The fundamental contradiction of gymnastics is that it is a sport in which we can all participate; but which at the elite level is all but impossible for most of us. Its fundamental principle is that it takes movement, however simple or difficult, to a level of refined and aesthetic perfectionism. A child of 6 doing a handstand in the playground might have flat feet, an arched back, shoulders at an angle, hands pointing in different directions. Take him or her into the gym, and you hopefully transform the movement into an object of beauty, perhaps something capable of being used as a progression. The child's pride in achievement is clear, and the only difference to the playground is that the handstand has been coached and coaxed into a state of alignment, the health of the body sharpened to encourage strength, poise and coordination that will serve the child for life.
Most of us couldn't attempt the high difficulty moves executed by elite international gymnasts, but the principles are the same whatever the level - or era. A good artistic gymnast will make the impossible look effortless. Movement will guide the eye through a panopoly of original shapes that appear simple and unrushed yet at the same time beg the question - 'how on earth is that possible?'. Leaps and somersaults soar into space without the slightest hint of effort, 'bounce' or rebound. Flight is the gymnast's metier; the flight of a swallow at times, the vertical pyrotechnics of a rocket less often. The principles of good line and effortless flight apply regardless the level of complexity; the aesthetic is as important during acrobatics as it is during dance. In fact the quality of movement throughout the whole routine informs the overall impression more than individual moves. This is less about pointed toes and a perfect split than it is about the way that the gymnast masters the complexity of individual moves, and finds a way of making the transitions look spontaneous.
A Code that attempts to measure the individual elements and calculate scores on the basis of execution deductions will always fail because it (a) is missing the point of the consummate nature of good gymnastics throughout the entirety of an exercise (b) is destined to become impossibly complicated and (c) is assuming a level playing field in terms of quality of movement.
Economy of line, effortless movement, apparently overcoming gravity, complexity - these are the principles that have always guided gymnastics, and this remains the same today if we want gymnastics to progress. The sport will always survive and change, but we ignore these principles at risk to the sport's progress. Development that ignores these principles will ultimately find its own limits and result in gymnastics that is unrefined, lacks aesthetic appeal and is damaging to the health of the participants. An example would be the handspring double front somersault that some women have attempted, or the approach to floor that some are currently taking that emphasises acrobatic difficulty at the expense of effortless movement, economy of line, and a balanced approach to complexity.
Naturally, gymnastics has changed significantly and will always be in a state of evolution. Earlier on this blog, I have argued that, in the context of cultural theory, the sport changes over time in response to the 'sieve of taste' and influences in the socio-cultural, political and economic domain. I have debated the merits of contemporary gymnastics from an aesthetic and artistic perspective. Those of you who have read the blog regularly will also know that, aside from an admiration for a handful of gymnasts, principally Simone Biles, and a devoted loyalty to the Russian team, I don't have much hope for the sport at present.
I mentioned in yesterday's post, very briefly, the current situation where the form of the sport is directly, almost exclusively, influenced by a very small group of people. In the mistaken belief that gymnastics can be measured objectively, they have adopted the position where they have tried to deconstruct the sport and narrowly describe the contested ground of artistry. The resulting Code of Points has handed the creative lead and initiative to the Technical Committees. Gymnasts can submit new moves to the Code, but the overwhelming balance of power rests with the administrators of the FIG. This is pretty undemocratic when you think how few members of the FIG Technical Committees there actually are, and how unrepresentative they are of the gymnasts and coaches competing at the very highest level in the sport. The monocultural approach that this promotes probably explains why there is so very little depth in the sport, above the very top layer of gymnasts competing. For example, in the whole of Europe, only 28 gymnasts opted to perform two vaults in this month's Championships.
So what do you think about this?
I went in search of a butterfly to try to understand where things have gone wrong. I hear that Britain's Claudia Fragapane is considering submitting her full twisting version of the 'skill' to the FIG for validation at the next World Championships, and I wanted to see how the original - without the twist - compared. It took me a long time to find; there aren't many butterflies about these days. You can see one, performed by Vera Caslavska, in the series beginning at 10.40 in this video of the 1966 World Championships event finals.
I won't link to Claudia's floor routine on this blog; you will be able to find it easily enough on Youtube. Can you recognise the move she is calling a full-twisting butterfly? Which do you prefer, and why?
At 15.04 you can see a floor level sequence performanced by Zinaida Druzhinina (Voronina). Interesting also to reflect on how this sequence inspired some of the choreography in Aliya Mustafina's 2010 floor exercise, and on the differences in presentation style.
I remember a conversation I had on the way home after the event finals of the 1993 World Championships. The men's floor exercises had impressed me, but I remarked that for all the acrobatic difficulty presented, what had made the crowd gasp most had been Grigory Missiutin's full twisting dive roll, at 0.59 on this video.
Please do participate! We would like to read your ideas!