Crack open the vault

We are witnessing the death of an apparatus. What happened to the vault?

Remember the 2000 Olympic vault final? I do. A Huge amount of tension surrounded the apparatus following the height mishap in the All Around competition, adding extra excitement to wat was already a great showcase of talent. The lineup was starstudded: lots of top all around competitors were present along with some wildcards like Laura Martinez, whose DTY had been super consistent during her stay in Sydney. There was a nice variety of vaults, high levels of execution, and the general feeling that the vault title was as prestigious and important as any other gold medal in the sport.

What the hell happened next?

Vault has undergone a major transformation since the millennium Olympics. Although vault was always an apparatus which benefitted a specialist (statistically, vault is the apparatus on which world champions have the greatest chance of repeating). However, in recent years the field has gone from slim to almost non existent.

If gymnastics were a company, vault specialism would be the IT department. Locked away in some basement somewhere and treated with less regard than other medal possibilities in the sport, vault has for a while now felt like a continuous footnote in gymnastics. In the All Around, the top group starts on vault, and there is ever the feeling that it is like a warm up for the other “real” events: something that most gymnasts simply “get through”. Even in the case of athletes who go for top shelf vaults, there is never the sense of truly perfecting an art on vault and making an all around impression there - it is ever an ambience of squeezing as many tenths from the throwaway apparatus to ease the pressure later on.

This is no coincidence, and could easily have been anticipated. With the open ended code, start value is everything as we have all come to know. The code demands exhausting routines on the other three apparatus, asking more of gymnasts than ever before. For an instance demonstrator of this, watch a bar routine form the 1992 Olympics: they look positively bare by comparison to today’s.

Gorgeous, and a worthy winner. But look how few skills there are compared to today

With so much time and investment having to be put in to learning huge quantities of skills and connections on other apparatus, it is no surprise that vault gets left out in the cold. This has two pertinent consequences for this apparatus....

1. Yurchenko fever. It would be erroneous to blame Yurchenko dominance on the open ended code, because Yurchenkos have been overperformed for about 30 years now. The main difference is that in the past, whilst most competitors used Yurchenkos in team and AA situations, they DID have a second vault and hence WERE familiar with other vaulting techniques. Now, one could attempt a different entry, but why would they? It is easier and more rewarding to chuck an extra twist onto a vault they already know. Hence everyone progresses towards an Amanar and that is that.

2. Some of the best vaulters don’t for event finals...because they don’t have time. Learning a second vault is hard work. Learning a cracking routine on any apparatus is hard work, but the key difference is that other routines can be used in a team situation AND in the All Around: these events are blind to a second vault. Therefore for someone like Jordyn Wieber, whose main focus is the All Around, doesn’t bother with a second vault even though she has the potential to be one of the world’s top vaulters.

So, the consequences of the code of points, and the fact that two vaults were only required in team and AA for one quad (97-00), is that the two vault field has got thinner and thinner. In 2008, only three of the 8 competitors were top 10 finishing all arounders. Compare this to 1992 where 7 of the 8 were top 10 AAers. In a way this is good as it indicates that specialism is more greatly accepted, but it is undeniable that vault medallists are not always the best vaulters or those with the best technique.

There is a greater problem exacerbating this. Hinted at above, the Olympic team format does nothing for the vault specialist. It is one of those points that gymnastics fans seem to universally agree on. That team size is just too damn small. For me, the 2008 6-3-3 format was too small so this new one is just a complete insult. Remember old team finals? Back when there were compulsories, 7 member teams? Back when to watch a full one you had to totally bed in, stockpile the supplies and unplug the phone? These days they are over in a flash. Vault specialists struggled to make teams at the best of times, but it was possible! Look at 2004, where the USA took Annia Hatch to Athens, allowing her to take a silver medal.

So to summarize the problems: vault is dying. Variety has gone and the gaps between vault D scores encourages the Yurchenko progression above anything else. Vault finals are paltry affairs with few competitors, and those that are present shouldn’t even really be considered specialists: they are simply ANYONE who can put two vaults of a semi decent start value to their feet. Finally, the stupid new team format is ruining the apparatus further: gymnastics talent tends to come from powerhouse countries, within which it is unwise to be a vault specialist because a second vault means nothing to the team. We are currently in a scenario where it is probably more likely for Jade Barbosa to make the Olympic vault final than it is for Mckayla Maroney, who will have to stamp her ticket somewhere else.

