Skip to main content

The State of Gymnastics - 'Soviet' or 'American' style?

Lioudmilla Tourischeva, 1972 Olympic All Around champion in artistic gymnastics, was held up as an example of the ideal Soviet citizen.  Here she coaches one of the Soviet Union's leading gymnasts from the 1980 Olympics, Natalia Shaposhnikova




The Soviet Union had a genius for lifting sport beyond the textbook, injecting the aesthetic where previously only goals had been in plain view.   This was not only manifest in gymnastics.  Do you remember the ‘Russian Five’, the players who elevated ice hockey to a creative sporting display, mesmerising their opponents and spectators with intricate patterns of play, so rhythmic and entertaining that they could have been set to music?   In gymnastics, a sport where the aesthetic counted as much as the outcome, it was this ability to create spectacle out of competition that resulted in the most extraordinary athletic performances.  The ‘Golden Era’, most commonly understood to cover the years from 1952-1992, was a time when the Soviet Union women’s team generally dominated the sport of gymnastics both competitively and in the popular imagination.  During the latter years of this era, their male gymnasts also found a leading place in the sport.  Since the breakdown of the Soviet Union, however, a different competitive dynamic has led to the globalised development of gymnastics as an altered sporting form, one where artistry matters less and substance matters more.   



I have been asked to comment on what the main differences are between ‘Soviet’ and ‘American’ gymnastics.  In this article I will attempt to provide as concise an understanding of my perceptions of this complex question as I can.  Later, I will consider the process of change and its outcomes in terms of the form of the sport practiced today.  To begin with, however, I will outline some of the general and more recent history, in order to contextualise the question.



Gymnastics goes back to the time of the Ancient Greeks.  It is only relatively recently that the globalised phenomenon of artistic gymnastics has emerged and become popularised, by means of the mass media and, in the case of the Soviet Union, a political imperative.  Artistic gymnastics is not the only competitive form of this sport, which has its origins in display, recreational, health and fitness and military.  Rhythmic gymnastics, acrobatics and trampoline are all contested at World and European level.   Each branch of the sport is in a constant state of flux. 



When we speak of the ‘American’ and ‘Soviet’ eras we are in fact describing globalised forms of the sport predominant during the Soviet and post-Soviet eras rather than nationally delineating a competition between the two countries.  The words 'American' and 'Soviet' are used here as labels to loosely describe a particular form of the sport.  The choice of words indicates some of the power dynamics prevalent during the different eras of the sport.  Just as Soviet gymnastics became globalised during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, so has 'American' gymnastics gradually been embraced by the world since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.  Gymnastics produced by America during the Soviet era and by Russia during the American era are equally influenced by the predominant sporting form of the time.  (I use Russia as an example here as they are the main inheritors of the Soviet Union’s sporting legacy.)  We are essentially speaking of two different sporting forms that have evolved from the same tradition, but which are responding to different conditions.



If I were to oversimplify the differences between the two sporting forms into a few words, I would say that American gymnastics is an athletic sport, while Soviet gymnastics was an aesthetic form of physical culture.  In one case the athletes execute gymnastic and acrobatic moves with the aim of maximising their score, while in the latter the gymnasts perform whole routines with the aim of presenting an aesthetic to impress judges.  It is about artistry, or the lack of artistry.  More about this later.  If I were to analyse in more depth, I would add that differences are manifest in the composition of routines, the manner of performance and in the methods of marking.  There are processes by which this change has taken place, and there is an outcome.  The influences which have driven this change are multifactorial.  There are multiple perceptions of the way that these changes have influenced the sport.  There is little that is simple and brief about the question : ‘what are the differences?’.  But I will attempt to outline here, hopefully briefly, some of the things that I consider to be important. 



My regular readers are not expecting me to give a glowing account of ‘American’ gymnastics when they ask me for my opinion.  I am widely known to have bewailed the loss of a certain artistry in contemporary gymnastics.  But perhaps in 'American' gymnastics we are seeing a return to the more instrumental roots of gymnastics as a construct of sporting competition, one where measurement of goals counts more than judgement of performance.  Rather than losing a dimension of the sport that was present in past ‘editions’ we possessed something special and unique during the 'Soviet' era that sat outside the boundaries of what has historically and what is currently accepted as ‘sport’.  In fact the more I consider it, the more I think that the ‘Soviet’ era was an anomaly in gymnastics’ and sports history for its imaginative interpretation of what sport could be.  We will never travel backwards in time to that era again, because the public imagination of sport revolves around goals, targets and start values and those can’t be the entire picture when judgement of artistry and performance are concerned.  



