Flashback to London 2012: Viktoria Komova
It is a full competition where the regional teams participate and individuals get a chance to test themselves and their early preparation for the coming competitive season. This year the top women will be competing for places on the European Championships teams (junior and senior) for Sofia, Bulgaria, later in the spring. It is expected that we will see Viktoria Komova for the first time in many months - which must be the most anticipated comeback for years. Aliya Mustafina is also hoped to make a show, as well as Anastasia Grishina and Maria Paseka. There has been an announcement that Ksenia Afanasyeva will compete vault, and I would also be surprised if we didn't see Maria Kharenkova again, and get a chance to see Evgenia Shelgunova. The graceful Anna Rodionova should be in the running, too.
So that's basically our Olympic team from 2012 along with other newbies who might be in with a shot at the first big competition of the year - it will be interesting to see who is on form, but also I think how far the gymnasts have improved, if at all, since their last big outing - the Olympics. Worlds this autumn will be the mid-cycle competition and at the same stage of the team's development as in 2010, which as you will no doubt remember was the year the Russians won Worlds and when Aliya Mustafina first came to prominence at senior world level.
I came across the following fantastic collection of videos (no commentary!) of WAG qualifications in London this morning. As a team, I think we were seeing the girls at their best, if not flawless in their execution. Whatever happened between the calm of quals and the rather harrowed presentation in team finals? What in particular happened to Grishina? Here, she looks sleep deprived but puts in a fantastic showing in bars, beam and floor. It is hard to say that the team would not have done much better with a well rested, positive Grishina delivering her best on all these apparatus in the final. Perhaps we will never know what the battle was all about, but I would love to be able to rewind history and see the team compete again, with Grishina instead of Mustafina on beam - and Komova instead of Mustafina on floor. Perhaps no change in the final result would be the outcome - but you never know.
History hasn't recorded how good this team looked in quals - excess expenditure of nervous energy seemed to take its toll however. Perhaps tension between the coaches finally became too much for 'Nastia' whose training arrangements, as described by head coach Alexandrov in his interview with this blog, had become a battleground. In the end, coach Alexandrov was to say that Grishina was not ready mentally for such a big competition - the team would have been better off with European Champion Anna Dementyeva. But Anna was sent home at an early stage of the training camp by Valentina Rodionenko - and that is another story.
Have the Russians got any better since 2012? Are their routines ready for the new Code? We will have to wait and see. If there is any news of live streaming or of videos I will post here right away.
London 2012 WAG qualifications - Russia - FX
London 2012 WAG qualifications - Russia - V
London 2012 WAG qualifications - Russia - UB
London 2012 WAG qualifications - Russia - BB
Did you mean Komova instead of Grishina on floor? Because Mustafina put up the highest number on floor and anyways Afan still fell and they definitely couldnt have replaced her with anyone else.
ReplyDeleteHi, no, I meant Komova instead of Mustafina. This is just a notional idea for discussion based on Grishina's relatively good performance of her difficult tumbling in qualis on floor, her good performance on beam in qualifications and the idea that perhaps there might be a psychological benefit for the team if all had gone well for her. Lots of ifs and buts and yes, I know that Mustafina is by far Russia's best competitor. Just for discussion.
DeleteWhat about Anastasia Sidorova will she compete or she is still injured?
ReplyDeleteNo news as far as I know - can anyone help?
DeleteThe judges were suffering from a severe "Gymnastic Correctness" there in London and I think they'll continue their campaign to give the medals where it doesn't belong to ...
ReplyDeleteHi Queen E, since it's fun to to play what if with the sport of gymnastics, I used excel to see if the Russians were capable of scoring over the TF score posted by the Americans. They were capable - but you have to take the best events shown from the best score across the week of competition in London, here is the result:
ReplyDeleteRussia would win if they had the following changes
VT: Paseka's VT from Qualifications (+0.233)
Komova and Mustafina's VT from TF
UB: Komova's UB from AA Final (+0.266); Mustafina's UB from EF (+0.433); Grishina's UB from TF
BB: Grishina's BB from QF (+0.367, if replacing Mustafina's beam); Komova's BB from AA final (+0.175); Afan's BB from QF (+0.233)
FX: Afan's FX from QF (+0.5)*; Mustafina's FX from EF (+0.1); and Komova's FX from AA final to replace Grishina (+2.634 - yikes!)
