GYMN-L Digest - 29 Oct 1995 to 30 Oct 1995 - Special Issue

There are 16 messages totalling 522 lines in this issue.

Topics in this special issue:

1. 7-6-5 response
2. Worlds and some questions.
3. Olympic tickets for gymnasts' families
4. 7-6-5 rule
5. Compulsories & NCAA
6. NCAA format
7. USA Elite Festival
8. Halloween Humor
9. WOMEN:International Challenge
10. maltese/planche (2)
11. Nov. IG answers some questions! :)
12. Kim Z (2)
13. Zmeskal's Floor
14. Katie Teft

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 21:06:38 -0500
From: ***@VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Subject: Re: 7-6-5 response

Date sent: 29-OCT-1995 21:04:40

Actually, Chris, I wasn't. Someone a few weeks back said that she hoped
the 7-6-5 rule didn't lead to an athlte getting pulled on one event so
that three were guranteed a spot in finals. I think the person made a
copmment that it would be unfortunate for that to happen to Kerri. What
happened in Sabae seemed perfectly in line to me, because I know that
Mary Lee Tracy is always careful with her athletes. That, however, is
another matter. I wasn't referring to what happened in Sabae, in any
case.

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

Date: Sun, 29 Oct 1995 23:11:45 -0500
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: Worlds and some questions.

People have been constantly complaining about Amanar, but her
floor and choreography was three times better than that Moceanu
creature. If you really watch Moceanu, it is exactly the same
pumpy-jumpy horrible Zmeskal style. Was it choreographed by the
same
person ? Sould they be fired and get a new day job ? Yes to
both
questions.>



This comment is one of the samrtest comments of all times- I personally
thought Zmeskal was an ikay gymnast, just a consistent girl that was in the
right place at the right time, sorta like Mary Lou. Her cheoragraphy was
absolutely horendous, and i don't know how she got out onto the floor as a
mature 16 year old girl, and shook her butt and waved to the crowd.

On another note, isn't Geza Pozsar their cheoragrapher- why is he so famous
if he is so bad?

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 00:19:48 -0800
From: ***@CCO.CALTECH.EDU
Subject: Olympic tickets for gymnasts' families

Does anyone know if there are tickets reserved for the gymnasts' families?
Is it on a coutry-by-country basis (ie. a certain number of tickets are
reserved for each country to distribute however they want)?

It would be awful for a parents to be unable to watch their children
compete in the Olympics simply because they were unlucky in the lottery! As
well, at the time of ticket sales, parents don't know whether
or not their children are going to be competing.

How is this handled? What about other competitions?

--
Tamara
------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 03:50:36 -0500
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject: Re: 7-6-5 rule

>The 7-6-5 rule has been in effect now for, what, three years.

Considering that the Dortmund Worlds in November 1994 was the first team
competition since the '92 Olympics (and thus the first using the new team
rules) you can hardly say that it's been "in effect" for "three years." Not
even close!

In early '94 (or possibly late '93), before the rule was ever even used in a
World event, the decision was made by the FIG to change the numbers to 6-5-4
after '96. In all, the 7-6-5 rule will be used in *three* whole competitions
(Dortmund, Sabae, and Atlanta) before it's int'l demise ... at least, that
is, until they change their minds once again.

>in order to assure that the "right" three athletes made
>all-around finals, athletes might be pulled from an event. I think
>the case in point was Kerri Strug being pulled.

What on Earth are you talking about?!? In Sabae, Kerri Strug competed in all
8 compulsory and optional events during the team competition. *That* is what
determines qualification for the All-Around (which she *was* most definately
in, BTW).

Kerri was pulled out of an *event final* (vault) which has absolutely
*nothing* to do with the 7-6-5 rule what-so-ever.

> ... when an athlete had mistakes and was not in the top three on her >team,
we would see an "injury" crop up. Now, it appears that will be a >"passe" way
of dealing with things.

Huh? Jennifer, I'm sure you'll take offense at this, but I have to say that
you should *really* look up the defination of "passe" (I won't even ask why
it's in quotes!) since it makes absolutely *no* sense at all in this context.


In fact, it turns your entire sentance into utter nonsense. I can't even
being to imagine what you might have thought it meant, and therefore guess
what your point was (which is kind of moot seeing as how almost all your
other "facts" were erronous).

