
Some might say that this represents a more democratic form of gymnastics; based on the participation model of the USA. Those gymnasts who work hardest, achieve the greatest fitness and practice skills to perfection can achieve the greatest results. But this is a moral, rather than a sporting, argument. When British coach Christine Still commented on such qualities at the recent World Championships, it was as American Kyla Ross mounted the beam in event final. When Italian gymnast Carlotta Ferlito spoke of the result at the same event, the Russian Aliya Mustafina's gold medal was attributed to good luck. The Americans have fought and won both a semantic and a sporting battle in the world of gymnastics. They even have media commentators to back them up, accusing the enemy of 'diva' behaviour. This is neither democratic, nor fair to the female gymnasts who are subject to personal judgements that their male counterparts do not suffer.
If we discuss gymnastics as a political entity, considering its status today as 'democratic', then a consideration of gymnastics as cultural capital logically follows. Bourdieu states that cultural capital exists wherever there is a struggle. Within gymnastics there is a tangible struggle between those who believe the sport possesses dimensions beyond the measurable, and those who seek to confine the sport within the constraints of measurability. Before we can decide that gymnastics has become more democratic, perhaps we should consider who owns gymnastics? The athletes, who participate in the sport? The coaches and choreographers, who create new champions and so often dream up the amazing new combinations that thrill us in competitions? The judges, who mark the routines and thus determine who or what is considered to be the epitome of gymnastics at a particular point in time? The Technical Committees, who make the decisions about how the sport will be marked? The fans, who pay money to see competitions? The media, who influence how we see the sport? The winners, the losers? The sponsors? Governments who put money into training programmes?
All these are actors in the field of play, yet single voices dominate the way the sport has developed, and a prescriptive Code precludes discussion of the bigger issues. Recently, proposals have been made to change the WAG Code, yet again, with a stated view of improving the standard of artistry in the sport. You will not hear them discussed on this blog, however, which refuses to accept the authority of the Code's terms of reference, The proposals are piecemeal and didactic in nature. Their discussion at the WTC will necessarily preclude discussion of the bigger issues of artistry in the sport, what it is and how it can be judged fairly. To improve the marking of artistry requires an understanding of the larger issues that inform world view, and a resulting discussion and agreement on the methodology. The FIG has, publicly at least, skipped this stage of considerations. It has adopted a model that almost totally eliminates the rewarding of artistry, and that requires an immense quantity of detailed discussion and study. Thus its stakeholders are constantly preoccupied with the job of keeping up with the ever changing Code of Points over which it alone presides, making it impossible for anyone to ask the bigger question, 'which direction do we want to travel?' Changes to the sport have been anything but democratic, wool has been pulled over eyes, and now hardly anyone dares to point and laugh at the Emperor's new clothes.
If we discuss gymnastics as a political entity, considering its status today as 'democratic', then a consideration of gymnastics as cultural capital logically follows. Bourdieu states that cultural capital exists wherever there is a struggle. Within gymnastics there is a tangible struggle between those who believe the sport possesses dimensions beyond the measurable, and those who seek to confine the sport within the constraints of measurability. Before we can decide that gymnastics has become more democratic, perhaps we should consider who owns gymnastics? The athletes, who participate in the sport? The coaches and choreographers, who create new champions and so often dream up the amazing new combinations that thrill us in competitions? The judges, who mark the routines and thus determine who or what is considered to be the epitome of gymnastics at a particular point in time? The Technical Committees, who make the decisions about how the sport will be marked? The fans, who pay money to see competitions? The media, who influence how we see the sport? The winners, the losers? The sponsors? Governments who put money into training programmes?
All these are actors in the field of play, yet single voices dominate the way the sport has developed, and a prescriptive Code precludes discussion of the bigger issues. Recently, proposals have been made to change the WAG Code, yet again, with a stated view of improving the standard of artistry in the sport. You will not hear them discussed on this blog, however, which refuses to accept the authority of the Code's terms of reference, The proposals are piecemeal and didactic in nature. Their discussion at the WTC will necessarily preclude discussion of the bigger issues of artistry in the sport, what it is and how it can be judged fairly. To improve the marking of artistry requires an understanding of the larger issues that inform world view, and a resulting discussion and agreement on the methodology. The FIG has, publicly at least, skipped this stage of considerations. It has adopted a model that almost totally eliminates the rewarding of artistry, and that requires an immense quantity of detailed discussion and study. Thus its stakeholders are constantly preoccupied with the job of keeping up with the ever changing Code of Points over which it alone presides, making it impossible for anyone to ask the bigger question, 'which direction do we want to travel?' Changes to the sport have been anything but democratic, wool has been pulled over eyes, and now hardly anyone dares to point and laugh at the Emperor's new clothes.
This discussion doesn't answer any questions, least of all why it is that men's gymnastics has reached a better conclusion to date than women's. It is surely the more artistic 'side' of the sport today, even if that is not recognised in the Code. The number of top competitors in the all around has flourished, unlike in the women's sport where there are but two or three genuine contenders for gold, all fragile and injury prone, often with the competitive lifespan of a butterfly.
The harsh truth about women's gymnastics is that the all around competition has, largely, faded away. I wonder what the sport will look like in 2016?
These are just my thoughts on how I see things stand at this point in time. No doubt things are less gloomy than they seem on this grey and windy December day. This is a rambling post, I know; I need to start thinking about these issues again after a long break from blogging that has been dictated by work and personal issues. Please comment!