Gymnastics is different to other sports and needs a very particular environment to thrive as an artistic entity  It is one of the very few sports where the very substance of movements counts, as well as the outcome of those movements (imagine Leicester City receiving a score for the aesthetic of their football, as well as for the goals they score).  In this sense, gymnastics was tailor made for the Soviet Union, whose concept of physical culture (today rather disappointingly demoted to signify ‘health and fitness’) at one time provided an ethical and aesthetic framework within which sport sat.  In this sense, sport went beyond the physical into the spiritual domain, expressing the best and highest endeavour of the human, who became superhuman in his efforts to overcome the physical constraints of space and time.  Physical culture and sport thus became a cipher for the Soviet work ethic, a symbol of their moral invincibility in the wider world and a role model for ordinary Soviet citizens labouring in their workplace.  Gymnastics directly fit the paradigm of physical culture because of its scope for mass participation as well as its capacity to demonstrate the aesthetic, spiritual and physical superiority of its athletes.  I am not interpreting physical culture literally when I add that gymnastics learned from an association with the Russian influence of dance and circus.  The Soviet Union used gymnastics to express and communicate something about the best of their culture.  In so doing, regardless or perhaps because of their political exigencies, they created something unique and memorable.



When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 the idea of physical culture became less important, and investment in sport inevitably collapsed.  It is a moot point whether the globalisation of gymnastics which has come in its wake is contingent upon a political vacuum, growing market interests in the power of sport to make money, or the mass migration of sports specialists and coaches from the Soviet Union.  Arguably the declining interest in sport as physical culture set the ideological conditions for a return to a simpler interpretation of sport.   As time passed, the IOC became more interested and concerned to show transparency in sports judging and diversity in sports participation.  If the FIG wanted artistic gymnastics to remain as an Olympic sport, it was certainly driven to make some of the changes that have resulted in the overwhelming power of ‘American’ gymnastics as a sporting form, if not the USA as the leading country in competition.  It is true to say that USA has the best, most vigorous sporting infrastructure for gymnastics.  They are organised and ambitious.  They lobby, they speak the globalised language of sport and they have understood the concerns of the IOC.  Thus America has grabbed the initiative and their gymnasts have become leaders.  In that sense, the USA can effect the direction in which the sport develops and that is why we have the label ‘American gymnastics’.



If artistry and the absence of artistry are central to the argument of the differences between 'Soviet' and 'American' gymnastics, then I do have to return to this theme, which I have already written about extensively on this blog.  It is timely for me to do so, as I have had some second thoughts about it since my last article.  I have been frustrated when artistry has been pigeon holed to ideas of ‘toe point’, ‘line’ and ‘ballet’, when consideration of its merits has been limited to a discussion of women’s floor exercise.  The narrow use of choreography as a description of dance work on floor and the designation of dance as spins, leaps, turns, and connecting elements, listed in the Code of Points, are all lost opportunities when artistry is so much an integral quality of all gymnastics work.  Gymnastics is about whole routines, not individual elements, and originality comes from free creativity, not picking movements out of a guidebook.



The differences are expressed eloquently by the semantic.  For example, words such as accuracy, execution and difficulty are dominant in gymnastics’ vocabulary today; yesterday, we spoke more of virtuosity, complexity and harmony.  These differences in the way that the sport is described have a tangible effect on the way that the sport is constructed and the way that it is perceived.   Accuracy, execution and difficulty all describe tangible entities that make up a gymnastics score.  Virtuosity, complexity and harmony are all intangible ideas that, when translated into gymnastics action, can capture the public imagination and influence judges’ scores. 



