Stretching Out: Beijing Has Exposed the Flawed Rules

I don't see that this article was written exclusively from the American viewpoint. From what paragraph are you getting that?

This article has NOTHING to do with how the US feels. It is more of an opinion piece and everyone is entitled to their opinion. What is more, I think IntlGymnast does a GREAT job of covering international gymnastics and not just USA gymnastics. Have you ever even read the magazine? I hate this argument that comes up every time an article is written about the US.

Compulsories really only catered to a certain type of body in gymnastics - slender and flexible. There's too many different body types out there now to have everyone do one routine. I think all athletes should strive for good execution (possible regardless of the body type) but some gymnasts weren't born with the beautiful lines like Nastia even though they are as extended as they can be.

Not sure how the first post pertains to Dwight's article...
But I agree with the article. The problem with the open-ended scoring system is that execution errors can always be erased with enough difficulty. Since execution scoring is capped at ten, but difficulty points theoretically endless, no one really concentrates on achieving perfection. They focus on "not making errors" while racking up A scores.
And along with compulsories, they need to bring back ROV for MAG and add it to WAG. Because execution does not equal artistry, it is only one part of it. (See Shawn Johnson, who has better execution, overall, than Nastia, but Nastia is generally considered more artistic.)
Nice piece.

I think it is good that the new code gives credit for difficulty. (Under the 10.0 system, it was frustrating to see gymnasts who made a special effort and had a tiny mistake score less than than someone who just did enough to get the 10.0 SV.) Perhaps there should be a limitation on repetitions of variation of the same skill though (multiple Kovacs and Kollmans).
The main problem seems to be the judges do not take appropriate execution deductions. A gymnast can perform the same routine very well and somewhat sloppily and get the same score (default 9). A small step or a slight tilt on a pirouette gets the same deduction as a large step or off-balance pirouette. Perhaps there should be a better gradation of deductions (one, two, three, four or five tenths) so the judges are not as hesitant to go to the next level of deduction.
The comparison to diving is interesting. Their judges take hefty deductions for poorly executed dives. Also, their compulsories don't have everyone doing the same dive, just no dives above a certain difficulty. I think an audience could enjoy the beauty of simpler gymnastics, but it would be better to have a list of skills to be included and let each gymnast compose his/her routine to have some variety (such as: press to handstand balance, leg position optional, etc... That way, audiences wouldn't have to watch the same routine over and over again. (Listening to the same floor music was the worst.)

Right on Dwight! Men's gymnastics has become a "fall fest" and it's boring. Routines repeat the same type of skills over and over till there's a fall. Every routine looks the same and there is never anything new or original. I watched the entire men's Olympic gymnastics competition and can't remember seeing one new skill! In fact the only thing I remember are the falls. This was not the case in the past and I hope it is not going to be the case in the future.

do we know if there is a place for composition deductions in the FIG code? i judge JO for usag and routine makeup is a huge part of the score and it forces the athletes to have more "balanced" routines (ie not throwing multiple of the same skill, doing a high bar routine with little or no releases, getting bonus only through dance elements or tumbling passes, etc)

Really Rachel - Did you even read the article? I see ONE paragraph where Dwight uses Nastia as an example. The article is saying that the new code that was supposed to bring back the artistry in gymnastics is doing exactly the opposite as gymnasts scramble to raise their scores by adding difficulty. It's not an American point of view. It's an issue the entire gymnastics community needs to worry about. Soon there won't be any age eligible athletes left for the Olympics because they will all be beaten up and injured before they reach 16.

EXCUSE ME but I don't know why my comment was there on this article. I left that on an article from earlier this year. I've emailed them and asked them to remove it.

I completely agree! This code has taken the artistry out of gymnastics with the exception of the few gymnast who dare to spend time on perfecting execution (Liukin, Pavlova, Joura).

When compulsories were first eliminated, I thought, "oh that's too bad, but whatever." I've since seen the effects of it and now crave to see the same floor routine for an entire round of competition. The beauty, grace and athleticism it takes to perfect those routines is sorely missed today.

