Rules we need changed after the Olympics

[QuietColours]

Updated to this point

 

[Sanzhirovka]

I don’t see anything wrong with capping acro skills on beam at H.

People (the WTC) only sound stupid about it when they say they do that for safety reasons when we all know what they really want is to differentiate the physical abilities a given event should, in their opinion, emphasize. That is, I think that’s what they want. It’s what I want, to be honest.

This is all easier for the men because their events naturally reflect a greater range (pommels and rings). For the women, three events are essentially tumbling which makes the All-Around seriously weighted towards gymnasts who can tumble.

If Women’s ARTISTIC gymnastics is supposed to be something different and not simply a showcase for tumblers, then just spell it out. If it is supposed to favour athletes who can tumble, say so.

Without deifnitions, it’s confusing. Look at the WTC singing different tunes: “Don’t dance, we won’t reward that. Also, don’t tumble exceedlingly hard, we won’t reward that, either.”

Another example of a rule with an unwritten reason behind it is the uneven bars rule against “excessive flexion of the hip joint in the leg tap on dismount”. Clearly, this is meant to keep the women from winding up dismounts like the men do. And obviously this limits the difficulty, or at least the height, the women could achieve if not for this rule. And I suspect that this rule is meant to keep routines on bars “flowing” and not allowing “jerky” routines that we sometimes see on high bar. If so, this should be spelled out.

If bars is meant to “flow”, write that down and note that skills which do not “flow” - such as a standing back tuck to hang on HB - will not be accepted for review.

If beam is above all supposed to reflect an athlete’s ability to execute movements with precision, say so. And explain that due to this, tumbling is capped at H. And free up some of the dance skill values.

On the other hand, if you don’t care if gymnastics ever produces another Mostepanova, say so - “We don’t think Mostepanova’s performances on beam reflect our vision of modern gymnastics”. Or: “We want beam to be pretty, but not (Heaven forbid!) at the expense of super-hard tumbling! Not that way!”

As it is, people are saying “But that’s harder! So it should be worth more!” But the only “harder” most people recognize is the result of “strength” and “power”. And they forget that flexibility/range of motion and balance and coordination are also “difficult” and can be “harder”.

I hope people accept this as a different point of view. Opinionated it is, I’ll admit. Do with it what you will

*Ironically, the countries that imo have artistry - and I’m looking at Russia - call it “sportive” gymnastics.

 

[makam]

And they forget that flexibility/range of motion and balance and coordination are also “difficult” and can be “harder”.

You make a lot of good points but one thing I think needs to be addressed is whether there is one way to do gymnastics or many. There seems to be one way to do rhythmic gymnastics: be thin and ultra flexible. Right now, there are at least 2 ways to do artistic gymnastics, focus on dance and execution and flexibility or focus on power and difficulty. Simone was so dominant because she is great at combining power, difficulty, and execution (while being only fair at flexibility and dance). But if you start limiting difficulty, you might start eliminating gymnasts who simply don’t bend the preferred way but can do everything else.

Figure skating used to have many ways to get to the top of the podium with different styles coming and going but still being possible winners. It is now narrowing down what style of skating (and what body types) can achieve wins. Is that how gymnastics should go?

 

[Sanzhirovka]

Yes, but you seem to be buying into the idea that there is a “right way to bend”. I mean, flexibility itself is pretty objective. 180 degrees is 180 degrees. Balance checks are pretty objective, too. I don’t think there ought to be, nor do I want, a return to pre-pubescent girls winning everything. Mature women are perfectly capable of doing great gymnastics and that’s great. I would however, love to see someone perform with the precision Mostepanova showed in the past. Are mature women incapable of that? I think they certainly are capable.

At the same time, you hit the nail on the head. Is there one way to do gymnastics or more than one way? If by “2 ways to do artistic gymnastics” you mean there are two paths to gold medals, I disagree. Right now, I’d argue that a lot of power and difficulty stemming from strength and power with “some” artistry will always win against a lot of elegance and artistry with “some” difficulty. There may be more than one way to “do” gymnastics, but one of those ways is going to get you more gold medals.

