Coming Back for the Olympics

Sorry about my absence. I have not blogged for several months now. I have some good reasons, but mostly, it is procrastination. Also, blogs, for me, take heaps of time and energy. Sometimes, I think there is no reward in this. I am not a gymnast. I merely sit on my computer chair and spout opinions that may have little basis. I fear that I have nothing to add to the multitude of excellent blogs out there

But my blog has been viewed over 6000 times, so that cannot be true.

So I think I will give this blog another whirl, especially since the Olympics are coming up.

Leading up to these Olympics, you will see more opinion pieces and commentary, but I am also keen on getting some data analysis going. You see, in the real world, I am a bit of a data geek. In the gymnastics world, data called scores are produced and I am keen to play with this data and see whether it teaches us anything.

When one does data analysis, a very important thing is asking the right questions. These are a few that I am interested in. Leave a comment if you think of any more:

• Do all around competitors get advantaged or disadvantaged when they excel at one piece over another? (I am especially interested in floor and uneven bars on the women's side)
• Are there "country biases" in scoring?
• How easy is it to predict winners by difficulty scores?

I am sure there are more though!

Overall, I am curious about what the next few months will bring. 

This lack of Sportsmanship needs to stop!

I have mentioned a few things that I do not like about gymnastics. One is the way that people criticise the weight of gymnasts and former gymnasts when it is absolutely none of their business. But I think in general, some fans are very hard on certain gymnasts and attack them for simply... doing gymnastics their way, or winning a competition they feel another gymnast should win. I am not going to name the blogs or message boards that I am thinking of. I do not want to encourage traffic to go to these sites.

Jordyn Wieber won the All Around. In my opinion, she deserved it, but to use a cliche, it could have gone either way.

Vika Komova was not performing all the difficulty she was capable of. Her Amanar was MIA and it is possible that she is still recovering from her ankle injury. I few months ago, some bloggers were hinting that she would not be at worlds, which was thankfully wrong. Considering this, I think silver is an excellent result.

Jordyn has crazy difficulty. Her own coach mentioned that she did not have an ideal competition. I think that she will only get better and better, as she has been doing ever since I became aware of her gymnastics. Maybe she does not have ballerina moves, but she has a certain attitude and pizzazz about her which I enjoy watching. I LOVE her floor routine. Her beam is also lovely, and you can say that bars is her weakest event but you cannot say that her routine lacks uniqueness. She was the only all arounder with an Amanar vault. Nuff said. Maybe she does not wave about like a mad thing as some of the others do, but if she has asthma, she might need to save her energy for... um... tumbles. It makes sense, since tumbles give her points and waving of arms, while pretty, gives little discernible advantage under the current code.

So I do not think that pouring scorn on her is classy at all. In the other finals, there has been less scorn, but still some controversy. It is the opposite of classy. Some people just need to get a life.

Also, this expression "code whoring." I have mentioned before that I hate it. If you put rules out there, people are bound to work out ways to make those rules help them win. What gymnast is going to do a pretty routine for the fans when they know that it gives them zero chance of a medal? If that is their goal, cirque or gymnastics tours make more sense than elite gymnastics.

I mean, in other sports, is working out a technique that makes you run a race faster (without drug taking/blood doping) cheating or I dunno, race-whoring? At the last rugby world cup, the winner, England, won most games by kicking goals rather than running across the line with a ball in their hands as rugby players generally do. Lots of rugby commentators hated that they could win games like this, but they directed their scorn at the rules. Not the players or the team. Gymnastics people need to take a leaf out of their book, seriously!

I really hope that Jordyn is patting herself on the back right now (she is definitely flexible enough to do that!). She has a lot more maturity and class than the haters. I hope people are wrapping support around her, and sheltering her from the ugliness. Unfortunately, I am sure she is smart enough to be aware of what is happening. It's not fair. You can argue all you can over unfairness of results, but attacking people who have nothing to do with the results is creating two wrongs. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Rant over.