*Afan was on her way to a phenomenal FX floor score, her only mistake being the double pike. She would have had +1.0 to her score for 15.333. If she got that score, she could have improved the TF score by another +0.5.
Anyway, the final score here would be 183.638 (+4.941 from the TF result) which is just above the Americans' 183.596. *184.138 if Afan didn't fall and received 15.333 in TF.
Obviously, this requires lots of changes. But I think it shows Russia is still competitive for team competition and if they put together their best, they can be on top. I'm very excited for Russian nationals because we'll see how strong they are this year, and I have also anticipated Komova's return to competition.
I like some of the new talent, however these new girls seem very tiny and we need some more athletic girls for vaulting. It will be interesting to see everyone to see how a team might fit together.
I totally agree with the girls being too tiny and little athletic to produce some good vaults. Moreover, the Americans have highly improved their routines. Watch the Jesolo competition! They seem to be competing in another league.
ReplyDeleteI wasn't so impressed with Jesolo - the scary thing is that the US has a lot of talent at home. Ross is was the only "A" team senior there and she balked on a vault (-1.0) and fell off beam in event finals. She's coming back from injury, so I'll give her that. When she's recovered and even if she doesn't upgrade, she's still top among the US for uneven bars and balance beam - and towards the top for all-around, although Biles and Price probably have the top two spots.
DeleteSkinner could be "A" team for her vaults and floor, but she'll need to hit floor the rest of the year to be considered for worlds. There are a lot of US gymnasts who have routines between 5.8 and 6.2 who historically have scored higher than her when she only makes small mistakes, but with falls she'll never make the team.
The rest are in consideration to make A team too, but Biles and Price have a lock on most of the spots for team finals in the 3 up 3 count format. However, among that group - they were great by the way, I agree with you Anonymous - they just aren't top class to make worlds outright. Even though the US looks so good, I think Russia still has a chance if they don't crumble under pressure.
How many A team seniors does Russia have?
DeleteI am impressed but the Americans's vault and tumbling.
I am impressed by the amount of seniors and juniors.
Watching Russia's beam in London, they were very good, but still they don't improve on rythm. Noone fell but there were many stops between the elements.
Like Price and Biles are the core of the US team, Komova and Mustafina form the core of the Russian team. I would say the US has more talent by numbers, but only six can go to Nanning - keeping Russia in the game.
DeleteGrishina, Kharenkova, Rodionova, Afan, and Paseka are probably top candidates for the team, and we'll see what stage they are in at Russian championships.
Do we know that the Nanning teams will be 6? It's 5 for Europeans ...
DeleteWorlds teams will remain 6. Euros has always been 5.
DeleteI actually think that Russia has a better chance going into these Worlds. Both teams have an equal amount of girls who are Worlds Worthy, but Russia has a better mix. America has a million fabulous vault and tumblers. But only 3 are needed on the Worlds team. Sending Maroney, Biles, Price, Skinner, Priessman and Kocian would be ridiculous because there is no need for 5 amanars and 15+ scoring floor routines. So you send the best 3, Maroney, Price, and Biles who can all put up huge scores on vault and floor, but then there is no one to put on bars and beam who would post equal numbers. VT avg is around 15.7, floor 15.0. Bars with Ross, Kocian and Biles 15.0, Beam 14.5. Having such low numbers on bars which should be one of the highest scoring events, is very concerning. AND with Kharenkova and her amazing beam set, the reigning Beam Champ, and Komova assuming she reaches her previous glory, this could be the year where Russia uses what was previously their weakest event, to win. Their two weakest events vault and floor, are much stronger than Americans weakest, bars and beam.
DeleteI will keep my fingers crossed then that your analysis is the right one. If the Russians do manage to win, they will have overcome much more than their US counterparts (1) overcoming injury risk (2) overcoming their own tendency to mess up at the critical moment (3) it is much easier to get a high score on vault than it is on any other apparatus. The Russians are strong on vault, but the Americans are exceptional and this gives them a moral and quantitative lead that it is hard to overcome on the other pieces. (4) The judges will mark the gymnasts down for little errors, but they won't give credit for out of this world technique, so Komova's superiority will never be recognised for what it is worth, and the judges will always over score the solid mediocrity on bars and beam of the Americans.
