On Artistry: An Open Letter to the Women's Technical Committee

November 12, 2013, 10:42 pm

≫ Next: The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

After reading The All Around's post about the artistry course at the World Championships, I had to write this letter…

Dear Ms Kim and Fellow Members of the Women's Technical Committee:

This moment in gymnastics history has been coming for quite some time.

Over the years, there has been a steady push to reduce subjectivity and to promote objectivity in the sport of gymnastics. I don't mean to give an exhaustive history here, but to cite one example, in the late 90s, the objectivity debate centered on judges' scores. The big question was, What is the best way to determine a gymnast's average score and to evaluate the judges?

Some pundits pooh-poohed the Swiss Timing system. Developed in the early 80s, the system penalized judges for their variance from the average score. (To refresh your memories, the tolerance for average scores between 9.5-10 was 0.1. Thus, if the average score for a gymnast was a 9.7 and a judge scored a gymnast 9.55 or 9.85, that judge would be out of tolerance.) The detractors thought that a system developed by Jackie Fie and Lance Crowley in the 80s (i.e. the Judges Objectivity Evaluation system) was more effective.

Many gymnastics fans have forgotten about this battle, but in the 90s, it was a big deal in the gymnastics community--much in the same way that artistry is a big deal in the gymnastics community today. In fact, two articles appeared in International Gymnast on the matter--one in the November 1998 issue and another in the January 1999 issue.

Of course, all the late 90s chitter chatter was silenced when this happened

and then this happened

I recognize that the open-ended system was conceived of prior to Hamm-Gate 2004, but it's indisputable that the events of the Athens Olympics pushed the FIG to completely overhaul the way gymnasts were judged. In order to prevent another Hamm-Gate, the Technical Committees decided to take action to ensure that the sport would be as objective as possible. The Swiss Timing system was left in place, and the open-ended scoring system was implemented.

Perfecting the System

We've now spent a full quad with the new system, and the undying question seems to be, How can we perfect the open-ended system? For Bruno Grandi, perfecting the Code means examining skills in light of physics so that we can know whether a triple back is harder than a double-twisting double layout on floor.

For you, the Women's Technical Committee, perfecting the Code means reviving artistry while still operating under the objectivity of the new system. We gymnastics fans have watched you try to break floor routines into their basic components so that you could determine what constitutes a "good" floor routine and so that you could assign artistry deductions accordingly.

I certainly do not envy the task, and I have to say, I have to tip my hat to you. In a short amount of time, you identified several problem areas with the women's floor exercise. (I, for one, do not want to watch women stand in a corner for 5 seconds before a tumbling pass!) Furthermore, I commend you for educating your judges. I think it's terrific that you used music theory to educate your judges. (Theory was one of my least favorite parts of my music education, so props to the judges who sat through that lecture!)

All that said, in your haste to uncover the nuts and bolts of artistry and what constitutes a "good" floor routine, you have failed to address a crucial part of the equation. No matter what you do, artistry is subjective. You can make 100 rules about artistry, but at the end of the day, artistry is a question of personal taste.

Taste. Yum.

Your task of defining "artistry" would be easier task if taste were universal, but it's not. That's why my boyfriend wants to watch Ryan Gosling in The Notebook on a Saturday night, while I want to watch Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity. That's why I ignore Mark Rothko paintings in an art gallery, while other people are willing to pay upwards of $87 million dollars for something like this:

Personally, I'd rather have the artwork of a four year-old on my wall.

To be sure, some tastes are more prevalent than others. Over the years, different thinkers have tried to determine which tastes are more dominant than others. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is an experiment by Vitaly Komar and Alexandir Melamid. The artistic duo surveyed Americans to determine what they liked in artwork when it comes to sizes, styles, subjects, and colors. It turned out that my fellow countrymen liked the color blue, images of natural landscape, historical figures, women, children and/or large mammals on mid-sized canvases. Bearing that in mind, they created a work of art called "The Most Wanted." Here it is:

Kind of silly, no?

Now, you could perform a similar experiment. You could spend a lot of money to poll thousands of gymnastics fans to see what they like in a floor routine. Then, you could analyze the data and write a Code of Points according to that data. But you know what you're going to end up with? Compulsory routines--not optional routines. And while some people may want to see the return of compulsory routines, I doubt that many people want optional routines to disappear.

So, if a poll of the gymnastics community is not the answer, how can the Women's Technical Committee deal with the issue of taste and artistry? That's a darn good question to which I don't have an answer, but I can tell you that what you have done over the years has not worked. In a nutshell, the Women's Technical Committee has thrust its tastes on gymnasts, coaches, and on gymnastics fans.

It's kind of funny to see how your thrusting has changed over the years. In the 1979 Code of Points, the Women's Technical Committee told gymnasts what kind of music and dance they could not use. For instance, "exaggerations of 'theatrical' character" were not considered appropriate for women's artistic gymnastics.

In 2013, a "theatrical" character is allowed. Strike that. In 2013, a "theatrical" character is mandatory. As the Code dictates, if a gymnast is unable "to play a role or a character throughout the performance," she will receive a 0.1 deduction.

Of course, this is not the only mandate in the 2013 Code of Points. Nowadays, if a gymnast performs an "incorrect selection of movements for particular music," she incurs either a 0.1 or a 0.3 deduction. I understand that this is a throwback to older Code of Points, when gymnasts were not allowed to do "incompatible elements." ("Incompatible" meaning elements that were not suited to the music or to gymnastics in general.) To be quite frank, this line in the Code of Points has always peeved me, and it continues to peeve me to this day. Let me explain why…

No tangoing to waltz music!

In your recent judging course, judges were instructed that "a routine done to a waltz should not have tango steps." No offense to the presenter, Lasse Nettum of the Norwegian College of Sports Science. I'm sure she's a smart lady, but this mandate overlooks an entire style of dance in Argentina, which is just that: the merger of waltz and tango called the "tango vals."

Now, I recognize that this is a very specific example, and I doubt that the elite gymnasts of today are rushing to perform a "tango vals." That said, who says you can't perform one style of dance to another style of dance? Watch a few minutes of this routine:

Maybe breakdance to Bach is not your cup of tea, but some people like it. I mean, the audience was hootin' and hollerin' during the TV recording. So, what would you do if a gymnast performed this routine at Worlds? It wouldn't fit your definition of artistry, so the judges--if they followed the letter of the law--would have to take a deduction. But I bet that the crowd would go crazy if some girl started doing air flairs to Bach. It would be within their realm of taste to appreciate it.

So, who would be right? Your Code of Points or the taste of the audience members who enjoyed watching breakdance in leotards to Bach?

Transgressions

And I guess that's my problem with laying out hard and fast rules for artistry. Over the years, many great artists broke the rules. To put it differently, many times, artistry is about transgressing, and while I could cite painters from El Greco to Picasso to prove my point, I think that it would be more useful to stay within the realm of gymnastics. Specifically, I'd like to look at some of your favorite floor routines. Yes, believe it or not, your favorite floor routines were transgressive, in that they pushed the Code of Points in a different direction.