Gymnastics exists on a spectrum from accuracy to virtuosity.  The current Code values accuracy, a quality that the Americans value highly in their work.  Soviet gymnastics, meanwhile, valued virtuosity, a quality of going beyond the textbook to perform a whole routine with consummate ease.  Let’s think of artistry as a construct of the aesthetic that marries the explosive energy of acrobatics, grace and a quality of time and effortless, well delineated movement in the air, and something intangible that the gymnast expresses within the movement.  Complexity comes from the whole routine as much as from the individual elements, and originality equally is expressed as the routine.  Artistic gymnastics as a movement had all of this virtuosity during the Soviet era, that is now missing from the American era, when accuracy and the execution of individual elements and connections is of primary importance.  This is what the Code of Points demands; there is no leeway for the gymnast who makes errors, or who has a low difficulty score.  Equally, there is little scope for the gymnast who goes beyond the textbook to score extra points.  The consummate artist who performs whole routines rather than the athlete who picks individual elements from the Code to maximise the value of his routines is the difference between Soviet and American era gymnastics.  The difference is about whether sport is a branch of physical culture, or whether gymnastics is a branch of sport.  At present, sport is winning.



I have finished for now, but there is just one further anomaly I would like to discuss  – Simone Biles.  For, although Simone is an American gymnast, both in terms of her birth and her style, she is one who performs her routines with virtuosity, in particular her floor and vault exercises.  I am speaking not of a quality of toe point or line, for these are distinct weaknesses in Simone’s approach, but of the consummate ease and enjoyment by which she presents her original brand of gymnastics.  For this reason and this reason only I suspend my disappointment in the American style.  Simone is as unique in her approach to gymnastics as the whole of the Soviet Union once was.  She will win big in Rio and I am looking forward to seeing her make history there.  If, once upon a time, the Soviet Union led the rest of the world, now today America has the lead, and Russia is part of the rest of the world that is trying to catch up.  I suppose that is sport. 



Additional reading :





The Russian perspective - a picture blog - http://www.sports.ru/tribuna/blogs/zolotiedevushki/518682.html



Olga Strazheva, Soviet Union (Ukraine) : 1989 World Championships, FX







Simone Biles, USA : 2015 AT&T Cup, FX






Comments

  1. I wish it was possible today to practice old gymnastics, with the old code of points and scoring system, old vault and bars.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great article! I assume you've seen this already, but this article elaborates on the IOC's influence on tightening the rules of the sport and the subsequent effects on artistry. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09523367.2015.1124859?journalCode=fhsp20

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I hadn't seen Georgia's article but I have just downloaded it for reading ... So interesting.

      Delete
  3. As the sport globalizes, it must become more athletic, and less inclined towards "aesthetics." I know what you mean by "physical culture." However, "physical culture" by definition is very culture dependent. It is not possible to judge Asian physical culture against African physical culture against Eastern European physical culture. Any attempt to do so would be riddled with objections of unfair preference at best, or racism at worst.

    Can you think of a way to judge the aesthetics of physical culture in a fair way? I am honestly flummoxed as to how gymnastics can be judged on the movement aesthetics without bias towards certain cultural aesthetics and not others. Whose aesthetics get to reign supreme?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Great article here about Simone Biles, in The New Yorker magazine! http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/05/30/simone-biles-is-the-best-gymnast-in-the-world

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wonderful post! Many people seem to think the old code of points was responsible for the beauty of older gymnastics, but I think it was almost entirely due to the Soviet's dominance and influence on the sport.

    A country with a Soviet-style gymnastics system could flourish under the current code, but the code cannot force countries to produce Soviet style gymnastics. The Soviets produced daring, beautiful and original gymnastics because it was they wanted gymnastics to be, not to fulfill a code requirement! FIG can attempt to codify originality, artistry and other aesthetic qualities, but routines will lack the choreography and attention to detail that makes a routine great unless countries make the effort for their gymnasts.