DeleteYour last sentence is the reason why I hate gymnastics. There needs to be recognition of those with exceptional technique. I think that the US may struggle a lot with injuries this season. Maroney is already out with a fairly severe patella fracture and may not even make it to Worlds. Both Price and Biles are battling injuries as well as Ross, Priessman and Kocian. Of course it is not realistic to expect the girls to be 100% so early in the year, but any type of injury can affect the girls for years even. And I feel like the US does not have a great reserve team. Take out just Ross or Kocian, and the US literally has no one who can fill that spot without a significant drop in bar average. The US has been lucky to have the funding and equipment necessary to train their girls to extreme levels, but I see injuries becoming very detrimental to them in the near future. Take Maroney, toe fracture, tibia frature and patella fracture (pretty sure she even had a fourth), all within a year and a half? That is not too common, but makes perfect sense due to the particular skill she has chosen to focus on. Such strain in the legs and feet, its not surprising at all that she is now having so many issues. Would it have been more rewarding in the long run to perform the vault only when necessary?
DeleteDon't hate gymnastics! :-) It isn't gymnastics that is at fault ... nor are the gymnasts to blame.
DeleteBut I do agree that the direction gymnastics has taken is much less appealing than at any point in the last 40 years (that is at least what I know about). I do not know if injury is more prevalent, or if it is just that knowledge of the gymnasts' injuries is better disseminated.
I just feel that the Code is written for power gymnasts like the Americans. I know you say that Maroney, Biles, Price are struggling with injuries and the others seem to be less impressive, but we have seen before that the Americans are capable of making the best of their gymnasts whatever their talents, in a way that attracts high marks. I won't mention the shortcomings of Alexandra Raisman, but I will mention that Ross is not half so graceful and artistic as she is made out to be. The Americans are very good at the PR aspects of the sport, seem to be able to control the judges, and Ross gets the marks because she is very well trained and disciplined. In some ways you can understand why the FIG prefers this type of gymnastics over the flair of the Russians as the Russians are so unpredictable, make mistakes that are quantifiable and their strengths are not ones other countries can emulate. An example of the influence that the American girls are having is the British women's team and in particular Beckie Downie who is currently pulling out high scoring beam routines, admittedly in her own country's national championships, without ever really having been a strong beam worker before, and just because she manages to perform with confidence. I don't mean 'just because', there is a lot of skill in what she does, but she would never emulate a Viktoria Komova or an Anna Rodionova in all her days. These gymnasts - Komova and Rodionova - are unique and, to an extent, uniquely Russian. One day they might pull it all together on one day and be absolutely magnificent - the rest of the time they will be dragged down by a wobble here and a wobble there and end up behind the Kyla Rosses of this world.
Hey ho, I am rambling. I sympathise with the feeling in your post, but I don't think it is really very good to rely on injury amongst other teams to allow a win by our team, and I do not want to wish for injury in any gymnast. I want Russia to win because they beat the rest, I want a Code that reflects their special qualities, but for the time being the latter seems unreachable and the former is dependent on the latter so not likely to arise.
Ahhh to hear the words of a knowledgeable enthusiast. I would take a Raisman any day over a Ross, because Ross has seemed to trick everyone into thinking she is graceful and artistic simply because she has a slender body. Her lack of expression is remarkable and I am baffled how she has been able to score so well with such lack luster routines. I would much rather watch the fire of Mustafina, through all the highs and lows, rather than watch Ross plod along, identical mediocre routine, day after day. Yes I appreciate her attention to the small things, she has some beautiful skills, but they are of such a low level, that that beautiful technique should be expected.
DeleteOf course I would never wish injury on a team, I was simply saying that there may be a correlation between the extreme difficulty of the American girls, and the rising number of injuries. I do not think the sport will change significantly until they introduce an artistry score, as in Rhythmic gymnastics. I think that creating a whole set of judges just for artistry will allow the sport to evolve, all the while staying true to the art and beauty of the sport. Without it, we are likely to see a sport resembling Cheerleading. Big tricks, horrid technique, and no artistry what-so-ever.
