Because, on a day like today, I need a moment of Zen.
And ever since the new Code, I appreciate the Chinese 10x more than I ever did.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Getting a little sick of the Bross haters
There's been a lot of negativity toward Rebecca Bross, and I'm a little sick of it.
Look at this site, where the author says
"Ms. Bross has one of the worst bodies for gymnastics imaginable."
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's true! Not trying to be a hater, but remember Kristen Maloney? I would make the argument that SHE has one of the worst bodies for gymnastics: not very muscular, slim from the side (esp. in 2000) but from straight on she had hips that prevented her from having a nice line and made her look, well, just kind of awkward.
Bross, on the other hand is petite, straight, compact and muscular. She is very boyish, which in turn makes her a strong gymnast. No, her ankles don't stick together, but that is not a form error, it is her BODY SHAPE. Case in point, Semenova has the same shape and won bars at the '07 Worlds.
This blogger goes on to say " While she is a hard worker and a technical gymnast, everything LOOKS like work." Again, I don't agree and I'll refer you to Maloney. Nothing against her, but to me, she is the definition of a gymnast who was NOT light on her feet. (Esp. if you look at a beam routine from '98, or look at her Geinger on bars, or her many pirouetting and toe-on skills on bars, and most especially her full-in layout dismount off of bars, in which she always looks like she just barely pulled it around and kinda of "plops" down on the map). Bross gets good height, especially on her back layout step-out on beam, Arabian on beam, Tchatchev and Jaeger on bars and have you SEEN her double-twisting front on floor?! HUGE!
I also read where someone on the IG Forum said that he/she didn't think Bross belonged at WOGA but again, I disagree. I think she's well-suited for WOGA -- she is serious about her gymnastics and she understands that work that is required to be great. She wants the sternness and structure of WOGA and doesn't need a sugar-coated coach like Mary Lee Tracy (not that I don't like MLT!!).
Now could Bross use some polishing? Sure. I think that, overall, she could stand to loosen up in competition and trust her training. I also think that her hands and finger positions could be improved. And some more dance training would benefit her. I think her choreography is terrific, but I don't think she's 100% comfortable performing it. But she hits 180 degree splits, points her toes and keeps her legs straight.
But please, not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) has the body of Nastia Liukin. Who can you think of in the last 30 years who had a body like that and was successful in more than just one or two World Championships? And if the gymnast did at one point have that body type, how did she look after puberty? Please, let's not be mean to Bross because of her genetics. No, she does not have straight, hyper-extended legs, but what she does have is a lot of muscle, and I believe, heart.
P.S. I also don't really appreciate this blogger's remarks on Bross's father. Please? Can we leave the girl alone? Thanks.
Bross -- I love ya!
I'd also like to note that even though I am using Maloney as an example here, I really admire her for surviving the first year of Karolyi camps and all the politics, grinning & bearing it through multiple injuries and also having a tremendously successful collegiate career.
Look at this site, where the author says
"Ms. Bross has one of the worst bodies for gymnastics imaginable."
I'm sorry, but I just don't think that's true! Not trying to be a hater, but remember Kristen Maloney? I would make the argument that SHE has one of the worst bodies for gymnastics: not very muscular, slim from the side (esp. in 2000) but from straight on she had hips that prevented her from having a nice line and made her look, well, just kind of awkward.
Bross, on the other hand is petite, straight, compact and muscular. She is very boyish, which in turn makes her a strong gymnast. No, her ankles don't stick together, but that is not a form error, it is her BODY SHAPE. Case in point, Semenova has the same shape and won bars at the '07 Worlds.
This blogger goes on to say " While she is a hard worker and a technical gymnast, everything LOOKS like work." Again, I don't agree and I'll refer you to Maloney. Nothing against her, but to me, she is the definition of a gymnast who was NOT light on her feet. (Esp. if you look at a beam routine from '98, or look at her Geinger on bars, or her many pirouetting and toe-on skills on bars, and most especially her full-in layout dismount off of bars, in which she always looks like she just barely pulled it around and kinda of "plops" down on the map). Bross gets good height, especially on her back layout step-out on beam, Arabian on beam, Tchatchev and Jaeger on bars and have you SEEN her double-twisting front on floor?! HUGE!
I also read where someone on the IG Forum said that he/she didn't think Bross belonged at WOGA but again, I disagree. I think she's well-suited for WOGA -- she is serious about her gymnastics and she understands that work that is required to be great. She wants the sternness and structure of WOGA and doesn't need a sugar-coated coach like Mary Lee Tracy (not that I don't like MLT!!).
Now could Bross use some polishing? Sure. I think that, overall, she could stand to loosen up in competition and trust her training. I also think that her hands and finger positions could be improved. And some more dance training would benefit her. I think her choreography is terrific, but I don't think she's 100% comfortable performing it. But she hits 180 degree splits, points her toes and keeps her legs straight.
But please, not everyone (in fact, hardly anyone) has the body of Nastia Liukin. Who can you think of in the last 30 years who had a body like that and was successful in more than just one or two World Championships? And if the gymnast did at one point have that body type, how did she look after puberty? Please, let's not be mean to Bross because of her genetics. No, she does not have straight, hyper-extended legs, but what she does have is a lot of muscle, and I believe, heart.
P.S. I also don't really appreciate this blogger's remarks on Bross's father. Please? Can we leave the girl alone? Thanks.
Bross -- I love ya!
I'd also like to note that even though I am using Maloney as an example here, I really admire her for surviving the first year of Karolyi camps and all the politics, grinning & bearing it through multiple injuries and also having a tremendously successful collegiate career.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Nastia's big announcement
She now has a clothing line for girls.
http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/supergirlbynastia/42098/
Not exactly the announcement I was hoping for, but not bad either...
http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/supergirlbynastia/42098/
Not exactly the announcement I was hoping for, but not bad either...
Thursday, February 4, 2010
2010 American Cup lineup announced
Ariella Kaeslin -- Switzerland
Rebecca Bross --U.S.
Dominique Pegg -- Canada
Elsa Garcia -- Mexico
Yuko Shintake -- Japan
Claudia Voicu -- Romania
Elisabeth Seitz -- Germany
A second U.S. gymnast will be added to the lineup between now and March 6.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
She might drive me insane...
I just read this interview with new mom, Shannon Miller.
Interview
Is it just me, or is she a total control freak? I think she might drive me nuts if she was my mom, or even roommate.
Nothing against her gymnastics though. Wonderful. In my top 10. :)
Interview
Is it just me, or is she a total control freak? I think she might drive me nuts if she was my mom, or even roommate.