Carter, T F (2011) In Foreign Fields: The Politics and Experiences of Transnational Sport Migration London : Pluto Press
I think there is just too much focus on difficulty, and too little on execution. I'm completely in favor of the open ended system, but at the same time it makes it possible for someone with horrible execution to win because they have a huge difficulty. Take Mykayla Skinner. She does the biggest skills but performs them so, that I just can't watch it. Not only because they look ugly (only her tumbling looks good I think), but because I'm scared for her health. At the same time, there are tons and tons of gymnasts in other countries that don't always have the difficulty, but have beautiful execution. What would you like to watch more? I guess that those outside the world of gymnastics would love to see a bad Amanar over a great DTY or even FTY but those on the inside would probably prefer the opposite, especially since we're more familiar with the type of injuries they can cause.
ReplyDeleteWithin the scoring system, something should just be done about the focus on difficulty. Make execution out of 15 instead of 10 points maybe? Or devalue the entire CoP by half a point?
(To be honest, I'm just glad I'm not on the committee.)
*I mean an A skill would be 0.05, B would be 0.1 etc. Something like that.
DeleteHi Elizabeth, welcome back. YES, I agree, it is no longer ARTistic Gymnastics any more. It is Gymnastics, by media, by commentators, by Tec Committee, by FIG, by USA, by Latin American Judges trained in USA, by Green card holder Neli Kim, by code and even by monkies in the zoo. You no longer hear comments about elegance, lines or artistry. All you hear now is "huge", "massive", " powerful". All you see now is exactly what you have posted in the images above where ugly legs win gold and Artistry get silver even if difficulty is combined with Artistry. The computer doesn't read Artistry anymore. It gets deducted from execution. Even when artistry is decided to be taken in consideration, Cirque du Soleil is consulted. Cirque du Soleil for God's sake?!? It is turning into a Circus indeed. There is a fear of the Eastern block to be consulted in that or to be involved in designing the code or even artistry. So, let's ask, WHO DESIGNES THE CODE? Why isn't a Ballet houses consulted why isnt there any artists as judges on the execution panel ? Why do artistry have to be as prescriptive in the code ? Why not have a third panel of artist judges that add to the OPEN ENDED score ? Why the reference panel scores contradicts judging panel in AA Final in London Olympics? Why, Why, Why There are a great deal of questions and questions about "secretive" and "gloomy" FIG. It is way beyond Artistry.
ReplyDeleteHave a good day
Alfi
Haha you get the answer right, because of nelly Kim and her green card, politics and governments/media it's what has changed so much the sport and not only the sport everything else, just look outside gymnastics, the American prototype is expanding all over the world, stupid music, stupid movies etc
ReplyDeleteThat's what is happening to gymnastics, they know that USA gymnasts will NEVER be artistic so they changed the code in their favor, the bad thing is that even when another gymnast shows better or greater difficulty than Americans, judges make sure that gymnast is punished on deductions that they just overlook in American gymnasts, that's the truth, Americans are being helped by judges! Don't believe me, look at the aa
Wonderful post. Great topic for discussion. You could have done without the biased photos though.
ReplyDeleteI could find pictures of Americans performing those skills much better than the pics that were selected. I could also find pictures of Russians doing poor performances and post those pictures. I could start with Jordyn Weiber doing a triple twist on floor with her straight legs and compare it with Aliya and her twisted legs. But who really cares.
The main point of your post is the nature of Women's gymnastics and where is it heading towards in the future. I am not a big fan of the code of points, but that is where the future lies, like it or not, and I think the argument has to revolve around it. The code is how the coaches teach the gymnasts and how they design their routines; it is how the judges interpret the gymnasts performance. The code must allow for the rewarding of points, be they artistic or athletic in nature. The judges have to be taught the code the right way and taught it consistently from nation to nation. I believe it is possible to instill artistic interpretation and rewards into the code of points on par with the athletic (or measure of difficulty) rewards and points. Whether or not they do it in time for Rio is doubtful.
Thanks for a polite and thoughtful comment
DeleteIf today the Code has a D-score, E-score, why not an A-score? It may sound kind of stupid, because there is already the E-score, but the judges only use it to assess how clean it was routine. Well, this is not a concrete idea is just an idea that could be móelhorada and introduced the Code to the artistic part were also valued indeed. As the photos show, there are champions with terrible artistic errors and silver medalists, brilliant. (I'm not anti American, there are gorgeous American gymnasts Nastia Liukin and Shawn Johnson and).
ReplyDeleteTotally agree. It is an open code, right? Why not have an "A" artistic panel. It is totally viable.
DeleteAlfi
But how would you judge the level or artistry? I'm in favour of rewarding those who make more of an effort but what's artistic to one judge, might be completely lackluster to the others, no?
DeleteThis post is a total joke. I'm not even a fan of USA gymnastics but I think that you are ridiculously biased. So what if the Americans aren't very artistic and can't dance balletically. The fact remains that they are much stronger competitors as a whole and can perform the same or greater difficulty than the Russians. It doesn't matter how beautiful and artistic you are if you can't be bothered to stay on the apparatus.
ReplyDeleteTake Grishina, for example. She is one of the aesthetically pleasing gymnasts of the last decade, and I am not the only one who finds her to be reminiscent of the Soviets of the past. It is widely acknowledged that she has exemplary form, carriage, and style across all events, as well as a competitive level of difficulty. However, she struggles with her mental game, and lacks the consistency necessary to succeed at this level. Many other Russian gymnasts have similar issues. Afanasyeva is known for her expressive dance on floor, but she rarely hits a routine as best she can, and often suffers from major errors. Komova seems to lack the willpower needed to keep fighting for every last tenth, and gives up at the slightest provocation. She is clearly a superior gymnast to the likes of Douglas and Wieber, but come competition time, she is unable to pull herself together and do what she is capable of. I do not mean to insult you or the gymnasts you support, but you need to realize that consistency is, in this day and age, more important than artistry.