Transgressive Amy Koopman

Let's start with Amy Koopman performing to an orchestral rendition of "Paint It Black" by the Rolling Stones:

That funky turn at the 0:57 mark? Yeah, that wasn't in the 1979 Code of Points, and I'm not just talking about her body position. Turns, at the time, were supposed to end in some kind of balance position, and that turn clearly did not. But that's why you are able to praise that routine for its "fluid flow of movements." Had she stopped to finish the turn, her routine would not have flowed so nicely.

Transgressive Daniela Silivas

Still not satisfied? Let's take another example from your judging course: Daniela Silivas's 1985 floor routine:

Setting aside the fact that the routine was transgressive because Daniela was 12 (maybe 13?) at the time of this meet……………………… (Yeah, you're never going to do anything about that, are you?)

We can see how this routine didn't jibe with the 1985 Code of Points. Sure, she showed an extremely versatile use of the floor area, as was required at the time. Really, what she did with the floor space is pretty cool, but making a gun with her fingers? I would think that would fall under the "unaesthetic exaggerations" rule, which would have been at least 0.1 off her final score.

Not to mention the fact that she was doing a passé with her arms in fourth (ish) position to "Turkey in the Straw." Okay, so the passé might be an attempt at a curtsy, but if my high school social dance class taught me one thing, it is that you do not curtsy with your arms in fourth (ish) position. Technically, that passé curtsy should have been an "incompatible element" worthy of a 0.1 deduction.

Yet, in retrospect, the Women's Technical Committee loves this routine. Hmm…

Transgressive Oksana Omelianchik

Finally, let's look at the inimitable Oksana Omelianchik:

Of all the routines shown at the judging course, this was my favorite. The opening shoulder shrugs give me goosebumps. Every. Single. Time. That said, Oksana could have incurred a big deduction for her music. At the time, "musical accompaniment with orchestra without singing" was allowable. But what did the Women's Technical Committee mean by singing? Does that include birds singing? You see what Oksana did there? She subverted the rules.

So, Ms. Kim and fellow members of the Women's Technical Committee, you can write all the rules you want, but just be prepared for a gymnast to break them in an astonishing way. And when that happens, she might be seen as the true artist--not the girl who followed your Code to a tee.

Sincerely,

Uncle Tim

P.S. What would you do if a gymnast decided to perform to John Cage's 4'33? Seriously, what would you do?

More on artistry:

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1977-1980

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1969-1972

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1964

↧

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

November 26, 2013, 11:35 am

≫ Next: Men's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

≪ Previous: On Artistry: An Open Letter to the Women's Technical Committee

Sorry, friends, I needed time away from the topic of artistry. But now, I'm back and ready to discuss the 1979 Code of Points with y'all. Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

I simultaneously love and hate the 1979 Code of Points. In a nutshell, I love it mostly because the Men's Technical Committee stopped being so darn pretentious. For the first time, you could actually understand what they were saying!

Virtuosity and Originality

As we have discussed, virtuosity and originality were the two cornerstones of artistry in men's gymnastics, but it was hard for gymnasts, judges, and coaches to understand what the heck the Men's Technical Committee meant by the terms "virtuosity" and "originality." The fellows at the FIG used a lot of flowery language such as:

The virtuoso exhibits an unusual talent for artistic execution. A musician becomes a virtuoso when his brilliance rises above the level of technical accomplishment and so deeply impresses us that our very souls are moved.

In 1979, the Code still waxed rhapsodic, but the FIG also decided to simplify things a bit. In addition to their flowery definitions of "virtuosity" and "originality," the Men's Technical Committee distilled the definitions into slightly more comprehensible chunks. Like this one:

Recognizing Originality factors
Originality is recognized and awarded when the following requirements have been fulfilled:

1. for all flawless new exercise parts

2. Exercise parts, demonstrated by only one or a few gymnasts, as the Magyar spindle. They must be confirmed by the Men's Technical Committee however, taking into consideration the validity point.

I mean, you have to give them an A for effort. They tried their best. They wanted to offer simple, clear definitions of the term "originality," and to a certain degree, they did. My guess is that the judges had a slightly more unified definition of the term "originality."

Nevertheless, the Men's Technical Committee still left us with several questions. For instance, What does "flawless" mean? Also, how many gymnasts are "a few"? Would a skill still be original if 3 gymnasts performed it? What about 4? Or 5?

As far as virtuosity is concerned, this is how they defined the essence of the term…

Recognizing Virtuosity factors
Virtuosity is recognized and awarded when the following requirements have been fulfilled:

1. Flawless technical execution, using a new movement technique, higher than the present level of achievement, for example: Felge to handstand with extreme swing and straight arms during the entire movement on parallel bars.

2. A presentation with personal style, rich in movement rhythm and swing, executed in a precise and flawless manner, also showing advancement in the development, as well as precise body form and regarded as above average.

And again, we are left with many of the same questions: What does flawless mean? Does every landing have to be stuck? Does every toe have to be exceptionally pointed? Is there any leeway? It seems like that would be up to each individual judges' discretion.

Please note: In these distilled definitions of "originality" and "virtuosity," the word "artistry" did not appear once. Already in 1979, the FIG was trying to make gymnastics more objective by taking away any room for interpretation, and when they did that, they began eliminating the artistic foundation of the sport. You can blame the open-ended Code all you want, but the erasure of artistry began long before 2006.

Believe it or not, that's not why I hate the 1979 Code of Points. Here's why…

Clothing is NOT optional…

In the 1979 Code of Points, this little line appeared:

Wearing of a shirt (jersey) is compulsory during all competitions.

CURSE YOU, FIG, for implementing this rule! Why, gym gods!? Why!?

Now, it's time to look at how the Code of Points manifested itself in routines from that time period. As usual, there aren't too many floor routines from this era on YouTube, but I did find a routine by Li Yuejui (AKA Anna Li's dad).

+0.5 bonus points for those meaty quadriceps.

In terms of virtuosity, I'm tempted to give him virtuosity bonus at the beginning of the routine. I mean, when he sticks his double-double, you're all like, "YES! MARRY ME, YUEJUI!" And then, on his full-in, you notice that he has the toe point of Fred Flintstone, and you're kind of like, "Meh. No virtuosity bonus."

In terms of originality, since Yuejui had his second pass named after him, I'm guessing he was credited for being original.

I'm guessing the judges had similar feelings about Yuri Korolev's floor routine from 1983:

The double layout is lovely. But then, you see him do a double front to a squatting position that should be seen only in a bathroom, and you think, "Yeah, no virtuosity bonus for you."

That said, double fronts weren't all that common at the time, so I'm guessing that the judges recognized the originality of that skill. I doubt that he received originality points for that awkward Sissoney split jump, though.

Ugly as that jump may be, it does raise an interesting question:

Which jumps would you like to see the men include in their routines?

Back in my days of J.O. compulsories, we learned how to chassé like drag queens. But what other jumps would you like to see the men do? Ferraris?

Leave a comment below.

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1969-1972

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1977-1980

↧

Men's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

December 15, 2013, 7:48 pm

≫ Next: Women's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

≪ Previous: The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

All hail King Oleg!

Kohei Uchimura may have won Worlds, but Oleg Verniaiev was the first gymnast to break 92 under the new Code. And he did it TWICE!