I think we already have your last sentence!
DeleteAnd to an extent perhaps an artistry panel might improve things - but not while the FIG is so prescriptive about what dance is. The additive code has really robbed gymnastics of almost all its creativity. And I do not think it is only artistry that is lacking - you mention low level performance and I think this is more to the point. In his book, Arkayev points out that the direction in which the sport was heading - rewarding elements and skills additively so that a high score could be accrued with quantity and variety (I am paraphrasing ruthlessly here) - would eventually prove to be to the detriment of high level performance. That is because without technical innovation and pushing the boundaries, there is no need for the high level technique we saw in such gymnasts as Mostepanova, Shushunova, Yurchenko and Produnova. It is no coincidence then that in an era when a double double on floor is considered the height of difficulty - when Soviet Alla Priakhina first did one in 1987, and Groshkova performed a double in in 1990 - that the overall level of performance has slipped so dreadfully.
Now, while is like Biles - I consider her to be the most honest expression of the American school of gymnastics - one has to admit that the level of her performance is pretty poor - poor line and posture, principally, but I could also criticise her on the quality of her flight (all rebound) and of course those oh so out of control landings. Not so long ago Dianne dos Santos was being marked down quite ruthlessly for such failings. Biles is very definitely the best in the world at the moment, under this Code - and I have a sneaky feeling she may not be beaten for a very long time, if she remains healthy and motivated. I applaud her as a brilliant, well trained athlete. But this demonstrates the poverty of the Code. Biles is an incomplete gymnast - she shouldn't be able to overpower the competition without there being some finesse in there. She is definitely one of the most acrobatically gifted gymnasts of the last 20 years. But look at that technique; Produnova, her closest Russian equivalent, would have been crucified for those failings just 15 years ago. She wouldn't have made the Russian team except as a reserve, for her reliability.
Hey ho. I do not think this will be addressed overnight or by one simple measure. It has taken the FIG about 20 years to destroy the sport. As far as they are concerned, the changes are a success as they 'democratise' the sport and make it possible for anyone to medal. That just isn't right when the sport is elite and requires such a high level of intellectual input, experience and expertise to build. We can see the results in the developing African system, where gymnasts are being pushed to perform skills they have not been properly prepared to do. Gymnastics is a sport where the skill of coaches is more important than in almost any other. You only have to read Zaglada's account (see the Produnova thread) to understand this. Coming back to my original point Biles is a good gymnast but it shouldn't be possible for her to be Workd Champion. That is only partly about a lack of artistry.
It's not only a lack of artristry; it's a lack of good technique. Claerly enough, the FIG judges don't understand artistry, but they could learn about technique.
DeleteI love what you said about being an incomplete gymnast. Of course we have to be sure to not set standards too high, there is already plenty of pressure for these girls to compete when they may or may not be ready for it, but I completely agree. Especially when it comes to the AA. I don't mind if a powerhouse like Biles wins a vault title. Briefly seeing slightly bent knees and unpointed toes during a 3 second vault is very different from excruciatingly painful bent knees and unpointed toes during a simple bhs series on beam Gabby Douglas style. Nothing against Gabby as a person, but I cannot justify her being Olympic Champ. It honestly seems like a slap in the face to gymnastics as a sport. There needs to be a significant change in the value of technique. If I have to cringe while watching your routine, you should not be AA champ. Now I am not saying everyone needs to have a ridiculous toe point Rodionova style (Ahhhh I could watch her feet all day), but the lack of effort being put into the smallest of skills, is so concerning. And I find it surprising seeing as how some of the mot influential people in the sport are of the classical times, that there hasn't been more vocalization as to rapid decrease in quality.
Delete"Perhaps no change in the final result would be the outcome - but you never know." The USA still would have won. Russia didn't have five points worth of mistakes in the TF..the gymnasts from the USA were just better. It's time to get over it.
ReplyDeleteThe US will probably win the TF in Nanning too. I think they have a lot more depth and talent than you, and everyone in the comments, give them credit for. As for the "American influence" and how they can manipulate the judges/scores, don't even pretend like the Russian gymnasts do not receive scoring benefits or like scores have never been biased towards their favor.