I agree with (almost)every word you say. Your post is as biassed as mine, in fact it is impossible to discuss this subject without bias. But, you r fundamentally confirming the premise of my post, that as time has passed artistry has declined and a different, more easily measurable model has replaced it.
DeleteI would have to agree, both comments are biased, but if the emotion is toned down a bit I think this is heading towards a really great discussion.
DeleteI don't think an "A" score, as some of other posters have suggested, is the best solution to the problem because of the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" argument. An "A" code would be difficult to write and then judge consistently. I'm hoping over time, the "artistry deductions" will start to change how routines are composed. For example, I believe a scale or a split has to be included on beam routines, so most gymnasts whip their leg straight up in the air right after mounting the beam with some kind of sit on the beam mount (fulfilling the requirement for one move with torso on beam). I believe the new code harshly deducts pauses and lack of rhythm on both beam and floor, perhaps this change and other adjustments to scoring by the E panel will improve artistry across the field. However, I wouldn't expect the world to pick up ballet. I'm sure any future code will be open enough to allow gymnasts to incorporate different styles of dance.
In regards to the imagery borrowed for this post and seen elsewhere all over the internet, I agree with the original comment. These images are out of context and omit the errors in form and execution committed by the examples given as artistic. However, in agreement with Queen E, the US school of gymnastics does not reward great flexibility and choreography. If the code changes to put more emphasis these skills, I think the US team (and other WAG teams) would then select gymnasts more capable in choreography.
As an example of artistry trying to be re-instilled into floor they have made some changes to the code. Will it work? I am not sure, but they are making adjustments to it as they watch how the routines have been set up by the coaches.
DeleteI think if the judges can be consistent and make deductions for gymnasts who just stand in the corner prepping for a tumbling pass on floor exercise that would be a good start. If they actually take 1 or 2 tenths off for each time its done this may force the gymnasts to do more dance moves while prepping for the tumbling pass. The first attempt at this rule had most gymnasts doing the flamingo leg turn. There has been a rule change since then to discourage that, and didn't they also make a recent change where the first two passes can not be back to back, they will have to dance over to a new corner to do the second pass. I am really interested to see how the floor routines will be adjusted for 2014 and I am hoping for the best, hoping to see more fluid routines with artistry incorporated with the difficult tumbling to make an overall pleasing floor routine.
(Start)
DeleteThis is going to be long but I had to...
I don't think this post is a joke... It is biased, yes, but it has a point... Overlook the pictures from beam and bars, those are execution comparisons that doesn't belong in the discussion (and are very biased, though judges really favor american gymnasts and don't deduct them as they should, flexed feet and bent legs are one tenth each on each skill), but rather focus on the first ones, that is a choreography and artistry comparison which is in place here...
I'm in favor of the open code where difficulty is taken into consideration for the final score (a double double is way more difficult and cooler than just a double back), but the code has major errors, where execution scores should be judge harshly and consistantly across the board for all gymnasts of every country (cough-overscored americans-cough-underscored not from the big four) and artistry should be considered too, because the sport of Artistic Gymnastics is turning into a tumble track or a trick feast, I mean, it's not only about what you do but about how you do it as well...
Yes, we know americans aren't artistic or balletic (balletic isn't the only form of art), but it can't just be a "so what?"... We know that the russians (for example, there are also chinese and others) aren't as built as american gymnasts and can't perform the same difficulty as them (some of them), but "so what?", I can bet you that none of the americans (can't think of someone right now) can perform a double turn on the beam as beautifully as Aliya Mustafina does, nor can go through a beam or floor routine with great and fluid choreography like the russians or the roumanians, nor can do a bar routine as effortlessly and naturally as the chinese or russians... But that isn't considered in the final score, so the "so what?" is only made in favor of the americans (or that type of gymnast that only focus on difficulty and have little to no artistry. Don't mean to generalize, just using americans as they are the clear examples)...
What I'm trying to say is, why don't the americans get deducted for performing just gymnastics? Or more so, why don't the russians get rewarded for performing beautifully artistic gymnastics? Is it not difficult to create a composition to make sure a routine is a routine and not just one skill after the other? Is it not difficult to create lines and shapes, exude extension through your body, oversplit, place your arms and hands in an exact place to elevate the presentation of the skill at the same time you perform it making it look effortless and also try to point your toes? Isn't that difficult? I think it is very difficult, if it weren't the americans would point their toes more often, don't you think? (But again, pointed toes are execution errors, I'm referring to the other things, although if americans would get deducted properly they wouldn't get the scores they usually get, think about it, 8 skills without pointed toes is 0.8 off alone on that, there are also bent legs, lack of split, landings, you name it)...
The americans work really hard to build their difficulty and to get as consistant as possible, but so do the russians (and the rest of the gymnasts), but the latter also have worked hard and still do to have the flexibility and the hand and leg work, presentation, choreography, fluidity, etc, they have, and regardless of what the sport is nowadays, they try their best to keep it as beautiful as they can, but that seems to be unvaluable in a world of "code-whores" and biased scoring towards american gymnasts and it shouldn't, that kind of quality work should be considered and rewarded...
(Continuation)
DeleteI don't know if I've made my point, but I'm going to state some examples about artistry:
First of all, artistry to me is (and I'm sure is for a lot of other people) like an extension of the art or the craft, in this case gymnastics...