Since I'm not at all sure what Jennifer was getting at, here's a quick sum up
of some of the arguments that have been made for/against 7-6-5 ...

First off, basically, it's the coaches that determine the team's line-up (as
always) and it *has* caused a lot of friction, but that's really nothing new
- coaches fought about who went where, long before 7-6-5.

The USA, which has more coaches than they know what to do with, is a rather
special case. For them, who competes what and where is a matter of vote by
all the indviduals coaches, and whoever is out-voted is bound to be unhappy.
In a nationalized system, (like Russia, Romania, France, Australia, etc.) the
one head coach is more likely to have the final word and can choose to listen
to others advice or not.

The main effect of the 7-6-5 rule is that now making up the team line-up
*directly* effects individuals performances. Before, being put up early could
severly hurt your chances of making finals but it couldn't out and out kill
them. In short, if you don't do the event you can't make finals. End of
story.

Another issue is that now, coaches thinking of a team medal might find it
prudent to pass over an athlete with an exciting, but risky, routine in favor
of a more stock, and therefore safer, set because the *team* total can't
afford a miss. The logic being, that a guarenteed 9.45 is better than a
possible 8.8.

A good example from Sabae is Teresa Kulikowski (USA), who does a cool Jaeger
with a half on bars, being voted out of the UB line-up because of past
inconsistancy. If she had performed the skill correctly her score could have
been big *and* she would have been able to get the skill named after her. If
she had missed the team could have been forced into counting a low score.
It's a definate trade-off. How would you vote if you were the coach?

And what would you do if, as an athlete, you *knew* you were not going to get
a chance to perform at all with a risky element in your routine. Why then
would you even bother to try new things? If people stop expirimenting and
taking chances in hopes of "making the cut," the sport will stagnate.

Another controversial point is that the coaches of a strong team can now, in
effect, virtually guarentee which of their athletes is going to make the AA
simply by making sure they only field 3 athletes in all 12, or 8,
compulsories or optionals. There's nothing inherently wrong or sinister in
this, but it it can be aruged that a coaches "favorite" may get preferential
treatment.

In the NCAA, where this system is also used, they have gymnasts who are only
specialists *and* those that are All-Arounders. It's usually not much of a
controversy who competes on all the events. This is *not* true for 99.9% of
the world athletes. Those gymnasts are almost all, All-Around contenders so
some of them are bound to lose out.

Factoring compulsories into the mix adds yet another dimenson that the NCAA
has never had to deal with. If a gymnast has weak compulsory excercises but
strong optionals do you compete them in compos or not? Keeping them out
eliminates their chances for AA and finals (which are both optional only
comps) but using them when they're not the best could hurt the team score.

A positive argument is that 7-6-5 makes gymnastics more of a "team" sport.
Instead of simply a handful of indivduals who happened to have been born in
the same country, performing indivdual AAs and then simply adding the scores
together to get a total, there is now an element of strategy involved and,
some would say, that gives the team title more value.

- Susan

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 08:48:18 -0400
From: ***@PHARM.MED.UPENN.EDU
Subject: Compulsories & NCAA

Susan wrote ....
Factoring compulsories into the mix adds yet another dimenson that the NCAA
has never had to deal with. If a gymnast has weak compulsory excercises but
strong optionals do you compete them in compos or not? Keeping them out
eliminates their chances for AA and finals (which are both optional only
comps) but using them when they're not the best could hurt the team score.
-------------------

One small comment on the NCAA -- they did do compulsories, at least the men
did, through 1992, dropping them in 1993. I thought they should have kept
them through '96, but well, no.

Mayland

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 10:01:01 -0600
From: ***@VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Subject: NCAA format

Date sent: 30-OCT-1995 09:56:31

Susan brought up an interesting point. The NCAA's use a variation of
the 7-6-5 format, except they don't limit it to seven athletes. They
allow specialists, with (judging by what I've seen of roster, but I
cannot be sure) no limit on the number of competing athletes. Would this
ever be allowed at a world level, or elite level? It would allow for
athletes like Mark Sohn or Paul O'neill to compete, but still allow
for all-arounders. However, I think this would end up giving more ad-
vantage to countries that can afford larger delegations, and possibly
work against countries like the former Soviet Union republics. I don't
know, is this a possibility? Just curious...I like how the NCAA handles
things in this regard. You see a larger variety of performers with more
emphasis on a team format.