And Simone's technique is just fine. She is an incredible gymnast and won her World Title fair and square. Also, compare her twisting and vaulting to the likes of Paseka and Mustafina and tell me who has the better form.
As for all of the other whiny comments about about the Code and how the FIG has "destroyed" the sport...grow up and get over it. This isn't the era of Soviet domination anymore. Like EVERY other sport in the world..things change. Stop being so bitter that your favorites have not been able to keep up.
You are welcome to express an opinion here, but could you please try to do so without all of the 'grow up and get over it' emotion? It only weakens any argument you might want to make.
ReplyDeleteOn with the discussion.
A new anonymous person here... (For all intents and purposes, call me Anonymous Fan #3)
ReplyDeleteOkay so there seem to be a lot of very passionate people talking here. I am another passionate fan, but I hope that the way in which I am writing this post is perceived as neither offensive nor rude. I want to start by saying that I am someone who has supported the Russians and their artistry since I first began to love the sport; the Russian gymnasts have a mysticism and a magical way of drawing you in to their performances.
However, I am curious to know why people seem to be so opposed to Kyla Ross (out of all Americans)? I mean I don't think it is very respectful to say that her artistry is fake or deceitful and especially to say that one would rather watch Raisman's gymnastics than hers. Yes, maybe Ross is not a great dancer (she can be quite robotic), and yes, maybe her routines are not as difficult as many others are. But wouldn't you rather see a routine that is done with great precision and form even if it's easier (and by no means mediocre...) than one with extremely difficult skills and innovative combinations but poor form? It is fine that great technique is expected for "low level" skills, but to me, it is a breath of fresh air to watch someone go for execution over difficulty in today's gymnastics (of course, it's always better to have both great difficulty and execution but you would rather see a gymnast have great execution first). Also, would you not agree that Kyla has improved (at least a little bit) in terms of artistry from her 2012 Olympic floor routine to her 2013 Worlds floor routine? At least she is trying to become more artistic.
Finally, I am interested to know what people think about the artistry of the US juniors (Bailie Key, Lauren Hernandez, Emily Gaskins, Sydney Johnson-Scharpf, etc) and of Catherine Lyons of Great Britain? Do you not feel that the future generation (2013-2016 cycle) is a bit more artistic than last generation (2009-2012)?
Hi Anon 3
DeleteDid I say Kyla is fake?
I think the point was more that people speak of Ross as though she is incredibly graceful - she won the Longines Prize for Elegance last year, for example - whereas actually she is a well disciplined, well trained gymnast, who as you say is very precise and has good form. People criticise Raisman all the time - no need to say more about her. It is great that Kyla has her strengths but I would not rank her as particularly outstanding in any dimension apart from her discipline and precision.
Artistry is about more than floor exercises, and the argument isn't solely about artistry. Virtuosity is perhaps more to the point. I come from a standpoint where gymnastics was about pushing the boundaries AND having great form and precision AND all of the choreography, posture, economy of line and so on. This was encouraged by a subjective Code that encouraged judgement and not measurement. (Please note, subjectivity/objectivity dimensions are different to fair/unfair. You can be fair whilst being subjective, and unfair whilst being objective.)
I do not think that ANY gymnast today can be truly artistic, because the Code has squeezed the innovation and scope for artistry out of the sport. Waving your arms about or doing twizzles are not artistry. When I watch Afanasyeva I get the feeling of a deeper expression that is more than just about executing skills with good form. When I watch Rodionova on bars I get that thrill of seeing somebody who can fly and who has that kind of soft amplitude that doesn't look as though she has a broom handle stapled to her back. I select Russian gymnasts because these are the ones I know well. You ask me about Key, Lyons, many others, as if you are making a point; but I think that one of them has gymnastics that is ugly rather than stylish. Different and distinctive doesn't make it original and artistic. The others may well have good form and execution, may have impressive D scores, but it stops there.
Some context. For the American girls - and many lovers of the sport who are relatively recent newcomers, having appreciated the sport for anything less than 20 or so years - the sport is a different animal than in the 70s, 80s and 90s, when its relationship to culture was freely evident to all. The American girls were much better gymnasts in those days, too. Today gymnasts select skills from the Code according to their D value, do their best to perform without error, and the rest if it exists is icing on the cake. It doesn't get rewarded, eg Komova's floor score in the all around final in London was described as 'a joke' by a very distinguished observer. So it is disappearing. Why try any harder than you have to?
