gymn Digest Thu, 10 Mar 94 Volume 2 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
'76 age restrictions
Amereican Cup - Strug? (2 msgs)
College Bars Better Than Elite?
Final Note On Qualifying (2 msgs)
Golden Gophers
Intro/profile
I remember #4 now.
Mixed Pairs Results
Onodi
Qualifying (8 msgs)
Qualifying and Re: College Bars
Team Worlds (3 msgs)
Team Worlds Format (2 msgs)

This is a digest of the gymn@athena.mit.edu mailing list.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 1994 11:07:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
Subject: '76 age restrictions

The age limitation was in place for the '76 Olympics. Karen Kelsall of
Canada was given an exception because she turned 14 in '76 but was by far one
of the best gymnasts from Canada. I'm not sure about when the limitation went
into effect, but it might have had something to do with the tales of Karolyi
circulating in the early 70s about his secluded "concentration camps" for
training his kids and stories of him stunting their growth and things like
that. There was a definite mystique about Nadia and Teodora when they first
started competing internationally.
Cara
P.S. I guess that no-vault rule at mixed pairs sure helped Borden. Way to go
Dominique!!! Does anyone know if Kerri Strug has qualifyed to next month's
Worlds or not?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 8:45:30 PST
From: ***@sol.metaware.com
Subject: Amereican Cup - Strug?

>P.S. I guess that no-vault rule at mixed pairs sure helped Borden. Way to go
>Dominique!!! Does anyone know if Kerri Strug has qualifyed to next month's
>Worlds or not?

Where was Kerri at the American Cup???

--Robin
------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 12:26:14 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Amereican Cup - Strug?

Strug is currently injured and would have to compete in the American Classic
(Mar. 25) which is serving as a World team trial. The Winter Cup Nationals
acted as trials for the men.

Susan

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 09:53:05 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: College Bars Better Than Elite?

To All:
Here's something for discussion. I was standing around at the McDonald's
Cup, talking to some of the elite and brevet judges, and we got around to the
subject of college gymnastics.
Everybody agreed the crowds were better and more fun at college meets,
with one judge saying she even looked forward in a way to being booed when
she flashes a low score the crowd doesn't like. It adds character, she said.
But the judges said something that I've been saying for a while: college's
top women's bars routines are better than the elite levels overall. I agree.
Top college bars routines, led by Georgia, often include 2 release moves or
more, combinations of giant-fulls, giant-halfs and front-giants into release
moves.
I think college bars excell because you don't have to be short to compete
bars. And bars require upper-body strength, which the older gymnasts seem to
have more of.
Well, what do you all think? Agree? Or am I just seeing this whole
situation through my college-colored glasses?
--- Ron

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 19:51:39 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Final Note On Qualifying

I found an interesting quote on the subject at hand . . .

"In an attempt to lessen the dominance of the nations strongest in
gymnastics, a ruling had been made prior to the Olympics ('76 Montreal) that
only three gymnsats from each country could compete in the final round of 36.
The absurdity of this decision was shown when Elvria Saddi, who had acheived
the seventh higest score during the team competitons, was eliminated becasue
she was the fourth best Soviet performer, while Monique Bolleboom of Holland
was allowed to continue even though she ranked 62nd of 86. Not surprisingly,
Bolleboom finished last in the final round."

from "The Complete Book Of The Olympics" by David Wallechinsky

Some examples of why the rule was enacted (all AA) . . .

'52 Helsenki (men)* Soviets take places 1st, 2nd, 4th, & a two way tie for
6th
*5 of the top eight places g ot othe USSR

'68 Mexico City (men)* 1- Kato JPN, 2- Voronin USSR, 3-Nakayama JPN,
4-Kenmotsu JPN, 5-Kato JPN, 6- Diamadov USSR, 7-Klimenko USSR, & 8-Endo JPN
*1-8 USSR & Japan

'72 Munich HB final 4 Japnese & 2 Soviets (only 6 competed at that time it
went to 8 in '81 I think?), the same situation on PB's and in numerous tother
years there were "all Soviet/Japnese" finals

Having said all this I still will contend that these were the best athletes
and the sport benefited from their competing.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 09:47:49 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Final Note On Qualifying

Wallechinsky also says, at least in the '84 edition, that Nadia would not
have been able to compete if the age rule (min. 15) had been in place in '76.
I can't speak to whether the rule was in place or not, but, as you all know,
the rule is that you have to turn 15 by the end of the year, and Nadia turned
15 in November 1976.

