Compulsories: compulsory viewing

In the past I have elected not to spend much time watching compulsory routines. Why? Because I find watching them incredibly depressing.

This is not, however, due to me disliking them. It is simply due to the fact that I enjoy them to the point where my sadness that they no longer exist begins to outweigh the happiness I get from watching. This may sound like an exaggeration, but I truly believe that compulsory routines were one of the main factors keeping gymnastics artistic, polishing and brilliant throughout the 80s and 90s.

To some, compulsories must have seemed as normal a part of gymnastics as the four apparatus themselves. To others, such as myself, they are a strange and wonderful event which we never had the opportunity to view and discuss in the present tense (at least with any real perspective- I doubt my 7 year old self would have had much to say about the compulsory competition in 1996).

http://s3.assets.usoc.org/assets/documents/attached_file/filename/38714/mag7team_floor.jpg?1299262804

A quick visit to Wikipedia provides the following description of compulsory routines: “[they] heavily emphasized perfect technique, form and execution” - three aspects of the sport that modern gymnastics whiners lament on a daily basis. Sure, there were bad aspects of compulsories; but for a brief few minutes lets indulge in a full scale whinge about one of the sport’s greatest losses.

WHY COMPULSORIES WERE GREAT

They provided (in theory) a standardized, comprehensive test of the basic gymnastic capabilities of every single competitor at a meet - but they were much prettier to look at than an SAT paper. Compulsory exercises, although technically far easier than the optional routines which followed, were just as hard in many aspects because the judges knew EXACTLY what they were looking for. Not once since has the quest for utter perfection been so wonderfully captured: compulsory exercises left no room for slouchy breathers between tumbling passes or half baked corner poses passed off as choreography. Every aspect of the routine was constructed with delivery and technique at the forefront, from the tumbling to the leaps to the simplest of delicate hand movements.

They encouraged real attention to the basics of gymnastics, the bread and butter which act as a solid foundation to all difficulty piled on later. Gluing ones legs together during a back handspring or hitting 180 on a split leap was not a cherry-on-top technicality but an essential pre-requisite to a good score (the attainment or failure of which had profound consequences on ones progression into event finals). Rarely have I seen anywhere else the striking technical perfection right to the tip of the toes that was the norm amongst the top competitors in the compulsory competitions.

Something we have seen less and less of over the years is the stuck landing. My opinions are mixed on this. Obviously nothing ends a routine better, or looks better, that an upright planted landing. However it does get incredibly wearing when commentators begin talking about this 30 seconds before the end and for the entire slow motion replay: it is cool, but not everything. These days, though, with the stuck landing being seen less and less, one can’t help but think that it is losing its place as one of the deciding factors for a medal. At the last Olympics, only 1 of 4 apparatus gold medallists stuck their dismount.

Sandra Izbasa's triple twist: the only "stuck" dismount from the Beijjing event finals

With technique and presentation paramount in the judging of compulsories, stuck landings were a necessity for a huge score (in all fair examples, anyway). Surely having the importance of such endings drummed into ones training regime would make the same mantra spill over into the optional routines? Maybe is compulsories were still around today, training would more greatly reflect the need for a stick.

This point precedes my main reason for loving compulsories: whether consciously or subconsciously, they set an example moving forward into optional routines. If gymnasts have to hit a proper split one day, why not do it the next? Stick a landing one day, why not the next? Polished, expressive choreography one day, why not the next? The list goes on. Basically, compulsories provided an “ideal world” in gymnastics, laying down the standard for technique and artistry.

It seems to me no coincidence that the interpretation of floor music and quality of choreography has declined in general since 1996. Even the floor routines we loved in 2000 had begun to lose some of their artistic edge (which can be seen in the wild differences between Lilia’s golden performance in Atlanta and Zamo’s golden performance in Sydney - but that’s not to say I dislike the latter, I think it is great nonetheless). With compulsory floor routines filled with compulsory choreography, even the least confident and able of dancers would have to learn and practice SOME classic dancing just to get through the stadium doors. Many gymnasts competing today look almost embarrassed by their choreography and unwilling to perform it wholeheartedly.

WHERE COMPULSORIES FELL SHORT

Ironically, although compulsories on paper appear to be the perfect, standardized ideal described above, the reality was often very different. It seems that, with everyone performing the same skills and hence the scoring entirely subjective of the performance, it may have been easier for judges to award the top countries the benefit of the doubt. I believe that the old compulsory system exacerbated the team “score building” phenomenon that was allowed to penetrate the scoreboards for far too long. Such bias acts as a roadblock for emerging gymnastics states, and one cannot help but wonder whether countries like Great Britain and more recently Vietnam (albeit with a single competitor) would have enjoyed the same breakout success had compulsories still been around.

An example from the top of my head comes from the 1992 compulsories, and from one of my all time favourites Svetlana Boginskaya. Svetlana was great, but she benefited from her celebrity. The Wag competitors in the compulsory competition on vault had to work very hard for 9.8+ on the vault, yet Bogi breezes through a 9.850 with a noticeably shaky landing. Would this have been the same if she wasn’t wearing the Unified Team leotard that night? Who knows, but I would venture a no.

Worth a 9.850?

This scored a 9.837...

Lastly, thoughts must turn to the athlete’s stamina. Compulsory competitions mean a whole other rotation of the apparatus. Would today’s girls manage modern difficulty during “optionals” with a whole other day added?

