Sanzhirovka
Member
- Mar 3, 2021
- 133
- 240
Thanks for the question, @mnesiptolema. To start with, yes, I am trying to see if there is a solution to FIG’s piecemeal rule-making (and that’s a great way to put it, btw!).
And I honestly feel that the best way to make logical, transparent “updates”, if you will, to the Code would be to have a sort of general definition of what artistic gymnatics is supposed to represent or “look like”.
@Denn I 100% agree that a 6-7 person committee should not be deciding this for everyone. Were any decision to be made to, yes, write down a definition of the sport that describes what routines on each apparatus should look like (and for me, that means what physical abilities should be showcased. Someone else may have a different approach, let’s hear them!), then obviously this is a big thing and should be overwhelmingly supported by the Federations. I’m sure they have some requirement for voting on a big change, like 2/3 or 3/4 of all federations or something.
So, that’s why I keep coming back to a definition. Without one, who can really say whether or not a rule change is good or bad?
So, I’d do it like this if I was FIG president. 1) Have an meeting of the executive council where I suggest the idea. If the Exce council is on board, 2a) instruct the WTC to hammer out a starting point definition and concurrently 2b) send out a memo to all of the Federations saying something like "We believe that a definition of the various disciplines in gymnastics would be a great boost to transparency in the way the rules are written. To this end, I have instructed the Technical Committees to draft an initial reading for their discipline. In addition to the current committee members, three athlete representatives will also be attached to the committee (again, just tossing ideas out there, maybe you’d want to include legends in the process like Tourischeva, or one of the Chinese greats). Of these three athletes/other reps, at least one should have retired over 10 years ago, and one within the past two years. All Federations are invited to submit proposals over the next 60 days. At the end of that time, the Technical Committees will finialize a draft within 30 more days. This will be followed by 30 more days of discussion in which each federation is invited to participate. Once a finial verion is written, it will be voted on as a [whatever you call the vote for a “big change”] at the Genral Assembly (or whatever that is called) to be held on such and such a date.
If I was president of FIG, of course I would couch this in all sorts of language to make a point that the reason for my idea is to make it far more transparent why various rules are made. I would also make it clear that a definition should be open to all cultures, it should not end up favouring one over the others. Maybe that would even be in the preamble, I don’t know … “In order to form a more transparent approach to directing the growth and progress of our sport in a way to bring it to all cultures and peoples, we hearby adopt the following definition of artistic gymnastics and the following descriptions of expectations on each apparatus.”
Personally, I would also include a wording/reasoning behind the concept of an “All-Around” gymnast and require that the Code be written and updated in a way that ensures that on average a certain level of mastery will result in similar scores across events.
Is this a good or bad idea? I mean having a definition? The biggest reason I think we should have a definition is to preserve some kind of image of artistic gymnastics. To get back to @mnesiptolema 's question about what I feel is missing from routines, I guess by biggest concern is the direction balance beam is going. I’d rather not see it try to emulate power tumbling. I really don’t want to just see tumbling awarded above all else on three out of four events.
If the definition of a routine on beam really emphasized that foremost the routine should show balance and precision, then I think would be be perfectly fine to write rules that cap acro skills at G, maybe differentiate beam and floor by requiring 4 dance and 4 acro skills on beam and leaving floor with 3/5 or 5/3 as a gymnast sees fit. I, think (but may be wrong) that if acro was limited to 4 skills, then athletes would have to pay more attention to not wobbling.
Also, the beam specific deductions could be upped a lot, imo. For example, they are nearly the same for beam and floor. Would it be the end of the world if “insufficient amplitude…” was a 0.1 deduction on floor, but a 0,3 deduction on beam? Or maybe add a 0,3and 0,5 deduction to “Poor rhythm in connection (with DV)” How would that change beam routines is gymnasts were suddenly risking a 0.5 deduciton in their dance connections? Would they pay a lot more attention to “fine tuning” them?
If the definition clearly mentioned that an all around performce is meant to award gymnasts who have a mastery of various types of physical skills, and it is clear that different skills are emphasized on different events and that an “excellent” performance on vault should score similar to an “excellent” score on floor and likewise “average” scores should be similar across apparatus, then that would be a sort of reference point to any change in how, for example, CV is awarded on any given event.
Rather than “piecemeal” saying “we should really give 0.2 tenths to F+D connections on bars”, the WTC would have to weigh how that would affect D scores on bars and whether that would put them out of sync with D scores on floor. They’d have to say “Okay, we do want to award that, but if we do, then how will we adjust floor scoring so CV is easier to in the same ballpark?”
Does that make better sense now? Do you see where I’m coming from?
