I find this arguement disingenuous however. Why are you getting hung up on 180 degrees?
My entire point is that
FIRST, the WTC should define what is to be expected from artistic gymnasts as a sport. And by that I mean they truly ought to decide what physical abilites they want the sport to showcase.
And my opinion is that artistic gymnastics should award gymnasts who can show mastery of several types (manifestations, if you like) of physical abilities, namely power, rhythm, balance/precision and the ability to mix them.
I think this is why originally the four events were chosen. Vault highlights power, bars rhythm, beam balance (it’s in the freaking name of the apparatus!) and then you have floor where you ought to show that in addition to mastering these abilities you can combine them in an aesthetically pleasing manner.
Most of the points being made here, by you and others, are along the lines are “well she is great at bars and not bad at floor (Derwael)”. But I don’t care that she is great at bars, I want someone performing on bars to show that they have mastered rhythm in an exercise. (Derwael does, fwiw.)
People are failing to see my point when they are talking about bars vs other apparatus. To be fair, I have not really gone into it but here you go. Currently, bars ALSO FAVOURS POWER, but more in terms of endurance. The CV on bars do not promote rhythm, ihe prescribed connections promote endurance from one powerful skill to another. (To be fair, the deductions do encourage rhythm, so not all is lost.)
Seriously, though, break it down. The reason girls really good at bars have such higher D Scores comes down to CV. Because it’s possible to link a bunch of skills in a row. Some even link up to five. That kind of CV is nigh impossible to achieve on floor and I’d say harder to achieve on beam. The series bonus is a step in that direction though. A cursory look at D scores in Olympic qualifications bears this out; if you look as a whole at the top 25 results a trend is clear.
So, again, it all comes down to how we want to define artistic gymnastics as a sport. And we need the definition because gymnastics is not an objective sport like basketball which has clearly defined points, let alone the 100m sprint which is simply seconds.
Particular to my argument, I have to take up your phrase:
And the more they nitpick and prescribe more and more extreme positions, the fewer people who will be interested in participating or will be able to afford the lifetime of training required to have the flexibility and skills needed to participate.
How does that even makes sense? That’s an argument that can be applied to any sport. As it is, currently fewer and fewer people will be able to afford the lifetime of training required to have the power to perform a triple-twisting double layout. But that’s the direction the sport is moving right now. How many people have the will to dedicate thier lives to mastering the strength of power lifting? Well, plenty of people do and those who don’t simply choose something else. And the officials in power lifting are so nit-picky! It’s like all they care about is kilograms!
I say,
define the sport. Then let those who want to dedicate their lives to it do so. In a subjective and evolving sport like ours, obviously there will be developments - progress or regression depending on your likes and dislikes. But a basic definition what physical mastery we want to see, rather than what can they do on this piece of equipment, no limits, would help keep the sport identifiable.
For example (and I know I’m driving this point
again, but I’m just trying to be clear as possible), “Gymnasts should master balance and precision. The chosen apparatus to display this mastery is the balance beam. And here are the rules that guide gymnasts toward balance- and precision- oriented routines on that apparatus”.
Currently, we have “Here is a balance beam - show us what you can do it on.” And soon we will wonder why we even call it the “balance” beam. An outsider might think it is a “super narrow tumbling strip thingy”. And before you know it, it will gain a centimetre in width and double the spring.
Fine, if that’s what you want. But it’s not what I want. And to avoid senseless arguing about what skills should be allowed on beam and what they should be valued, it would help to know precisely what we expect a beam routine to showcase.
Then we can discuss whether a skill or deduction is in line with that definition.
I’d be more than happy to hear people’s opinions on what physical abilities they want gymnasts to master. But I’ve not seen much of that yet in this thread.