Musings On The Past Month's Happenings

Sorry I have been away so long. I am back now, although I don't really feel like I have much to add to the commentary around the internet about all that has happened.

I could talk about what a massive splatfest Visas was. But plenty of other bloggers have done that better than I could ever hope to. I have already talked about the fact that the code of points means gymnasts chuck their skills rather than perfecting them. I have already talked about how stupid this is.

There is the matter of poor Becca Bross and her poor knee. You could blame Liukin has Blythe did. I think that Bross, as a 18 year old, would have had a lot of say in what she did. You can always look back and say coulda shoulda woulda. Hindsight is 20:20 or maybe even better. Liukin played a high stakes game in his gymnastics, pushing the envelope with difficulty. He was the ultimate trickster of his time. His daughter did an insane bars set. Bross also does insane difficulty, and so does Ohashi. Difficulty has won Liukin a number of battles - and he lost this one.

Yet these gambles are encouraged by the way that modern elite gymnastics is done. As I have said many times.

I feel excited about all of the talent that is emerging. The Russians look amazing. The USA looks like the team to beat for me. The Worlds look like they will be a wonderful competition. But I know they will be tinged with regret for me, because a number of the best gymnasts in the world will be too injured to be there. This is not good for the sport in my opinion.

The age debate - my take

Hi all

I am very sorry about my absence. I have been working about 45 hours a week and studying 20+ which leaves me little time for blogging. On top of that, the hard drive of my faithful yellow laptop is goners. So I did not have the means to blog either. I could use my partner's computer, but I could never be on it long...

I have been inspired by Gymnastics Coaching regarding the age limit in gymnastics and what should be done with it. I am torn. I would like to protect gymnasts from the worst aspects of the sport, yet I can see merit in the argument that a rule that cannot be enforced is useless.

Protection of young gymnasts, especially the ones from totalitarian countries, appeals to me. Stories about the Karolyis, and many other accusations have flown around over the years. This is not all sour grapes by failed gymnasts. Olga Korbut made accusations of rape about her own coach, even though she had a very successful career. But let's not pretend that coaches are unique in being able to abuse and exploit children. Some parents do that as well.

The pressure of competing on a large world stage is massive whatever your age is. Well, I think. Truth is, I don't know. I have never competed on the world stage.

My take is that gymnastics training, like any training can be positive or negative. When I learned ballet, I had a teacher who screamed at her students, belittled them and generally played power games with them. I remember her telling us that we would be in big trouble if we made mistakes during performances. I was scared to go to ballet. I gave up ballet. My singing teacher gave constant praise as well as constructive criticism, and worked to the personalities of each student in terms of teaching performing. I would always go off stage thinking of what I had done wrong (which my teachers would often fail to spot), and what I could work on. She would build me up. My friend was the opposite, and so my teacher had very different ways of motivating her. I sang for several years.

I am guessing that it is the same with gymnastics. I think that mentally, doing high level sports or other hobbies can be a positive or negative experience depending on how it is done. Kids who are competing in high level competition need support wrapped around them. They need to know that their self worth is not dependent on their results. How does that get policed? - well, parents are the first line of defence. If a kid is unhappy, most parents will withdraw them from gymnastics or that particular coach. The second line of defence needs to be the sport itself. If a coach is harming their athletes, they should not be coaching, because they are giving the sport a bad name. Many of the worst potential coaches may be prevented from coaching by criminal and reference checks. Thirdly, the police may sometimes need to get involved when serious harm is done.

I can see that the risks of young people being involved in high level sports is high, but if it is done properly, I do not think it is a reason in itself to stop young people from competing at a high level. I think that being older, athletes in a worse position since they would understand the long-term consequences of falling off the equipment, but they would have the skills to deal better with competition, and they would have had time to develop mental toughness, and experience that may enable them to do better in competition.