Last year, the All Around created some handy dandy rankings, leading up to the Olympics. This year, not so much. So, I've decided to create the UTRS (Uncle Tim Ranking System), which, for those who care, is pronounced "uterus." Think of my ranking system as a surrogate until The All Around steps in and takes over.

As per usual, take these rankings with a grain of salt. (Pro Tip: Never bet your life savings based on my numbers–or my predictions for that matter.) Judging varies from meet to meet, and as you can see, I've culled these scores from several meets. I've included the competition names so that you can decide how much crack the judges smoked before handing out the scores.

More than anything, you should think of these tables like this: New quad, new Code of Points. What the H is a good score nowadays? Well, let me show you…

Key:

Bold Face: An update since the last iteration of the UTRS.
An asterisk (*): Usually denotes a routine for which I have a final score without a D score.
Links, when available, are provided for the top 5 routines.
Parentheses ( ): The U.S. Nationals used a peculiar bonus system. (See image at the bottom.) Even though start value bonus was not in effect, the execution bonus was added to the D score. To the best of my ability, I have adjusted the scores for the U.S. men on the individual apparatus. However, I have not had time to adjust their all-around scores. Consequently, the U.S. men's all-around scores have parentheses around them.
Many, many, many thanks to Chinese Gymnastics Tumblr for their help with the transliteration of names!!

Men's All-Around Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Score	Meet
1. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	92.165	Stuttgart
2. Kohei Uchimura (内村航平)	Japan	91.990	Worlds
3. Sam Mikulak	USA	(91.650)	U.S. Nationals
4. Liu Rongbing (刘榕冰)	China	90.650	East Asian Games
5. Max Whitlock	Great Britain	90.650	British Championships
6. Alexander Naddour	USA	(90.600)	U.S. Nationals
7. Jossimar Calvo Moreno	Colombia	90.500	Mexican Open
8. John Orozco	USA	(90.400)	U.S. Nationals
9. Deng Shudi (邓书弟)	China	90.350	East Asian Games
10. Wataru Tanigawa	Japan	90.300	Valeri Liukin
11. Zhou Shixiong (周施雄)	China	90.269	Chinese National Games
12. Fabian Hambuechen	Germany	90.265	Stuttgart
13. Ryohei Kato (加藤凌平)	Japan	90.250	University Games
14. Oleg Stepko (Олег Степко)	Ukraine	90.050	University Games
15. Cheng Ran (程然)	China	89.969	Chinese National Games

Men's Floor Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Shirai Kenzo (白井健三)	Japan	7.4	Inter-highschool championships
2. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	7.2	Worlds
3. Flavius Koczi	Romania	7.0	European Championships
3. Matthias Fahrig	Germany	7.0	Worlds
5. Diego Hypólito	Brazil	6.9	Worlds
6. Arthur Mariano	Brazil	6.8	Worlds
6. Steven Legendre	USA	6.8	U.S. Nationals
6. Ryohei Kato (加藤凌平)	Japan	6.8	Tokyo World Cup
9. Jake Dalton	USA	6.7	U.S. Nationals
9. Eddie Penev	USA	6.7	U.S. Nationals
9. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	6.7	Tokyo World Cup
9. Sergio Sasaki	Brazil	6.7	Tokyo World Cup
9. Kohei Uchimura (内村航平)	Japan	6.7	Japanese Nationals
9. Max Whitlock	Great Britain	6.7	Westminster Cup
9. Thomas Tarantu	Germany	6.7	German Worlds Qualifier
9. Zou Kai (鄒凱)	China	6.7	Chinese National Games
9. Eleftherios Kosmidis	Greece	6.7	Osijek
9. Jeffrey Wammes	Netherlands	6.7	Osijek

Men's Floor Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Shirai Kenzo (白井健三)	Japan	16.400	Inter-highschool championships
2. Jake Dalton	USA	16.000	U.S. Nationals
3. Steven Legendre	USA	15.800	U.S. Nationals
3. Kohei Uchimura (内村航平)	Japan	15.800	NHK Cup
5. Diego Hypolito	Brazil	15.700	Pan Ams
5. Eddie Penev	USA	15.700	U.S. Nationals
5. Paul Ruggeri	USA	15.700	U.S. Nationals
5. Zou Kai (鄒凱)	China	15.700	Chinese National Games
9. Adrian de los Angeles	USA	15.650	Winter Cup
9. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	15.650	University Games
9. Stacey Ervin	USA	15.650	U.S. Nationals
12. Flavius Koczi	Romania	15.600	Romanian Nationals
13. Daniel Purvis	Great Britain	15.550	Westminster Cup
14. Manrique Larduet	Cuba	15.525	Pan Ams
15. Max Whitlock	Great Britain	15.500	European Championships
15. Ryohei Kato (加藤凌平)	Japan	15.500	Universiades

Men's Pommel Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Max Whitlock	Great Britain	7.3	Anadia
2. Daniel Keatings	Great Britain	7.2	Toyota International
3. Alberto Busnari	Italy	7.1	Osijek
4. Cyril Tommasone	France	7.0	Osijek
4. Krisztián Berki	Hungary	7.0	Hungarian Grand Prix
6. Prashanth Sellathurai	Australia	6.9	Doha
6. Kohei Kameyama	Japan	6.9	Worlds
8. Daniel Corral	Mexico	6.8	Worlds
8. Harutyum Merdinyan	Armenia	6.8	Worlds
8. Teng Haibin (滕海滨)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
8. Zhang Hongtao (张宏涛)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
12. Alexander Naddour	USA	6.7	Ljubljana
12. Donna Donny Truyens	Belgium	6.7	Osijek
12. Filip Ude	Croatia	6.7	University Games
12. Jossimar Calvo Moreno	Colombia	6.7	Pan Ams
12. Matvei Petrov (Матвей Петров)	Russia	6.7	European Championships
12. Oleg Stepko (Олег Степко)	Ukraine	6.7	European Championships
12. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	6.7	American Cup
12. Ovidiu Buidoso	Romania	6.7	Romanian Nationals
12. Saso Bertoncelj	Slovenia	6.7	Hungarian Grand Prix
12. Wang Bo (王博)	China	6.7	Chinese National Games
12. Zhang Yang (张阳)	China	6.7	Chinese National Games

Men's Pommel Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Alberto Busnari	Italy	16.100	Osijek
2. Max Whitlock	Great Britain	15.967	English Championships
3. Krisztián Berki	Hungary	15.966	French International
4. Kohei Kameyama	Japan	15.833	Worlds
5. Daniel Keatings	Great Britain	15.800	British Championships
5. Zhang Hongtao (张宏涛)	China	15.800	Chinese National Games
5. Xiao Qin (肖钦)	China	15.800	Chinese National Games
8. Wang Bo (王博)	China	15.700	Chinese National Games
9. Donna Donny Truyens	Belgium	15.700	Osijek
10. Matvei Petrov (Матвей Петров)	Russia	15.675	Russian Championships
11. Filip Ude	Croatia	15.675	Osijek
12. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	15.650	University Games
12. Daniel Corral	Mexico	15.633	Worlds
13. Luke Stannard	USA	15.600	U.S. Nationals
14. Ty Echard	USA	15.550	Winter Cup
15. Vid Hidvegi	Hungary	15.525	Osijek