You can still focus on dance and execution, but you need to pray that your rivals who focus on difficulty fumble. Maybe the Gadirova twins will break through that; one can again, pray that they will.

But that goes right back to definitions of what the sport is meant to showcase. It is fair that sprinters all have a certain look? Is it bad that swimmers mainly look alike? Sports that emphasize some single physical quality are going to filter towards some body type. Is that inherantly bad?

I see no problem with defining the WAG apparatus in a way that spreads more physical abilities more evenly around the apparatus. Looka at it this way: I don’t think “All-Around” is supposed to mean “vault, bars, beam and floor”; I think “All-Around” is supposed to mean an athlete is well rounded, all-around, in that she can show a high quality of mastery in various physical abilities - replace the apparatus names with “power, rhythm, precision and a combination of the three (floor)”. THAT’S the gymnastics I want to see. And if that favours some body type, so be it. (Hopefully, I’ve made it clear that I do not think that it favours pre-teenage body types.)

As it is now, power tumbling is going to skew towards a certain body type. That’s why Nina Derwael is not really an all-around gymnast. She lacks what it takes on three out of four apparatus. That’s why the WTC has to downgrade vault values. Because women good at tumbling can be really good at vaulting! Let them be really good at tumbling, but demand more and something a bit different on floor. How well can they combine that power with range of motion and rhythm? Thats what we should see on floor.

And frankly, I don’t think that the quantitative elements of elegance and precision really favour a body type. You need to be in shape, but you don’t have to be thin to dance well. You don’t have to be thin to do a back walkover elegantly. And while there used to be an “international body type”, I don’t think there is anymore. Subjectively, people may think they enjoy watching a certain body type dance, but there is no reason that has to be written into the rules. And judges can be taught to ignore body type. Trust me, FIG brevet judges covet their status. If the WTC says “don’t you dare penalize a woman because you personally do not like her body type,” they won’t. They all dream of judging at the Olympics and they’ll fall in line with the rules. Just write them down. Be transparent.

So, to some sum up, I think there is a misconception that rhythm and elegance will force artistic gymnastics back to the days of thin teenage waifs. And second, I don’t buy the arguments that gymnastics needs to favour all kind of body types. In my opinion, it ought to favour athletes (both MAG and WAG) who can master more than just power. Athletes who can master coordination, range of motion, rhythm as well. And that is still going to allow a more body types to excel than will the hammer throw or volleyball.

Comments?

(Quick asides, RG is a poor comparison, because it is so strictly controlled by Russia. They write the rules to favour their style. WAG is not so bad, has far more global input. As for skating I know nothing about it. All I can surmise is that spininng around the long axis is eaasier than front and back saltos which I don’t think that do many of. Don’t know of any double layouts in figure skating.)

 

[JusticeMom]

in

I remember people back in 2000-2004 saying that artistry was dead. I don’t believe it is the open ended code, but the lack of compulsories and how different elements are weighted and deducted.

 

[MaryClare]

Re the comparison with RG- yes RG is Russian dominated but the prevalence of particular body type is very deliberate and more in line with what happens in selection for top ballet schools at 10/11, many of whom have measurements/ratio criteria.

Whatever the flexibility level you are capable of, your peak dynamic flexibility will come at your lowest body weight (note, not body fat %).

 

[cats]

Really? I had no idea. Is that actual range of motion or perceived due to smaller limb size?

 

[dweiss324]

I don’t super agree that the sport favors the “power” athlete over the “artistic, dancy” athlete (to be as reductive as possible, lol).

Someone here pointed out that with the exception of Simone, the Olympic AA winners of the open code have been bars specialists with decent AA. If the code favored power athletes, jade would win AA with Biles out, and she didn’t, not even close

Nina derwael ranked sixth in AA quals. And she is neither a power athlete, nor an artistic athlete. She’s just a good bars worker and efficient and smart elsewhere. Same with Ellie black, she’s just smart and efficient.