But maybe I am the wrong person to be making assumptions about young people performing at a high level. What do gymnasts who have competed in the Olympics at 13 or 14 have to say? What was positive? What was negative? I think we need to hear some of their opinions.

One question that I do want to ask is whether any of the skills that gymnasts do are harmful when they are introduced too early. I was inspired by Katrina bringing up the example of a ballerina dancing Swan Lake at age 8. She was dancing en pointe, which is dangerous for foot growth when training begins before age 12 according to the International Association for Dance Medicine and Science. I wonder if many skills that gymnasts do fit into this category, or even a category of slightly higher risk when skills are introduced to early.

I am aware of assertions that older gymnasts are more likely to get injured - but how can you prove that this is solely about age? Is this about age or the body saying "enough is enough" after years of doing the same movements? Is it simply the case that some gymnasts are doing movements that they should not do to increase start values? Is it bad training methods? Again, I am not sure. I am asking these questions, but I should not be the person answering them, because I do not feel qualified.

I hear the pragmatic "cannot be enforced so why do it" argument, and to some extent, I agree with it. But I do think that the issue is much more complicated than that. One thing is for sure. I want older gymnasts to stay on the scene, because they add a lot to the sport. I do not want another 'pixie only' era in gymnastics.

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.

Past gymnastics with present scoring

Many gymnastics fans crave the return of the perfect ten and the old scoring system. But I can imagine that some past gymnasts watching the current scoring a rewarding of difficulty, and wishing that the present system had been around when they were competing.

The first gymnast that comes to mind when thinking about this topic is Yelena Produnova. Produnova had amazing skills, and she was not rewarded for them at the time. On vault, she did a handspring double, which is usually a vault done by men. I have not heard of any other women doing this vault. Some commentators mentioned that this vault should be biomechanically impossible for a women. Apparently, the judges did not like it because it they feared for her safety.

I can see why this vault was not well liked. She consistently landed it in a squat, but if Produnova were doing this vault today, she would be well rewarded for doing this vault. Even if she fell over, she would beat a lot of DTY-ers.

Her floor was also pretty amazing.

Double arabian into a front tuck... then a layout into a double front. Those are two amazingly difficult passes! How many people do those now? Now, they would be rewarded for them. Not so much then. I know that Produnova was partly doing lots of forward tumbling to cope with an injury, but still, her skill-set is pretty much unmatched, even now.

The next gymnast I think of is Maloney. Maloney has been criticised for her lack of form and style, but could she ever tumble! Her passes included a double layout, a full twisting double layout and a whip to triple twist. Again, I think she would have done better had the current scoring system been in place when she was an elite.

I know that the open ended scoring system is not liked by everyone. When I see people chucking big bad skills, (cough, Nabieva, cough) I yearn for beautiful execution to come into play over difficulty.

But some good things have came out of the open-ended system. Bars has become much more spectacular. And if any people like Produnova and Maloney turn up, they will be recognised for their difficulty.

Yes, I am a bit of a Pollyanna with this, but the fact is that the old scoring system had problems too. That is why they changed it.

Opinion: The Thing that is Wrong with Judging

Judging and the Code of Points (COP) are controversial, and many have talked about how they need changing. Andy Thornton has developed an alternative COP, which is very interesting, but I do not know whether it would be possible to come up with so many parts of the score in competition. I think that the difficulty plus execution formula is perfect. It can, and probably does, currently put too much emphasis on difficulty at the moment, but execution deductions can be increased in value to change this and/or difficulty scores can be reduced. In my opinion the main problem with judging is the execution score is not transparent or challengeable. This needs to change for several reasons: to ensure objective judging, to be fairer on judges, to minimise controversy and most importantly to give gymnasts and coaches information about why they get deductions.