Men's Rings Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Danny Pinheiro-Rodrigues	France	7.0	Osijek
1. Eleftherios Petrounias (Ελευθέριος Πετρουνιας)	Greece	7.0	European Championships
3. Brandon Wynn	USA	6.9	Cottbus
3. Aleksandr Balandin (Александр Баландин)	Russia	6.9	French International
3. Lambertus "Yuri" van Gelder	Netherlands	6.9	Cottbus
3. Arthur Nabarette	Brazil	6.9	Worlds
7. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	6.8	Worlds
7. Jiang Lei (蒋磊)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
7. Kim Jin Hyok	North Korea	6.8	Worlds
7. Koji Yamamuro	Japan	6.8	Worlds
7. Liao Junlin (廖俊林)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
7. Liu Yang (刘洋)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
7. Luo Xuan (罗旋)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
7. Ri Se Gwang	North Korea	6.8	Doha
7. Samir Ait Said	France	6.8	European Championships
7. Yan Mingyong (严明勇)	China	6.8	Anadia
7. You Hao (尤浩)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
7. Ng Kiu Chung	Hong Kong	6.8	Toyota

Men's Rings Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Eleftherios Petrounias (Ελευθέριος Πετρουνιας)	Greece	16.150	Cottbus
2. Yan Mingyong (严明勇)	China	16.034	Chinese National Games
3. Oleg Verniaiev	Ukraine	16.000	Valeri Liukin
4. Liu Yang (刘洋)	China	15.967	Chinese National Games
5. Arthur Zanetti	Brazil	15.900	University Games
6. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	15.875	Russian Nationals
7. Liao Junlin (廖俊林)	China	15.800	Chinese National Games
8. Aleksandr Balandin (Александр Баландин)	Russia	15.733	Worlds
9. Brandon Wynn	USA	15.700	Worlds
10. Lambertus "Yuri" van Gelder	Netherlands	15.675	Cottbus
11. Luo Xuan (罗旋)	China	15.667	Chinese National Games
12. Igor Radivilov (Ігор Радівілов)	Ukraine	15.650	Anadia
13. Matteo Morandi	Italy	15.625	Cottbus
14. Henrique Medina	Brazil	15.575	Pan Ams
15. You Hao (尤浩)	China	15.567	Chinese National Games

Men's Vault Rankings: Best D Score Averages

Name	Country	D1	D2	D Avg.	Meet
1. Ri Se Gwang	North Korea	6.4	6.4	6.4	Doha
2. Yang Hak Seon (양학선)	South Korea	6.4	6.0	6.2	Universiades
3. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	6.0	6.2	6.1	Europeans
4. Cheng Ran (程然)	China	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games
4. Igor Radivilov (Ігор Радівілов)	Ukraine	6.0	6.0	6.0	Anadia
4. Kim Hee Hoon	South Korea	6.0	6.0	6.0	Worlds
4. Liao Qiuhua (廖秋华)	China	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games
4. Luo Zepeng (罗泽鹏)	China	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games
4. Manrique Larduet	Cuba	6.0	6.0	6.0	Pan Ams
4. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	6.0	6.0	6.0	European Championships
4. Qu Ruiyang (屈瑞阳)	China	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games
4. Shek Wai Hung	Hong Kong	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games
4. Steven Legendre	USA	6.0	6.0	6.0	U.S. Nationals
4. Theo Seager	Great Britain	6.0	6.0	6.0	European Championships
4. Zhang Zhongbo (张仲博)	China	6.0	6.0	6.0	Chinese National Games

Men's Vault Rankings: Best Avg. Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Yang Hak Seon (양학선)	South Korea	15.787	University Games
2. Ri Se Gwang	North Korea	15.550	Doha
3. Denis Ablyazin (Аблязин Денис)	Russia	15.408	Europeans
4. Manrique Larduet	Cuba	15.400	Pan Ams
5. Kristian Thomas	Great Britain	15.350	Westminster Cup
6. Igor Radivilov (Ігор Радівілов)	Ukraine	15.300	University Games
7. Steven Legendre	USA	15.249	Worlds
8. Jake Dalton	USA	15.187	Cottbus
8. Kim Hee Hoon	South Korea	15.187	Toyota International
10. Theo Seager	Great Britain	15.150	British Championships
11. Shirai Kenzo (白井健三)	Japan	15.133	Worlds
12. Diego Hypólito	Brazil	15.112	Pan Ams
13. Sergio Sasaki	Brazil	15.099	Worlds
14. Le Thanh Phuong	Vietnam	15.062	Doha
15. Flavius Koczi	Romania	15.054	Europeans

Men's P-Bar Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	7.2ish	Ukrainian Nationals
2. You Hao (尤浩)	China	7.1	Chinese National Games
3. Zhou Shixiong (周施雄)	China	7.0	Chinese Nationals
3. Phuoc Hung Pham	Vietnam	7.0	Toyota
5. Anton Fokin	Uzbekistan	6.9	Worlds
5. Epke Zonderland	Netherlands	6.9	Hungarian Grand Prix
5. Jossimar Calvo Moreno	Colombia	6.9	Anadia
5. Liang Mingsheng (梁明声)	China	6.9	Chinese National Games
5. Wang Guanyin (王冠寅)	China	6.9	Chinese National Games
10. Axel Augis	France	6.8	Worlds
10. Deng Shudi (邓书弟)	China	6.8	Chinese Nationals
10. Feng Zhe (冯喆)	China	6.8	Chinese Nationals
10. Hu Xuwei	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
10. John Orozco	USA	6.8	U.S. Nationals
10. Kim Jin Hyok	North Korea	6.8	Doha
10. Lin Chaopan (林超攀)	China	6.8	Chinese National Games
10. Marcel Nguyen	Germany	6.8	European Championships
10. Vasilios Tsolkakidis (βασίλης τσολακιδης)	Greece	6.8	Hungarian Grand prix

Men's P-Bar Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Zhou Shixiong (周施雄)	China	16.067	Chinese National Games
2. Oleg Stepko* (Олег Степко)	Ukraine	16.050	University Games
3. Oleg Verniaiev (Олег Верняєв)	Ukraine	16.000	University Games
4. Marius Berbecar	Romania	15.950	Romanian Nationals
5. Andrei Vasile Muntean	Romania	15.900	Romanian Nationals
6. Emin Garibov	Russia	15.875	University Games
7. Vasileios Tsolakidis (βασίλης τσολακιδης)	Greece	15.866	Worlds
8. Feng Zhe (冯喆)	China	15.834	Chinese National Games
9. Mitja Petkovsek	Slovenia	15.833	Hungarian Grand Prix
10. Anton Fokin	Uzbekistan	15.800	Worlds
10. Deng Shudi (邓书弟)	China	15.800	Chinese National Games
10. Danell Leyva	USA	15.800	Valeri Liukin
13. Wang Guanyin (王冠寅)	China	15.734	Chinese National Games
13. Lin Chaopan (林超攀)	China	15.733	Worlds
15. Manrique Larduet	Cuba	15.725	Pan Ams