Being artistic is making your craft something more, elevate it, separate your work from the work of others, perform it, arrange it decoratively and tastefully, aesthetically pleasing, original, and more regarding to gymnastics, being an artistic gymnast is about presentation, fluidity, composition, originality (in skills and combinations, poses, shapes, what separates you from the other gymnasts), effortlessness (make the skills look easy, floaty, like it's nothing and not muscled or forced), extension (lines and shapes), go beyond, do more than what you're supposed to, don't look like your doing skill after skill, tell a story, and so on:
- Ok, so the first thing that comes to my mind is Aliya Mustafina's Switch Leap 1/2 on beam (and floor). Look it up, not only does she does it flawlessly (in terms of execution) but she also puts her arms and hands up vertically at the moment of the split which creates a beautiful shape for a snapshot (pause the video)...
Does the code tell her to do that skill like that? No...
Is it more difficult to do it like that? Yes...
Do you see any other gymnasts do the skill like that? Not that I can think of right now, Biles, Iordache, Douglas, Raisman, none of them do it like that...
Does it look beautiful and like it's something more? For sure...
Does she get a bonus score or something for it? Absolutely not...
Is that fair? You tell me...
- Another example is Aliya's double turn on beam which I mentioned before, it's just gorgeous the shape she has when she's spinning...
- Viktoria Komova's Swith Leap on beam. Another beautiful example, and the artistic part here is the oversplit she generates, the requirement is 180º (you hit 180º and you won't get deducted, and it's good, just fine) but she goes slightly over that and it looks beautiful (some oversplits don't look nice at all), she elevates that skill unlike others, not to mention she doesn't connect it to a back tuck (like every american)... So she's showing something extra and originality with one skill alone, but does she get rewarded for it? No...
- And speaking of originality, it's exciting when a gymnast performs an unorthodox skill or even a new skill, or performs a unique combination or choreo or an insanely big skill no one dares to attempt. Like Ruby Harrold's full twisting pak salto or Zuchold skill on bars, Sanne Wevers turns and combinations and choreography, Biles double layout half-out, Aliya's twisting transition to the high bar, Jinnan's Mo salto, just to name a few... People always gasp and get excited when they see something like that... That is different, that is unique, that sets them apart, that is artistic and that should be rewarded... If it were rewarded I'm sure we'd stop seeing so much Switch Leap to Back Tuck and The Front Aerial to BHS to LOSO would've been eradicated a long time ago before the FIG forced it out with the new CoP (I didn't see Komova doing that combination either)...
(Continuation 2)
Delete- Following the last example, I wanna address Aliya's beam combo Switch Leap 1/2 + Onodi + Double Turn... It's unique, it's cool and it's difficult and she gets a 0.2 bonus for each connection, which I find great... That connection separates herself from the others, making it artistic... And also, I think the Onodi + Double turn is more difficult than a 0.2 bonus, I mean, she has to flip forward, land on one foot and then quickly and practically blindly place the spinning foot on the narrow beam and instantly turn twice without any preparation to set your center properly! She's got some balls to do that I tell you! Turns are very underrated, those are difficult to pull off without losing your center and falling over, especially on a 4 inch wide beam and starting from a blind placement of the spinning foot... I think her balls are artistic and she should be rewarded for them, because the 0.2 difficulty bonus just don't do them justice...
- When a gymnast performs something that's just beyond, like McKayla Maroney's height on vault, Douglas' height on bars, or Biles' height and amplitude in her tumbling... There are height and amplitude deductions in the execution score (like there should be); there are people who perform elements with great amplitude and height that don't get deducted for it (they shouldn't), but what about those gymnast that just go beyond? I think they deserved that extra thing, don't they? ... Don't take anything away from those who can't go beyond (they're not doing anything wrong), but give something extra to those who can in the form of an artistry reward (like the ones I've been explaining about), I think it fits in the "what separates you from the other gymnasts" artistry category...
- The sense of effortlessness when a skill is performed... Wieber, Biles or Raisman aren't being deducted for muscling their way through an entire bar routine, are they? But why Aliya, Komova, Jinnan or even Ross aren't being rewarded for swinging effortlessly through their routines, for floating and flying almost every skill? What routine does look better? What does feel better? What do you think deserves a better score considering that? ... Again, there's a D-Score that acknowledge the difficulty they perform, there's an E-Score that take the errors in consideration, but what about that something extra? That something they do that makes them look better than monkeys on a playground chasing a banana? Doesn't that deserve recognition too? ...
- This sense of effortlessness is also portrayed on the other apparatus... Why Aliya's (or Komova's) floatiness on beam (you can barely hear the landings) doesn't get rewarded? ... Why being that floaty gets the same score against someone who feels very heavy when they do certain skills? ...
- Another thing I find different (but this might sound picky) is the way some gymnasts present themselves. I noticed this in Antwerp WC. At the medal ceremony for beam final, you see Biles, Ross and Aliya standing in the podium but you see Aliya with one foot cutely arranged in front of the other while Biles and Ross were just standing there with both feet together. I know, it's silly and picky, but it's something more and this is noticeable in their gymnastics as well, that attention to detail is artistic and should be rewarded in the sport... (And yet they gave the Longines Elegance Award to Ross who in my opinion wasn't that much elegant. Aliya, Kaeslin, Millousi, Rodionova were much more elegant, but they're not americans right?)...
- The fluidity Komova has on beam over Douglas, for example (I can name other russians or roumanians and other americans). Komova moved through the skills in an armonious way while Douglas moved her arms awkwardly and in a robotic style (not in the good way)... And that elevates Komova making her routine better and more pleasant to watch and that should be rewarded as well...