    Each Soviet gymnast at the 1989 Worlds performed an exquisitely choreographed floor routine that worked with their individual strengths and weaknesses. It bothers me when modern Russians gymnasts and their coaches talk as if they are inherently more artistic, or the Americans somehow incapable of it. Flailing your arms to classical music is not more artistic than flailing your arms to drums, if neither match the music! Turns and leaps may be beautiful, but if they don't work with the music, the routine's artistry is diminished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment.
      There has been a paradigm shift in sport and in particular in gymnastics since the fall of the Soviet Union. This has gradually developed and is reflected in the Code of Points and in the form of the sport; there is an inter-relationship between the two, a reaction between the way that the Code influences the form of the sport and vice versa.
      Whether Russia is inherently more artistic than the rest of the world is a moot point; but certainly the Soviet Union's leadership and the prevailing paradigm of sport to which they adhered resulted in a sport that was special enough to be named the 'Golden' era by those of us who are old enough to have experienced it.
      I agree with you totally about the 1989 World Championships team. Those floor routines were composed with the support of choreographers from the Bolshoi Ballet, and Strazheva's floor routine exploited Nijinsky's original choreography for the Rites of Spring. I love the way that even the tumbling fits the dissonant syncopation of the music.
      I think that today bars is one apparatus where artistry is very much in evidence and it is interesting to link that to the opportunities of the new dimensions of the apparatus. Equally, vault has become very flighty; the best vaulters in the world are producing work that has great aesthetic appeal. On the other hand, there is a fair degree of similarity in the top routines on bars. Interesting to note that virtuosity stems from direct connections and the gymnast's ability to make the work look effortless. We have, however, lost the dynamic spirit of innovation of the 1970s and 1980s when single moves of extreme difficulty were regularly refreshed and renewed and we were seeing something new all the time. With vault, we see a very small number of gymnasts capable of performing well. We see dangerous vaults performed. So, despite the artistry of such vaulters as Biles and Maroney, there is relatively little of much interest to see on this apparatus beyond the very top performers and this degrades the experience of watching a competition.
      The unevenness of the scoring across the apparatus - it is much more difficult to score highly on floor than it is on vault, for example - spoils the thrill of close competition to an extent.
      We are stuck with the Code whether we like it or not. The FIG will make small changes to it but nothing will really change. I could suggest doubling the value of the execution score relative to the D score as one way of boosting the importance of good execution - that might make a difference? But it's a swingeing kind of change that the FIG wouldn't like to make. I haven't even mentioned the dropping of the compulsory element of competition, which is another real villain in the disappearance of virtuosity from the sport. Interesting to note that experts I have spoken to say that Simone Biles wouldn't have a chance of winning all around if compulsory exercises were still counted. It's 'only' on the optional level that her gymnastics really makes a strong difference. But this is a wholly hypothetical scenario. The IOC and the FIG didn't like compulsories because they make the competitions overly long. They also appealed only to those who had an understanding of the sport and could see the differences in presentation and performance - a pretty small number of spectators.
      Well, I have rambled on but I did want to add a little to your interesting comment.

      Delete
    2. "They also appealed only to those who had an understanding of the sport."

      this succinctly summarizes the quality of world discussion/debate on this issue....it's almost literally like talking to a blind man....as you know, I could go on at extensive length with analysis, but why bother?....if one can't OBVIOUSLY recognize the unsurpassed greatness of the 1988 Soviet men's compulsories, no discussion with that person is possible

      Delete
  6. I did like your commentary and agree with it for the most part. It is also possible that Simone is ringing the bell as being the top gymnast ever with this sort of code. However, I also wonder whether the rules rules and more rules will not eventually greatly diminish the sports appeal. Nothing lasts forever and maybe some parts of gymnastics will be the base , but the more creative will branch out to other avenues and it might not even be sport.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've heard people say that art should not even be an explicit part of sport/gymnastics - why bother? They conveniently ignore the fact that for years artistry was embedded in the judging and by and large the right people were winning and the sport looked good.
      There are already sports like acrobatics and trampoline - so I wonder what will become of women's artistic gymnastics? As you say, is it self planning its own demise? Or will the greater popularity of the new model prevail?

      Delete
  7. It depends on the years you're looking at, but to me, the 'correct' person wins more than they used to. Big names used to be hugely influential, and many wonderful, well-known gymnasts took medals that should have gone to lesser known teammates or gymnasts not from a top 3 country.

    There have been bad codes, such as the one that allowed Vanessa Ferrari to become all around World champion with a fall, but the more objective scoring has given talented gymnasts from smaller countries a greater chance of winning.

    Watch the 1991 World Championships and compare the scoring of Kim Zmeskal to Shannon Miller and Svetlana Boginskaya to Lysenko and Gutsu, especially on beam and bars.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's amazing how much changed in one year--Zmeskal and Bogi were already passé in Barcelona (Zmeskal because of her injury, Bogi because of her lack of difficulty, although she still produced beautiful gymnastics).