DeleteI still get a thrill to watch a good routine but it is important not to forget the roots of the sport. Gymnastics is constantly in a state of flux and the tensions we see now echo earlier tensions going back to the time of Jahn and Ling. The difference was, we didn't have a large governing body pressing down its authoritarian vision on how the sport should be.
I remember when Mary Lou Retton won the Olympics in 1984, Bela Karolyi pronouncing that her style of gymnastics was the gymnastics of the future - I seem to remember the expression 'run fast, and go boom,'. :-). I dismissed it at the time, but 30 years later, it was prescient.
The problem with having such a prescriptive, additive Code is that it is open to manipulation by whoever holds the influence or power (often the richest) and, in common with a written constitution, is open to misinterpretation and abuse by those with the cleverest grasp of wording and ambiguity. At least when judging was exactly judgement, rules were flexible and judges could use their judgement. You only have to watch the video of the African girl failing a Produnova vault to see what the consequences are of a precisely worded, strongly policed Code of Points. Not to mention the low level performance I discussed which in this case seems to stem from poor coaching.
At the end of the day, the problem is one that is more than artistry. Innovation is desperately thin on the ground in women's gymnastics these days. The world champion is praised to the skies for producing floor tumbles that were initiated in the late 1980s. 'Without risk, one cannot win ' is something Valeri Liukin once said. Back in 1988 I think. Sadly, the situation has changed, the women's sport has largely stagnated (unlike the men, who are charging ahead). Kyla Ross is a nice gymnast, but that is about all one can say these days of almost anyone, unless they are like Biles and have so much power it blasts them off the podium. I don't blame you for liking her, and I don't criticise her personally, more the paucity of innovation, style and virtuosity that is the outcome of the current Code and that leads people to believe that they are seeing art when in fact what they are seeing is skill.
Finally. Let me just say. Yes, I am harking back to the good old days. But iften, we can't move forward without looking back. Universally almost there are complaints about aspects of the women's sport and judging. If we are to move forward to match the strength of the men's sport, we need to consider the reasons why things have degraded, and have in mind an endpoint of how they could be better. That is why discussing a model that most people who knew it agree was superior could be helpful if only the right people would open their minds.
DeleteHi Queen Elizabeth,
DeleteAnon 3 here again. I think we are mostly on the same page. My comment about people criticizing Ross' artistry as "fake or deceptive" was not directed towards you (another individual had posted an opinion about how Ross seemed to "trick" people and that this person would rather see Raisman's gymnastics- I may have just been a bit sensitive about this person's wording). You only said that Ross was well trained and disciplined, a statement I completely agree with. Yes, Ross is also not as elegant as people make her out to be.
Second, I want to say that I agree with many of your opinions about the status of artistry in gymnastics today (if I didn't find value in your opinions, then I wouldn't read your blog on a consistent basis). Virtuosity, as you call it, is almost entirely gone from the sport, and the Russians are about the only ones who still can possess the quality. When Mustafina and Afanasyeva dance or even simply move across the floor, they possess an intangible and immeasurable beauty that entrances an audience; this beauty should be rewarded in some way. It is quite unfortunate that Komova was not rewarded for her brilliant AA floor routine.
But sadly, I have not lived on this earth long enough to truly understand the innovation and virtuosity you speak of from the 70s, 80s, and even 90s. However, I do realize that the current code of points and definition of artistry has changed the sport for the worst (I think the new definition of artistry is possibly an attempt to make more styles of dance become accepted?). Yet, is there really any way to reward for the virtuosity of a routine, as virtuosity is naturally unquantifiable?
Hi Anon 3
DeleteThanks for your reply and for even reading my rambling post of a very late Friday night!
Your mention of the unquantifiability of virtuosity couples back to the arguments of judgement versus measurement, objective versus subjective. Yes, we can reward virtuosity, if the will is there.
There isn't really a definition of artistry in the Code at the moment that is workable - because they try to quantify what it is. In attempting to quantify, we lose a key dimension of artistry and the aesthetic. Clive Palmer's suggestion for a framework of qualitative objectivity is one way forward.