Nothing against her gymnastics though. Wonderful. In my top 10. :)
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Arbitrary
The more I've been watching gymnastics lately, the more I'm kind of getting miffed that things (i.e. rules) are not more standardized. I mean, gymnasts basically give up their entire youth to dedicate it to their sport. And it seems like, depending on what era it has been throughout history, results could have been drastically different than they are.
Let's take the '89-'92 Quad. Well, you didn't have to nail two vaults in the all-around because you got to drop your lowest score. Good thing, since gymnasts like Onodi fell on one of them in the '92 Olympic AA (I know she wasn't going to win an AA medal, but still...). And, by the same token, good thing in the '06-08 Quad, Nastia didn't need two different vaults like gymnasts did in the '97-'00 Quad, or she might have been screwed.
And in the '89-'92 Quad, even if your difficulty hypothetically went over a 10.0, if you made a big enough mistake, it didn't matter. Risk did not necessarily = reward. Look at Kim Gwang Suk's uneven bar routine in event finals. (Why this didn't at least get a bronze, btw, is beyond me). (The fact that she was prob. underage aside).
And, I mean, technically, it's always been the rule that pirouettes on uneven bars should end in handstand. But this was never enforced until '06. Well, gee, that sure did come in handy for the 5 previous years for the Romanians. In fact, form in general was conveniently ignored for a good while, at least as compared to the degree to which it's considered important now.
And what about ties? In '92 they were allowed, and there were several. If memory serves me, wasn't there a 3-way tie for bronze on FX. WTF? Now, we go to obscure tie-breaking means, as in Beijing with Nastia & He Kexin. But had that been 16 years earlier, a tie would have been no big deal! And why is it that when there's a tie for say, second place (back in the day when ties were allowed), there's no bronze medal given? There's still technically someone whose score was third-best and it's not her fault that the 2 of the 3 people above her tied. Someone is getting screwed out of receiving a medal. And remember the days when falling meant losing the chance of winning a medal? Well, no more since Shanshan won a medal at the '07 Worlds and Cheng Fei won bronze on vault in Beijing. But, if the rules had allowed such things in the past, then who knows, Mo Huilan may have won a medal in the AA in Sabae at the '95 Worlds! Even minuscule obscure rules like I think in '95 at National level competition, gymnasts got .1 bonus for doing 2 different vaults. And what about the Phelps vault, the thing I abhor more than any other skill... no one really enforced the layout position (deducting for pike), nor did anyone pay attention to the twisting direction! IG had a good write up on this in '97 or '98, in which they concluded that, depending on the direction in which the gymnast twists, it could be considered two different vaults, and that technically, Amanar was the only one performing it correctly! Did no one care about rules?!
Arg, it's just frustrating how arbitrary some things can be.
Let's take the '89-'92 Quad. Well, you didn't have to nail two vaults in the all-around because you got to drop your lowest score. Good thing, since gymnasts like Onodi fell on one of them in the '92 Olympic AA (I know she wasn't going to win an AA medal, but still...). And, by the same token, good thing in the '06-08 Quad, Nastia didn't need two different vaults like gymnasts did in the '97-'00 Quad, or she might have been screwed.
And in the '89-'92 Quad, even if your difficulty hypothetically went over a 10.0, if you made a big enough mistake, it didn't matter. Risk did not necessarily = reward. Look at Kim Gwang Suk's uneven bar routine in event finals. (Why this didn't at least get a bronze, btw, is beyond me). (The fact that she was prob. underage aside).
And, I mean, technically, it's always been the rule that pirouettes on uneven bars should end in handstand. But this was never enforced until '06. Well, gee, that sure did come in handy for the 5 previous years for the Romanians. In fact, form in general was conveniently ignored for a good while, at least as compared to the degree to which it's considered important now.
And what about ties? In '92 they were allowed, and there were several. If memory serves me, wasn't there a 3-way tie for bronze on FX. WTF? Now, we go to obscure tie-breaking means, as in Beijing with Nastia & He Kexin. But had that been 16 years earlier, a tie would have been no big deal! And why is it that when there's a tie for say, second place (back in the day when ties were allowed), there's no bronze medal given? There's still technically someone whose score was third-best and it's not her fault that the 2 of the 3 people above her tied. Someone is getting screwed out of receiving a medal. And remember the days when falling meant losing the chance of winning a medal? Well, no more since Shanshan won a medal at the '07 Worlds and Cheng Fei won bronze on vault in Beijing. But, if the rules had allowed such things in the past, then who knows, Mo Huilan may have won a medal in the AA in Sabae at the '95 Worlds! Even minuscule obscure rules like I think in '95 at National level competition, gymnasts got .1 bonus for doing 2 different vaults. And what about the Phelps vault, the thing I abhor more than any other skill... no one really enforced the layout position (deducting for pike), nor did anyone pay attention to the twisting direction! IG had a good write up on this in '97 or '98, in which they concluded that, depending on the direction in which the gymnast twists, it could be considered two different vaults, and that technically, Amanar was the only one performing it correctly! Did no one care about rules?!
Arg, it's just frustrating how arbitrary some things can be.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Just throwing this out there...
As I re-watched the 2008 Olympic team finals, it might be easy to throw the bulk of the blame on A-Sac that the U.S. lost the gold.
HOWEVER,
At second glance, look at the 2007 Worlds. We won the gold here without Shawn's Amanar, and with two mishaps on beam, one from Shawn and one from Nastia. When you look at things in that light, I think you have to forgive A-Sac. She hit as well as Nastia and Shawn in prelims in '08, and hit in '07 when both of them didn't. It's amazing we won the gold in '07. As a whole, we looked better in '08. We got really lucky, and the Chinese were not as good in '07. Just sayin'....
And would someone please, please explain to me how Emilie LePennec not only won the gold on UB in '04, but how she even had a 10.0 SV. BS!!!
Not cool, Em.
HOWEVER,
At second glance, look at the 2007 Worlds. We won the gold here without Shawn's Amanar, and with two mishaps on beam, one from Shawn and one from Nastia. When you look at things in that light, I think you have to forgive A-Sac. She hit as well as Nastia and Shawn in prelims in '08, and hit in '07 when both of them didn't. It's amazing we won the gold in '07. As a whole, we looked better in '08. We got really lucky, and the Chinese were not as good in '07. Just sayin'....
And would someone please, please explain to me how Emilie LePennec not only won the gold on UB in '04, but how she even had a 10.0 SV. BS!!!
Not cool, Em.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Fantasy Gymnastics
You know, like fantasy football? OK, here's the match-up I want to see...I miss real competition!
The Romania squad from '04, including Ponor, an un-injured Ban, Safronie, Rosu, Eremia, et al.
v.