Men's High Bar Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Epke Zonderland	Netherlands	7.7	Hungarian Grand Prix
2. Koji Uematsu	Japan	7.5	All-Japan Championships
3. Fabian Hambuechen	Germany	7.4	German Worlds Qualifier
4. Emin Garibov	Russia	7.3	University Games
5. Danell Leyva	USA	7.2	Winter Cup
5. Jossimar Calvo Moreno	Colombia	7.2	Pan Ams
5. Zhang Chenglong (张成龙)	China	7.2	Chinese National Games
5. Zou Kai (鄒凱)	China	7.2	Chinese National Games
9. Chen Xuezhang	China	7.0	Chinese National Games
9. Kim Jihoon	South Korea	7.0	Worlds
9. Kohei Uchimura (内村航平)	Japan	7.0	Japanese Nationals
9. Kristian Thomas	Great Britain	7.0	Worlds
9. Umit Samiloglu	Turkey	7.0	Doha
9. Wang Yongchao (王永超)	China	7.0	Chinese National Games
9. Yusuke Saito	Japan	7.0	East Asian Games
9. Zhou Shixiong (周施雄)	China	7.0	Chinese Nationals

Men's High Bar Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Fabian Hambuechen	Germany	16.350	German Worlds Qualifier
2. Zou Kai (鄒凱)	China	16.167	Chinese National Games
3. Koji Uematsu	Japan	16.050	All-Japan Championships
4. Emin Garibov	Russia	16.025	University Games
5. Zhang Chenglong (张成龙)	China	16.000	Chinese National Games
5. Epke Zonderland	Netherlands	16.000	Worlds
7. Kohei Uchimura (内村航平)	Japan	15.900	Japanese Nationals
8. Danell Leyva	USA	15.850	U.S. Qualifier
9. Yusuke Tanaka	Japan	15.800	Japanese Nationals
10. John Orozco	USA	15.700	U.S. Nationals
10. Zhou Shixiong (周施雄)	China	15.700	Chinese Nationals
10. Liu Rongbing (刘榕冰)	China	15.700	East Asian Games
13. Wang Yongchao (王永超)	China	15.667	Chinese National Games
14. Sam Mikulak	USA	15.650	U.S. Nationals
15. Chen Xuezhang	China	15.600	Chinese National Games
15. Yuya Saito	Japan	15.600	NHK Cup
15. Kristian Thomas	Great Britain	15.600	Westminster Cup

U.S. National Bonus Rules

↧

Women's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

December 15, 2013, 7:53 pm

≫ Next: The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

≪ Previous: Men's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

Last year, The All Around created some handy dandy rankings, leading up to the Olympics. This year, not so much. So, I've decided to create the UTRS (Uncle Tim Ranking System), which, for those who care, is pronounced "uterus." Think of my ranking system as a surrogate until The All Around steps in and takes over.

As per usual, take these rankings with a grain of salt. (Pro Tip: Never bet your life savings based on my numbers–or my predictions for that matter.) Judging varies from meet to meet, and as you can see, I've culled these scores from several meets. I've included the competition names so that you can decide how much crack the judges smoked before handing out the scores.

More than anything, you should think of these tables like this: New quad, new Code of Points. What the H is a good score nowadays? Well, let me show you…

Key:

Bold Face: An update since the last iteration of the UTRS.
An asterisk (*): Usually denotes a routine for which I have a final score without a D score.
Links, when available, are provided for the top 5 routines.

Women's All-Around Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Score	Meet
1. Simone Biles	USA	60.500	U.S. Nationals
1. Kyla Ross	USA	60.500	U.S. Nationals
3. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	59.850	Russian Nationals
4. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	59.400	Swiss Championships
5. Katelyn Ohashi	USA	59.199	American Cup
6. Larisa Iordache	Romania	58.550	Romanian Nationals
7. Brenna Dowell	USA	58.450	U.S. Nationals
8. Peyton Ernst	USA	58.250	Secret Classic
9. Roxana Popa	Spain	58.083	Spanish Nationals
10. Elizabeth Price	USA	58.032	Stuttgart
11. Yao Jinnan	China	57.965	Worlds
12. Anastasia Grishina	Russia	57.932	European Championships
13. Shang Chunsong	China	57.801	Chinese National Games
14. Maggie Nichols	USA	57.750	U.S. Nationals
15. Mykayla Skinner	USA	57.700	U.S. Nationals

Women's Vault Rankings: Best D Score Averages

Name	Country	D1	D2	D Avg.	Meet
1. Yamilet Peña Abreu	Dominican Republic	7.0	5.8	6.4	Worlds
2. Hong Un Jong	North Korea	6.3	6.4	6.35	Universiades
3. McKayla Maroney	USA	6.3	6.0	6.15	Secret Classic
4. Mykayla Skinner	USA	6.4	5.8	6.1	Secret Classic
4. Fadwa Mahmoud	Egypt	7.0	5.2	6.1	Mediterranean Games
4. Ri Un Ha	North Korea	5.8	6.4	6.1	Doha
4. Ellie Black	Canada	6.2	6.0	6.1	Universiades
4. Alexa Moreno Medina	Mexico	6.2	6.0	6.1	Universiades
4. Yang Pei	China	6.2	6.0	6.1	Chinese National Games
4. Li Yiting	China	6.2	6.0	6.1	Chinese National Games
4. Deng Yalan	China	6.2	6.0	6.1	Chinese National Games
4. Wang Yan	China	6.2	6.0	6.1	Chinese National Games
13. Phan Thi Ha Thanh	Vietnam	5.8	6.2	6.0	Doha
13. Yang Tianyi	China	5.8	6.2	6.0	Chinese National Games
13. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	6.2	5.8	6.0	Worlds

Women's Vault Rankings: Best Avg. Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. McKayla Maroney	USA	15.724	Worlds
2. Simone Biles	USA	15.595	Worlds
3. Hong Un Jong	North Korea	15.483	Worlds
4. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	15.233	Worlds
5. Ksenia Afanasyeva	Russia	15.125	Universiades
6. Li Yiting	China	14.967	Chinese National Games
7. Phan Thi Ha Thanh	Vietnam	14.966	Worlds
8. Maria Paseka	Russia	14.950	Universiades
9. Oksana Chusovitina	Uzbekistan	14.887	Cottbus
10. Mykayla Skinner	USA	14.875	Secret Classic
11. Ellie Black	Canada	14.862	Universiades
12. Jade Barbosa	Brazil	14.825	Anadia
13. Noel Van Klaveren	Netherlands	14.763	Osijek
14. Alla Sosnitskaya	Russia	14.700	Elite Massilia
15. Yamilet Peña Abreu	Dominican Republic	14.683	Worlds