The reason “artistic athletes” (take that as you will… Listunova? Brooklyn moors? Thorsdottir? Melanie? The wevers sisters? Hurd?) Don’t win is because they can’t hit. They all blow it all the time. You can’t do low difficulty and suck at it. Sorry, but they’re not even that technically proficient or artistic, any of them. Simone does high difficult and is good at it, hits it most of the time, and isn’t sloppy. Call it artistry vs power if you want, but it’s not. The open code simply hasn’t produced anyone on the artistic level of mostepenova, not even close, and maybe that’s it’s own issue. But artistic gymnasts aren’t getting 8th at Olympic EFs on beam because they’re artistic, it’s because they aren’t thaaaat artistic and fall all the time anyway.

 

[MaryClare]

Range. To be very frank, most flexibility holds involving folding your fat against fat. The more fat there is, the harder it is to make the correct shapes. Think about touching ones toes. You can stretch as much as you like, but if you have too much abdominal fat, it won’t make any difference

This woman is in incredible shape, yet this would be considered undesirable as she’s unable to achieve her maximum flexibility potential

 

[MaryClare]

It was me I pointed it out :crazy_face:

 

[makam]

Yes, but you seem to be buying into the idea that there is a “right way to bend”. I mean, flexibility itself is pretty objective. 180 degrees is 180 degrees.

You made a lot of good points but I am going to focus on this one. While there isn’t a “right” way to bend, someone hits 180 on a split, hooray, no deduction. But gymnast X went past 180, shouldn’t she get a little bonus? Well, gymnast Y went even further past 180 because her knees hyperextend, doesn’t that deserve a little more credit than even gymnast X? Where do you stop? Can you let someone do the minimum for full points as they do on bars with inbars or do you change the rules so that those who do really deep inbars get more credit for them? Well, then you might get to the point where only people with certain body types or extra flexible backs or whatever are the only ones who can get full points for doing inbars. So then people stop doing them cuz it isn’t worth it, and the number of skills people do necks down even more than it currently is. Or because it is considered rare and difficult, you increase the value of it and then it starts limiting who can score well in UB. The 2008 quad was essentially a “who can pirouette the best” to win and if you didn’t have the shoulder flexibility to do the intricate pirouettes, well, enjoy nothing loser.

In figure skating, it was perfectly acceptable to do a spiral that had a free leg that wasn’t way up in the air. Then a few skaters went past the bare minimum and soon the minimum wasn’t enough despite being fine in the past. And soon, if you didn’t have a super-split spiral, well, go home. Same thing happened with some of the spins.

Personally, I’d like gymnasts like Guan Chenchen or Kyla Ross or Alexa Moreno or even Mykayla Skinner to all have a chance to succeed despite the diversity in body types, flexibility level, and skill choices. Maybe you have to go back to the 10.0 system to get that, I don’t know.

 

[Fulana]

But how do you judge elegance? What do you consider dancing well? To me those are code words for balletic. My issue is whenever people complain about artistry they always mention returning to the Soviet era ballet style. Some gymnast are given a pass on artistry (and form) simply because they have carriage and toe-pointe.

 

[MaryClare]

Carriage and toe point are pretty important….

 

[Fulana]

But they can have empty, pose-y, routines but still labeled artistic. Walking elegantly around the carpet is still just walking around. I’m saying gymnasts should be flat-footed or hunched over but elegance doesn’t necessary mean artistic or well choreographed.

 

[MaryClare]

Give me an example of someone who walks around the carpet nicely and people consider artistic?

 

[cats]

Very interesting! Thank you for the explanation.

 

[Doug1233]

Give me an example of someone who walks around the carpet nicely and people consider artistic?

Mustafina 2016.

 

[JJS_5056]

Context is key, though. If anyone who called Mustafina “artistic” in 2016 was made to articulate their POV, or better, quantify it, we’d see that it is exactly her line and carriage they are referring to, and that the majority would agree the choreography was lacking.