The China squad from '08, including He Kexin, Cheng Fei, Yang Yilin, Deng Linlin, et. al.
v.
The American squad from '08 (either all healthy or replacing injured team members....sorry, but only healthy people should be on the team), so A-Sac, Liukin, Johnson, Sloan, and either a healthy Memmel & Peszek, or replacements....
And THEN we can see who is the best team.... we know the Romanians will all hit, but I think the execution deductions will hurt them. But the Chinese would do well with the E-score, but might not hit, and with the Americans, it's 50/50 either way. I think this would be a terrific match-up.
The Romania squad from '04, including Ponor, an un-injured Ban, Safronie, Rosu, Eremia, et al.
v.
The China squad from '08, including He Kexin, Cheng Fei, Yang Yilin, Deng Linlin, et. al.
v.
The American squad from '08 (either all healthy or replacing injured team members....sorry, but only healthy people should be on the team), so A-Sac, Liukin, Johnson, Sloan, and either a healthy Memmel & Peszek, or replacements....
And THEN we can see who is the best team.... we know the Romanians will all hit, but I think the execution deductions will hurt them. But the Chinese would do well with the E-score, but might not hit, and with the Americans, it's 50/50 either way. I think this would be a terrific match-up.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Top Three
Recently, The Couch Gymnast asked its readers to tell her what one thing they coud change about gymnastics, if they could change anything. I emailed her one, then a second thing, but I think I actually have three. OK, in order:
1. The 2-per-country rule (already went over this, affirmative action for sports)
2. 3-up-3-count (already went over this, not the best judge of who the strongest team is)
3. Vault. I actually think vault was harder in the '97-'00 quad, form aside (they didn't critique on form then like they do now). Seriously, you couldn't get by in the aforementioned quad with just a Yurchenko 1.5, and even if that was just one of your vaults, it was only worth a 9.7 (or 9.8?). Not to pick on Nastia, but really? She won an Olympic gold medal with that vault? Yeah it was pretty much perfect but in my opinion, she really needed more difficulty.
Which kind of reminds me of something else. I'm all for promoting good form. But really, Nastia getting a 9.2-something in Beijing for her stuck 1.5 Yurchenko? Eh? I watched the 2005 National last night and A-Sac turned is one of the most terrific floor exercises ever, with a triple twist that will rival Maria Olaru -- no leg crossing, no bent knees, got it all the way around -- and got a 9.9. Tim & Elfi went nuts, but moreover, she DESERVED it. Do a good routine, get rewarded for it. During that telecast, Tim mentioned that he wished the old scoring system would return. I wonder how he feels now?
1. The 2-per-country rule (already went over this, affirmative action for sports)
2. 3-up-3-count (already went over this, not the best judge of who the strongest team is)
3. Vault. I actually think vault was harder in the '97-'00 quad, form aside (they didn't critique on form then like they do now). Seriously, you couldn't get by in the aforementioned quad with just a Yurchenko 1.5, and even if that was just one of your vaults, it was only worth a 9.7 (or 9.8?). Not to pick on Nastia, but really? She won an Olympic gold medal with that vault? Yeah it was pretty much perfect but in my opinion, she really needed more difficulty.
Which kind of reminds me of something else. I'm all for promoting good form. But really, Nastia getting a 9.2-something in Beijing for her stuck 1.5 Yurchenko? Eh? I watched the 2005 National last night and A-Sac turned is one of the most terrific floor exercises ever, with a triple twist that will rival Maria Olaru -- no leg crossing, no bent knees, got it all the way around -- and got a 9.9. Tim & Elfi went nuts, but moreover, she DESERVED it. Do a good routine, get rewarded for it. During that telecast, Tim mentioned that he wished the old scoring system would return. I wonder how he feels now?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
And another thing...
I really dislike the 2-per-country rule. It's like affirmative action for sports, and as far as I'm concerned, sports is about competition. May the best girl win!
Now, let's look at the '08 Olympics. In most events, it wasn't a big deal, but look at BB.
1. LI Shanshan CHINA 16.125 Q
2. LIUKIN Nastia USA 15.975 Q
3. JOHNSON Shawn USA 15.975 Q
4. SACRAMONE Alicia USA 15.950
5. FEI Cheng CHINA 15.875 Q
6. PAVLOVA Anna RUSSIA 15.825 Q
7. AFANASYEVA Ksenia RUSSIA 15.775 Q
8. SEMENOVA Ksenia RUSSIA 15.775
9. DENG Linlin CHINA 15.550
10. SLOAN Bridget USA 15.500
11. YANG Yilin CHINA 15.500
12. DRAGOI Gabriela ROMANIA 15.450 Q
13. TSURUMI Koko JAPAN 15.425 Q
In my opinion, should Gragoi and Tsurimi REALLY have qualified? WHY, when A-Sac qualified FOURTH?! I mean, for all we know, A-Sac could have redeemed herself. But more importantly, look at #8-11, all of whom qualified above Dragoi and Tsurimi. What on earth? You know, I know the point of the rule -- to prevent one country dominating. But so what? Let's assume it finished:
Johnson
Liukin
A-Sac
So what? If the Americans really were the best, then so be it. In the actual final, Cheng Fei (bronze) scored a 15.95, same as A-Sac. So, hypothetically, A-Sac might have been in contention for a medal.
Now, let's look at the '08 Olympics. In most events, it wasn't a big deal, but look at BB.
1. LI Shanshan CHINA 16.125 Q
2. LIUKIN Nastia USA 15.975 Q
3. JOHNSON Shawn USA 15.975 Q
4. SACRAMONE Alicia USA 15.950
5. FEI Cheng CHINA 15.875 Q
6. PAVLOVA Anna RUSSIA 15.825 Q
7. AFANASYEVA Ksenia RUSSIA 15.775 Q
8. SEMENOVA Ksenia RUSSIA 15.775
9. DENG Linlin CHINA 15.550
10. SLOAN Bridget USA 15.500
11. YANG Yilin CHINA 15.500
12. DRAGOI Gabriela ROMANIA 15.450 Q
13. TSURUMI Koko JAPAN 15.425 Q
In my opinion, should Gragoi and Tsurimi REALLY have qualified? WHY, when A-Sac qualified FOURTH?! I mean, for all we know, A-Sac could have redeemed herself. But more importantly, look at #8-11, all of whom qualified above Dragoi and Tsurimi. What on earth? You know, I know the point of the rule -- to prevent one country dominating. But so what? Let's assume it finished:
Johnson
Liukin
A-Sac
So what? If the Americans really were the best, then so be it. In the actual final, Cheng Fei (bronze) scored a 15.95, same as A-Sac. So, hypothetically, A-Sac might have been in contention for a medal.