Women's Uneven Bar Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Yao Jinnan	China	6.9	Chinese National Games
2. He Kexin	China	6.8	Chinese Nationals
3. Shang Chunsong	China	6.7	Anadia
3.Tan Jiaxin	China	6.7	Chinese National Games
3. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	6.7	Worlds
6. Huang Huidan	China	6.6	Chinese Nationals
6. Rebecca Downie	Great Britain	6.6	Dutch Friendly
8. Rebecca Tunney	Great Britain	6.5	Dutch Friendly
9. Kyla Ross	USA	6.4	GER-ROU-USA Friendly
9. Wu Liufang	China	6.4	Chinese Nationals
9. Anastasia Grishina	Russia	6.4	Anadia
9.Fan Yilin	China	6.4	Chinese National Games
9. Tan Sixin	China	6.4	Chinese National Games
9. Sophie Scheder	Germany	6.4	Worlds
15. Xiao Kangjun	China	6.3	Chinese Nationals
15. Ruby Harrold	Great Britain	6.3	Doha
15. Elizabeth Price	USA	6.3	U.S. Nationals
15. Jessica Lopez	Venezuela	6.3	Osijek
15. Elizabeth Seitz	Germany	6.3	Worlds

Women's Uneven Bar Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Yao Jinnan	China	15.567	Chinese Nationals
2. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	15.500	Russian Nationals
2. Kyla Ross	USA	15.500	U.S. Nationals
2. Huang Huidan	China	15.500	Chinese National Games
5. He Kexin	China	15.367	Chinese National Games
5. Shang Chunsong	China	15.367	Chinese National Games
7. Fan Yilin	China	15.234	Chinese National Games
8. Anastasia Grishina	Russia	15.100	Russian Nationals
8. Rebecca Downie	Great Britain	15.100	Worlds
10. Sophie Scheder	Germany	15.033	German Nationals
11. Katelyn Ohashi	USA	15.000	WOGA Classic
11. Madison Kocian	USA	15.000	U.S. Nationals
13. Asuka Teramoto	Japan	14.900	Japanese Nationals
14. Tatiana Nabieva	Russia	14.867	Pas de Calais
15. Simone Biles	USA	14.850	Jesolo
15. Tan Jiaxin	China	14.850	Doha

Women's Beam Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Larisa Iordache	Romania	6.9	Anadia
2. Katelyn Ohashi	USA	6.8	American Cup
3. Zeng Siqi	China	6.6	Doha
3. Zhang Yelinzi	China	6.6	Universiades
5. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	6.5	Zakharova
5. Wang Yan	China	6.5	Chinese Nationals
5. Shang Chunsong	China	6.5	Anadia
5. Anna Dementyeva	Russia	6.5	Universiades
5. Li Shanshan	China	6.5	Chinese National Games
10. Abigail Milliet	USA	6.4	Secret Classic
10. Tan Sixin	China	6.4	Chinese Nationals
10. Fan Yilin	China	6.4	Chinese Nationals
10. Yao Jinnan	China	6.4	Worlds
14. Sui Lu	China	6.3	Chinese Nationals
14. Huang Qiushuang	China	6.3	Chinese Nationals
14. Simone Biles	USA	6.3	GER-ROU-USA Friendly
14. Gabby Jupp	Great Britain	6.3	American Cup
14. Peyton Ernst	USA	6.3	U.S. Nationals
14. Guan Wenli	China	6.3	Chinese National Games
14. Wu Liufang	China	6.3	Chinese National Games
14. Daniele Hypólito	Brazil	6.3	Worlds

Women's Beam Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Katelyn Ohashi*	USA	15.800	WOGA Classic
2. Larisa Iordache	Romania	15.675	Romanian Nationals
3. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	15.450	Russian Nationals
4. Anna Dementyeva	Russia	15.300	Universiades
5. Kyla Ross	USA	15.250	U.S. Nationals
6. Zeng Siqi	China	15.150	Doha
6. Shang Chunsong	China	15.150	Anadia
6. Zhang Yelinzi	China	15.150	Universiades
9. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	15.100	Swiss Championships
9. Simone Biles	USA	15.100	Jesolo
9. Tan Sixin	China	15.100	Chinese National Games
12. Sui Lu	China	15.067	Chinese National Games
13. Anastasia Grishina	Russia	15.000	Russian Nationals
14. Li Shanshan	China	14.967	Chinese National Games
15. Yevgenia Shelgunova	Russia	14.950	Russian Nationals

Women's Floor Rankings: Best D Scores

Name	Country	D Score	Meet
1. Simone Biles	USA	6.5	Worlds
2. Ksenia Afanasyeva	Russia	6.4	European Championships
2. Mykayla Skinner	USA	6.4	U.S. Nationals
4. Lexie Priessman	USA	6.3	Secret Classic
4. Sandra Izbasa*	Romania	6.3	Romanian Nationals
4. Mai Murakami	Japan	6.3	Worlds
4. Vanessa Ferrari	Italy	6.3	Worlds
8. Larisa Iordache	Romania	6.2	Anadia
8. Brenna Dowell	USA	6.2	U.S. Nationals
8. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	6.2	Worlds
8. Victoria Moors	Canada	6.2	Worlds
12. Shang Chunsong	China	6.1	Anadia
12. McKayla Maroney	USA	6.1	U.S. Nationals
12. Aliya Mustafina	Russia	6.1	Worlds
15. Gabriella Douglas	Canada	6.0	Canadian Nationals
15. Elsa Garcia	Mexico	6.0	Universiades
15. Dovelis Torres	Cuba	6.0	Pan Ams
15. Peyton Ernst	USA	6.0	U.S. Nationals
15. Kennedy Baker	USA	6.0	U.S. Nationals
15. Madison Desch	USA	6.0	U.S. Nationals
15. Noemi Makra	Hungary	6.0	Worlds
15. Roxana Popa	Spain	6.0	Worlds
15. Elizabeth Price	USA	6.0	Stuttgart

*D scores were not listed on the official results sheet from the event finals at the Romanian Nationals. This D score seems to be the general consensus.

Women's Floor Rankings: Best Scores

Name	Country	Final Score	Meet
1. Sandra Izbasa	Romania	15.600	Romanian Nationals
2. McKayla Maroney	USA	15.250	U.S. Nationals
3. Simone Biles	USA	15.233	Worlds
4. Ksenia Afanasyeva	Russia	15.166	European Championships
5. Larisa Iordache	Romania	15.100	Romanian Nationals
6. Mykayla Skinner	USA	15.000	U.S. Nationals
7. Giulia Steingruber	Switzerland	14.850	Swiss Championships
8. Vanessa Ferrari	Italy	14.833	Stuttgart
9. Lexie Priessman	USA	14.800	Secret Classic
9. Kennedy Baker	USA	14.800	U.S. Nationals
11. Krystyna Sankova	Ukraine	14.700	Zakharova
11. Madison Desch	USA	14.700	U.S. Nationals
13. Shang Chunsong	China	14.667	Chinese National Games
14. Anna Dementyeva	Russia	14.650	Zakharova
14. Diana Bulimar	Romania	14.650	Anadia

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

December 28, 2013, 3:18 pm

≫ Next: Uncle Tim's 8 Most Popular Posts in 2013

≪ Previous: Women's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2013 Updated December 15

Yeah, yeah, yeah… It has been a while since I last wrote about the evolution of artistry. But I have good reason. I take my holiday baking very seriously, and since my inner fatty was busy baking roughly 500 cookies, I just didn't have time to think about artistry.

But now that I've consumed about 52% of those cookies, I'm back, and I'm going to continue looking at how "artistry" evolved over the years. Our next victim is the 1979 Code of Points.