I agree with the article. Something must be done to raise the value of the execution- But I think it´s good with the open difficulty which rewards and separates the gymnasts in a better way than in the old system. But you should not be able to make up for bad execution or a fall with massive difficulty as its possible today. Why not use the same scoring system as in one of the other gymnastic disciplines - trampoline. In trampoline compulsories also was taken out some years ago and replaced with a free first routine but only two skill out of ten counts for difficulty which makes the first routines very exciting to watch with high level difficulty combined with very clean and well mastered basic skills. In the second routine the difficulty is free (open) but three score of the execution counts and one for difficulty which gives a good balance between execution and difficulty. So bring back some form of compulsories with a maximum difficulty (as in diving as well) and raise the value of execution in the free routines. That would take a lot of injuries and over-training out of the sport!

I agree with the article. On Beam, many gymnasts had balance checks all throughout their routines and received high scores compared to other clean, beautiful routines that scored lower scores. The same thing occured on women's floor, with many incomplete turns that were a distraction to the routine rather than a beautiful connection.

I didn't like watching compulsaries, but perhaps what one person said about certain moves that should be connected how the athlete choreographs it. Sounds similar to the Short Program in Figure Skating.

Most of all, the difference between the "high scoring events" and "low scoring events" was very frustrating.

Amen, Dwight. Amen.

I completely agree that something needs to be done about the current scoring system. Reducing the number of counting elements in women's gymnastics will be a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. Nor will it benefit the men, whose routines are getting increasingly dull. I'm sure I'm hardly the only one who is fed up with all those Kovacses and Kolmans on high bar, all those double somersaults on parallel bars, and all those multiple twisting passes on floor. And while I love the routines Liukin and the Chinese are doing on uneven bars, I agree they're too long and must be incredibly tough on the shoulders. Any Code that stimulates epic routines like those has to be wrong.

I'm sure younger fans of the sport will call me old-fashioned for this, but all the current Olympic competition is doing to me is making me yearn to watch gymnastics videos from an era when judging might be less objective but the sport itself was infinitely more beautiful. I have spent a large chunk of the last few weeks watching beam and floor routines from the 1980s, and I can't begin to express how much I miss those routines -- routines which were not just about big tricks, but about complete performances. I yearn for the days when gymnasts performed elegant elements such as handstands and scales and rolls and shoulder turns on the beam. With a few exceptions, they don't do those any more because they don't bring in points and use up valuable seconds which could be used to throw yet another ugly side somi. As a result, we're now seeing beam routines which have been stripped of all beauty and coherence, consisting merely of tricks which will bring in points. I think that's a great pity. Wasn't beam supposed to be about, you know, balance skills? Shouldn't there be room for elegance and artistry amid the tricks? I seriously hope the FIG will reconsider its course on beam, or we will have to watch eleven-year-old gymnasts in order to see beautifully choreographed beam routines. Hell, I've seen nine-year-olds with more beautiful and interesting routines than the ones shown by today's champions. Surely that can't be right?

As for women's floor, I haven't seen a single well-choreographed routine at these Olympics. Not a single one. The Russians (and, interestingly enough, the British) are putting up a valiant effort, but not even they can alter the fact that five tumbling passes, a triple spin and several big leaps leave you with awfully little time to present yourself dance-wise. How can you be expected to dance and express yourself when you're supposed to meet all these technical requirements? I seriously wish the FIG would restrict the number of tumbling passes to three or four and put less emphasis on big leaps (the girls can prove they're capable of those on beam). If they did that, perhaps we'd see some creativity in the choreographies again. No, scratch that -- perhaps we'd see ACTUAL choreographies again, rather than mature gymnasts prancing around like eight-year-olds or standing in a corner for seconds on end to brace themselves for yet another tumbling pass. Any Code which encourages gymnasts to spend fifteen seconds per routine standing in a corner without moving has to be a huge mistake.

So, yeah, to cut a long story somewhat shorter, I'd very much welcome an overhaul of the scoring system. I'd also seriously welcome a return of the compulsories to teach the girls some basic dance skills. In the hands of skilled gymnasts, compulsories can be an absolute joy to watch. To give you an example, I doubt I'll ever want to see the routines performed at these Olympics again, but I'll never stop watching Daniela Silivas' compulsory floor exercise at the 1988 Olympics or Olesia Dudnik's compulsory floor exercise at the 1989 Worlds. They were what gymnastics was supposed to be all about. Elegance. Marvellously performed single somersaults. Beauty in motion.

Oh, for one more Silivas-style compulsory routine at these Olympics...