Vault can be a brilliant, exciting event. It can also be beautiful. Sadly, every current rule in the book seems to discourage athletes from perfecting their art on vault. We have lost execution, variety, depth and recognition. Vault has become a throwaway footnote in a sport of combination bonus and packed routines elsewhere.

I just hope we can get it back. The new vault final rules (see: http://theepanel.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/cops-and-robbers-best-bits-of-draft.html) should make some difference, but ultimately I think the only longterm solution would be to reinstate the two vault requirement for teams and All Arounders. This way national teams would be forced to recognize specialisms, raising vault excellence to a level field with the other apparatus, and variety would be forced back into place. People would say this would be too demanding on the athletes, but it would be unfair to let vault take the hit for the exhausting nature of the other three apparatus. It isn't about difficulty: its about variety and execution.

Pictures: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/DPP2xa_573f/2011+Visa+Championships+Day+2/iHd-aKD6d27/Jordyn+Wieber, http://images.usatoday.com/sports/olympics/_photos/2004-08-23-hatch-ins.jpg, http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/z1x1rC-mNiV/Artistic+Gymnastics+World+Championships+Tokyo/FjBG76GxpE1/McKayla+Maroney

CoPs and robbers: the best bits of the draft code

It is what we look forward to whilst simulatenously wishing away the time before the Olympics and dream of having a part in creating: it is nearly time for the new code of points. A change in the marking system with such regularity is one of the hardest things to explain to sports fans unfamiliar with gymnastics. And it IS strange. If a runner runs the fastest, he wins. If a high jumper jumps the highest, he wins. The list goes on. Yet a gymnast could win gold by a great margin on bars during one Olympics and not even make the finals at the next one (with the same routine and assuming no injuries!). The criteria on which we judge what is good change continuously.

I always say I am not an expert on the code: I am not. I think a lot of it is very difficult to understand and one has to have a very specific type of thought process to convert things like C+E = 0.3 into a  tumbling line in their head. And I am so not one of those people.

A week or so ago, a draft of the new code of points was uploaded to the internet. Now this is exactly what is says on the tin: a draft, so any part of it could change before it is finalized. It does mean however that we get to see how the FIG is thinking, what specifically they are trying to move towards and away from and we can gauge, as fans, if we want to move in the same direction too. I may not understand much, but I understand some, so from my recent skimming of the proposed code (which can be downloaded here http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1109627...FEKAxrLu4xXP0=) here are my best bits/most notable bits so far.

A MORE ACCOUNTABLE VAULT FINAL

It was nearly four years ago but it is still talked about often, and with distain. Cheng Fei won the Olympic bronze medal on vault with a fall. Why did this happen? Because she was one of only two competitors in the final performing two 6.5 vaults. Although her Amanar was near perfect, she barely got her Cheng to her knees let alone feet.

Alicia Sacramone on the other hand did two lovely vaults with great execution, amplitude and form. Yet she took fourth place and no medal. To many, including me, this is not what gymnastics is all about, and although the execution of vault gold medallists has been improving greatly since Beijing there was still a sense that someone could rock up with a monster D score and take home a medal with car crash execution scores (Yamilet Pena anyone?).

But the FIG are clearly onto this and the draft code suggests a new rule for vault event finals...

(DVT1 + DVT2)/2 + 10.00 – (VT1 ex deductions + VT2 ex deductions) = Final score

The above is taken straight from the draft code. But what does it actually mean? It means that E scores are no longer averaged, but instead the focus is on the deductions themselves, so bad form can be doubly costly. Let us have a quick look at what would have happened in that most controversial of vault finals if this rule were in place.

As can be seen, this could really shake up the vault and I can’t wait to see how things pan out if it is used (PLEASE keep it FIG!).

See this handy video kindly made by AllTheTimeGymnastics for a video explanation

Other changes on vault include a 0.5 penalty for taking a run length greater than 25 metres.  Also, two vaults with the same post flight will not count in event finals. This would mean, for example, that Elena Zamolodchikova’s 2 vaults from the Sydney event final would not be appropriate because they both consist of a backward entry laid out salto with 2 twists.

