Skip to main content

Who's the best? Guest post from coach Jim Holt

By
Jim Holt, men's head coach in Scotland, commented rather usefully on my post of 9 April regarding three dimensions of the nature of human movement, which I will partially summarise below.  Jim has now added to this with a video exercise in judgement ... please join in the conversation by adding your comments! 

At root, if we think of gymnastics as ‘human motion’ and we recognize that even the various pieces of apparatus have evolved over a somewhat random development, regardless of the nature of the apparatus, if we agree that gymnastics is (and its rules evaluate or compare some measures of ) ‘human movement’, then the 3 (and only 3!) aspect of same that are measured are :
1 (THE fundamental one) … economy of line or movement
2 Complexity of movement
3 One’s ability to overcome the forces of time and/or gravity (a subset of time in this context).
1    Economy : a straight arm felge handstand is better than a bent arm, not because it is more difficult, although it is, but because it has a better line (i.e. fewer angles … a layout is better than a pike is better than a tuck because of the same principle).
 
 2    Complexity: double double back salto is better IN PRINCIPLE than a full-in which is better than a double … which is better than a single … not because they are harder, but because axiomatically due to our second principle
 
3   A 10 second cross (or high high back salto on floor) is better than a 3 second cross/low flip because we can measure principle #3. 
 
... 
 
Now, to a specific … ‘elegance’ and the ‘aesthetic’ underlie everything about principle #1, economy of line or motion … my personal objection to gymnastics as it has evolved in the 21st century is the blind worship (or less inflammatorily put) belief that ‘additive complexity’ is the direction that gymnastics should go …

Elegance is elegance because it implicitly illustrates a harmony and efficiency in a movement (any movement) that inelegance does not … a Ferrari idling is more elegant than a Hyundai idling, not because it has a higher top-end speed, but because its combination of form and function make it more harmonious, efficient … et al.

Who has the best exercise/elements here? What's the best and WHY?




Or this guy?



Maybe this guy?



Everybody knows this guy



So what do you see? Which is the best? (Not every skill on the best routine is the best, by the way ...). Now the important question ... WHY is it the best?


Labels:

Comments

  1. Anonymous14 April 2013 at 14:42

    Taking the three principles that Coach Holt speaks on into consideration, I would say that the best of the four men shown/examined is Bilozerchev. Liukin is flash, but by being flashy, he loses the economy of movement and ability to overcome the natural forces. Liukin misses his handstands and has a hard time holding his positions for as long a time as Bilozerchev. Artemov is one of my all time favorites, but you can tell he struggles to hold the handstands and positions against the downward pull of gravity. There's a lack of control in his gymnastics that Bilozerchev has. Same with Novikov. It might be because of his youth in that particular exercise, but Novikov seems to struggle with keeping control of his movements. He's a bit jerky and has to fight to keep the positions stable. Bilozerchev, however, has no problem with his exercise. All of his handstands end straight at the vertical, there's no struggle against the downward pull of gravity, and all of the complexity exists without any visible struggle.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous14 April 2013 at 19:20

    Liukin had that bitching face back then and still has it today. Love Bilozerchev I wish he could have won and Liukin wouldn't have even gotten in the podium.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Who really won the WAG All Around?

By
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...
70 comments
Read more

Remembering last summer - Nelli Kim, her judges and Viktoria Komova

By
In view of Nelli Kim's recent interview , Lupita and I thought it timely to revisit the performance of some of the WTC President's judges over past competitions ... this article from 27th August 2012 is reposted here, as a reminder. 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.  M...
42 comments
Read more

Artistry versus acrobatics???

By
Watching videos of this weekend's competitions - the qualification and all around rounds of the Russian championships, medal winners from the American Cup - I am struck, more and more, by the huge difference between the American and Russian schools of gymnastics. It led me to ask the question : do artistry and acrobatics have to be mutually exclusive? (I am afraid that I think naming 'American' gymnastics a 'school' is perhaps lending an undeserved dignity to work which has become excessively obsessed with the difficult and the consistent, but I am using the word here so as not to label unfairly those individual gymnasts who are blameless in the direction of their training.) The FIG's vision for gymnastics is said to embrace more artistry; at least the publicity it has put about on the subject of its new Code makes that fairly plain.  So perhaps the Russians, with their inconsistent brilliance and superior body carriage (Mustafina, Komova, Grishina, Afanasy...
39 comments
Read more

RRG Archive - scroll by date, from 2024 to 2010

Show more