I agree with Elaine and Vicki that we need to bring back compulsories. I especially like Vicki's idea of compulsory routines with a certain number of simpler required elements (tumbling and dance). Artistry has been missing from gymnastics and this would be a great way to bring it back. The only halfway artistic gymnasts in Beijing have been Nastia Liukin, the Chinese, and the Russians. I also miss the gymnastics of the '70s and '80s.

It is evident that the new Code emphasizes difficulty over basics. For example, in the all-around final, many of the women could not complete a simple full turn on the beam. That's a beginner's skill! Yet they hit their hard tricks. There were almost no dance elements on the beam. I'd much rather watch the artistry of Ludmilla Tourischeva, Svetlana Boginskaya, and Nadia Comaneci on the beam, even though their tricks were simpler.

Bars have become boring and almost like compulsory routines. It seemed like every routine was: mount, pirouetting skills, releases, Pak salto to low bar, back to high bar for more pirouettes and releases, then the dismount. Doris Fuchs Brause's 1966 routine was much more interesting to watch. Yelena Mukhina, Marcia Frederick, and Daniela Silivas made bars fun to watch with their different styles.

Floor should go back to having three tumbling runs and more dance. There is no time for the gymnasts to express themselves because they're trying to pack in 5 tumbling runs. The music is almost background noise. The Soviet floor routines from the 1989 Worlds are wonderful examples of how using music and dance can create a great routine. Each routine told a story and set a mood.

The Code should be revised so that execution has twice the weight of difficulty. The execution score would still be a 10, but then it would be doubled to figure the final score when it is added to the difficulty score. For example a routine with a 6.5 A score and 9.0 B score would score 24.5 points (9. times 2 is 18 + 6.5). The current scoring system rewards gymnasts like Shawn Johnson who are tricksters with poor form (low leaps, split leaps less than 180 degrees, toes not pointed when flipping). It also allows gymnasts who fall to win medals like Vanessa Ferrari in 2006. Most real gymnastics fans would rather see easier skills that are perfectly performed over sloppy complex ones.

I was glad to see that the judges in Beijing rewarded artistry over big tricks. Nastia Luikin deserved her win because she was both artistic and had big skills. Unfortunately, gymnasts like her seem to be a dying breed.

I would be interested in your thoughts in light of the women's all-around.

Very interesting article, and even more interesting comments. I think it will be impossible to come up with a system that will solve all problems. If you decrease the value of difficulty, then you allow gymnasts who are clean and not skilled to win. Which, to a degree, is good, but then you run into the problem of gymnasts doing much easier routines, but doing them well and scoring better than people who do harder routines and have an extra bobble.

spezi3: Since when does Shawn Johnson qualify as a "sloppy" gymnast? I understand and don't totally disagree with you about her leaps, but other than that, her form is impeccable. She is rock solid on beam, while doing the most difficult skills in the world. Much to my disappointment, I think she has been underscored throughout the Olympics. Her beam routine in the Team Prelims was flawless. Her only obvious error was her small step on the dismount (The hardest in the entire competition), yet she scored a 9.075 B score while other gymnasts had several obvious wobbles plus steps on their dismounts and recieved higher B scores. While I understand some people may not like her style, I don't think it is right to underscore her for it. She was rock solid throughout the entire All Around finals, but recieved lower than deserved scores on every event because judges do not like her style.

kft,

I was responding to a post before mine that has since been removed/moved.

I don't agree that the execution score should be doubled, but perhaps, there should be an additional artistry score. As someone said, Shawn actually has very clean execution of most tumbling skills compared to Nastia (those cowboyed tucks), but lags behind her in artistry. The audience also gets confused (and the commentators confuse them further) as to why the execution is not higher when there are no mistakes.
The scoring might be clearer if there were three components: the straight-forward difficulty score, the execution score that should be straight-forward and would reflect just the deductions of the skills performed, and then an artistry score that would grade the intangibles (the flow of the routine, variety of skills, originality, choreography, etc.) The problem is there is no artistry in vault (...I do miss having two different vaults; this way the rotation is over in no time and there is no chance for redemption if there is a mistake).

I agree about the Code. It's HORRIBLE! Especially for the women's side. Floor used to be so beautiful; but now, the girls just seem to do meaningless choreography in between tumbling passes.