Which just goes to show how much he knows about gymnastics rules. So while
the quote is good if you agree with it, it doesn't carry much weight of
authority (btw, for those of you who haven't seen this book, it's *full* of
great stories from all the Olympics).

#8 and 9 from the USSR were certainly *far* better than Monique Bolleboom,
too, and they even didn't get to go.

In any case, my argument cuts both ways. If limiting to 2 or 3 is arbitrary
(though 3 seems somewhat more acceptable because of the medals), so is 6 or
7, and we would get to see at least some more of the best.

As to the sport benefiting, a case can be made either way for keeping #4
etc. in or keeping them out.

The figure skating idea is definitely something to think about.

But on the business of Americans with dual citizenship competing for "weaker"
countries: this problem (yes, problem) exists in gymnastics and lots of
other sports, and it comes up in Puerto Rico all the time. It's actually a
little more complicated there because the citizenship is the same. I can't
speak for any other country, but I can tell you that this does *NOT* go over
very well in PR gymnastics, at least when there are enough "home-grown"
gymnasts to fill a team.

: )
Gimnasta

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 22:21:23 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Golden Gophers

Congratulations to the University of Minnesota Lady Golden Gophers!

Flipping thru Gym Insider, it seems the Gophers have finally rebounded from
the problems that began in 1991-92.

Go for it, U of M!!!

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 21:17:00 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Intro/profile

Hi, everybody,

Though you might want to know who the opinionated busybody who keeps starting
debates is...

Username: ***@aol.com
Human name: Mara
Residence: just outside NY City (not voluntarily, that's where the work
is...)
Age: 26
Occupation: Admin. Asst.

I'm a fan(atic) of gymnastics, and have been for longer than I can remember,
although even as a child I couldn't even do a handstand. My first memory of
a gymnast was seeing Maxi Gnauck on tv in the late 70s.

I didn't see my first gymnast (well, other than local) in person until I was
15. I since have gone to several national meets, the 1987 American Cup (I
like Kristie, but Strazheva was gypped!!!, and Henni was 3'11"!). I also
follow college gymnastics, and attended the U of Minnesota while Marie
Roethlisberger competed for the Gophers. Probably the most emotional meet I
ever attended was the 1990 Central Regionals (at Minnesota). The house was
totally full (unheard of for womens gym at MN), and Marie R. turned in the
performance of her life to win the all-around over Dee Foster of Alabama.
I'll never forget it. Also was there when John R. was a frosh. Went to home
UCLA and Cal St. Fullerton womens meets and saw not only those teams, but
other great teams like Utah.

I was thrilled to learn about Gymn, as I like to keep up on happenings in our
small world...

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 18:01:44 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: I remember #4 now.

"A bit of admin", cont'd. (Item #4 which I couldn't remember before.)

Another indirect suggestion from a returned survey was to create some sort of
way for Gymn people to keep up on each other's lives, outside the world of
gymnastics. (There's a world outside gymnastics? That's news to me!)

So, we'll try the following idea once, and if it works, cool, if not, no
biggie. Has something interesting happened in your life lately? If so, mail
me (not Gymn) a msg and tell me about it in five lines or less. I will
compile all of these msgs together and post them in one msg. You could kind
of consider these mini-intros, sort of, I guess.