THE END OF PIROUETTE BASED UB GOLDS

In recent times it has been possible for a gymnast to make a splash on the uneven bars stage based pretty much on pirouettes alone. The bars final at the last Olympics was all about this. All the top three gymnasts were using highly rated forward giant one armed pirouettes in combination to boost their D scores.

Sadly for these types of gymnasts, this approach to the uneven bars will no longer work in the same way. The E+E combination 0.2 bonus on this apparatus still remains, but does not apply to pirouette skills.

Unlike the above issue with the vault, which I think is actually quite hard to dislike, one’s opinion on this rule change really is a matter of taste. Those who have a fondness for the Chinese approach to bars (Yang Yilin in 2008 being a good example) will find this change a hard one to swallow. Personally, though, I think it is nice to shake up an event from time to time. Also, as people know, I am a big fan of Tweddle’s bar work and this rule change will allow her to become a muse for high scoring bar routines in the next quad (as connection bonus for highly rated skills is now best achieved through release connections).

It will be nice to see Beth leave a good legacy on her signature apparatus, and I think this could give bars a little more ingenuity and excitement (rather than the tired old forward giant full, forward giant full, jaeger variations).

HARSHER TREATMENT FOR NON EXPRESSIVE TUMBLERS

Harder to explain than the above, but this code is full of possible artistry deductions on floor. Key examples of this include (pasted directly from the code):

·         Lack of creative choreography (0.1 or 0.3)

·         Lack of fluidity (Composition is a series of disconnected elements and movements) (0.1)

·         More than one stationary stance on two feet in preparation for tumbling (0.1)

·         Lack of expression (0.1)

·         Unnecessary pause (of more than 1 sec.)before acro line (0.1)

I have to say I am LOVING all of this. Finally a move to seriously address the boring clunkfest that floor exercise has become. People are going to have to work very hard to satisfy all these criteria though, as I can’t actually think of anyone that doesn’t pause before a tumbling line. However itis times like this when we get a hint of what the next code whore things to do will be. It is likely that standing in a corner and doing some arm movements won’t qualify as a pause, so corner posing will probably go through the roof next year.

With all this deductable stuff you would be forgiven for thinking floor scores will remain low. However, the code has souped up floor’s scoring capability with a handful of new beefy connection value opportunities. Most exciting from my perspective include the return of direct A+D bonus (which, my friends, could mean the return of whips into double pikes - I dare to dream). C+E connections (where the E is a double salto) get 0.3 CV and A/B+F get 0.3 too.

What was the one thing the majority of fans wanted changed on floor? I don’t even need to say it but for fluidity of text, I shall. We all wanted to see the back of jumping from tumbles. JUST GO. And in a sense there is a move towards this. People can still jump out of a tumble should they want to, BUT the jump must be a B score minimum. This is obviously a bit trickier and with the new artistry deductions we might see a lot less of this happening.

Basically, a great floor worker with good execution, artistry and the ability to connect things well could get some mammoth scores here. This is good news for Romania: with bars scoring potential on the decline, and floor on the rise this could spell good things for their team programme.

Call me when you land

One thing i miss terribly from gymnastics days gone by: the super stuck landings. And i don’t think I am alone.

For me, that absolute smash and stick was the total cherry on the cake to set the tone of the judging to a great start. I used to (and still do when watching repeats) get massively wound up when commentators missed the point of a good landing, and (somewhat repetitively) I must call upon good old NBC for my example here. I remember one Olympics Al saying something along the lines of “I always think it is a shame that the majority of the score doesn’t come from what’s going on in the air”.

 Didn’t it?

In fairness to Al, I don’t think he is the only person to think this way. My problem with this interpretation is its blatant inaccuracy. The majority of the score DID and DOES come from what is going on in the air. With the ten system, people seemed to subconsciously consider the first 6 or 7 points in the score as an unmoveable, ever present rock bearing no resemblance to the routine. A landing only takes off a few tenths: it was never the majority of the score. To be perfectly honest I wouldn’t mind seeing landing deductions that were that bit harsher.

