Artistic Gymnastics is Alive, Well and Russian !

 Aleexander Raisman, How many errors can you see ?

Artistic gymnastics is all about amplitude, flight, grace and elegance, expression.  The way the gymnast leaps and somersaults and twists in the air, performing acts of incredible strength and skill but making them look like effortless works of art. The way the gymnast pauses mid-air and makes complex movements with, apparently, all the time in the world.  Let's call it virtuosity. 

In the North Greenwich arena, yesterday afternoon 28 July , spectators were treated to a brilliant exposition on the sport of gymnastics by a team of feisty young Russians who have come to London determined to make their mark in the history of the sport.  It is twenty years since the collapse of the Soviet Union, whose gymnastics legacy they embrace. The sport has since moved on, and is now principally the domain of bouncy, synthetically smiling teenagers who bow down only to the sport's Code of Points and their coaches' instructions. For them, the sport might just as well be renamed 'sporting gymnastics' (ironically, a direct translation of the sport's name in the Russian language).  But for the Russians, the requirement is still 'artistic gymnastics'.  They just can't wash the need to be beautiful out of their perfectly tinted hair. 

Russia is a thorn in the sport's side in this respect, even if the international governing body, the FIG, recently declared 'We are missing out on the beauty of gymnastics'.  The team's tendency to take risks and stretch every move to the max - ('amplitude' - watch Viktoria Komova in particular) - runs directly against the current sporting maxim of reliability and consistency encouraged by a lifeless, one dimensional Code that provides little scope to reward artistry.   It also has a tendency to provoke the kind of errors that incur deductions large enough to deprive them of gold medals.  Compromise is not a word in the Russians' vocabulary.   1992 Olympic Beam Champion Tatiana Lyssenko recently explained the Soviet maxim that has become so much a part of Russia's gymnastics ethos:

'No matter how safe you play it, there’s never a guarantee that you will not make a mistake. And taking risks like that was part of our team philosophy: the idea that if you could do something, you should do it—you should show it to the world. It wasn’t about playing a game of points or determining how to use the Code to your advantage. It was about showing the best gymnastics that you could in a pure sense..'

So when they come to a competition like the Olympics, Russia's competitive status is frequently a bit questionable, The errors that are often induced by their take-it-to-the-max approach are penalised by the judges, but without a corresponding bonus being applied for the added artistry and risk they bring, that induces a higher likelihood of error.  Just because they are trying to do more, and represent the sport in all its dimensions. It's not fair.  It's almost as though the FIG would rather not enjoy the artistry of gymnastics any more, despite paying lip service to the opposite view. 

The reality of the situation can be seen a little more clearly by observing what is happening currently to the American team, where team stalwart Alexandra Raisman has controversially ousted 2011 World Champion Jordyn Wieber from the all around final.  Many are characterising this as a weakness in the sporting rules that limit participation in finals to two gymnasts per country.  This is certainly one way of looking at the problem.  Another way of thinking is that the FIG and what I call the American school of gymnastics has finally eaten itself and got the gymnastics it deserves.  Raisman has avoided penalty for her many gymnastic deficiencies for too long.  The Code ignores her complete dearth of artistry and amplitude; it is blind to the countless errors in form that characterise her work but which are presumably too countless to begin deducting for.  The fact that she has qualified for floor final in first place is a travesty; even from several rows back in the North Greenwich arena her pagoda legs in tumbles, lack of toe point, and mangled lines in flight throughout were glaringly obvious.  But Wieber, a much better gymnast, made errors such as stepping out of the area, ones that have a specific and clear deduction in the Code, that Raisman did not suffer.  It was easier just to stick to the Code, to avoid making a value judgement and giving Raisman the lower scores she deserved, and so America, the FIG, the world has ended up with monstrous gymnastics at the top of the sport. 

There is a ground swell of support for the concept of artistry, and against the FIG's Code of Points, amongst gym fans and commentators, although not many will say so publicly.  After all, the athletic Americans, the enthusiastic Brits, the energetic Canadians, all stand a better chance of winning if artistry is side lined.  Some of their gymnasts might make a nod in its direction, but their teams are generally more athlete than artist, and it's easier to coach if there are strict, quantifiable rules rather than the qualitative, subjective guidelines that are necessarily a part of an artistic sport.

Sadly, the Romanian team had a difficult qualifying round and finished fourth as a team, with many expected finals qualifications out of kilter, but I'm guessing that they will be much better tomorrow and might even compete for gold as a team if the top two teams have errors.  It was great to see the British team finish in 5th place, unprecedented for them, and home hero Beth Tweddle qualified for bars final in first place.

 Biassed?  Yes.  As biassed as much of the 'neutral' gymnastics press.  As biassed as the 'objective' code ... as biassed as some of the 'fair' judges.