Scams and Execution

I am sorry about the lack of posts. I started a new job about a month ago, and it has already taken over my life in that I have not been able to leave work before 10pm for two nights in a row. So much for the nine to five job I was offered.

Anyway.

The scam cup came and went. Like Spanny and Lauren Hopkins, I think the right decision was made. Many have said that Wieber did not earn her score in floor, but I agree with many others who say that Mustafina did not earn her scores in beam and vault.

However, if the code of points punished crap execution more, there would be no debate.

Consider this, exhibit A:

Look at the last pass. In that pass, in case you did not notice, Zmeskal did not control her power sufficiently and she stepped out. That was the competition done for her right there. In that moment, the commentators could confidently say she would not take home a medal. They were right.

Now, there is exhibit B:

It is hard to miss her fall, which is a much bigger mistake that Zmeskal's. The commentators thought the gold medal was gone for her. They were wrong. In the American cup, the ladies in first and second both had falls, as did most of the competitors.

Why? The bottom line is that Zmeskal and her competitors knew that they could not step out, let alone fall. Now, competitors chuck all the difficulty they can, and hope the will stay on.

Even if they don't, winning is still possible.

Once the new COP revision comes up, FIG is going to have to work out what it really wants. Does it want ever-increasing difficulty with people chucking skills to get a few tenths whilst knowing that crappy form is a-o-kay. Or do they want some cleaner gymnastics.

If we have to stay open ended, falls need to be docked at least two points. Small deductions need to be 0.3 or more. 0.1 is not enough. A huge bobble needs to be 1.0.

Right now, chucking fugly skills is worth it. This risks falls, injury and sore eyes for spectators. When a Patterson is well done, like Patterson herself did it, I want to watch. Ditto Tweedle on bars, ditto Rosu's Amanar. But I prefer a well done layout full over any of those skills done with ugly form.

Genre of Gymnastics #1: The Thriller

I hate watching the thrillers shown at the movies. If I go to them, I end up burying my head in my hands or in the shoulder of the poor soul who has decided to view the movie with me.

However, for me, the thrilling routines of gymnastics are fantastic. For one thing, they are over in a matter of minutes, which I can stand much better than the 2 hour + offerings from the cinema.

Most viewers of gymnastics appreciate that the skills done by gymnasts are very difficult. They can end in falls, and slips and you are holding your breath a lot of the routine willing the gymnast not to fall off. Well, I always am. I want the gymnast to perform well, regardless of where they come from. I don't like seeing falls, especially where the gymnast is seriously injured.

Thriller routines mainly involve very difficult skills. These skills can be well executed, but not all elements of good execution are necessary to make the routine a Thriller. Height is a good thing to have, but pointed toes are not needed, for instance. Thrilling routines are also made more thrilling when the less “steady” gymnasts pull them off. The higher the probability of a fall, the more thrilling the routine becomes. Liking the gymnast or their team can also make routines thrilling, because the stakes of a fall are higher for the viewer.

I think any apparatus can have thriller routine depending on the skills that gymnast performs, the probablility of a fall, and how well liked the gymnast is. But for me, three pieces stand out as offering the most thrilling routines: Men's High Bar, Women's Uneven Bars, and Women's Beam.

The most thrilling men’s event is without a doubt, high bar. The difference between catching the bar and not catching the bar can be very small. When a gymnast misses their rhythm or gets their swing wrong, they usually fall.

The most thrilling routines are filled with releases, and lack somewhat in the pirouette department. The first routine that comes to my mind is Jonathan Horton’s high bar in Beijing. That was a tremendous routine, which I enjoyed watching more than any of the other men’s routines in Beijing.



Yes, he deserves a biscuit!

It follows that the ladies’ uneven bars event will also be thrilling. Again, the most difficult routines for this apparatus contain a lot of releases. For me, there is no better example than the routine of Beth Tweddle. It is full of releases, and is very difficult. Sometimes, Beth misses, as she did in last year’s world championships. This year, she was right on and we were in for a treat:



Another nerve racking apparatus for women is the beam. The difference between being on and off is tiny in terms of space and massive in terms of consequences. Some of the people with the best routines are as steady as anything. Patterson and Johnson stand out to me as examples, and even they missed at times. Yet some of my favourite performers, such as Anna Pavlova, are far less steady, and when they pull their routines off, it is all the more thrilling.



This is one of the reasons why I love gymnastics. I like to watch athletes overcoming the forces of gravity and space in order to land breathtaking routines. To me, it is a thrill.

Why I Love Gymnastics Part Two: Watching It

In 2000, Andreea Raducan was (briefly) the Olympic Champion. I was very excited for her, and was gutted about what happened afterwards. My favourite routine of hers was the floor routine to some music that I liked a lot: Riverdance’s Reel Around the Sun. I liked Khorkina’s bar routine as well. It is still one of my absolute favourites. I was keen to keep involved with high-level gymnastics, but this was not possible.

Those days were the days of painfully slow low volume internet, and I was not able to download videos or any gymnastics routines because it put the internet usage over our quota (I was 16 at the time). There were many other competing things at the time such as school and hobbies. So gymnastics fell by the wayside.

In 2004, I watched the Olympics again. I was cheering for the Romanians. There were many great gymnasts at those Olympics: Ponor, Rosu, Patterson, Pavlova, Kupets, and the indomitable Khorkina. But again, time had to be spent on other things as I was in my final year of university.

The 2008 Olympics drew me into watching the sport. I watched the all around, and was cheering for Liukin as well as Johnson. I still think that both of them are fantastic; to me each epitomises a different reason why I like watching gymnastics: grace and power.

There are so many reasons to be amazed at what gymnasts do. They defy gravity, and basic human instincts in order to perform spectacular tricks which take my breath away. Now, the distance between gymnastics and me has disintegrated into a single mouse click. I can watch past and present routines thanks to Youtube. I can read fantastic commentary thanks to the bloggers.

Another aspect of gymnastics that I have an interest in is the mental component. I watch the faces of the competitors, and marvel at the strength that I see in them. I wonder about what drives them and how they train their brains to pull these routines off. I guess this shows my enthusiasm for psychology as much as my enthusiasm for gymnastics.

For me, watching a beautifully choreographed routine can lift my spirits when I am having a bad day. Watching gymnastics adds to the riches of my life, and inspires me to get up and do something. If Sandra Izbaza can do a triple full, I can go a fitness class. If Shawn Johnson can do a double double, I can do weights, (even if they are small weights).

Some people claim to love ‘power gymnastics’ or ‘artistic gymnastics.’ I believe there are many kinds of gymnastics and reasons why gymnastics can be so entertaining. I plan to detail these on coming blogs.