What kind of stuff is appropriate? Did you (or your family members):
--get a job
--start at a new school
--pass your oral exam (you know who you are)
--move
--have a baby
--swing your first giant
--get married
--go on an interesting trip
--get a good fortune cookie
--and so forth

If anything has happened to you in the past couple of months that you'd like
to share with your Gymn friends, just send me a note telling me about and
I'll compile it into a message and post it in about a week.

This'll probably either have a lot of participation or be absolutely dead. I
guess we'll just see how it goes!

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 22:21:29 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Mixed Pairs Results

Scroll down for results (off *P) for the Mixed Pairs...





















1. Dawes/Roethlisberger (on a tiebreaker)
2. Piskun/Scherbo (tied Dawes & Roeth score - Dawes tiebreak was a 9.9 beam)
3. Podkopayeva & partner (Sharipov?)
4. Borden/Umphrey

don't know the rest...sorry

Mara

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 1994 17:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@ocvaxa.cc.oberlin.edu
Subject: Onodi

Hey, people! Sorry I haven't written in a while. I had this nagging
fever last week that turned into -whoops- chicken pox. I'm out from six days of
quarantine. I'm still going through my 75 mail messages.
My American Cup comments shall come later.
I just HAD to defend Henrietta. She has gained a TINY bit of weight,
but looks much, much better than that horrible picture in her workout leo. I'm
going to write to IG and send in my photos of her from Reese's. She DOES NOT, I
repeat, DOES NOT look like that stupid picture. Most of the photos in IG are
very good, but sometimes they publish goobers like that one.
Her routines were very good and her floor was the Olympic routine and
looked WONDERFUL!!!!!
Cara

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 16:58:01 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

First of all, I'd like to state that I would prefer it if the country
limitations were lifted for AA and Event finals. It's a shame when the "top
36" gymnasts compete for the AA title when they're not really the top 36 (or
24). It hurts the gymnasts who should be there, and slights the audience who
came to see the top gymnasts in the world.

But now to play devil's advocate, here's why I think the limitations *can* be
good:

1. Finals such as Susan described (five Soviets and three Japanese?!) just
aren't quite as interesting, to me, as a more international affair. For
example, the former Soviet men used to get razzed for their "compulsory
optional" floor routine, because they'd all do the exact same optional. Ho
hum. Variety is best especially on something like bars, where technique
seems to vary quite a bit from nation to nation (Chinese have incredible
shoulder flexibility, Romanians constantly hit handstands in hollow, Germans
for a long time had a history of impeccable technique (or at least they
always won), and so forth). But, I think I would rather see an increase in
the number of competitors (say to 12?) and a lifting of the quotas than our
current system, most particularly because the third best in the world could
be removed from finals just because the best two are teammates. That's a
medal spot!

2. In the interest of int'l gymnastics as a whole, gymnasts from less
powerful nations do need reinforcement, and gymnasts from smaller countries
who do well serve as good role models in those countries, thus elevating the
popularity of the sport. I bet Henrietta Onodi is responsible for many new
young gymnasts in Hungary; she might not have always done so well without the
"help" of such rules. I think in the end she was capable of making the
cutoffs without the help, but probably in the beginning it helped her out,
and gave her the confidence and so forth which made her a better gymnast. I
don't know if the rules benefited Onodi, in particular, but I'm just saying
that they help a gymnast *like* her who doesn't have the clout of coming from
a "power" nation and so isn't immediately favored by the judges.

3. Taking a tangent off #2, I'd like to point out that especially in the
past, it's a huge advantage to come from a power gymnastics nation. If you
get up on the podium wearing a USA leotard these days, you are probably going
to score higher than if you were a gymnast from Finland, all else being
equal. Judges try not to do this, I am sure, but in a sport with subjective
judging like gymnastics, I find it hard to believe that you can eliminate
this pre-judging entirely. Also, while it's no longer true to the same
extent, there was a significant amount of table-setting of scores within
teams at former Worlds and Olympics. For example, Daniela Silivas often
scored higher than she should have in the vault simply because she was last
in the Romanian team lineups. So, she made vaulting finals quite often. So,
in this sense too, if you were a gymnast from a lesser team (let's take
Mitova for example), and didn't have a strong team (or any team) to boost
your scores, you were at a distinct disadvantage compared to gymnasts from
greater nations. Since they've changed the format of competition, I don't
know how valid this point is anymore (tho. it'll be this way at the 1995
Worlds).