Once again, there's no mention of the word "artistry" in the Code of Points. So, for those of you looking for a "return to artistry" in the Code, well, that's darn near impossible on the women's side because the term "artistry" was largely absent from the first versions of the Code of Points.

Instead, what the Women's Technical Committee regularly discussed was the idea of "elegance." In her introduction to the 1975 Code of Points, Ellen Berger, the FIG WTC President at the time, stated:

"The explosive development of Women's Artistic Gymnastics, not only making the sport feminine-elegant, but also technically complicated, has caused the FIG Women's Technical Committee to revise the current Code of Points."

Clearly, it took a while for the women's liberation movement to reach the International Gymnastics Federation. The phrase "feminine-elegant" stems from the essentialist notion that there is one way to be a woman, and you can bet that the FIG's ideal of femininity was not of bra-burning women. Why do you think women like Nelli Kim still want to see servile, smiling young girls on the competition floor?

That said, despite the emphasis on "feminine elegance," there was some progress in the early 1980s. After Olga and Nadia, we moved out of the era of pigtailed school girls, and we started seeing a larger variety of music choices and dance styles. More on this below.

Virtuosity

But before we discuss the routines from the 1981-1984 quad, we should look more closely at the 1979 Code of Points. Today, the Men's Technical Committee frequently borrows from the Women's Technical Committee. But in 1979, the opposite was true. The Women's Technical Committee borrowed heavily from the men's side. For instance, the women's Code appropriated the term "virtuosity."

For the men, the term "virtuosity" was a tenet of artistry. According to the 1968 MAG Code of Points, "The virtuoso exhibits an unusual talent for artistic execution." The men's Code then goes on to explain how virtuosity is based on feelings, emotions, one's soul:

"A musician becomes a virtuoso when his brilliance rises above the level of technical accomplishment and so deeply impresses us that our very souls are moved. To do this, he must put his own soul into his work."

On the women's side, virtuosity was stripped of its soulful subjectivity. The 1979 WAG Code defined virtuosity as a "complete mastery (domination) of the technique of artistic gymnastics." Then, it went on to go on to list the characteristics:

-Gymnastic performance from a high starting position to a high ending position (full of amplitude)
-Gymnastic performance with stretched arms on the uneven bars and during strength elements on balance beam and floor.
-Exactness of phrases during turns around several axes.
-Somersault turns, combined turns, or turns around the longitudinal axis in the highest possible point of the flight trajectory or on the uneven bars during elements with grasp near the handstand position.
-Optimal extension and posture.
-Lightness of movement--stylish performance
-Special Techniques beyond the frame of what is known
-Absolute sureness of performance

When many gymnastics pundits discuss artistry today, they are discussing the idea of virtuosity. They long for the days when gymnasts (typically Soviet gymnasts) had "optimal extension and posture" because of their ballet training.

Interestingly enough, on the men's side, virtuosity was bonus. On the women's side, however, virtuosity was required. In fact, four whole points were dedicated to the categories of "virtuosity" and "execution." In other words, if a female gymnast were hunched over like Quasimodo or if she were heavy on her feet like Frankenstein, there's no way she would end up on the medal stand. Ultimately, that's what the gymternet's nostalgists miss about the 1980s.

Floor Requirements

When it came to floor exercise requirements, you'll probably recognize some of the language. Today's rules about artistry draw heavily from the 1979 Code of Points. The key phrases are in bold.

Compositional deductions:

-Last series not corresponding to the difficulty level of the exercise (at least "B")… 0.2
-Exercise without high points (peaks)
Absence of composition (building) of gymnastic high points 0.1
  Absence of acrobatic high points 0.1
-Monotony in presentation
  One-sided choice of acrobatic elements and connections… up to 0.20
  One-sided choice of gymnastic elements and connections… up to 0.20
-Monotony in the direction of (forward, sideward or backward) body movement.
  Insufficient use of the floor area… Up to 0.20
  Predominance of straight directions… Up to 0.20
  Lack of one passage covering great distance… Up to 0.20
  Insufficient change of elements near to or far from the floor (level change)… Up to 0.20
-Monotony in rhythm
  Music and movement not in harmony… Up to 0.50
Music and movement not in harmony in a part… Up to 0.10

-Elements with "theatrical" character… each 0.10

Do the bold parts look familiar? You should recognize similar deductions in the 2013 Code of Points:

It's everyone's favorite time! It's that time when we look back at some of the old floor routines and discuss them. This time, let's look at floor routines from 1981, starting with Natalia Ilienko, the gold medalist on floor at the 1981 World Championships.

You can blame Nastia Liukin all you want for the butt shelf…

…but the move dates back to at least 1981…

From Ilienko's butt shelf, we move over to Elena Davydova, who took the silver on floor at the 1981 World Championships.

Before you watch this routine, please remember that the women could compete roll-out skills. I don't want you to crap your pants watching Elena's first tumbling pass.

"Davydova, now approaching 20, can just put in the correct amount of sex appeal."

I'm not going to lie. I live for the sassy finger-wagging at the 0:36 mark. And I'll always have a special place in my heart for the hip swaying at the 1:10 mark, as many a drunken gay man has tried to woo me with those same moves. Really, Davydova may have been the first gymnastics gay icon.

Next, we turn to Zoya Grantcharova, who took home the bronze in Moscow. Had there been online message boards in 1981, they would have been full of catty remarks about Grantcharova's music selection.

At the time, gymnasts were allowed to use "musical accompaniment with orchestra without song" and "musical accompaniment with piano or one other instrument." I'm surprised that the FIG allowed Grantcharova use this music. How… progressive? of them.

Honestly, though, when gymnastics pundits talk about artistry from this era, they do not turn to Natalia Ilienko's, Elena Davydova's, or Zoya Grantcharova's routine. They turn to Maria Filatova, who took the silver in the all-around at the 1981 World Championships. Here's her floor routine from a 1981 USSR exhibition:

The disappearance of walkovers from floor and beam routines may be the greatest travesty of modern gymnastics. As Maria Filatova's floor routine shows, walkovers fit so well into floor choreography because they have built in shape changes. More importantly, walkovers are easy to control, and as a result, gymnasts could easily change the tempo in the middle of a walkover. Not so with a tour jeté-full or a double-double.

Back to Maria Filatova… Really, her routine is gorgeous--if you ignore her double straddle at the end of the routine.

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1969-1972

The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1977-1980

↧

Uncle Tim's 8 Most Popular Posts in 2013

December 30, 2013, 10:42 am

≫ Next: The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1985-1988

≪ Previous: The Evolution of Artistry in Women's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

When I started this blog, I was drunk, and I had one goal in mind: to help women's gymnastics fans appreciate men's gymnastics.

In my vodka-soaked brain, that much was clear. The blog's trajectory, on the other hand, was much fuzzier. After writing my first post, I decided that I would let my subject matter evolve organically. By that I mean that I was going to sip some wine, wait for the gymnastics gods to appear to me in a theophany, and write down whatever Sexy Alexei told me to say.

Confession: Sexy Alexei never appeared to me in a theophany, so I've been making things up as I go.

Yet, for whatever reason, you guys still read what I write.