BANG.

Whether you agree with landing deductions (past or present) or disagree with them, one fact seems undeniable: the landing is far less of a focus than it once was. As recently as 2004 it seemed like the landing was super important. Nowadays it is still a deductable factor, but cannot compete with the D score in terms of scoreboard impact. Sadly, the FIG decided to impose extra landing deductions this quad on the only apparatus where sticking is not a priority.

With the new code looming I am hoping for a greater focus on landing deductions amongst a million other things. While thinking about this I pondered the different types of landings we have seen over the years, and how they often fall into distinct categories. Here are just a few.

The easy, breezy, beautiful: cover girl landing

Spectators and judges alike know a bad landing when they see one. Be it short, deep, overrotated or under: we have seen enough to know one instantly. But it never stopped people from trying their best to cover up. I kind of enjoy that kind of theatrical side to the sport, and whilst these are by no means my favourite endings to a routine they are fun nonetheless.

00:39

00:15

The stealthy landing

These are those great finales that look delicate enough to shatter like glass. Landings like this appear to defy the laws of physics: how is it possible to harness all that power yet making the force of landing look like a marshmallow being dropped on a bouncy castle?

1:38

1:38

The knife in the table landing

Perfect form, perfect landing, perfect body position. These are the real top shelfers in terms of power and execution, and to me epitomize what gymnastics can be and SHOULD be all about. I would rather see a full twisting Yurchenko landed this way than a DTY with a hunchback and a step.

00:26

00:17

The “bend and snap” landing

If you can’t do a double pike: don’t do a double pike

1:28

1:36

As usual I would love to hear your thoughts. YOUR favourite landings?

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....

New Years Resolutions

Gymnasts are busy people. This year I thought I would do their NY resolutions for them.

ALEXANDRA RAISMAN

Should resolve to.....

POINT HER TOES

Aly is great and has really shown how much she is worth to the USA. She is the kind of performer you just watch: you never expect her to fall, step out or even wobble (most of the time). 2011 has been a good year for her. She has solidified her status as a reliable team performer, particularly given Alicia’s unfortunate departure from Tokyo leaving Aly as last minute team captain. Plenty of people thought the USA were toast with Alicia gone, and without Anna Li’s bars, but the whole team smashed QFs and finals and that can only look good for young captain Raisman.

However, Aly is not without her problems. Artistry and graceful expression really are her downfalls. Sadly, these problems show up the most on her best apparatus: floor and the beam. Her beam acro skills are great, but her general presentation leaves a lot to be desired. A key example of this is her paltry, perfunctory low to beam work: the most pathetic of nods to the requirement in a clunking, awkward and ugly fall to the horizontal.

So the general resolution could be a more general “pay more attention to artistry”, but that is a very broad ask. I really think that a simple, classic toe point would make all the difference. Particularly on bars, where her feet would actually look more appropriate on a cartoon duck.

http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Alexandra+Raisman+Artistic+Gymnastics+World+YeyQ1sBO6_9l.jpg

http://richarizard.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/daffy-duck.gif

GET CONSISTENT ON BARS

2 years. 2 botches.

I don’t even mean good. I just mean simply: learn to stay on there when it counts. To be honest (as I have mentioned in a previous post) I am dubious of the likelihood of Aly actually landing the second AA spot at the Olympics, with the potential of a back up to scratch Bross (amongst others). However, if she does, and misses bars, it would be the 3^rd time in a row that her AA hopes were botched by a bad bars set. Even if she doesn’t have the need for a bars set beyond QFs at the Olympics, and carries on her career beyond them, she could be a real hope for an AA shot in the depleted field of the fresh quad, a la Sloan in 2009. So learn to stay on!

BETH TWEDDLE

Should resolve to.....

FOCUS ON THE BARS

In my extremely biased opinion, I think Beth’s current routine is by far the best in the world at this moment. It is clean (not on the level of Komova, admittedly) but extraordinarily difficult, with difficultly built up by not just a series of big tricks, but a series of big tricks smoothly connected. I think her performance in the team finals of this year’s worlds was the best of her career by far - something very exciting to see at this point in her career with the prospect of a home turf Olympics looming.