2004 v. 2008
Without going back to re-watch the Nationals, Trials & Olympics for each of these years, I initially thought that the 2008 team was the better team. And don't get me wrong, hindsight is 20/20. That being said, I'm starting to think that the 2004 team might have been better. I am still undecided on that fact, but I will say that in 2004 I think the field was deeper and we left many talented gymnasts at home.
Hindsight is 20/20
No one knew McCool would flake out in prelims like she did in 2004. That being said, I think she may have been worthy of a second shot in the team finals, particularly on beam and floor, where Bhardwaj was used instead. We knew Bhardwaj was likely to hit but she lacked the potential to bring in a high score, which we really needed, esp. after uneven bars, where we failed to get the most out of an event that was our strength, and Romania's weakness.
Additionally, as I re-watched Nationals, I had forgotten how strong and clean Tricase was. I think you could have made a case for her to join the team. The only question is, who would you replace her with? Yim and Ishino were also looking pretty strong. I think the problem with that team was that no one counted on McCool not delivering. When you remove her from our lineup on beam and floor, we instantly get weaker. This wasn't helped by the fact that Kupets also was pulled from beam. I am just wondering if there was any possible way for us to have won and if so, what that way would have been. Were the Romanians unbeatable, or did we miss an opportunity here?
ROM 114.283
USA 113.584
Difference = .699
My second thought is that I initially thought that the 2008 team was the strongest U.S. team ever assembled. On paper that is.
Nastia: Do we need to list her qualifications?; needed for UB & BB
Shawn: Current world champ in AA & FX; US National Champ & Olympic Trials Champ; could be used on any event
Chellsie: 2003 UB World Champ; 2005 World Champ AA; looked in good shape from comeback to injury; could be used on any event
Alicia: Numerous World medals on V & FX; needed for V & FX
Samantha: member of '07 world team; needed for V & FX
Bridget: seems like a consistent team player; we needed her for V & UB
Now, my question is, when we knew Chellsie was injured, should we have pulled her out and replaced her with someone like Worley? Is it really fair to Worley that we didn't do this? And what about the rest fo the members of the team? We may have had a better shot at a medal with a healthy athlete to replace Memmel. And what about Peszek? Again, was this fair?
Of course, what we weren't counting on was those two getting injured, but in addition, Sacramone missing on FX. A beam mistake, ok, that's not unheard of.
For beam, Johnson & Liukin went up. Who else could have gone up?
Sloan
Sacramone
Peszek -- out
Memmel -- out
Yea, I guess given the two choices, Sacramone was the one to go with, but still, we have 6 team members for a reason, so that we can pick and choose who we want to go with. This isn't much of a choice, is it?
I'm just sayin'...not much we can do now, but does anyone have any thoughts?
CHN 188.900
USA 186.525
Difference = 2.375
Was China unbeatable or did we drop the ball?
Hindsight is 20/20
No one knew McCool would flake out in prelims like she did in 2004. That being said, I think she may have been worthy of a second shot in the team finals, particularly on beam and floor, where Bhardwaj was used instead. We knew Bhardwaj was likely to hit but she lacked the potential to bring in a high score, which we really needed, esp. after uneven bars, where we failed to get the most out of an event that was our strength, and Romania's weakness.
Additionally, as I re-watched Nationals, I had forgotten how strong and clean Tricase was. I think you could have made a case for her to join the team. The only question is, who would you replace her with? Yim and Ishino were also looking pretty strong. I think the problem with that team was that no one counted on McCool not delivering. When you remove her from our lineup on beam and floor, we instantly get weaker. This wasn't helped by the fact that Kupets also was pulled from beam. I am just wondering if there was any possible way for us to have won and if so, what that way would have been. Were the Romanians unbeatable, or did we miss an opportunity here?
ROM 114.283
USA 113.584
Difference = .699
My second thought is that I initially thought that the 2008 team was the strongest U.S. team ever assembled. On paper that is.
Nastia: Do we need to list her qualifications?; needed for UB & BB
Shawn: Current world champ in AA & FX; US National Champ & Olympic Trials Champ; could be used on any event
Chellsie: 2003 UB World Champ; 2005 World Champ AA; looked in good shape from comeback to injury; could be used on any event
Alicia: Numerous World medals on V & FX; needed for V & FX
Samantha: member of '07 world team; needed for V & FX
Bridget: seems like a consistent team player; we needed her for V & UB
Now, my question is, when we knew Chellsie was injured, should we have pulled her out and replaced her with someone like Worley? Is it really fair to Worley that we didn't do this? And what about the rest fo the members of the team? We may have had a better shot at a medal with a healthy athlete to replace Memmel. And what about Peszek? Again, was this fair?
Of course, what we weren't counting on was those two getting injured, but in addition, Sacramone missing on FX. A beam mistake, ok, that's not unheard of.
For beam, Johnson & Liukin went up. Who else could have gone up?
Sloan
Sacramone
Peszek -- out
Memmel -- out
Yea, I guess given the two choices, Sacramone was the one to go with, but still, we have 6 team members for a reason, so that we can pick and choose who we want to go with. This isn't much of a choice, is it?
I'm just sayin'...not much we can do now, but does anyone have any thoughts?
CHN 188.900
USA 186.525
Difference = 2.375
Was China unbeatable or did we drop the ball?
Team Competition Quandries
Two thoughts:
For the Sydney Olympics being the "dark horse" for the U.S., as I went back to re-watch this competition, we really didn't do THAT badly. We came in fourth, close to third, which is a lot better than sixth at the 1999 Worlds.
But moreover, I don't care what people say about Bela's role, I just think this was a year that kind of lacked huge talent. Stars come and go and this is an ebb and flow process. I think that with the talent that we HAD during this time, they probably benefited from some "toughening up" from the Karolyis, but I mean, seriously, how much better could they have gotten? I just don't think this was a year of terrific stars. By the same token, several of them went on to do very well in NCAA. And Tasha was the next big star. But just a year later we won the bronze at he Worlds with a basically totally new team? You can't tell me that that was Bela's doing. I think we started to get some new talent, new faces, got a little lucky, even had an individual medalist in Katie Heenan. The same thing happened the following year at the Worlds. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to the "Karolyi Camp" system, but I'm not sure it should be over-stated, and I also don't think we should give the Sydney team so much flack. They did the best that they could, were under tremendous stress and all things said, did a pretty good job.