4. Aside from the potential bias towards gymnasts from power nations with
reputations, there are other advantages to being a gymnast with strong
gymnastics. You have, in general, stronger role models, more funding, better
coaches and facilities, and probably more international experience because
your country can afford to send you abroad more often. All of these help a
gymnast to be better... and thus puts a smaller-country gymnast at the
disadvantage. Whether or not the lesser gymnast should be given more
opportunities to make up for the disparity is the real question (similar to
the issues involved in minority recruitment for colleges and jobs these
days).

And that all said, I still stick with my first paragraph, that I am not in
favor of quotas for finals. I just wanted to point out the other sides of
the issue.

Oh yeah, one more point -- no matter whether or not the quotas we know are
lifted, there'll still be per-country limitations just because you can send
only so many gymnasts to the Championships. I bet you that in the days when
the Soviets dominated, the 7th or 8th gymnast could have been in the top 12
or 18, but they never even got to compete because of the limit of entered
competitors per country.

Well, that was a long enough essay!

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 18:00:07 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

You know, I proofread it before I sent it off, but I still had a few
mistakes, most notably:

> 4. Aside from the potential bias towards gymnasts from power nations
> with reputations, there are other advantages to being a gymnast with
> strong gymnastics.

Should read: "Aside from the potential judging bias towards gymnasts from
power nations with reputations, there are other advantages to being a gymnast
from a country with stronger gymnastics."

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 08 Mar 94 21:16:08 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

Susan,

Actually, the 2 per country person was me. It wasn't 2 per country, though,
it was any restriction in aa or ef (men & women). Maybe it's true I wasn't
aware of it as much until the US women were affected, but personally I think
the best should compete, even if its a US gymnast that misses finals (ex:
Shannon Miller in Olympic vault finals rather than Chusovitina?)

Mara

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 00:45:46 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

I agree about new life; I think it's a bad rule, and a *lot* of people have
thought so since they day it was passed.

But on AA and EF limits Susan says:
>The awards
should go to the best athletes regardless of where they >happened to be
born.
I essence we are punishing them for being too good. . .and how >much sense
does that make?

Then why limit the entries per country to 3 or 6? Why not have completely
open Worlds, or a qualifying process by scores that doesn't leave anyone out
on the basis of citizenship? Why limit the number of teams a country can
enter? Short of this, any number is arbitrary.

Putting aside concerns of administrability, my concerns are the following:
While I dislike the idea of leaving people out who are better than others who
are in, I'm also concerned to make the participation of countries with less
resources possible. If there were a Worlds qualifying process by score, and
say a hundred or two gymnasts made it (I base this on the number usually
present at Worlds), there would be dozens of gymnasts from the US, Canada,
and a few European countries, plus a group from Australia, China and Japan.
Central and South America, Africa, the rest of Oceania, other European
countries (increasing in number), and most of Asia might manage a smattering
between them, but for the most part could forget it. That's no way to
promote a sport in the rest of the world or to promote the values of
international understanding and friendship through sport (sure, international
competition frequently falls far short of that ideal, but that doesn't mean
we shouldn't strive for it, and I at least can say that major international
competition is without a doubt the greatest experience of my life to date,
and it *has* promoted international awareness and concern on the part of
athletes). I also think participation in world competition is necessary to
the development of gymnastics in a country, and that's why I'm opposed to the
proposed (has this been approved?) "A" and "B" team Worlds. I'd sooner take
a team to observe the "A" Worlds (including practices, etc.) than take it to
compete in the "B" Worlds. (I say this from the experience of being a member
of the first full team and first women my federation ever sent to a World
Championship).

Ok, that's enough for now. I have to go to sleep.