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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:38:55 PDT
From: ***@LSS.CO.ZA
Subject: USA Elite Festival

What is the USA Elite Festival? Could someone send me results?
Thanx, Helen.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 13:24:22 -0500
From: ***@ISSCAD.COM
Subject: Halloween Humor

Late Saturday night, while channel surfing I came across the
movie "Love at First Bite" with George Hamilton playing Count Dracula.
Okay, I'll bite (pun intended). What does this have to with Gymnastics?
Well it seems the good count was being forced out of his Transylvanian
Castle by the Romanian goverment. The goverment was planning to turn his
ancestral home into a gymnastics training center, complete with,
"parallel bars, trampoline and Nadia Comaneci!

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

Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 22:45:05 PDT
From: ***@LSS.CO.ZA
Subject: WOMEN:International Challenge

Hi. Following are the results and accounts of some routines from the Boland

Bank International Challenge held in Cape Town, South Africa recently.

VAULT:
Oksana Chusovitina - half-on, half-off front layout (like a Hristakieva form
a half-on) with a step on landing - 9.600
2nd vault - same stuck landing - 9.750
Anamaria Bican - double twisting Yurchenko. Very low landing and three
steps forward - 9.250
same vault. Much higher. Stuck - 9.750
Nadine de Kock - handspring front. Stuck - 9.375
handspring front half. Stuck - 9.400
Raegan Tomacek - same vault as Chusovitina. Hop sideways - 9.575
same vault. Higher. Hop sideways - 9.600

BARS:
Chusovitina - hecht; 2 consecutive giant hop fulls, blind change, eagle

grip giants; full out dismount-stuck - 9.825
Bican - fall on Jaeger; giant full, Tkatchev, double layout-small

step - 9.175
De Kock - uprise, blind change, Jaeger-fall; low doble layout
dismount-hands down - 8.200
Tomacek - giant full, gienger; giant full, blind change, double
front dismount-tiny step - 9.600

BEAM:
Chusovitina - high punch front mount; punch front on beam; flic-layout
slight bend of legs; big wobble on leaps; double back
stuck - 9.450
Bican - flic-flic-layout (legs together) fall. flic-layout;
flic-flic-double back stuck - 9.10
De Kock - Yurchenko layout mount-perfect; switch leap 1/4 fall.
flic-layout-flic (small wobble); double back-hands down
on mat - 8.225
Tomacek - punch front mount; flic-layout-flic - nice; punch front
(tiny wobble); flic 1/4 to handstand; running front 1&1/2

twist dismount - 9.55

FLOOR:
Bican - tuck full-in -stuck; nice jumps; punch front, handspring,
front 1&1/2 twist immediate punch front-great!; triple
twist-all the way around - 9.850
De Kock - triple twist-all the way around; handspring, front full,
punch front; double pike; nice dance - 9.625 (a little
high)
Tomacek - handsping, double twisting front layout-excellent!; nice
jumps; pike front step-out, 1&1/2 twisting front; triple
twist-step out of bounds; nice dramatic, jazzy dance -
9,55
Chusovitina - high double layout; straight away into high full-in
stuck! high jumps; double twist immediate punch front;
handspring, full twisting front, punch front; excellent
Shushonova to end. Amazing routine - 9.925

Highest mark on floor ever achieved in South Africa!

1. Oksana Chusovitina UZB 38,950
2. Raegen Tomacek USA 38,300
3. Anamaria Bican ROM 37,875
4. Nadine De Kock RSA 35,450
5. Andrea Leman GBR 34,875
6. Caroline Demetriou RSA 34,375
7. Zandre Bruwer RSA 33,000

Helen.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:13:53 -0500
From: ***@EXPERT.CC.PURDUE.EDU
Subject: maltese/planche