Second, as I was re-watching the Sydney team finals...wow... Romania won by two tenths,
ROM 154.608
RUS 154.403
OK that's just not even a convincing victory, but ESPECIALLY when you consider how this was the quad of conveniently overlooking uneven bar form breaks. If judging had occurred how it should have, Russia would have been (and should have been) your winner. It's just sickening.
For the Sydney Olympics being the "dark horse" for the U.S., as I went back to re-watch this competition, we really didn't do THAT badly. We came in fourth, close to third, which is a lot better than sixth at the 1999 Worlds.
But moreover, I don't care what people say about Bela's role, I just think this was a year that kind of lacked huge talent. Stars come and go and this is an ebb and flow process. I think that with the talent that we HAD during this time, they probably benefited from some "toughening up" from the Karolyis, but I mean, seriously, how much better could they have gotten? I just don't think this was a year of terrific stars. By the same token, several of them went on to do very well in NCAA. And Tasha was the next big star. But just a year later we won the bronze at he Worlds with a basically totally new team? You can't tell me that that was Bela's doing. I think we started to get some new talent, new faces, got a little lucky, even had an individual medalist in Katie Heenan. The same thing happened the following year at the Worlds. I'm not saying that there aren't advantages to the "Karolyi Camp" system, but I'm not sure it should be over-stated, and I also don't think we should give the Sydney team so much flack. They did the best that they could, were under tremendous stress and all things said, did a pretty good job.
Second, as I was re-watching the Sydney team finals...wow... Romania won by two tenths,
ROM 154.608
RUS 154.403
OK that's just not even a convincing victory, but ESPECIALLY when you consider how this was the quad of conveniently overlooking uneven bar form breaks. If judging had occurred how it should have, Russia would have been (and should have been) your winner. It's just sickening.
Monday, January 25, 2010
They weren't the best, but...
As I have been going through and dubbing all my tapes to DVD, I've been enjoying a nice stroll down memory lane. And I've come up with a sub-category of gymnasts who are favorites, and not necessarily because they were the most technically correct (like Dobre) or had the most success (like Miller), but just because I really admired them for the work that they DID do. Because maybe they weren't as talented as some of the bigger names, but they pulled out every ounce of talent they had and utilized it. I have a theory/feeling that some gymnasts work hard, but not as hard as others, and just compete very well. Obviously, at the elite level, all gymnasts must work very hard, but still, I remember reading that Zmeskal said she didn't always have to work so hard in competition but could usually pull things off when in competition. I have read that about Peszek, Dantzscher and Schwikert, to name a few.
I have a soft spot for Morgan White. In all honesty, I don't think she was as good as some of the other members of the 2000 team. But she is so REAL, she is so human. You know, as much as a I love Nastia, there's something inhuman about her. Whether she did a great routine or not, she had little facial expression. She was kind of like a little gymnastics soldier. I used to print up Nastia interviews about how she got her motivation, thinking I could apply her thoughts to my own life. But...she's kind of like a machine. She says she never lost faith, and hard times are hard but they make you stronger. Those are kind of like stock answers. Really? REALLY? You felt like that? Because... it's pretty hard to accomplish all that you have done, Nastia, without doubting yourself, or wondering why you're doing this, or wondering what life would be like without gymnastics, or freaking out after making a mistake. And maybe she DID some of these things, but if so, she never let on that she did. That's kind of hard to relate to.
Morgan was not the brightest star on the team. I think she never really thought she'd be at this level. Poor thing could not vault, and yet this was the pre-specialist days, so she HAD to vault. I'll never forget her reaction at the 2000 Nationals after she fell on her Yurchenko 1.5. She looked like she was going to lose it. Like REALLY lose it. And there is something so human about that. You know, that was an Olympic year. The stakes were HUGE. This was her life. She'd be letting her family and coaches down if she didn't qualify to the team. This was the first step and she blew it. Bela is 15 feet away. And then it's just so exciting when she comes back to make the vault later on at the Trials. And in both occasions, she can't hold her emotions back. And yea, gymnasts are all supposed to be little Gina Gogeans and not feel anything, but you know, that's really hard to understand. She is the total underdog and comes back to make the team.
And then she gets to Sydney, breaks her foot, game over. I mean this was her peak time, too... I have a feeling that no matter how hard she tried, she'd never come back to be this good again. And that's just more real, I'm sorry, than some other gymnasts' stories.
The second gymnast is Courtney Kupets. I already admired her consistency and difficulty, but I really came to like her when she talked about her Achilles tendon injury. I'm sure that the pain and hardship was even greater than she let on:
But I really, REALLY admire her attitude. I have a really hard time staying positive and believing that things will work out. From what I can gather in this interview, as well as her discussing her comeback from her second Achilles injury, she must just be a positive, perky person with lots of friends, and an amazing inner strength. She took the attitude of, ok, what's done is done, we can't do anything to change it other than be positive, not feel sorry for ourselves, but to work hard with what we can do and be patient. Wow, that is some hard stuff! Easy to say, hard to do! I mean, imagine how you'd feel, being the national champion, and then getting injured AFTER prelims at the Worlds? I bet she is the kind of person who is a terrific friend and teammate. I just have loads of admiration for her.
Tabith Yim. OK, her arms are a bit jerky and she's a bit too flexed at the wrist, but I REALLY admire her goals, and that she TALKS about that at each competition. Like, that she wanted a standing ovation after her floor ex! Wow, who says that?! And her unusual choices in music. The way she dances and performs. And, how can you not adore that after her floor ex on night two of the 2002 Nationals, she jumps up and down on the floor exercise mat?! WHO does this? And, I love when she fell off beam, I think at the same Nationals, she puts her hands on her hips, pissed off, gets back up and finishes the routine. I LOVE this. It's so refreshing after the Gina Gogeans and Nastia Liukins of the world, who show you nothing, yet do extraordinary things. It's so inhuman.
I have a soft spot for Morgan White. In all honesty, I don't think she was as good as some of the other members of the 2000 team. But she is so REAL, she is so human. You know, as much as a I love Nastia, there's something inhuman about her. Whether she did a great routine or not, she had little facial expression. She was kind of like a little gymnastics soldier. I used to print up Nastia interviews about how she got her motivation, thinking I could apply her thoughts to my own life. But...she's kind of like a machine. She says she never lost faith, and hard times are hard but they make you stronger. Those are kind of like stock answers. Really? REALLY? You felt like that? Because... it's pretty hard to accomplish all that you have done, Nastia, without doubting yourself, or wondering why you're doing this, or wondering what life would be like without gymnastics, or freaking out after making a mistake. And maybe she DID some of these things, but if so, she never let on that she did. That's kind of hard to relate to.