: )
Gimnasta

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 16:10:06 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

In response to Gimnasta's comments on arbitray qualifications to worlds not
limited to countries. I must say that no-one questioned the number of
athletes one country may send. Obviously for the feasabilty of a World
Championships there must be a set number of athletes per country -- that's a
given. No-one is questioning if the Ef should be 150 people or the AA every
gymnast there. We are talking about who should be able to compete within the
set guidlines. The question was if you are an athlete choosen to represent
your country and , by virtue of your performance & scores, you have
qualified to be in an AA or EF then should you be eliminated because two (or
three) of your team mates happened to outscore you? Is that really fair?

Do people (fans) as the federations who pushed for this rule conteneded
really want to see the 12th or 13th best on say FX when the 3rd or 4th best
was disqualified because they were outscored by people who happeded to be
team mates. Gymnastics is not, by nature, a team sport but rather an
idvidual disipline. The team should be a support group; someone you can
depend on to cheer you to victory and comfort you in defeat. Not someone
you are forced to compete against simply because of an arbitray rule. I'm
not really discussing a particular case or gymnast (my favorites have won AND
lost because of "new life" or country limitations). The "strong" nations in
gymnastics are constantly shifting therefore one meet a country may be
penalized for the rule and the next benefit greatly from it. When they were
initially enacted the per country limits were in response to the Japanese
dominations of the men's events in the '60s & '70s. Later the Soviets were
the most effected.

Well, in all this my main point was that THIS fan would rather see the top
36 and the top 8 regardless of nationality. I am forced to wonder how many
great performances we were deprived of my these rules.

Susan

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 17:30:39 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

Susan writes:

>Obviously for the feasabilty of a World
Championships there must be a set number of athletes per >country -- that's a
given. No-one is questioning if the Ef should be 150 people or >the AA every
gymnast there.

I *never* said *finals* had to include 150 people or whatever. What I'm
saying is that I'm not so sure it's a given that there must be a set number
of entries per country. It's perfectly possible to have a series of meets
world over, open to everyone (not *each* meet open to everyone, but the
opportunity to compete in a qualifying meet or two open to everyone) and let
the top 100 - 200 purely by score advance to the World Championship. There,
AA and event finals would narrow the field to 36 or 24 and 8 or whatever,
with no country restrictions. If in gymnastics the individual, regardless of
nationality, is most important, then this is the only fair thing to do.

>if you are an athlete choosen to represent
your country and , by virtue of your performance & scores, you >have
qualified to be in an AA or EF then should you be eliminated >because two (or
three) of your team mates happened to outscore you? Is that >really fair?

Is it fair that (say) the 4th best in a country who is moreover also 4th best
in the world wouldn't get to go to Worlds at all because 3 of her teammates
outscored her? If it's ok to be deprived of seeing #4 this way, how is that
different from being deprived of seeing #4 because of an AA or event finals
rule (when there are more than 3 entries per country. The 3-entry limit is
not a given, administratively, considering that past Worlds always allowed 6
plus the alternate and will now allow 7 + 1).

>The team should be a support group; someone you can
depend on to cheer you to victory and comfort you in defeat. >Not someone
you are forced to compete against simply because of an >arbitray rule.

I agree about how a team should be, but I don't think I buy the part about
being forced to compete against them. Teammates will always be competing
against each other anyway. How else do you win? I'm not convinced that
competing against a teammate to qualify for a final is any more pernicious
than competing against her for a medal. In any case, how is competing to
make the finals different from competing to make the team? I'm convinced (or
close to it anyway) that the most vicious competition I have *ever* observed
or experienced has been for qualifying to make the team at all (and the
"sister" sport of figure skating has recently provided us with *such* a
lovely case in point).

To tell the truth, I was always kind of inclined against the limits, but I
think now I'm more ambivalent about the whole thing, and I haven't decided
what I think would be the best thing to do. I *would* rather see #3 or 4
than 12 or 13 (or would I? Would, say, Mitova have made floor finals without
the rule, at least in '91? I'd prefer to watch her than watch most of those
ahead of her), but also 12 or 13 (who doesn't get to go) than 30 (who does,
because she's from another country) (but, again, maybe not). And I think
there are countervailing interests to be balanced. The number that doesn't
seem quite as arbitrary is 3, because that's the number of medals.

