I make no apologies for publishing the picture comparisons on this page, which were created by Lifje. Some have seemed to find them rather challenging in the past, but they are not airbrushed or altered in any way. Yes, the pictures are purpose selected for the sake of comparison, but they express a truth about the direction the sport has taken over the past few years. They are not so much about Russia versus America as artistry versus athletics. I do not pretend that Russia today owns artistry in the same way as it once did. Gymnastics has been subject to mass migration since the downfall of the Soviet Union, and as Carter (2011) says, this migration brings with it changes to the cultural form of any sport, resulting in a 'transformation of [its] meaning and value' (p. 189). The Soviet/Russian tradition has survived better in its home than anywhere else in the world, while American gymnastics epitomises the powerful, athletic style that is now the winning model of the sport. Lifje's comparative collages speak more clearly than thousands of words. Just use your eyes.
I have been meaning to reflect on the state of women's artistic gymnastics following the victory of Simone Biles in Antwerp this autumn, but finding it very difficult as the terms of reference within the sport have changed so significantly, even just in the past decade since the imposition of the additive Code. It seems to me that the sport has turned a corner, away from the lyricism of the past, towards a very large question mark in the future. I like Biles; in my opinion, she is a pure and honest expression of the American school of gymnastics, the best gymnast America has produced by far to date, and perhaps their best ever. Her power, spontaneity and energy is, in its own way, as charming as the chutzpah and intricacy of Omelianchik.
I have been meaning to reflect on the state of women's artistic gymnastics following the victory of Simone Biles in Antwerp this autumn, but finding it very difficult as the terms of reference within the sport have changed so significantly, even just in the past decade since the imposition of the additive Code. It seems to me that the sport has turned a corner, away from the lyricism of the past, towards a very large question mark in the future. I like Biles; in my opinion, she is a pure and honest expression of the American school of gymnastics, the best gymnast America has produced by far to date, and perhaps their best ever. Her power, spontaneity and energy is, in its own way, as charming as the chutzpah and intricacy of Omelianchik.
I do wonder, though, what will come next, and whatever happened to the deductions for those oh-so-enormous hops on every floor landing (Simone reminds me of Diane dos Santos in this respect). In 1987 Soviet Alleftina Priakhina performed the double double somersault in her floor exercise at the Moscow Europeans. She never landed it perfectly, and was never the USSR's most graceful gymnast. Trained by Mikhail Klimenko in Moscow after an early start in Almaty, where she had worked with the young Oleg Ostapenko, Priakhina expressed the spirit of innovation that was prevalent in Soviet sport at the time. 1989 World Champion Svetlana Boguinskaia also briefly toyed with the double double, but was forced to drop the move in order to elevate her all around skills to the level that earned her legendary status in the sport.
Difficulty was rewarded then, but the rewards were moderated with an eye to the fostering of properly regulated progress in the sport, encouraging the development of virtuoso performance, difficulty with grace, a position where the mastery of skills was so engrained that it was possible to perform and to embed the skill within a showcase of outstanding technique, form and expression. When Chusovitina first performed her immensely powerful tumbling in 1990, it was tempered with fantastic technique and accuracy. She was not the most artistic or expressive gymnast on the Soviet team, but her technical prowess earned her medals at the 1992 Olympics (and, of course, she is still competing today). Moving back in time twenty years, and shifting eastwards to Moscow, Biles would perhaps have made the same team, with significant improvements to her form and landings. The Soviet choreographers might well have ironed out problems with amplitude, extension and posture in their early years training, but without such improvements she would have remained a memorable member of the USSR display team, or might even have been transferred to another sport more appropriate for her athleticism.
There are those who would say that Biles gymnastics represents progress. A few others who might suggest the removal of 'artistic' from the title of the sport altogether. They are at least the honest ones. The FIG has tinkered with the Code to the extent that expressions of artistic judgement no longer exist anyway. A competition environment has developed which has seen artistry wilt in the main. The Code is now a tool by which exercises are measured, the marking of form, execution and artistry has become so prescriptive as to make it impossible to note in any meaningful fashion. Any gymnast who 'does' skills 'without error' can score highly regardless of how the skill looks. My gymnastics is based on the assumption, 'it's not what you do, it's the way that you do it'. World gymnastics seems to be based on the assumption 'just do it'.
Some might say that this represents a more democratic form of gymnastics; based on the participation model of the USA. Those gymnasts who work hardest, achieve the greatest fitness and practice skills to perfection can achieve the greatest results. But this is a moral, rather than a sporting, argument. When British coach Christine Still commented on such qualities at the recent World Championships, it was as American Kyla Ross mounted the beam in event final. When Italian gymnast Carlotta Ferlito spoke of the result at the same event, the Russian Aliya Mustafina's gold medal was attributed to good luck. The Americans have fought and won both a semantic and a sporting battle in the world of gymnastics. They even have media commentators to back them up, accusing the enemy of 'diva' behaviour. This is neither democratic, nor fair to the female gymnasts who are subject to personal judgements that their male counterparts do not suffer.