Morgan was not the brightest star on the team. I think she never really thought she'd be at this level. Poor thing could not vault, and yet this was the pre-specialist days, so she HAD to vault. I'll never forget her reaction at the 2000 Nationals after she fell on her Yurchenko 1.5. She looked like she was going to lose it. Like REALLY lose it. And there is something so human about that. You know, that was an Olympic year. The stakes were HUGE. This was her life. She'd be letting her family and coaches down if she didn't qualify to the team. This was the first step and she blew it. Bela is 15 feet away. And then it's just so exciting when she comes back to make the vault later on at the Trials. And in both occasions, she can't hold her emotions back. And yea, gymnasts are all supposed to be little Gina Gogeans and not feel anything, but you know, that's really hard to understand. She is the total underdog and comes back to make the team.
And then she gets to Sydney, breaks her foot, game over. I mean this was her peak time, too... I have a feeling that no matter how hard she tried, she'd never come back to be this good again. And that's just more real, I'm sorry, than some other gymnasts' stories.
The second gymnast is Courtney Kupets. I already admired her consistency and difficulty, but I really came to like her when she talked about her Achilles tendon injury. I'm sure that the pain and hardship was even greater than she let on:
But I really, REALLY admire her attitude. I have a really hard time staying positive and believing that things will work out. From what I can gather in this interview, as well as her discussing her comeback from her second Achilles injury, she must just be a positive, perky person with lots of friends, and an amazing inner strength. She took the attitude of, ok, what's done is done, we can't do anything to change it other than be positive, not feel sorry for ourselves, but to work hard with what we can do and be patient. Wow, that is some hard stuff! Easy to say, hard to do! I mean, imagine how you'd feel, being the national champion, and then getting injured AFTER prelims at the Worlds? I bet she is the kind of person who is a terrific friend and teammate. I just have loads of admiration for her.
Tabith Yim. OK, her arms are a bit jerky and she's a bit too flexed at the wrist, but I REALLY admire her goals, and that she TALKS about that at each competition. Like, that she wanted a standing ovation after her floor ex! Wow, who says that?! And her unusual choices in music. The way she dances and performs. And, how can you not adore that after her floor ex on night two of the 2002 Nationals, she jumps up and down on the floor exercise mat?! WHO does this? And, I love when she fell off beam, I think at the same Nationals, she puts her hands on her hips, pissed off, gets back up and finishes the routine. I LOVE this. It's so refreshing after the Gina Gogeans and Nastia Liukins of the world, who show you nothing, yet do extraordinary things. It's so inhuman.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Part II...in defense
Part II of my defense of Make it or Break It.
You know, I am a fan of drama. Good drama. And this is not the kind of show I normally watch. (i.e. I don't watch anything on ABC Family normally). But, it's about one of my favorite things of all time. I can watch it and accept it for what it is and overlook the parts that aren't 100% true to life.
Point #1: A lot of people are bet out of shape over the lack of difficulty in their routines. But, ok seriously, short of having Rebecca Bross taking some "time off" (lol) and come be a stunt double, what do people expect? Elite gymnasts are elite gymnasts, and they train 40+ hours per week to make it the the Nationals, Worlds & Olympics, no be stunt doubles. That being said, I'm ok with the amount of difficulty they do. For an ongoing tv show, I would imagine it'd be hard to find four stunt double who not only could resemble each of the four girls, but who also could, consistently, do things like triple fulls, full-ins and double layouts. For Stick It and Little Girls in Pretty Boxes, since they were films and not tv shows, it was a one-shot deal, so Nastia Liukin and Vanessa Atler could take some time off as a one-time thing to film the movie.
What I'm NOT ok with is the crappy stunt work in a movie like Little Girls in Pretty Boxes. I re-watched that the other week. I think one of that movie's "competitive" vaults was a layout Yurchenko. OK, that's somewhat hard to believe for it being 1997 and a gymnast on the national team, but possible, maybe. But even so, one of the first things gymnasts train is how to fall. That movie (as best I recall) showed a gymnast falling, just straight on her back, on that vault. That's not the kind of fall where you'd break your back, nor is that the kind of fall a gymnast would take. What IS a nasty fault, for example, would be Kerri Strug's fall from compulsory bars in 1994. Please, LGIPB, I'm not that stupid.
Point #2: A lot of people have made comments like, the national team doesn't train at one gym....that's not how national teams are picked, etc etc. Well... the rules for selecting teams in the U.S. have changed numerous times. We used to not have "Bela's Camp" and now we do.... I mean, the show isn't intended to exactly replicate the American system. If it did, then, you know, there could be the potential for some "shady" dealings that might make the Karolyis, USA Gymnastics, and even individual coaches look bad. This is ABC Family and they aren't going to go there. If this was HBO, ok, maybe.
In my opinion, I'd LOVE a show that explored all of that. But that's not what we have right now. But what we have isn't AWFUL. It has its weaker elements: all the sex scandals which seem hard to believe; Mrs. Kmetko, who is too over the top to believe; the wheelchair-bound kid, which is just a bit over the top as well; the chit chatting and casual attitude during practice; the party in L.A....
All that being said, I am very much enjoying the plot surrounding Payson getting injured. Though not all careers end in injury, a lot of careers end when gymnasts don't make Olympic teams. I have read this before, this can leave a lot of girls baffled and bewildered: gymnastics was my whole life, NOW what? And that's a hard one. I am enjoying that. And the consequence of Payson's injury was (Kaylie?) Cruz winning a national title, which, I think we can all agree that there have been competitions where the best gymnast did not necessarily win. And in th4 back of her mind, she knows that's true. And she knows she benefited from Payson's fall. hmm... much like Bridget Sloan benefited from Rebecca Bross' fall in the final rotation, final tumbling pass at last year's Worlds.
You know, I am a fan of drama. Good drama. And this is not the kind of show I normally watch. (i.e. I don't watch anything on ABC Family normally). But, it's about one of my favorite things of all time. I can watch it and accept it for what it is and overlook the parts that aren't 100% true to life.
Point #1: A lot of people are bet out of shape over the lack of difficulty in their routines. But, ok seriously, short of having Rebecca Bross taking some "time off" (lol) and come be a stunt double, what do people expect? Elite gymnasts are elite gymnasts, and they train 40+ hours per week to make it the the Nationals, Worlds & Olympics, no be stunt doubles. That being said, I'm ok with the amount of difficulty they do. For an ongoing tv show, I would imagine it'd be hard to find four stunt double who not only could resemble each of the four girls, but who also could, consistently, do things like triple fulls, full-ins and double layouts. For Stick It and Little Girls in Pretty Boxes, since they were films and not tv shows, it was a one-shot deal, so Nastia Liukin and Vanessa Atler could take some time off as a one-time thing to film the movie.