This argument against “artistry” being scored ignores the fact that these strong basics (line and carriage) can be admired and quantified / rewarded, just as strong basics (swing, lift in saltos, form) are via DV/CV. Just as a gymnast with great athletic basics is capped at .20 for a perfect Back Layout 1/1 on FX (‘B’), Mustafina would ideally be capped in a well-formed Artistic rubric if her basics were not applied to choreography.

But, with only ~0.50 worth of quantifiable points at risk, many unrelated to what we call consider art (1. don’t start / end with a tumble; 2. don’t do back-to-back tumbles; 3. don’t pause / re-use entries; 4. synch movements), there was no incentive. Yet, a gymnast with perfect athletic basics gets +.10 every time they are applied toward an upgrade of 1 letter.

Anyway, some thoughts for now on structuring the 3 Panels (D, E, A), assigning DV (beginning at C instead of A), balancing risk with reward (deductions in .05 increments), and format of competition.

DIFFICULTY (D Panel / Score)

• Technical Controllers (2; TCs) “call” skills and series in real-time to the E Panel; if there is disagreement, the skill or series is flagged for review. PDF published within 24 hours online.
• Eliminates redundant penalties between Panels (i.e., downgrading and deducting for Body Shape).

D Score = 1. Base Value (Special/Composition Requirements; higher on FX to compensate for fewer individual skills counting) + 2. Difficulty Value / DV (Top 7 + DMT on UB, BB; Top 6 on FX) + 3. Connection Value (0.1 - 0.3) / SB (0.1 - 0.2);

• A (0.0) / B (0.0) (Base Value / Connection Value only).
• C (0.1 – 0.2)
• D (0.3 – 0.4)
• E (0.5) / F (0.6)
• G (0.7) / H (0.8)
• I (0.9) / J (1.0+)

EXECUTION (E Panel / Score)
E Score = 6 judges’ (4 middle avg.) scores; apply deductions for Body Shape, Precision, Amplitude, and Control;

• -.05, -.10, -.15 = Minor
• -.20, -.25, -.30 = Medium
• -.50, -.80, -.10 = Major

+.05/+.10 can be applied to any skill or series (min ‘C’) for Amplitude, Flexibility, Risk, Creativity (Entry, During, or Exit)

ARTISTRY & COMPOSITION (A Panel / Score)
4 judges (score furthest from others is thrown out); final ‘A’ Score is the average of 3 components: Choreography, Performance, and Rhythm & Technique.

• 0.00 – 3.00 = Unsatisfactory
• 3.25 – 6.00 = Average
• 6.25 – 8.00 = Satisfactory
• 8.25 – 10.00 = Excellent

FORMAT
Qualifications: 6-6-4
Team Finals: 6-4-4
All-Around: Top 32 (3/country)
Event Finals: Top 8 (2/country)
^AA and Event (Q and F) requires 2 vaults from 2 different families.

OLYMPIC QUALIFICATION
Worlds, Year 3

• Teams 1 - 8 = 6 gymnasts
• Teams 9 - 12 = 3 gymnasts
• Teams 13 - 16 = 2 gymnasts
• Teams 17 - 20 = 1 gymnast
• AA Qualification 1 - 10 (fed NYQ)

 

[JJS_5056]

Also, I have thought for a while that the FIG ought to have a more official role in Junior and Novice level competition, @Denn , and with this, would come an opportunity to organize a structure where Compulsories are a required part of moving through the system, 1) when it counts most (basics are much more important in earlier years), 2) without taking time / effort away from optionals at the senior elite levels.

In order to get a senior license, a gymnast must have to present a compulsory score at 1) an FIG Junior or Novice event, 2) accredited Federation event, or on video certified by the Federation.

 

[onodian]

Mustafina 2016.

I just went and looked and i actually think 2014 is the one i had in mind, not necessarily because of lack of choreo but because she looks like she couldn’t care less, probably way too little endurance