EDIT TO ADD: Writing to quickly there, regarding the poor rhythm. a 0.5 mistake for poor rhythm would probably mean there wasn’t any connection anyways!
And I honestly feel that the best way to make logical, transparent “updates”, if you will, to the Code would be to have a sort of general definition of what artistic gymnatics is supposed to represent or “look like”.
@Denn I 100% agree that a 6-7 person committee should not be deciding this for everyone. Were any decision to be made to, yes, write down a definition of the sport that describes what routines on each apparatus should look like (and for me, that means what physical abilities should be showcased. Someone else may have a different approach, let’s hear them!), then obviously this is a big thing and should be overwhelmingly supported by the Federations. I’m sure they have some requirement for voting on a big change, like 2/3 or 3/4 of all federations or something.
So, that’s why I keep coming back to a definition. Without one, who can really say whether or not a rule change is good or bad?
So, I’d do it like this if I was FIG president. 1) Have an meeting of the executive council where I suggest the idea. If the Exce council is on board, 2a) instruct the WTC to hammer out a starting point definition and concurrently 2b) send out a memo to all of the Federations saying something like "We believe that a definition of the various disciplines in gymnastics would be a great boost to transparency in the way the rules are written. To this end, I have instructed the Technical Committees to draft an initial reading for their discipline. In addition to the current committee members, three athlete representatives will also be attached to the committee (again, just tossing ideas out there, maybe you’d want to include legends in the process like Tourischeva, or one of the Chinese greats). Of these three athletes/other reps, at least one should have retired over 10 years ago, and one within the past two years. All Federations are invited to submit proposals over the next 60 days. At the end of that time, the Technical Committees will finialize a draft within 30 more days. This will be followed by 30 more days of discussion in which each federation is invited to participate. Once a finial verion is written, it will be voted on as a [whatever you call the vote for a “big change”] at the Genral Assembly (or whatever that is called) to be held on such and such a date.
If I was president of FIG, of course I would couch this in all sorts of language to make a point that the reason for my idea is to make it far more transparent why various rules are made. I would also make it clear that a definition should be open to all cultures, it should not end up favouring one over the others. Maybe that would even be in the preamble, I don’t know … “In order to form a more transparent approach to directing the growth and progress of our sport in a way to bring it to all cultures and peoples, we hearby adopt the following definition of artistic gymnastics and the following descriptions of expectations on each apparatus.”
Personally, I would also include a wording/reasoning behind the concept of an “All-Around” gymnast and require that the Code be written and updated in a way that ensures that on average a certain level of mastery will result in similar scores across events.
Is this a good or bad idea? I mean having a definition? The biggest reason I think we should have a definition is to preserve some kind of image of artistic gymnastics. To get back to @mnesiptolema 's question about what I feel is missing from routines, I guess by biggest concern is the direction balance beam is going. I’d rather not see it try to emulate power tumbling. I really don’t want to just see tumbling awarded above all else on three out of four events.
If the definition of a routine on beam really emphasized that foremost the routine should show balance and precision, then I think would be be perfectly fine to write rules that cap acro skills at G, maybe differentiate beam and floor by requiring 4 dance and 4 acro skills on beam and leaving floor with 3/5 or 5/3 as a gymnast sees fit. I, think (but may be wrong) that if acro was limited to 4 skills, then athletes would have to pay more attention to not wobbling.
Also, the beam specific deductions could be upped a lot, imo. For example, they are nearly the same for beam and floor. Would it be the end of the world if “insufficient amplitude…” was a 0.1 deduction on floor, but a 0,3 deduction on beam? Or maybe add a 0,3
If the definition clearly mentioned that an all around performce is meant to award gymnasts who have a mastery of various types of physical skills, and it is clear that different skills are emphasized on different events and that an “excellent” performance on vault should score similar to an “excellent” score on floor and likewise “average” scores should be similar across apparatus, then that would be a sort of reference point to any change in how, for example, CV is awarded on any given event.
Rather than “piecemeal” saying “we should really give 0.2 tenths to F+D connections on bars”, the WTC would have to weigh how that would affect D scores on bars and whether that would put them out of sync with D scores on floor. They’d have to say “Okay, we do want to award that, but if we do, then how will we adjust floor scoring so CV is easier to in the same ballpark?”
Does that make better sense now? Do you see where I’m coming from?
EDIT TO ADD: Writing to quickly there, regarding the poor rhythm. a 0.5 mistake for poor rhythm would probably mean there wasn’t any connection anyways!
Last edited:
what now they gotta tumble from whatever feet position they find themselves in after the last skill?