What I'm NOT ok with is the crappy stunt work in a movie like Little Girls in Pretty Boxes. I re-watched that the other week. I think one of that movie's "competitive" vaults was a layout Yurchenko. OK, that's somewhat hard to believe for it being 1997 and a gymnast on the national team, but possible, maybe. But even so, one of the first things gymnasts train is how to fall. That movie (as best I recall) showed a gymnast falling, just straight on her back, on that vault. That's not the kind of fall where you'd break your back, nor is that the kind of fall a gymnast would take. What IS a nasty fault, for example, would be Kerri Strug's fall from compulsory bars in 1994. Please, LGIPB, I'm not that stupid.
Point #2: A lot of people have made comments like, the national team doesn't train at one gym....that's not how national teams are picked, etc etc. Well... the rules for selecting teams in the U.S. have changed numerous times. We used to not have "Bela's Camp" and now we do.... I mean, the show isn't intended to exactly replicate the American system. If it did, then, you know, there could be the potential for some "shady" dealings that might make the Karolyis, USA Gymnastics, and even individual coaches look bad. This is ABC Family and they aren't going to go there. If this was HBO, ok, maybe.
In my opinion, I'd LOVE a show that explored all of that. But that's not what we have right now. But what we have isn't AWFUL. It has its weaker elements: all the sex scandals which seem hard to believe; Mrs. Kmetko, who is too over the top to believe; the wheelchair-bound kid, which is just a bit over the top as well; the chit chatting and casual attitude during practice; the party in L.A....
All that being said, I am very much enjoying the plot surrounding Payson getting injured. Though not all careers end in injury, a lot of careers end when gymnasts don't make Olympic teams. I have read this before, this can leave a lot of girls baffled and bewildered: gymnastics was my whole life, NOW what? And that's a hard one. I am enjoying that. And the consequence of Payson's injury was (Kaylie?) Cruz winning a national title, which, I think we can all agree that there have been competitions where the best gymnast did not necessarily win. And in th4 back of her mind, she knows that's true. And she knows she benefited from Payson's fall. hmm... much like Bridget Sloan benefited from Rebecca Bross' fall in the final rotation, final tumbling pass at last year's Worlds.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
I wish Atler would write a book...
OK, true, no one knows who she is except me and the people on the IG Forum.
I just watched the 2000 Classic last night (which, although cheesy, I really enjoyed the coach's insights on each of their athletes). Nessa had a nice (for her) bar set. And she seemed genuinely happy about hitting.
Flash forward to 2000 Olympic Trials. She bombs everything.
Flash forward again to 2005 Starting Over. Nessa seems "over" gymnastics, trying to sabotage herself, relieved to have not made the Olympic team, and not so enamored with Liukin.
When does the change occur between Classic and Trials? What happened? I mean...sheesh... if she had continued improving at that rate, I can see her being a player in vault finals in Sydney (esp. if she threw her Rudi, which btw. is a real shame it's not named after her) and perhaps in BB and/or FX finals.
It's now 10 years later and I still feel full of questions. When did she fall out of love with the sport? When you think about it, what a shame! Even if she wasn't happy in early 2000, that's 15 years (give or take) worth of work, all thrown away. I'm not saying she would have been Olympic AA champion, but just to go and give it your all.... why not do that?
I just watched the 2000 Classic last night (which, although cheesy, I really enjoyed the coach's insights on each of their athletes). Nessa had a nice (for her) bar set. And she seemed genuinely happy about hitting.
Flash forward to 2000 Olympic Trials. She bombs everything.
Flash forward again to 2005 Starting Over. Nessa seems "over" gymnastics, trying to sabotage herself, relieved to have not made the Olympic team, and not so enamored with Liukin.
When does the change occur between Classic and Trials? What happened? I mean...sheesh... if she had continued improving at that rate, I can see her being a player in vault finals in Sydney (esp. if she threw her Rudi, which btw. is a real shame it's not named after her) and perhaps in BB and/or FX finals.
It's now 10 years later and I still feel full of questions. When did she fall out of love with the sport? When you think about it, what a shame! Even if she wasn't happy in early 2000, that's 15 years (give or take) worth of work, all thrown away. I'm not saying she would have been Olympic AA champion, but just to go and give it your all.... why not do that?
Make it or Break it
Dwight Normile has written his top 10 (really 9) thoughts on Make It or Break It:
1. Including actual gymnastics in a show supposedly set in a gymnastics club has become too much of a hassle for the producers. Last night's gymnastics scenes totaled about 20 seconds. Apparently, the interior of the Rock is about as boring as, well, the inside of any gym. And the daily grind of workouts is even drier. Instead, why not jet (privately!) to L.A. for a party or two? And Payson can get another doctor's opinion while there. Now that's creative, if not convenient, script writing. Is it just me, or does the plot have a "Make It Up As We Go Along or Break It" feel?
Yea, and what top-level coach would give his girls a Saturday off for no good reason? And these girls prob. wouldn't be drinking high-calorie sugar-filled daiquiris by the pool (virgin or not).
2. The sequence of Emily tucking after a pirouette and then slinging a double flyaway was certainly interesting, considering the stunt double was obviously about to jump off. It reminded me of American Anthem, when Mitch Gaylord's high bar dismount at the big meet somehow hovered over the ground forever as the camera panned the emotions of every other cast member. He probably did a quintuple-twisting octuple by the time they showed him land.
I think I remember this scene...and it did seem pieced together.
3. Lauren is the best tumbler on the team; she flip-flopped on BFF Kaylie last night, just like she does with every other character, for that matter. But you already knew that.
Lauren is just annoying, but there's a Lauren in most all soap operas. I guess she's a necessary ingredient.
4. Payson looked really confident strolling the red carpet, despite the back brace. Maybe it was the experience she gained earlier in the season when her team put on its own fashion show.
Yea, why didn't she need her walker then, but in most ever other scene, she looks pathetic, barely getting around?
5. The line "Goodnight, Butterfly" made my two teenaged kids laugh and roll their eyes.
I missed this...
6. Emily and her boyfriend seem to speak in text.
7. It was odd to see a promo for Secret Life of an American Teenager, plugging an appearance by Shawn Johnson. (BTW, happy 18th, Shawn.) My daughter said, "Shouldn't she be on MIOBI?"--Good call
8. I wonder if, say, Bridget Sloan, works part-time at a pizza joint. "Marta, is it OK if I miss the first two days of training camp? I couldn't get anyone to cover my shifts — not even my mother."
lol, I know, right? I mean, I understand an athlete not coming from a well-off family but in elite gymnastics, when you're on the national team, that position trumps all other things in your life. Doubt that would fly with the Karolyis or even Mary Lee Tracy for that matter.