So, admittedly, compulsories were a two sided coin. However, with less international bias these days, and a sorry state of basic presentation and artistry, this gymnastics enthusiast for one would love to see a return of these much missed competitions. I actually think they might nowadays benefit smaller programmes: if added to the team competition and qualifying scores, they would allow basic presentation to factor into the medals as opposed to huge difficulty (in which the powerhouse countries seem to lead the field). They also might play a helping hand in outlawing skill chucking forever, and would definitely help the expressively challenged competitors of the modern day with both a real incentive to improve artistically and a subconscious inclination to do so.

For now, a return seems unlikely. But until such a point, the golden days of compulsory glory should be compulsory viewing for all gymnastics fans. 

THREE OF THE BEST (in my humble opinion)

1.The mother of all....

2. Shannon at her best....

3. Sveta keeps it classy....

Lost in time

Change can be a good thing, and often is. It gives us variety, surprises, new things we never thought of and even with bad changes comes the opportunity for debate.

Gymnastics is no exception, and perhaps one of the sports with the most room for change. The skills we see performed and the criteria on which they are judged change with high regularity, meaning a gap of just two Olympics can see changes of great proportion.

What I find interesting, and often saddening, is how particular skills become left behind. Slung into the back of a dusty cupboard and never again to be brought back out into the light by the top level performers (or very rarely at least). There are of course many reasons for this, primarily involving changes in the code to the difficultly rating of skills, and in many cases there is no real cause for these moves to be given more podium time. But on a personal opinion level, here are some skills I miss from back in the day.

WHIPS

Kim Zmeskal shows us what we are missing

Ok so these are not entirely gone. We get a fair amount of whip into triple, a few whip to double Arabians and so forth, but whipbacks by no means have the pride of place they once did in floor routines. A notable and brilliant exception is Catalina Ponor’s new second pass which sees two consecutive whips indirectly into a full twisting double back. Execution wise it’s messy but I am all over the concept.

But despite these few pop ups, we don’t see nearly as many as we used to. There was a time when anyone who was anyone did a fair bit of whipping. 1992 was clearly its heyday, with Kim Zmeskals super famous middle pass: whip whip whip bhs double tuck. So cool, so fun to watch and so so so nineties.

I personally think we could use a whole lot more whipping. I think it is a really underrated way of making routines by less than artistic gymnasts interesting and different. Few things match music like whips. Kim’s music was amongst the worst ever (I think) BUT that middle pass was a brilliant link with the music in a way that most tumbling lines rarely achieve. I personally think that Jordyn Wieber’s current music with a multiple whip pass would be just fantastic.

HOP FULLS

I love that Chuso was the first person to do one of these fantastic little bar elements (I have since been corrected - she was not the first but the skill does bear her name). She is just great, but not on bars and I love that she had a lasting impact on something she was not known for.

But back to the skill itself, it is so fun to watch. So energetic, quick and magical. I loved it as an alternative to traditional pirouetting, and whilst I am in agreement with it no longer being classed as a release skill I found it to be a really pleasant addition to any routine. Even more so when done in combination. Lili Podkopayeva springs to mind here. I happen to think her bars were often a bit scrappy and overscored but her hop full-hop full-gienger was really cool. I have seen fewer and fewer of these over the years and they were another skill that defined the nineties to me, and a large part of this is down to Lilia and also Shannon Miller.

PUNCH FRONTS

And may I quickly point out that the tired old 2.5 twist to layout front doesn’t count. I am talking about a good, old fashioned tucked punch front, preferably in a different direction to the tumbling line itself.

Part of me is tempted to hate punch fronts: they have claimed many of my favourites as their victims. A punch front lost Dominique Dawes an AA medal in 1996, Elena Zamolodchikova an AA gold in 2000. It set back the legendary Svetlana Boginskaya in her third Olympic effort, and undoubtedly countless more along the way. But these incidents pale into insignificance when they are done well. The aggressive landing, the rebound, the sudden change of direction. They are one of those skills that can genuinely be called exciting, and I am sure even non gymnastics fans would agree.

I have particular fondness for double layout punch fronts. Mohini Bhardwaj and Vanessa Atler’s efforts were amazing and epitomized powerful American gymnastics.

PROPER FLIGHT SERIES

Remember when combinations on beam were actually made up of skills, being combined?! I do. It was a brilliant time and one that is sorely missed. Now, in theory a group of skills of different directions and types could be combined, but why the hell would you risk it if no one told you off for not doing so? This seems to be the general pattern in the modern day for the flight series on beam, and I don’t even resent them for it: they have to play to the code. Just as much as the code says “don’t fall off” it also apparently says “do a FWO, do the YMCA for a bit, relax, then have a go at a BHS-LOSO and have some points”. So obviously, people do.

Back in the 80s and 90s, if a gymnast meant to combine a flight series, then they did. With ferocious speed, attack and precision (not all the time of course, but that seemed to be the general idea). Again I must use Shannon as an example. I loved her mount sequence leading into a back handspring and pike back in Barcelona. She often took a wobble, but it was flighted and super super quick.

Obviously code changes make it less likely for gymnasts to do multiple layout step outs. Great to see Komova bringing it back from the dead a bit with her two LOSOs in a row.