But this is not 2008. The new code will not let her qualify to finals with a fall, or even a mistake. Beth needs to have those connections ready to do in any circumstance.

SORT OUT THE FLOOR

Over the years, various American competitors have proven that a gymnast doesn’t have to be from a balletic background with classic long lines, or even a particularly good dancer, to put together a bloody good floor routine.

Look at Jordyn Wieber. Although her current floor routine does to some degree split opinion, I think it is one of the most expressive and original floor routines around at the moment. Wieber (like Beth) is a tumbler, not a dancer. But her current choreography shows excellent detail to the music and plays to her strengths rather than exposing her weaknesses. Similarly, the show stopper at the 2008 VISA championships was totally Chellsie Memmel’s floor routine on night two. Again, definitely a tumbler and not a dancer, but that routine was perfect for Chellsie and it brought the house down.

I have no real idea why Beth’s coaches don’t try for something similar. It would be so easy! Go for more modern music with a stronger beat, get some expressive but not balletic moves that Beth isn’t visibly cringed-out by and get confident with it! I am still (perhaps naively) hoping for her to have trained up that Arabian full out by the time of London. That, with some choreography that matches her, would be fantastic.

 If she wants any chance of factoring in on the floor again, something has to change.

JORDYN WIEBER

Should resolve to......

KEEP GOING WITH THE UPGRADES

http://s1.assets.usoc.org/assets/images/article/photo/37850/full/WieberInter.jpg

Jordyn was the star of 2011. She saw of challenged for Mustafina early on, Komova later on, and will now forever be able to say that she was the best gymnast in the world.

But it isn’t going to get any easier. She had a lot of help from Komova at this year’s worlds: no amanar, car crash beam, steps on floor. Jordyn cannot count on such luck in the coming year. She is going to need to raise her game wherever she possibly can (I am thinking at least something on everything except vault). I think some real progress could be made on bars, considering how far she came in a relatively short amount of time on this apparatus. Not long ago she was labouring through staggered toe-ons and now she has some pretty impressive combination work at the top of her routine (which she did mess up at worlds, but it is there nonetheless).

I think Jordyn is a great gymnast and deserving of this year’s accolades. But it is going to take a lot of work indeed to break the curse of the world champion going into the Olympics.

JESSICA LOPEZ

Should resolve to....

NOT LOSE FAITH

She was once quoted as saying that she would “keep going until she won a medal”, but has been showing signs of slowing down a bit recently. Not that I blame her, constant exhaustion and little reward and recognition has got to be disheartening. This is especially true when the judges slam her as much as they did at this worlds (as was brought to my attention by a recent thread on intlgymnast). The below routine was qualifications received a score lower than that of Alexandra Raisman. There are no words.

Full discussion on this insanity can be found here: http://www.american-gymnast.com/agtc/index.php/2011/12/23/and-the-award-for-the-most-outrageous-judging-moment-of-2011-goes-to/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AmericanGymnastTrainingCenter+%28American+Gymnast+Training+Center%29&utm_content=FeedBurner

I think Jessica is a great presence and fan favourite in the sport, and it would be a shame to see her give up now.

VIKTORIA KOMOVA

Should resolve to....

WORK ON HER SPORTSMANSHIP

Not to slam her as much as many have, but by God does that girl need a “graceful loser face”. Someone should send her a copy of Miss Congeniality on DVD.

http://fr.rian.ru/images/19150/98/191509816.jpg

TATIANA NABIEVA

Should resolve to....

CONTINUE TO VALUE QUALITY OVER QUANTITY

The biggest chucker in chucktown watered down, polished up, and won a medal. More of this please.

THE FIG

Should resolve to....

PRODUCE A CODE THAT:

1.       We all understand, from the gymnasts themselves to the seasoned fans to the people that happen to turn on a gymnastics live feed for the first time in their lives

2.       Rewards in a balanced fashion the difficulty, execution, originality and artistry of the routines

3.       Doesn’t create silly loopholes that come to characterise an entire apparatus (such as the rebound jumps on floor)

4.       Doesn’t create an unfair scoring imbalance across apparatus (such as Lauren Mitchell). 

      Happy New Year everyone!
     