I know it's all been said, but having grown up in the gymnastics era of doing compulsory and optionals in a single competition, it showed who was the best overall gymnast. You had to master the basics and show that you were both strong and flexable - both vital to remaining injury free. It does require more time to train, however you spend valuable time mastering things that help you attain the difficulty of your optional routines. I trained at a high level for years with no major injury, I feel this was due to the emphasis on mastery of the compulsory skills. Return to them and place them at a higher value than the acrobatics these gymnasts were throwing. Cirque du soleil has more artestry with their acrobats than any, even Nastia, of the gymnasts out there this year. BTW great job Nastia and Shawn!

Ooooh, some excellent points being made here. Vicki, I LOVE your idea of a third artistry score in which the judges can reward elegance, flow, variety and originality. That is EXACTLY what the sport needs. If elegance, originality etc. are no longer part of the execution score, the execution score will be more straightforward, which the fans will love, and if truly artistic routines will get their proper reward, coaches and gymnasts will be more encouraged to try for aesthetically pleasing routines rather than routines which merely bring in the difficulty points. I'm not sure it's practicable, but I seriously think the FIG should look into it. If they want objective judging, surely this is the way to go!

cdenisenm, I agree that the number of traning-related injuries would probably be reduced drastically if the compulsories were to be re-introduced. It would be a quiet, easy part of the gymnasts' training, one that wouldn't require them to practise difficult tricks for hours on end. In addition, it would undoubtedly improve the gymnasts' overall form and execution, even in their optional routines. Win-win situation, if you ask me.

Spezi3, I agree with you on modern bar routines. Doris Fuchs Brause's 1960s routine is far more entertaining than any routine being shown today. I LOVE Olga Korbut and Elena Mukhina's routines. And what about Ma Yanhong's 1984 routine? Fabulous stuff. Those routines still draw a gasp from me, whereas today's routines leave me cold. No offence to these Games' UB finalists, all of whom have fabulous form, but I'd love to see a return to 1970s routines. They might have been a lot easier than today's routines, but they were FUN. (To watch, anyway. I'm not sure those belly beats were very pleasant to perform.)

gymcam413, regarding Johnson's low execution scores on beam: I think the judges were (subconsciously?) comparing Johnson's form with that of the Chinese, and noting that she came up short. Johnson IS sloppy. Not in her acrobatics (although she is low on some of her tumbles -- the full doesn't exactly soar), but in the elements she does in between her big tumbles. Look at the way she slumps while standing to get ready for her next tumble. Her shoulders and arms hang limply, she loses tension in her legs, that sort of thing. She just doesn't look 'hard'. Compare her form with that of the Chinese, who make every step count, and you'll notice a huge difference. It's not just a matter of style; it's a matter of muscle tone. Shawn Johnson loses hers in between big moves, which is a deduction. And obviously, she doesn't hit her splits on her leaps, which carries a deduction, too. Hence her relatively low execution scores.

Vicki, Elaine, and cdenisem all had great comments and ideas. I really like the idea of having an artistry score. The old ROV points system of the '70s and '80s rewarded creativity. The main problem with the old ROV system was that it only counted for (if I'm remembering correctly) 0.6 out of 10 points. I think an artistry score would bring back the originality that is lacking in today's routines.

Bringing back compulsories, or some sort of variation of them, would also bring artistry back to gymnastics. I'm sure the Russians would excel in compulsories because they have always emphasized the basics before moving on to the tough stuff. I really like Vicki's idea of picking compulsory moves from a list of skills and having original choreography and music instead of listening to the same music over again. That's what figure skaters do in their short program.

Ma Yanhong was truly amazing on the bars! Her form was impeccable. Yes, those belly beats hurt if you hit the bar in the wrong place. I know that one from experience. I also remember how Nelli Kim, Nadia Comaneci, and Chen Cuiting kept their legs together and had pointed toes on their double backs. And that was in the days before spring floors. One of my favorite moves on floor is Tatiana Groshkova's full turn to back walkover. It's exquisite! There were no memorable moves like that on the FX or beam in Beijing.

I also like the idea of having gymnasts do two different vaults. The great vaulters of the past like Yelena Shushunova, Brandy Johnson, and Henrietta Onodi all mastered two different vaults.