Ok, I should go do something I get graded on now.
: )
Gimnasta

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 9 Mar 94 18:39:57 EST
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject: Qualifying

Gimnasta writes about the recent ugliness in figure skating over
competition for one of the two slots on the women's team this year.
On the good side, figure skating also provides a method of dealing
with the problem of encouraging "weaker" countries to compete
while not unfairly penalizing athletes from "stronger" countries.

For this year's world championships in figure skating, the teams
(except for pairs) were allocated this way:

1. If your country had a medallist (top 3) last year in an event, you
can send 3 entrants in that event.

2. If your country placed someone in the top 10 last year, you
can send 2 entrants in that event.

3. Otherwise, you can send 1.

4. If there are more than 24 entries for an event, there is
a qualifying round, out of which the top 24 advance to
the actual competition.

(Because there are relatively fewer pairs teams at the moment
[only 16 teams at the Olympics], the "top 3" in item 1 is "top 5"
instead.)

With some thought, the numbers could be adjusted for the
AA and individual apparatus events in gymnastics.

I realize that gymnastics is inherently a team sport in ways that
figure skating is not. This makes it even harder for
countries that don't already have strong gymnastics programs
to bootstrap their way up to one, since they have to
produce a half dozen good people before they can make much
headway in the world. But with a figure-skating-like allocation,
strong athletes from weaker countries would still be able to
compete in AA and events. (BTW, one outcome of the figure
skating scheme is that skaters from strong countries who
can, through the rather arcane rules of international
competition, compete for a weaker country sometimes do so
because it means that they can get to world-level competitions.
For example, Lilly Lee, who skated for South Korea in Lilliehammer,
is from L.A.)

>>Kathy

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 12:22:27 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Qualifying

I first would like to say that I submited the quotes simply to illustrate
specific cases that lead to and resulted from the rules in question not to
relay on the infinte wisdom of a non-gymnastics person. Second, I will
happily contend that I agree to disagree but just to clarify my thoughts
slightly . .

I definitely believe that there is a vast difference between once you've
made it to the Worlds team and qualifying in Nationals. It's once you get
there and succeed and are THEN penalized that I question; that's the system I
'm (and the sport) working with. 6 per team, 36 or 24 per AA, & 8 per
finals. Sure those rules may change but not too soon. 6 has been determined
as a reasonable number to have in any one rotation therefore 36 in the AA
(working on the fact that the men have 6 events and the women only 4 so that
8 in their AA rotations and with 6 in the men's the AA comps as a whole move
at roughly the same speed). If we're to argue reasonably (and to have some
point in it) let's try and stick in the known limits set by FIG.

As for the team compulsories. I have mixed feelings but basically. I'm for
them. With new life compos have nothing to do with indivdual honors and what
you're working for is a "team" medal so shouldn't you compete with your team?
Secondly, the countries still place their best athletes in the final
rotations and the judges know that And save scores accordingly. Also, what
exactly did the draw really prove in Indy or Barcelona. The outcomes were
the same as it would have been (or maybe the ROM girls wouldn't have been so
nervous in Indy with their whole team present and the Americans would have
lost out) with teams. Anyways, the Chinese guys still got the raw draw. As
for the Sovs getting preferential treatment. Take another look and check out
who had the worst draw in Barcelona (women -- men's was all equal) and who
had the best -- you'll see where the balance of political power has shifted.
If you're going to use a compulsory indiudual draw don't let the countries
decide athlete placement andmake compos count for AA (they should anyways
--if you can't do compos you shouldn't be the world champ!). The best thing
about the system is that there's at least one good Sov to watch per compo
rotation.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 12:21:50 EST
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject: Qualifying and Re: College Bars