      I know this is early - but I am going away tomorrow. Would love to hear any other suggestions!

Born This Way

It is Christmas Eve, and time to do what I do best: write an article about what happens to be on my mind and awkwardly shoehorn it into a relevant theme suitable for the times. Let’s have a go then.

This past week I have been thinking about luck of the draw. About the extraneous factors which hugely influence a gymnast’s chance for success on the world stage but are not directly related to their talent and are not things that can be helped. The main thread of this thought is as follows: the code changes each quad. Each new code is bound to favour a certain type of gymnast more than another (in the 05-08 and 09-12 quads, it favoured those who could do an amanar, whereas in 89-92 it favoured those who could stick an FTY, as a simple example). Whilst this gives some gymnasts a right-place-right-time advantage, it also puts some at an instant disadvantage: you could say they were born into the “wrong quad”.

Christmas is a story of a birth. SEAMLESS, right?

Below are the gymnasts that stick out most obviously to me as being born at such a time to put them in a quad which didn’t play to their strengths.

STELLA UMEH

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/001064/f1/0426umeh13-v6.jpg

For me, this girl had one of the best flight series on beam of all time. If not THE best. It is one of the most exciting, original and difficult combinations I have ever seen (BHS-LO 2 feet-BHS-LOSO). On a side note, she also had some pretty cool little extras: it was hugely refreshing to see that mount, which I had forgotten about, as I searched for this video. As was the forgotten second acro combination: a cartwheel through to two layout stepouts. Now THESE are beam connections. Fast, flighted and difficult.

So why, then, does this fantastic gymnast not even have her own Wikipedia page? Stella Umeh went on to find success in the NCAA program, where she was the two time floor exercise champion (1995, 1998) for UCLA. Her elite career was no failure: at the 1994 commonwealth games she took the all around title, and followed this with a vault gold and UB silver in events finals. However, on the world stage, recognition of her talent was less forthcoming and Stella has no world level medals to her name.

I do not contest the scores that Stella received: the code at the time valued stuck landings and polished leaps over acrobatic difficulty, and sadly Stella was not great at sticking her double back cold and her leaps were less than ideal for the time. But one has to ask the question: does this not sound similar to Shawn Johnson, the current Olympic beam champion? I think so, a powerful compact gymnast who excels at acrobatics and big tricks over the finer details of leaps and stuck landings. If Stella had trained such a difficult and original flight series as her routine highlight back in 1991 before the code really required such difficulty, it is fun to imagine what she might have managed today had she been rewarded for her difficulty.

Quads competed in: 89-92; 93-96

Quads more suited to: 05-08

ANA PORGRAS

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgnVDiNHA1Z5fZfD4dbDncuatOX-qeNflpuQduwvsQKYAatWdaPPklSuPiUUhbJH6F40niaTh2W_YfUj9PglXoO0vyYKmlW-haxz4f8ND4Afv_ULH-HhoYFXRSg8_vXHMgz8T4tmhzMTgc/s1600/AnaPorgrasRomania-2009London.jpg

The beautifully uncharacteristic Romanian who had a brilliant world debut at the 2009 world championships. Ana is everything that Romania is not known for: long graceful lines, originality, artistry, nice bars; and the inconsistency that often comes with these abilities.

Many may think of Ana as a strange choice: she is certainly not lacking in the recognition department: she has plenty of fans and is a well known gymnast, and is the possessor of a world championship bronze and a world title on the balance beam. Her debut world championships in 2009 could have been far more fruitful for her had it not been for a few silly mistakes: she could have made the AA podium and been a two time balance beam champion.

So as you can see, Ana is not without her success. However, she has a big problem: the vault.

Unfortunately Ana cannot seem to upgrade from an FTY, and although there have been rumours and the odd video of her training an unsure looking DTY into a pit over the years, nothing has ever surfaced in competition. This poses a problem for her: she is fantastic elsewhere. Her beam is wonderful and her bars and floor are not half bad either (could do with quite a few bars upgrades but she is far from terrible).