There is always speculation in the commentary about deductions. As an audience, we learn that this step will cost 0.1 or 0.3, or that the routine was flawless and deserves no deductions. Sometimes, the scores are in line with the commentary. Sometimes, this is not the case. When there is a fall, we always know where the deduction comes from. But I don’t know where the deductions came from in Nastia’s vault in 2008, or Vanessa’s floor routine in the latest world championships. There is no reason why we, and dare I say Nastia and Vanessa should not know. There is no reason why the judges cannot list the deductions and their values along with the D-scores, which can then be challenged.

When Lauren Mitchell won the floor, Peggy Liddick said “Statistically, it was you turn, they just had to give it to you!!” Link here. Um, please don’t get me wrong – I am not of the “I support New Zealand or anyone playing Australia” school of thought – but Mitchell should have earned that gold because she was the best on the day (and I think that she did!). Is it really true that judges give out medals based on it being someone’s turn or feeling sorry for a gymnast? There is certainly some talk that this happens, and it is not the first time that Liddick has mentioned it. Sometimes, I like the poetic justice of a gymnast winning after struggles, but if gymnastics should be fair. I cannot imagine any referee in tennis or basketball giving out penalties or goals because it is “their turn” or they are sorry for a competitior/team.

Many blogs say that Lauren should not have won. I do not believe this is fair on this hard-working gymnast or the people judging her. Judging must be very hard, and judges are subjected to so much scrutiny. If we had a list of the specific list of deductions of each gymnast, maybe there would not be this level of controversy and criticism of judges. I am not an expert on gymnastics, but Mitchell’s routine was awesome, and it is possible that the judges had very good reasons for putting her in first place.

I know that controversies would come up, but I think they would be lessened with transparency, because even when one doesn’t agree with a call, they may at least understand the rationale. Being able to appeal would also add transparency. If gymnasts, coaches or fans disagreed with a deduction, there may be scope to change things, which could improve the judging.

It could also improve routines and gymnast’s skills. If a gymnast knows they are being marked down for an ugly skill, it may encourage them to make their routines more artistic, and take out the ugly skill. Clearer communication about where a gymnast goes wrong could improve artistry in the sport. At the moment, assumptions are made around reasons why scores are the way they are. More specific communications could help gymnasts improve.

When I was at University, getting an assignment back that was a B instead of an A without any reasoning annoyed me. I can imagine that some gymnasts may get this feeling on seeing their D-scores. They may have no idea why they have been marked down so much. Of course, they would have some idea, but in the end, they may not be aware that a given skill would have built in deductions. Of course, it is up to the coach and gymnast to make the gymnast as perfect as possible, as it is for any sports’ coach. But this may be difficult – a coach may be able to see many things wrong. If they knew the exact deductions, they may be able to decide which area to work on the most, or which skills to add or take away.

Of course, having a list of deductions may be time consuming, especially when appeals happen. However, if appropriate limitations are put around these appeals, they should be manageable. People will get used to the extra time. Ultimately, I think the cost will outweigh the benefits.

Introduction to my Genres of Gymnastics

There are many arguments about gymnastics, and what artistic gymnastics ought to look like. Do we want graceful ballerina gymnasts, or do we want gymnasts who throw difficult tricks. It seems to me that some people we only want one type of gymnast of the other. I think that there is room for both.

The current code of points encourages the use of clean difficult tricks connected as much as possible. This provides the highest starting score, along with the highest execution score. In the 2004 Olympic commentary, there was a mention of the Code of Points allowing deductions for lack of artistry. This is no longer the case. Apparently, the new Code of Points based on difficulty and execution allows less room for subjectivity. I am sceptical of this assertion, but I will talk about that another time.

In today’s post, I want to assert that I like all gymnastics. That’s right. I enjoy the power gymnastics and the graceful routines. I think that there is room for many kinds of gymnasts. I want to describe the many types of gymnastics “genres” that I believe exist for me as a viewer. Some routines fit into more than one genre. Others specifically belong to one type of genre or the other. I will use examples of routines that I believe fit into these different types of genres.