On the dual citizenship issue: I'm not surprised that strong athletes
from "weaker" countries are unhappy at the prospect of spots on their
team going to, say, the #6 figure skater from the U.S. (let alone
the #12 or #20), and they have every right to feel that way,
but there is a case in which the dual citizenship can be a good thing:
when the "weaker" country involved has essentially no team.
For example, Israel until recently had no figure skaters competing
at the international level (and wasn't a member of the ISU, either).
A couple of years ago, a Russian skater emigrated to Israel, and
told the mayor of his new home that he'd like to skate for Israel
(he had competed in Russia, but had not been a top-level skater
there). So Israel joined the ISU and started building a training
rink (the skater trained meantime in Russia), the skater went to
the Olympics, and now there will be skating facilities in Israel,
which might inspire others to take up figure skating, either
as a sport or a hobby.

On the subject of college bar routines: Ron, I agree with you
that the college women often have the most exciting bar routines.
I'll even go further to say that I think they also often have
better beam routines, partly for the same reason (height not
being so much of an encumbrance when you don't have to do
lots of tumbling). The beam also tends to highlight presentation
and elegance, which should favor more mature performers.
(Please note that this is a generalization; obviously there
will be some competitors at 15 and 16 with more presence
than others at 20.) To paraphrase my roommate, when
not done just right, the flourishes in a beam routine
can look like just so much hand waving.

Since I haven't attended a college meet in a long time, the
only ones I've seen lately have been the occasional televised
NCAA meets. From these, however, I get the impression that
the crowd really gets psyched about the uneven bars event.
Is this because the women are so good, or does having the
spectators excited about the event help make the women
better (chicken and egg question)?

>>Kathy

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 05:07:05 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Team Worlds

Does anyone know details about the format for team worlds in November?
Somewhere I heard that each team would have 7 or 8 competitors, and compete 6
on each event (similar format to NCAAs). Anyone know for sure?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 00:04:01 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Team Worlds

It's great to see so much interest and debate on the subject of qualifying
limits. On a similar note (extending the topic, so to speak), is 6 the
optimum gymnasts competing for a team? How about 4? Or 8?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Mar 94 09:48:21 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Team Worlds

The optimum number for a team? No idea. But I rather like the thought of
being able to have a lot of leeway in choosing the gymnasts who will perform
on an event, like in NCAA (though 12 on a team/6 per event is probably too
big for a World Championship to handle, though maybe not if they do the A & B
Worlds, limiting the number of teams, which I've already said I don't like).

As to competing compulsories as a team, I don't like that much. The morning
teams will get reamed, as usual. If it's a traditionally "weaker" team, it
will be harder to move up even if they've improved, and if it's a strong
team, their (gold) medal possibilities will be hampered. Just ask the
Chinese. And what a coincidence that the Soviets always drew the final
session in both men's and women's. Now that they're history, I don't know
whether this sort of thing will happen, but the potential is always there.
If it's not a draw, seeding will tend to keep people in the same places, bad
for "weaker" (non-top-4) teams.

Sure, seeding for optionals has the effect too, but at least it's less than
if compulsories are competed together too (more or less the same argument as
for limiting the number of entries per country to Worlds but eliminating
limits for finals).

There must be something wrong with me. The FIG likes the rules I don't like
(new life) and eliminates the ones I like (individually competed
compulsories).

Oh well.
: )
Gimnasta

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 11:47:06 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Team Worlds Format

Each team at the Dortmond World Champs will be allowed to bring 8 gymnasts.
7 to compete and one alternate. They will be able to compete (as always) 6
on one event and count the top 5 scores only. They may choose any one of the
seven to sit out on any one event. Also, Compulsories will be competed as a
team format.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 09 Mar 94 21:09:16 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Team Worlds Format

Susan,

Since the teams will compete together in compulsories, will there be seeding
or an open draw?

Also, will team compete as teams or scattered in the 95 complete Worlds?

Mara

------------------------------

End of gymn Digest
******************************