In response to gymcam413, there were many times in the past under the 10.0 scoring system when execution and artistry were rewarded over difficulty. Svetlana Boginskaya and Svetlana Khorkhina did not have the most difficult routines. But they performed each element perfectly and their artistry and originality were wonderful. Most gymnastics fans would agree that both Svetlanas were worthy champions.

I hope that the FIG can come up with a system that rewards all three elements of difficulty, artistry, and execution. It will be difficult to find the optimal system for picking the best gymnasts.

The issue on parallel bars is the FIG's failure to enforce the control requirement.

On their release skills Yang Tae Young grabbed the bars with his hands before his arms touched. Li Xiaoping just flipped until he crashed into the bars, only grabbing them on the forward swing.

Simply requiring the athletes to grip the bars would greatly change the brutality of the event.

It's true that the artistry score may be difficult to put into practice given the differences between apparatus. Perhaps there could be some bonus system, where gymnasts could get extra points (let's say up to five tenths in each category) for originality, variety, composition, etc (zero bonus for well-executed but monotonous, mundane and choppy routines). Vault would not have that, obviously (maybe could have bonus for distance or an infrequently performed type of vault), and then some events could have extra bonus categories such as dance for beam and floor and relationship to music on floor.

Though i don't know the gymnastic world that well, i will say that i do think it is a little unfair that teams can make sloppy performances and still get metals due to difficulty.

I think that if someone is going to try to do much harder things, then it should tie into the whole routine a lot better. If its causing you to be sloppy, then i dont think the points should be weighed as much. The point of these routines is to be artistic, and flawless, as well as pull off jumps and tumbles in the mix. Any person who wobble, falls, or just looks sloppy, just doesn't pass as an metal winning performance, to me.

I think that its the persons choice to pick to do harder things. If they can pull them off without a fall, or wobble, then i think they deserve the points for the difficulty. However, if they do fall.. they shouldn't get the points. Or the deductions count for double if they mess up.

I know that means that people wont challage themselves to try harder things, but maybe they will, if they can mix it into everything else and create a flawless artistic routine. I must say, i hated watching some of the men's high bar and floor things. On some of the flips on the high bar, to me it looked like they just flipped till they could reach the bar, and some of them fell hard, causing their bodies to jerk. They still held onto the bar, but it caused the routine to look so sloppy. I actually hated watching it. I don't remember the floor stuff for men that well in the past, but this year.. everything just looked sooo messy. Their lil half twirls between tumbling passes. Kicking their leg out. Is that normal? Cause it looked disgusting. Nothing flowed at all between tumbles. But im not sure how mens floor goes. I know its a lot less dance then womens, but come on. Even for the men.. the whole floor thing should tie together.

I do think the new points system allows for unfairness. It focuses more on flips and tumbles and less on art. It does causes people to get hurt.. and it is extremely unfair to allow a sloppy performance win a mental while a flawless one does not. It shouldn't be able to count for as much as it does. and as someone else stated. Some of the gold winners were sloppy on some of simple dance skills that they first learned. It just goes to show you that they weren't even practicing on the dance part of gymnastics. at least not on the bar.

Any system that allows someone to fall in an event final and yet, still medal, is horribly flawed. Women's vault final is a good example. I don't care that Cheng Fei did throw a beautiful yurchenko 2.5, she fell on her 2nd vault. Yet she still medaled, over athletes who performed difficult vaults (albeit, not as difficult according to the difficulty score values today) but landed both of them standing up.

as a coach, i repeatedly tell my girls, "the point is not just to do the skill, its to do it beautifully". sadly the FIG neglects to remember this. cheng fei's bronze medal is a prime example of the new mantra: reward a gymnast for chucking a really hard skill--no matter how bad it is.

I completely agree with Dwight. I had hopes for this code of points at first, but the way it has played out in the last few years has been very detrimental to the sport. A similar thing happened when the 6.0 in figure skating was replaced with an open-ended scoring system.

I do not think the FIG will bring back the perfect 10 system, even though I would like to see it. But as I was watching the Olympic trials and the Olympics, I began to experiment by cutting the gymnasts difficulty score in half. This would at least accomplish the FIG's original goal of restoring execution and artistry to the sport. I also. If execution became more important, then maybe gymnasts would spend more time perfecting skills and have some room left in their routines to show some artistry. If something doesn't change, then I fear gymnastics will lose it appeal to audiences, and less children will seek to make it to the top of the sport.