(Continuation 3)
Delete- Regarding floor exercises, many gymnasts have atrocious and robotic (not fluid) dancing while others sail through the floor beautifully, but yet that doesn't matter, why? I wonder... And this has nothing to do with slow and "balletic" music and choreo, not at all, you can have upbeat music and still express artistry in a beautiful way, you have Komova's routine, Vanessa Ferrari's routine, Iordache's and Mai Murakami's (which I think deserved the gold medal on FX in Antwerp)...
Mai performed well, did a very clean routine, and in a very artistic way, she's japanese and used an upbeat music. She was expressive, had great musicality (which you don't see from the americans, they just use like a background music, Jordyn did good though) and she was different, particularly in her leap series (she danced with her upper body while doing the running steps into the second leap), but yet she didn't even medaled, which is a consequence of the overscored americans and the underscored not from the big four, but oh well...
And there are so many more examples like that... Again, I used mostly americans and russians examples because those are like the extreme clear cases in terms of artistry, the two sides of the corner: Russians are the best in terms of artistry, americans are the worst (but this doesn't necessarily apply, there are plenty of gymnasts that fall in many places of that spectrum)... But the thing nowadays is that, let's say, the americans have something and completely lack another, the russians have a little less of that something but they have that another that the americans completely lack, but why is that something that the russians have that the americans lack pretty much worthless? It shouldn't be, there must be a balance between the two things...
(Final)
DeleteIn conclusion, I really think they should do something to considered the artistry in the sport before it's too late... I think an A-Score is the most plausible thing, it should be out of a point (1.000) maybe and totally separated from the execution deductions to avoid shadyness (like it happened during worlds because apparently they "applied" artistry deductions) and then evaluated by an expert panel of judges in the area, which would make the artistry deductions following certain remarks that should be well and explicitly defined in the CoP according to each apparatus (except vault because that's just run and done), maybe ten subcategories 0.1 worth each (or five 0.2 worth each, or something in between) that the gymnasts must fullfill in order to avoid the deductions, kind of like:
- Originality: Did the gymnast do something different and unique in their routine (Skill, choreo, pose, etc)? If so, don't deduct. If not, deduct 0.100.
- Effortlessnes: Did the gymnast sail and float through her routine making it look very easy? (Or did she muscle and forced her way through?) Another 0.100
- Presentation: Did the gymnast show poise, style, confidence, good posture, elegance? Yes? 0.100 No? -0.100 A little but not enough? -0.050
- Composition: Form of choreography, components, shapes, movements. They were present or lacking? 0.100
- Performance: Expression (Did she look like Droopy?), fluidity, projection (Eye contact? Smile with her eyes? Lured me in?). 0.100
- Beyond: Did the gymnast have or do something to separate herself from the other gymnasts? 0.100
- Overall aesthetics: Was the overall performance pleasant to watch? Was the gymnast beautiful to watch? Entertained? Boring? Another 0.100
- Did the audience gasp during her routine? 0.100 I don't know, I'm sure they can figure it out...
- And so on...
Really define the deductions to make it as objective as posible and that could make a big difference in the scores and then a gymnast who can't throw a double double could generate a good score with a beautiful and armonious performance (which the double double thrower can't do) and that way it would be a more even playing field for every gymnast (of course they would have to also even the playing field by not overscoring americans anymore and by scoring correctly the rest of the gymnasts)... And also I'm sure that with the originality deduction alone, we'll be seeing less of overdone skill and connections (cough-Switch Leap + Back Tuck) and more of new skills, poses, connections and great and exciting artistic gymnastics...
Part I
DeleteI have contemplated whether to respond to this but decided to join in the discussion nevertheless. To the original poster referring to the biases, this blog is dedicated to the support of a particular nation within the sport and the author does not pretend to be unbiased in reviews. I think if you are looking for a more general topic of gymnastics current events there may be other blogs better suited for your needs. A polarized discussion of a sport is not harmful if done respectfully for the interest of those with similar views. I find this blog is the best source for those strictly interested in Russian gymnasts.
The issue that I do have, is perhaps a redundant one which several others have posted about... that being the image comparisons. I do know that there are objective views here, but I feel it doesn't hurt to include my own considerations. I understand that the creator of these comparisons is trying to voice their opinion of superior form, but I don't feel these images convey that accurately and without question. Finding a plethora of photos showcasing the Russian gymnasts at their best would be excellent use of form, and I do not blame Queen Elizabeth for her inclusion of these comparisons in this post. I in no way am defending the execution form of the American gymnasts, as I can certainly list more instances where their form is in question than not, but the intentional seeking of the worst images captured at a moment in time doesn't readily assist with proving the point. I think a better comparison would be more fairly produced if still images were captured of two gymnasts performing the same element, perhaps at several frames per second, so that we may compare the entire completed element. It was brought up whether it matters if the images were at a particular moment in time. As other posters have suggested there are quite some consistent form problems with just a couple of the Russian gymnasts, so to only view their strongest moments in time doesn't seem to me to be a fair comparison. I could just as readily find a group of photos which just aren't taken at opportune times for the Russian gymnasts. I am more than happy to support a test done to prove the Russian gymnast's consistently better execution, but only if done so properly.
Part II
DeleteWith that, I do want to thank Queen Elizabeth for her consideration of the artistry issue, which does apply to elite gymnastics as a whole, and not simply as a 'picking point' at the Americans. There are several less prominent nations whose gymnasts could benefit from increases in artistry more appeasing to the eye. There will never be a finite way to judge something as subjective as artistry, which would be impossible to include in the code. That said, it seems in the past few years the FIG is quite confused with the direction it is attempting to point the gymnasts in their progress each quadrennium. Floor seems to be a 'hot mess', in that the newly implemented policies are quickly changed and leave the judges confused as to what needs to be included in a perfect routine. I find myself scrutinizing routines only to be quite surprised when the score is flashed. It makes me wonder whether the judges are at all perplexed by what the FIG routinely throws at them for their grading criteria. While we may not be able to include a general artistry score, we can certainly push artistry deductions more, to encourage greater attention to the issue by every gymnast.