Below, you'll find the most popular posts on this blog. (For the most up-to-date men's UTRS, click here, and for the most up-to-date women's UTRS, click here.) I hope that you enjoy catching up on some posts that you may have missed, and I look forward to gym-nerding out with you in 2014!

8. For Better or Worse: The Event Finals at the 2013 World Championships

During event finals, which gymnasts improved their scores from qualifications? And which gymnasts did worse?

7. 2013 World Championships by the Numbers: The Ladies

During the all-around finals at the World Championships, who performed the most difficulty? Who had the best execution? What was the highest scoring event? What was the lowest scoring event? So many questions and so many answers in this post.

6. P&G Championships Numbers Love: The Ladies

Numbers are sexy. I tell you who was the most improved U.S. gymnast in 2013, how the juniors fared against the seniors, and whether Simone Biles can out-execute Kyla Ross.

5. Sloshed: The 2013 P&G Championships Drinking Game

Wanna get drunk?

4. Men's Podium Training Round-Up

We, gymnastics fans, love to watch podium training and make predictions.

3. WAG: Understanding the Post-Olympics Letdown

The year after the Olympics, women's gymnastics fans complain because their Olympic champions rarely do well, if they compete at all, at the World Championships. Well, those whiners need to get over it.

2. 2013 World Championships: On Brandon Wynn's Inquiry

At the 2013 World Championships, Brandon Wynn competed the same routine during qualifications and finals, but he received a 6.8 D score in qualifications and a 6.7 D score in finals. Why is that?

1. 2013 World Championships All-Around Recapped

Perhaps the time change was not conducive to your sleep schedule. Perhaps you're curious about men's gymnastics, but would rather spend 4 minutes perusing a blog post rather than spend 3 hours watching a gymnastics meet. Whatever the case may be, this blow-by-blow recap of the men's all-around final was my most popular blog post in 2013.

Bonus: My most popular tweets of 2013

Your take:

What topics would you like me to tackle in 2014?

↧

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1985-1988

January 27, 2014, 9:49 am

≫ Next: Mini Men's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2014

≪ Previous: Uncle Tim's 8 Most Popular Posts in 2013

Yayziez! It's time to take on the nostalgists' favorite quadrennium (or one of them, at least): 1985-1988. For whatever reason, in many gym nerds' minds, those four years are held to be the apex of artistry. But was the Code really that stupendous? Let's take a look…

As we have discussed, virtuosity was the basis for artistry in men's gymnastics. To jog your memory, heres' a little timeline. As you'll see, defining artistry is as easy as licking your elbow.

1968: The definition of virtuosity was about inner stirrings--not to be confused with flatus:

"Virtuosity applies to the area of execution. There are virtuosos in all areas of art, in music, in rhetoric, in dancing, in gymnastics, etc. The virtuoso exhibits an unusual talent for artistic execution. A musician becomes a virtuoso when his brilliance rises above the level of technical accomplishment and so deeply impresses us that our very souls are moved. To do this, he must put his own soul into his work. A dancer shows his virtuosity when he, in his presentation, is able to express his virtuosity with lightness and superiority in movement so that, although driven to maximum exertion, the impression exists that he has yet to fully extend himself. It is similar in the case of gymnastics… He is able to capture the souls of the spectators and to fill their hearts with joy."

1979: Everyone man's dream: To be above average…

Virtuosity is recognized and awarded when the following requirements have been fulfilled:

1. Flawless technical execution, using a new movement technique, higher than the present level of achievement, for example: Felge to handstand with extreme swing and straight arms during the entire movement on parallel bars.

2. A presentation with personal style, rich in movement rhythm and swing, executed in a precise and flawless manner, also showing advancement in the development, as well as precise body form and regarded as above average.

1985: Philipp Boy should have competed in the late 80s because he, my friends, is a work of art

"Virtuosity is evident in gymnastics, when the basic accepted techniques of performance is exceeded. This is in reference to the the technical execution of certain exercise parts and connections, exercice [sic] parts and combinations performed with unusual technical execution, support positions and swinging elements and finally strength parts and their combinations. The presentation must be superior in quality without error and the exercise must resemble a work of art with emphasis on beauty in gymnastics."

In other words, between 1985-1988, artistry was no longer about our feels. Judges didn't give a darn if a routine made them tingle. In the late 80s, artistry was about finding routines that were performed with exceptional technique and without error.

Of course, we, gymnastics fans, could find problems with almost anything. From the $80-million Wittlesbach Diamond, known for its flawless clarity

to Beyonce,

nothing is perfect in our books.

NOTHING!!!!

And that includes every gymnastics routine ever performed. Even Nadia in 1976.

But let us try to suspend our curmudgeonly predilection for nitpicking, and let us make an attempt to find an artistic, virtuosic routine from 1988. It's gonna be hard, but we'll get through it together.

Sergei Kharkov

The sourpusses out there are gonna poo-poo this routine because Sergei Nastia-ed his double front. But you have to remember that today's standards for perfection and the 1980s standards were different. Cowboying, for instance, was more tolerated in the 1980s. Plus, that lovely layout stepout makes up for a multitude of sins.

Vladimir Artemov

A double layout is hard. Don't get me wrong. But it's clear that Vladimir was going for virtuosity points rather than "courage" points. When you watch his middle pass, you think to yourself, Is that the best you can muster after a double layout? I mean, that middle pass was very Kathy Johnson 1978 of him. That said, he did it so well!

Lou Yun

If someone claimed that Lou Yun's performance was performance, my chest would start burning like I had just chugged a glass of bad brandy. Don't get me wrong. Lou Yun's floor from the 1988 Olympics was not a bad routine, but when Lou Yun performs simple skills like a back tuck, you can see that his toe point is lacking. For me, the "basic accepted techniques of performance" have not been exceeded.

If you follow men's gymnastics today, this is still a common complaint lodged against many of the Chinese gymnasts. However, we must remember that nowadays, there are no rewards for virtuosity and for exceeding execution expectations. (I win at alliteration today!) Today, men's gymnastics is all about having your legs pointed enough or having your legs straight enough.

Vladimir Novikov

The opening pass is clearly one of the most badass passes ever performed in men's gymnastics, and the Manna into the ostrich stand into the back extension roll made me salivate a bit. But virtuosic? For me, not so much. Sure, he moves smoothly and elegantly, but the routine has too many visible errors.

What do you think? If you had to rank these routines from most virtuosic to least virtuosic, what would you say?

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1969-1972

The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1977-1980
The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1981-1984

↧

Mini Men's UTRS: The Best Scores of 2014

February 10, 2014, 7:46 pm

≫ Next: 14 Routines to Watch from the 2014 Winter Cup

≪ Previous: The Evolution of Artistry in Men's Gymnastics: 1985-1988

The All Around is going to do their handy dandy rankings this year for the women. If they take on the men, I will stop my UTRS (Uncle Tim Ranking System). Again, for those who care, "UTRS" is pronounced "uterus."

As per usual, take these rankings with a grain of salt. (Pro Tip: Never bet your life savings based on my numbers–or my predictions for that matter.) Judging varies from meet to meet, and as you'll see, the judges at the Houston National Invitational were either the most benevolent human beings ever known to the face of the planet OR they smoking a little something something.