Factoring into the AA in the 09-12 quad with a paltry vault is even harder than before. Nastia Liukin took the Olympic AA title in 2008 with a comparatively simple 1.5 twisting yurchenko (which also happened to be one of the most beautiful vaults of the quad in my opinion). She was able to do this because of the code of points at the time: the 10 elements rule meant that she could form monstrous D scores on other apparatus to compensate. Ana is less able to receive this luxury: 8 elements per apparatus mean that scores on bars, beam and floor are lower than they were this time 4 years ago (for example, the highest bars score of the 05-08 quad was 16.900, in this quad it currently stands at around 16.133). Sadly, the Amanar is more of a necessaity to win than ever.

Ana has qualities that match her very well to a much earlier time. Her lack of modern difficulty on vault would not have been a problem for her and she would have excelled in terms of her difficulty in other areas (in a very similar way to Tatiana Gutsu). At the very least, she would have benefitted from being one quad behind: the 05-08 rules would have at least given her more of a chance to build difficulty elsewhere to reduce the pressure on her vaulting.

Were this the case, she may have been respected as a true AA gymnast and have enjoyed success as such, as opposed to being considered a specialist with a weak vault.

Quads competed in: 09-12

Quads more suited to: 05-08

KRISTEN MALONEY

http://lh6.ggpht.com/-BJvae-YlCEM/S_S5uf5A4EI/AAAAAAAAAsQ/YeietNg13Pk/72389180.jpg

Kristen Maloney has the unfortunate pleasure of being one of the most famous American gymnasts of what was perhaps the USA’s darkest gymnastics period in the modern history of the sport. The 1997-2000 quad was not a good time for the American’s, and the magnificence of the 7 could not seem to be transferred to a new crowd.

In a home setting though, Kristen was well known and successful. A two time national AA champion is not an accolade that comes easily and is certainly one to be proud of. However, international success was never forthcoming for Kristen and hence her international medal cabinet contains only the dubious bronze awarded late due to the age falsifications of Dong Fangxiao.

One thing to be said for Kristen: she had some fantastic skills. Although her presentation was often scrappy and she seemed to never be 100% healthy throughout her entire career, she could pull some very, very impressive tricks out of the bag. Her floor routine at the 2000 Olympics was, and is, one of the most difficult ever to be performed. It included a full twisting double layout, a whip through to double layout and a pike punch through to triple full (as well as some really interesting artistry). It’s the kind of routine that makes you feel exhausted just watching it.

I cannot help but feel that Kristen would have been right at home in 05-08, the trickster quad. Then again, it could successfully be argued that Kristen’s downfall was simply inconsistency. After all, had she not stepped out of the floor area during qualifying she would have made the floor finals. Had she performed in these hypothetical finals to the same standard as her team final performance, she would have received a 9.737. This would have been enough to take the bronze over Simona Amanar = Kristen Maloney would be an OLYMPIC medallist. Crazy, right?

So whether it was the coding climate that held back Kristen, or indeed herself, is a matter of opinion. Yet I still believe she would have found greater success in the quad of the code overhaul. As would a fellow Sydney competitor below....

Quad competed in: 97-00

Quad more suited to: 05-08

MOK UN JOO

I know virtually nothing about this gymnast. I stumbled upon her beam work whilst absent mindedly half-watching the sub divisions of the 2000 Olympics WAG qualifications last year. Out of knowhere came this statuesque and hugely talented gymnast I has never heard of before. It is very rare that I watch something and am genuinely surprised by what I see: usually when we watch footage we know a lot about the competitors and have most often seen the routines several times before. But this was something entirely different. An unknown Korean gymnast at the Sydney Olympics competing a routine containing a BHS-BHS-LO2F connection AND a roundoff layout full?! Insanity.

It is times like this when you realise why the code needed to change. I am usually such a modern code hater, and totally unforgiving of wobbles, but the fact is that this routine obviously did not receive the recognition it deserved. The guidelines of the time were blind to its huge difficulty. And yes I am well aware that a lot of it was messy and wobbly and not as fluent to watch as many others, but even so, it’s very impressive. With everything that is wrong with the sport today, at least we can say that gymnasts, most of the time, are rewarded adequately for the hard skills they learn.

There are undoubtedly many more names that will come to me post writing, but time constrains me. I always love to hear feedback and differing opinions particularly on something as abstract and speculative as this.

Merry Christmas!

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.