I know those who are perhaps a bit more bitter suggest that judges are paid off, and influenced in illegal ways, but I wonder whether they are simply intimidated by the enormous pressure of judging nations which purport themselves as quite opinionated. Perhaps judges are lax in taking execution deductions for fear of retaliation or losing their judging position? I am still quite perplexed at finding a solution to the artistry-difficulty balance, but I am eager to keep reading about it in these posts leading up to Rio and hope that we can find a way to even the playing field before then.
I feel like the deductions exist to sort out much of this problem, they just aren't being taken consistently. Look at Gabby's ring leap for example, that clearly isn't the ring position (back knee not bent enough, not enough head-release) but it was still credited, and barely anyone seems to be getting artistry deductions on floor.
ReplyDeleteIn general I feel like more routine-wide deductions (lack of extension, lack of fluidity, poor dynamics) would encourage coaches and gymnasts to see beam and floor as fluid routines rather than just skills with in-between bits. I feel like the attention to detail required for a beam routine like Grishina's rather than, say, Raisman's, or the stamina required for Iordache's FX over Mustafina's, deserves to be rewarded and isn't because the elements that make all the difference aren't really skills. If you were getting 0.1 off each skill you flexed your feet on and THEN a 0.3 or 0.5 overall deduction for poor extension, you'd think harder about working on that toe-point ...
Good point, if the judges choose to apply that across the board, not selectively apply them then loosen up with others.
DeleteAlfi
There should be more deductions for incomplete skills. I agree.
DeleteHowever, I would not use the pictures attached to this article in any discussion. These pics are all out of context. For example the photographer could have snapped the picture of Gabby before she completed the ring leap. I found a picture online of Gabby doing this ring leap and it looks much closer to the one posted of Komova.
But in general, if that pic of Gabby was her completed ring leap, it should be marked lower than the pic of Komova.
Some of the pictures are more useful than others. I think it's no secret that Simone and Aly have poor extension compared to Grishina and Aliya (not necessarily 100% of the time, but very often) and I think the backhandspring and piked tkatchev comparisons for example are good at illustrating that.
DeleteThe ring leaps aren't a great comparison anyway since I think Vika's is on floor where it's easier to get a good position, and of course whether or not someone is at the apex of the leap is always a tricky issue. I don't think Gabby's is exceptionally bad even here - she has a nice oversplit and her toes are as pointed as she probably can get them (it's certainly better than Shawn's ever was). But I think it's fairly obvious in videos that Vika's ring leap is better than Gabby's and in ways that Gabby could have worked to fix (unlike unassailable physical differences like Rebecca Bross's knees or something). If two gymnasts are doing the same skill and one is doing it better, then they should be ranked accordingly - sometimes I feel like the code encourages gymnasts to reach the base requirement rather than pushing the skill to the limit. Some gymnasts (not necessarily Gabby - floor choreo aside I really quite like her gymnastics) clearly just do enough to get credit and some work hard for beautiful skills, and it's frustrating when that doesn't seem to be recognised.
Well about the photo of gabby (switch ring) I don't really think it's because she is on the beam, she clearly has a lack of flexibility, look at pavlova, she can make the switch ring looks the same on the floor and on the beam.
DeleteYou're right and I think Vika's ring leap on beam is better than Gabby's - just that a photographic skill comparison should be made between the same two skills, and a ring leap on beam isn't the same skill as a ring leap on floor.
DeleteI think I could show my point of view, as I said it was not a concrete idea, the A score, but one way to make people discuss how important is the artistic part in artistic gymnastics and choreography. The beauty, fluidity, finally, dancing (not necessarily the Bolshoi ballet). It is this dramatic dance that make the beautiful game. Can flamenco, samba, Chinese ballet, etc ... And most importantly, the gymnasts who can talk thus should be rewarded for it, and today, the current code, they are not. So why waste time in developing this artistic piece if the gymnast is not (in fact) rewarded for it. If the code is open, it is open to introducing artistic elements, IN FACT.
ReplyDeleteThere are some very thoughtful and interesting comments here - thank you, and please keep posting.
ReplyDeletePeople keep talking about bias, as though it is a bad thing, assuming they themselves are bias free, or at least that there is some utopian state somewhere that somehow is 'better' as it involves a world view devoid of angle or emotion. I keep hearing the word 'objective' used (not necessarily here, but in general in gymnastics circles) as though it describes the perfect, bias free vision of gymnastics.
But objectivity itself is a choice. It involves a selection of world view that assumes that it is possible to stand back as if separate from the phenomenon being observed and make value free judgements. The problem with this, in terms of gymnastics at least, is that the 'objective' viewpoint is itself laden with value judgements that make its application a subjective choice, without the statement of assumptions that underlie that viewpoint.
It is perfectly plain that the viewpoint from which this blog post is written is that of Russia; just the title of the blog will tell you that. Most writers do not state their bias so clearly, and even those who purport to be 'objective' are in fact making a biassed choice in their world view.