      Delete
  8. But that's a defeatist position, Jim. We have to keep talking, and pointing at the mispositioned fig leaf, and not let them forget what a mess they have made of it all. Even though only some of them are resenting not to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Truly Western artistry in self-justification:)
    When Soviets were contributing the artistry, they still tried to bring the best of technical complexity: we knew we would not be forgiven for the smallest errors.
    When we lost the war, our girls still were beautiful and flawless: both in aestheticas and technique.
    They had to be many times greater than the western athletes in the technical part in order to win: you have to be head and shoulders above all if your country is defeated and our artistry was just annoying the judges in all genres of sport.
    Now you go on the other side: it is necessary to reduce the technical requirements and demand "artistry". And artistry will be judged in your own way, the American way. Rap or pop artistry, of course. Its' much higher in your eyes than Russian classics or Bolshoi ballet. Certainly, who could even compare sweet ghetto music composed bud drugged pimps to Russian classic tunes?

    As far as your favorite athlete ... Yes, she knows how to jump high. She is well fed, strong, I'm sure in her life she had seen a couple of romantic teenage movies (bad remake of French classics, but nevermind). God forbid this kind of 'artistry' be required from our athlets (but even here Russians may beat you).
    Artistry is not something you are born with.
    It's the environment: trees, buildings, arts, crafts and nature.
    Cities without ghettos, city streets where you may WALK, with no red zones, where you may only pass in a car if you are white.
    It's a music around you more complex than rap or criminal ballad.
    It's a religion with no felons of good sheeps, with forgivness for all.
    Briefly: HIGHER CULTURE.
    Stop your wars. Invest in children.

    ReplyDelete
  10. i really enjoyed this. thank you

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

USSR is a mighty sports power!

Once upon a time sportsmen were heros and role models, a shining moral example for all of society as to the values of a strong work ethic and a healthy body. USSR is a might sports power!  B. Reshetnikov, 1962  Picture courtesy of A Soviet Poster a Day I love these Soviet era posters and the way they capture the spirit of the time, something special about the purity of the collective sporting effort.  Of course today, sport is about different things.  The political and behavioural symbolic value of sport has been replaced by sport as a commodity.  Sports stars exist as brand heroes in our shopping centres and glossy magazines, the sometimes lurid details of their everyday lives trumpeted on the pages of such magazines as Hello! and the gossip pages of the internet. Compare photographs of Olympians Svetlana Khorkina (1996, 2000 and 2004) and Ludmilla Tourischeva (1972, 1976): Khorkina is in all her glamour shot, sexually charged splendour; Svetlana Khorkina, undated Tou

UPDATE 23/9 - Russian WAG team for Nanning confirmed

Daria Spiridonova will compete at her first World Championships this autumn.  Picture : RGF Natalia Kalugina has confirmed the Russian team for Nanning : Aliya Mustafina, Maria Kharenkova, Tatiana Nabieva,Ekaterina Kramarenko, Alla Sosnitskaya, Daria Spiridonova.  Reserve : Polina Fyodorova Here is a paraphrased translation of a comment by Natalia Kalugina on her Facebook page : 'Aliya has confidence in competition and she is, kind of, a coach to this team.  In Europe she succeeded in this role and she has told the coaches that she even liked it. The main fighting force will be Kharenkova, Sosnitskaya and Spiridonova.  Accordingly, the strongest apparatus will be beam (Marina Bulashenko With God!).  The Chinese women, of course, have been known to win that apparatus, but if one falls, they all fall.   Alla Sosnitskaya could compete in the vault final, and - in theory - on the floor. On bars, of course, Russia will probably lose to the Chinese women, but they should be able to hold

Who really won the WAG All Around?

You will find a link to the FIG's newly published book of results at the Olympic Games here .  This year, they have broken down the judge's execution scores so you can see exactly how each judge evaluated the gymnasts' performances.  It makes for interesting reading - if only I had more time to analyse each judge's marking.  A skim reading already highlights multiple inconsistencies in individual judges' marks and makes you wonder why they bother with the jury at all. I have taken the time to look at the reference judges' scores for the top four in the women's all around.  The FIG explains here what their role is, and how they are selected.  I even used my calculator, which is a risky thing in my hands.  My, how I wish we could have seen a similar document for the Tokyo World Championships. I wonder if anyone can explain how, if the FIG's Code of Points is so objective and fair, it is possible to come up with two different results using two differ

RRG Archive - scroll by date, from 2024 to 2010

Show more