- Thread starter
- #41
1. I agree with you regarding the limited categories of expression. I also think some of the 'codification' of certain choreographical elements is unnecessary. For example, a gymnast that shows a ring position in her choreography can be subject to the insufficient amplitude of leg swings deduction if the position does not satisfy the criteria used to evaluate actual ring elements(e.g. foot to crown of the head, sufficient arch, etc.). However, not meeting these criteria doesn’t mean that a beautiful body shape can’t be created. A gymnast should have the freedom to not bend the back leg 135 degrees in choreography if it better suits the music. Finally, the 0.1 for releve for a single instance of poor releve in the entire routine is overly harsh.
2. To clarify the Zhao Yaqin example:
- Assuming she shows sufficient complexity in the routine overall, the simple passage itself would not result in a deduction for lack of complexity. You can see this in how they evaluated Kaeslin’s routine. They highlighted the fact that she had a mix of very complex and simple choreography, and that the overall package was sufficient to avoid the deduction.
- I do think it is important that the WTC emphasizes that beautiful and well executed choreography is not necessarily complex. In other words, a gymnast that does simple choreography can still tick off all the other items on the artistry check list, but she will be penalized for the lack of complexity. Conversely, a gymnast that shows complex, but poorly executed choreography will not be deducted for lack of complexity. However, she will be deducted for not satisfying the remaining criteria on the checklist. I do think it is fair to question whether or not the checklist sufficiently rewards quality.