The picture selections illustrate a matter of fact; the winners, America and the characteristics of their work compared to the runners-up, Russia, and the characteristics of their work, and whose positive characteristics are simply not rewarded as they have mostly been written out of the Code of Points. It is about good basics, and regardless of when the photo is shot, this will always be evident. I don't pretend there is not the occasional US gymnast who has better basics than the Olympic Champion or the current World Champion. But there is a strong trend away from good basics, the winners win because they hit with higher difficulty levels than the others regardless of whether their basics are good or not, and reliability is far more important in today's Code than finesse.
The US Gym's doctor did an interview with GymCastic recently, saying that he wants compulsories back. This would make sure gymnasts spend more time on basic skills, and also takes time away from developing incredibly difficult skills that could potentially be harmful. Plus, if there were gymnasts who would then still do those difficult skills, they would probably do them with much better technique which would reduce injury.
DeleteIt would be very difficult to realise with the current system/CoP, but I have to agree with him.
This is definitely an interesting idea to bring back compulsories. I think it might fix some of the lack of extension and flexibility we are seeing in most of today's gymnasts (and not just the Americans), as well as maybe fix the string of injuries a lot of gymnasts dealing with lately, mostly due to rise in difficulty. Plus, I really wonder how the results would've turned out if compulsories still existed. Would the Americans have been placed lower due to their lower compulsory scores and the Russians and Chinese higher? Who could we have seen in the olympic finals if they had compulsories? Very interesting indeed and the sport needs to have them back.
DeletePS and before any of you think I mean that the Russians are perfect - I don't. Komova is by far the best gymnast of the past two years, but up and coming gymnasts like Shelgunova and Kharenkova don't share her strengths.
ReplyDeleteGood basics were the fundamental premise of the Soviet Union's success, and they are the reason that so many former Soviet coaches have found success in overseas programmes. This legacy is still visible in many Russians' work, and not so visible elsewhere, where other strengths are emphasised. The pictures aren't saying 'Russia - good; US - bad' - you have to read more deeply than that.
The bias in the post and the fact that it is stated are what makes it possible to argue - would you prefer it if I stood in an ivory tower, making headmistress-like rulings and absolute statements of right and wrong? These do not exist in gymnastics. We should not pretend that the Code is inviolable, the be all and end all of the sport. The Code's influence on the sport has become too strong, and the Code is only written by people - people who often have their own bias, their own political agenda.
The Technical Committees don't seem to realise that they are being manipulated into excessive work focussing on the detail of execution when the essence of artistry is freedom and judgement.
That code of points..... it is true that the gymnastics scoring system is too rigid and does not always reward the best performances. However, it is also true that a more flexible system can lead to the opposite problem. What comes to mind when I consider the introduction of an A- score, are the problems associated with the old 6.0 scoring system used for figure skating. When artistry and athleticism are judged separately and rewarded equally, judges run the risk of overlooking a clean, solid, well executed performance in favor of a magical, entertaining one. This was the case with Oksana Baiul and Nancy Kerrigan in the Ladies' singles competition at the 1994 Olympics. And is it really fair to reward artistry separately from execution and difficulty? Some amazing athletes are simply incapable of presenting an artistic performance (Elise Ray comes to mind, good execution and basic skills, decent choreography, but I do not think of her as 'artistic'). I wonder, as several other commenters have, if part of the dilemma could be solved if the judges simply imposed the deductions already in place across the board. In the majority of cases, more artistic gymnastics have better execution, extension, fluidity and timing and would be rewarded by a system that really cracked down on those not-even-close switch rings and those flexed feet on bars releases. And please no one mention Aliya's twisting form to discard this theory. Yes, she is artistic, and yes her leg form on twists is pretty awful. It is an unexplainable anomaly.
ReplyDeleteOne other thing I would like to touch on is the possibility that the 'power tumbling' trend in the United States may actually be losing steam. Watching this year's championships, I was pleasantly surprised to find many of the younger juniors displayed artistry greater than that of the senior competitors. Emily Gaskins, Lauren Hernandez, Norah Flatley, Bailey Key and several others had well-choreographed, relatively complex routines. They also seem to have had a better grounding in the basic skills than their senior counterparts, and flexibility or the potential for it was evident. It also is encouraging to see how much work both Kyla Ross and McKayla Maroney have put into the choreographic components of their floor routines this season, I consider both of them much improved from olympic year. It is my hope that by 2016, we will see a team from the United States which features a greater number of artistic, execution oriented gymnasts than it does tumbling machines.
"but without such improvements she would have remained a memorable member of the USSR display team, or might even have been transferred to another sport more appropriate for her athleticism." I think her incredible athleticism makes her enormous tumbling and vaulting look easy. To me, her athleticism makes her stand out and I think it's ridiculous to imply that she's not not suited for gymnastics because she is more athletic than artistic. But then again, this is also the blog and author that posted the dictionary definition of racism and asked readers whether or not they thought Rodienenko's blatantly racist comments were actually racist. So I'm not sure why I was surprised in the first place.
ReplyDeleteAs for the rest of this post, I think it takes a very one-sided and almost close-minded approach. I completely understand your biases towards the Russians. I'm biased towards the Americans and the Romanians. But it seems to me that this article implies that the only type of artistry is Russian and if you're not Russian, you're an inferior gymnast. For me, artistry is more about the performance. It doesn't have to be balletic, graceful, and set to classical music. Now almost all of those performances are artistic, but I think that floor routines can have a different style apart from ballet or "Russian" and still be artistic. Take Jordyn Wieber and Larisa Iordache. I think Wieber's routines were quite artistic and Iordache's floor from this year is engaging and a thrill to watch. Neither are particularly balletic or graceful. But, they're still artistic. I just think that this blog is very close-minded in its views of what is artistic or not. Just because it is not Russian does not mean that it is not artistic. Like every other sport, gymnastics has changed and evolved and it seems like that is very difficult for some to accept.