I was watching my tape of the Men's Team Comp. (Worlds) last night
and noticed a couple of possible mistakes by the commentators. I am
pretty knowledgible with women's gymnastics but not too much with men's.
Correct me if I am wrong; a planche is a "handstand" with a 45 degree
angle of the body, a maltese is where the body is held off of the ground
parrallel to the floor? Bart Connor made a few errors when a "maltese"
was being performed but he commentated that it was a planche. Most of
the moves were maltese to pressed handstand (floor). I am sure
about what a planche is, at least in women's gymn, but am I also correct about
the maltese? Thanks.
Aaron

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:56:24 -0500
From: ***@PERFIT.ZKO.DEC.COM
Subject: Re: maltese/planche

The difference between a planche and a maltese is the angle of the arms with
respect to the floor. For both of these moves, the body *should* be
parallel to the floor. What the women are doing on beam are fake planches. The
only woman I've seen do a correct planche was Natalia Shaposhnikova, doing her
staddle planche on beam. That was beautiful. The whole routine was beautiful.

For a planche, the gymnast leans slightly forward in the shoulders and raises
or lowers the body to parallel, sort of like:


O---o-----
\
\

The planche is seen either staddled or with legs together.

For a maltese, the gymnast's entire body is practically in one plane. His/her
body is lower, with the angle the arms make to the ground almost zero, like:


O---o-----
`---

Kind of a cruddy picture :) Anyways, the maltese is a lot harder to do.

I believe that Bart was correct in his analysis. I've never seen a maltese
press to handstand on floor; it was most likely a planche. Also, it was most
likely done *correctly*.

Steve

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:56:14 -0600
From: ***@VAXA.CIS.UWOSH.EDU
Subject: Nov. IG answers some questions! :)

Date sent: 30-OCT-1995 15:53:43

Hallo, all. :) Just got the November IG on loan from a friend, and as
I was leafing through it, I found the answers to two questions I don;t
believe we ever got answered, well, completely, anyhow.

1) According to Dwight Normille, Katie Teft was doing a Yurchenko
vault when her coach thought she was doing a timer. That apparently
led to the accident.

2) If anyone is still wondering what the fish jump looks like, there is
an absolutely GORGEOUS picture of Theresa Kulikowski doing one on page
11 of the magazine. Well, I'm pretty sure it's a fish jump anyhow, and
the picture is great.

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 14:41:00 PST
From: ***@MVS.OAC.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Kim Z

As far as her comeback, Kim wanted to compete at nationals, but
Bela was afraid she wouldn't win (i.e. make him look bad) and
wouldn't let her...

Lets all send her a mind of her own for her birthday...

-PJ

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:27:30 EDT
From: ***@MARISTB.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Zmeskal's Floor

Hello? Does anyone remember ALL of Kim Zmeskal's floor routines?
Why the sudden attack on her artistry?
While there was that one terrible one, what about the first one
that we saw, at the Olympic Festival where Bela first introduced
her and the rest of his "New Generation"? What about the other good
one, (not the one that she ended with that rediculous hitch-hiking
pose on the floor, the other one). Those both were very well put
together.
Pozsar has definitly come up with some horrible routines, (remember
Brandy in the Bela days?) but in his defense he has also done
some beautiful work.


Laura

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:50:31 EDT
From: ***@MARISTB.MARIST.EDU
Subject: Katie Teft

As a newcomer, could someone quickly tell me what happened to
Katie Teft? All I know is that IG said it was a timer mishap.
Where? When? What happened? Is she OK?

Thanks..
Laura

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

Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 18:12:45 -0600
From: ***@MAIL.COIN.MISSOURI.EDU
Subject: Re: Kim Z

Hello, fellow Gymners...

On Mon, 30 Oct 1995, Brett wrote:

> As far as her comeback, Kim wanted to compete at nationals, but
> Bela was afraid she wouldn't win (i.e. make him look bad) and
> wouldn't let her...
>

I am not so sure about this story's plausibility...perhaps fellow
gymners have more info. IMHO, if Kim wanted to compete, she would have
done so. She is a very strong-willed woman, and I don't think that she
would have allowed this.

> Lets all send her a mind of her own for her birthday...
>
> -PJ
>

Let's not "send her a mind for her birthday"...let's send her the
encouragement she deserves in her quest. I hope that she goes all the
way to making the Olympic team. She is definitely gymnast enough...

--Michael :)

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

End of GYMN-L Digest - 29 Oct 1995 to 30 Oct 1995 - Special issue
*****************************************************************