9. The music is the best part of this show.
10. The music is the best part of this show. (Sorry, but out of complete indifference, I could only come up with nine observations.)
Feel free to add a 10th to the list.I think that the day-to-day grind of gym practice, school, homework and ice buckets ON THE SURFACE doesn't sound that interesting, so the writers added all this over the top drama to add some interest. BUT I think what they're missing is that the hard work, the disappointments, the overcoming of obstacles, the friendly rivalries, etc. (the more subtle things) COULD make for an EXCELLENT show... but it's like they had to "dumb it down" to what they thought viewers would like. I watch it, despite it faults, b/c hey, at least it's a show about gymnastics, and some parts of it I do enjoy. For example, can you imagine how Payson feels w/ her injury? This is something more based in reality, I think. Think Kerri Strug w/ her bad fall in '94. Yes, she came back from it, but any injury like that can take out the most talented gymnast, and then often times ends up being an advantages for other gymnasts to take home medals they might not have been able to before. Another example along the same lines, Milo at the 94 Worlds: She was in better physical shape than Miller but she just didn't compete as well. She SHOULD have won but didn't. Life isn't fair that way. The brunette (can't think of her name) "won" the Nationals in MIorBI b/c Payson wasn't there, even though she prob. wasn't the most talented gymnast there. So...I think that part is realistic and interesting.
One thing I really don't like though: the Kmetko girl's mother. Too over the top, too unbelievable. What would be wrong with a "normal" single working mother? Sheesh...
Friday, January 15, 2010
Phelps Smelps
Did ANYONE EVER do an even remotely nice Phelps vault? EVER?
UGH so why did we spent 5+ years doing a crappy vault and WINNING medals for it, when there was no clear technique for it, only to have it cease to exist later on.
I'd like to take back all vault medals that were won with one of the two vaults being a Phelps.
UGH so why did we spent 5+ years doing a crappy vault and WINNING medals for it, when there was no clear technique for it, only to have it cease to exist later on.
I'd like to take back all vault medals that were won with one of the two vaults being a Phelps.
MY results
In the world on Liz, HERE are the event finals results from 96:
V
Huilan -- hello, cleaner!
Amanar -- ok, good difficulty but no sticks & sloppy Phelps
Galieva -- clean clean and almost stuck
V
Huilan -- hello, cleaner!
Amanar -- ok, good difficulty but no sticks & sloppy Phelps
Galieva -- clean clean and almost stuck
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Something that occurred to me...
I just got a DVD/VHS burner for Christmas, and so I've been going through all my VHS tapes and burning them to DVD, year by year. I have done '92, '93, 94, '95 and am doing '96 now.
Wow, when you are accustomed to the 2-panel scoring system, the 10.0 seems quite odd.
For example, we'll assume that most gymnasts in the top 10 at say the 1992 Olympic all-around had 10.0 start values on all four events. But some of these gymnasts technically have over a 10.0. So, what if they hit everything but one skill, versus a "just barely getting to a 10.0 SV" gymnast... who gets the better score? It seems like there were way more judgment calls back then. Like, well so-and-so did a hard routine, so in spite of her balance check, we'll give her a better score. And then other times, someone went out on a limb with difficulty, and you'd kind of like to see the judges reward that, but not. (i.e. Miller v. Lyssenko on BB finals). Basically, the risk-for-reward ratio was whacked (I'm so articulate) -- back then, why take the risk when it didn't necessarily assure you anything? (Of course the flip side to this is Li Shanshan winning a bronze on BB at the '07 Worlds with a fall...).
I mean, I am basically used to the new system and can't see going back, but watching all of those all competitions solidified this in my mind. And another consequence of the new system: most of the time, not all of the time, winners are more definitive. I mean, what is winning a gold medal by .012 (Gutsu v. Miller), especially when we consider HOW subjective it was?! I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but Liukin defeated Johnson by several tenths of a point.
And another thing: the scoring at the '95 Worlds. A lot of the routines there seemed almost identical to the ones in Atlanta (i.e. Huilan, Gogean, Milo) and yet the scoring seemed a lot losing. We didn't break 9.875 in Atlanta, but there was at least one 9.9 in Sabae. Milo's bar routine was pretty standard in the team competition (or maybe it was all-around) and she had a substantial hop on her double front with a half dismount, and got a 9.875. Umm, what? They were HARDLY giving those out in Atlanta.
I will say that now, it is SO MUCH NICER to be able to actually see HOW the score was derived.
Now the execution scores on the other hand, right now they are still wack. But that's another tirade.
Wow, when you are accustomed to the 2-panel scoring system, the 10.0 seems quite odd.
For example, we'll assume that most gymnasts in the top 10 at say the 1992 Olympic all-around had 10.0 start values on all four events. But some of these gymnasts technically have over a 10.0. So, what if they hit everything but one skill, versus a "just barely getting to a 10.0 SV" gymnast... who gets the better score? It seems like there were way more judgment calls back then. Like, well so-and-so did a hard routine, so in spite of her balance check, we'll give her a better score. And then other times, someone went out on a limb with difficulty, and you'd kind of like to see the judges reward that, but not. (i.e. Miller v. Lyssenko on BB finals). Basically, the risk-for-reward ratio was whacked (I'm so articulate) -- back then, why take the risk when it didn't necessarily assure you anything? (Of course the flip side to this is Li Shanshan winning a bronze on BB at the '07 Worlds with a fall...).
I mean, I am basically used to the new system and can't see going back, but watching all of those all competitions solidified this in my mind. And another consequence of the new system: most of the time, not all of the time, winners are more definitive. I mean, what is winning a gold medal by .012 (Gutsu v. Miller), especially when we consider HOW subjective it was?! I don't know the exact number off the top of my head, but Liukin defeated Johnson by several tenths of a point.
And another thing: the scoring at the '95 Worlds. A lot of the routines there seemed almost identical to the ones in Atlanta (i.e. Huilan, Gogean, Milo) and yet the scoring seemed a lot losing. We didn't break 9.875 in Atlanta, but there was at least one 9.9 in Sabae. Milo's bar routine was pretty standard in the team competition (or maybe it was all-around) and she had a substantial hop on her double front with a half dismount, and got a 9.875. Umm, what? They were HARDLY giving those out in Atlanta.
I will say that now, it is SO MUCH NICER to be able to actually see HOW the score was derived.
Now the execution scores on the other hand, right now they are still wack. But that's another tirade.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