As for the pictures, I don't really think it's fair to compare a switch ring on the beam to one being done on the floor. And I could just as easily put some comparisons of Mustafina's twisting to Wieber's or Sacramone's. Or various Russian gymnasts' vaulting entry and overall form next to Maroney's.
I most definitely agree with you about Jordyn Wieber and Larisa Iodache floor routines. I very much enjoyed Larisa's routine at this years Worlds and was happy for her to have earned a medal in the finals.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that artistry is very subjective and therefor hard to judge. One of the main topics being discussed though is form errors (toe points, correct leg and arm positions), and performing the pose properly is more artistic, performing it improperly should incur deductions from the judges. The question is, "Are the judges deducting them?" This question can be a touchy subject here on this blog as some have very strong opinions about judging biases. (whether they are real or perceived)
I get the point about not deducting properly for toe points. As for the poses, I think that is when it can be quite confusing and subjective. Unless all gymnasts are doing the same it's hard to discern who is doing them better. If that makes any sense at all. I think it really just comes down to personal preference and the style of the gymnast. I think since each gymnast has their own unique form and style of expression, it's difficult to say if how they're posing is being done properly.
DeleteFor example, Simone Biles. Her floor routine is the exact opposite of a balletic or graceful one. Yet, I find it entertaining, not only because of her spectacular tumbling, but in how she performs her routine; she always seems so happy and you can tell that she really enjoys herself by the way she gets into her movements. Her poses throughout her routine differ drastically from someone like Grishina. But because Biles has a different style does that mean she is doing it wrong? I understand deducting for flexed feet, even though it seems Biles can't really point her toes as well simply because of her body type, but I think deducting for posing properly can become a little hazy because what exactly is the proper pose?
I understand that probably all of this makes little to no sense. I guess my main point would be that it is different to deduct for poses and, I guess, choreography when gymnasts have such different styles. It really just comes down to personal preference.
Anyways, I hope this makes a little sense. In my original post, my main gripe was that there was a very one-sided approach to artistry and that the article has the tone of "if it's not Russian, it is not artistic" which I will respectfully disagree with.
Hi John, you ask 'what is a proper pose?' - I think it is expressed through an evaluation of the basics more than anything. Performing a simple cartwheel, who, or what posture, looks better? Take out the tumbling from Biles' floor routine, what is left?
DeleteI agree that there is too much of an emphasis on difficulty these days and far too little execution or artistry. However, I do feel feel that difficulty should be rewarded IF it's executed properly. It doesn't even have to be the most beautiful skill performed, but it seems like you get awarded for just landing these days and the massive D score will save the score from plummeting. Atleast make a skill look as if you're not going to die while performing it. I find it slightly disheartening that perfectly great gymnasts whom's strength does not lie in chucking out the big skills, are being pushed to the corners for those who can. Ana Porgras comes to mind here, who I find deserved a more memorable career for her talent (some gymnasts are born in the wrong year - Produnova would have won every single competition if she were competing today).
ReplyDeleteI find the subject of judging artistry to be a tough one, because it's so subjective. Any judging sport is bound to be a victim of bias and fully erasing that from the scoring is a hopeless task. I would like to see more emphasis on that, just like I would on execution (I'm not here for Skinner's floor routine, bye). The dance doesn't have to be innovative, though it would be nice, but some thought behind it would be great. Dance needs to fit with the music and tempo and no more silly arm waving and less posing (I adore Aliya but the arm waving before her last pass needs to go ASAP). Iordache comes to mind when I think of a gymnast who's really putting an effort into selling it. She doesn't stand still and she looks like she enjoys doing it a lot. And I will never forget Sandra's 2012 routine- which is original and different and totally amazing to me. Ksenia always delivers a great routine if she hits, which is sadly, not always.
And what about music? Would there be a deduction if a song does not fit the gymnast?
Funny how you picked a picture of gabby Douglas' bar transition from her worst performance at the olympics. ALso Gabbys Split ring leap isjust as good or better than Komovas but you picked a photo of komova taken from above that accentuates the angle of her split. Yes most of the american gymnast have been power gymnast(Biles, Shawn Johnson, Aly Raisman) but DOuglas has the same body type as Komova and her performance on beam looks much more artistic than Mustafina or any of the other russians
ReplyDeleteThere are plenty of blogs and forums that take the viewpoint of the current Code and compare gymnasts accordingly. This post is about the philosophical stance and assumptions behind the Code, and seeks to understand why the sport has taken a direction away from the aesthetic appeal characterised by the Soviets, which barely remains as a legacy in the work of the Russian gymnasts.
DeleteI intend to write more on this subject imminently.
I am not from the US (or any big 4 country for that matter . . . to be honest my country has only ever had 2 Olympic gymnasts both MAG so I am impartial here)
ReplyDeleteThis article is extremely biased towards Russians (as you would expect seen as it is on a blog called Rewriting Russian Gymnastics) and the pictures chosen are 2 ends of a scale used specifically to prove the authors point. She could easily have used pictures showing the skills done as well (if not better) by other Americans but that would not have backed up her point would it!!
I agree in theory that gymnastics is becoming less artistic but most people seem to think ballet = artistry IT DOES NOT!!!!!!! Just because a gymnast is not balletic does not mean they are not artistic!! If they interpret their chosen music and do dance moves appropriate to that music then that too can be artistic (I am not saying all routines are but some can be) also all routines that are balletic are not necessarily artistic either!! If a gymnast can't do ballet moves and tries it can look a whole lot worse than a non balletic routine!!
Comments on this thread are now closed.
ReplyDelete