Somewhat belatedly, I've been reading President Grandi's latest letter dated 2nd May 2011.
It's difficult to understand why this letter has been presented at this time - what has prompted this? Why does Grandi suddenly consider it imperative to change a Code which encompassed so many changes he himself initiated? The letter is wordy and cloaked in flowery declarations, but makes two key points - (i) the Code needs simplification, and, (ii) crucially, he finally acknowledges that objectivity is an inappropriate principle in the judgement of an artistic sport.
Many of us would agree with this, but the letter has received a somewhat muted response in the media - some links are provided below. Problem is, the Code, competition formats and so on seem to change so regularly it's difficult to keep track, and the changes rarely lead to much, if any, improvement. Furthermore, Grandi's letters don't really amount to much. On a practical level, he does not set out a timeframe within which to address these problems. He provides no action plan. He doesn't say who will be responsible for nursing any changes through, and who will be consulted.
I would suggest that this lack of clarity, and our somewhat bewildered response to it, allows Grandi to continue his 'top down' management changes and to exercise an inappropriate degree of control over the sport. The process of change lacks transparency, and the FIG is not fully answerable for the consequences of any changes made. Nor does it apparently consult its stakeholders.
Grandi talks of the need to simplify the Code but does not analyse the reasons why it has become so overcomplicated. Technical experts will refer to the rapid and continuous development of the sport over decades, and of course this is an important point. Failures to edit the Code thoroughly and manage different versions consistently have also led to serious errors: for example at last year's Worlds, where the Russian coaches were referring to a Quick Guide to the Code which had not been updated, leading them to lose medals.
Grandi's acknowledgement of the subjective nature of gymnastics' judging also leads me to point to the linguistic and semiotic complexity of sharing a Code even amongst communities who speak the same mother tongue. Discussions of gymnastics are fraught with ambiguity and contradiction. The various value-laden assumptions as to the identity of the sport today have not even begun to be articulated. In a multi-cultural, multi-lingual sporting community, within a complex technical framework that relies on judgement, this is critical. Quite often we are speaking at cross purposes.
What do these words mean to you?
Harmonious
Choreography
Performance
Execution
Amplitude
Artistry
Expression
Difficulty
Just a small sample of key concepts important to gymnastics, picked from the air. I dare bet a significant number of equally valid definitions could be developed for each of them. Translate them into another language, and you would find another layer of meaning.
Simplifying the Code will never work until we can find a common language that reflects the rich cultural significance of gymnastics, as well as the technicalities of the sport. One of the first jobs Grandi should task is the development of an internationally agreed, fully representative lexicography of key terms.
Further reading :
Rewriting Russian Gymnastics, 13th October 2010 Can judging ever be objective?
Rewriting Russian Gymnastics, 29th October 2010 Evaluating the artistic: ambiguity and the FIG
Gymnastics Examiner (Blythe Lawrence), 1st May 2011 Bruno Grandi: 'the Code has mutated into a time bomb'
International Gymnastics (Amanda Turner), 1st May 2011 Grandi calls Code of Points 'a time bomb'
Gymnastics Coaching, 1st May 2011 Grandi: Code mutated to a time bomb
American Gymnast (undated) Solving the Code Drama : Could this proposal work?
Comments
Post a Comment