If we discuss gymnastics as a political entity, considering its status today as 'democratic', then a consideration of gymnastics as cultural capital logically follows. Bourdieu states that cultural capital exists wherever there is a struggle. Within gymnastics there is a tangible struggle between those who believe the sport possesses dimensions beyond the measurable, and those who seek to confine the sport within the constraints of measurability. Before we can decide that gymnastics has become more democratic, perhaps we should consider who owns gymnastics? The athletes, who participate in the sport? The coaches and choreographers, who create new champions and so often dream up the amazing new combinations that thrill us in competitions? The judges, who mark the routines and thus determine who or what is considered to be the epitome of gymnastics at a particular point in time? The Technical Committees, who make the decisions about how the sport will be marked? The fans, who pay money to see competitions? The media, who influence how we see the sport? The winners, the losers? The sponsors? Governments who put money into training programmes?
All these are actors in the field of play, yet single voices dominate the way the sport has developed, and a prescriptive Code precludes discussion of the bigger issues. Recently, proposals have been made to change the WAG Code, yet again, with a stated view of improving the standard of artistry in the sport. You will not hear them discussed on this blog, however, which refuses to accept the authority of the Code's terms of reference, The proposals are piecemeal and didactic in nature. Their discussion at the WTC will necessarily preclude discussion of the bigger issues of artistry in the sport, what it is and how it can be judged fairly. To improve the marking of artistry requires an understanding of the larger issues that inform world view, and a resulting discussion and agreement on the methodology. The FIG has, publicly at least, skipped this stage of considerations. It has adopted a model that almost totally eliminates the rewarding of artistry, and that requires an immense quantity of detailed discussion and study. Thus its stakeholders are constantly preoccupied with the job of keeping up with the ever changing Code of Points over which it alone presides, making it impossible for anyone to ask the bigger question, 'which direction do we want to travel?' Changes to the sport have been anything but democratic, wool has been pulled over eyes, and now hardly anyone dares to point and laugh at the Emperor's new clothes.
If we discuss gymnastics as a political entity, considering its status today as 'democratic', then a consideration of gymnastics as cultural capital logically follows. Bourdieu states that cultural capital exists wherever there is a struggle. Within gymnastics there is a tangible struggle between those who believe the sport possesses dimensions beyond the measurable, and those who seek to confine the sport within the constraints of measurability. Before we can decide that gymnastics has become more democratic, perhaps we should consider who owns gymnastics? The athletes, who participate in the sport? The coaches and choreographers, who create new champions and so often dream up the amazing new combinations that thrill us in competitions? The judges, who mark the routines and thus determine who or what is considered to be the epitome of gymnastics at a particular point in time? The Technical Committees, who make the decisions about how the sport will be marked? The fans, who pay money to see competitions? The media, who influence how we see the sport? The winners, the losers? The sponsors? Governments who put money into training programmes?
All these are actors in the field of play, yet single voices dominate the way the sport has developed, and a prescriptive Code precludes discussion of the bigger issues. Recently, proposals have been made to change the WAG Code, yet again, with a stated view of improving the standard of artistry in the sport. You will not hear them discussed on this blog, however, which refuses to accept the authority of the Code's terms of reference, The proposals are piecemeal and didactic in nature. Their discussion at the WTC will necessarily preclude discussion of the bigger issues of artistry in the sport, what it is and how it can be judged fairly. To improve the marking of artistry requires an understanding of the larger issues that inform world view, and a resulting discussion and agreement on the methodology. The FIG has, publicly at least, skipped this stage of considerations. It has adopted a model that almost totally eliminates the rewarding of artistry, and that requires an immense quantity of detailed discussion and study. Thus its stakeholders are constantly preoccupied with the job of keeping up with the ever changing Code of Points over which it alone presides, making it impossible for anyone to ask the bigger question, 'which direction do we want to travel?' Changes to the sport have been anything but democratic, wool has been pulled over eyes, and now hardly anyone dares to point and laugh at the Emperor's new clothes.
This discussion doesn't answer any questions, least of all why it is that men's gymnastics has reached a better conclusion to date than women's. It is surely the more artistic 'side' of the sport today, even if that is not recognised in the Code. The number of top competitors in the all around has flourished, unlike in the women's sport where there are but two or three genuine contenders for gold, all fragile and injury prone, often with the competitive lifespan of a butterfly.
The harsh truth about women's gymnastics is that the all around competition has, largely, faded away. I wonder what the sport will look like in 2016?
These are just my thoughts on how I see things stand at this point in time. No doubt things are less gloomy than they seem on this grey and windy December day. This is a rambling post, I know; I need to start thinking about these issues again after a long break from blogging that has been dictated by work and personal issues. Please comment!
Carter, T F (2011) In Foreign Fields: The Politics and Experiences of Transnational Sport Migration London : Pluto Press