Salto Volume 1, No. 2

SALTO
The Official Publication of the Zimbabwe Gymnastics Federation

Vol. 1 No. 2

Winter, 2002

Message from the President:

Dear Members and Gymnastics Friends,

Every New Year brings hope of renewal and promise for a bright future. It is no less true for Zimbabwe gymnastics.

What’s going on so far in 2002? Membership continues to grow rapidly. We are negotiating with potential sponsors for financial support. Our MAG and WAG Vice-Presidents are diligently working on age-group progressions which will insure long-term competitive success AND independence from other countries’ programmes. We continue to publish (i.e. Salto #2).

We expect our website to be on-line by the end of the second quarter, and plan to send Zimbabwe athletes and judges to the 2002 World Artistic Championships in Hungary. This will be, as many readers are aware, the first time Zimbabwe will compete at this level, and is a departure from the policies of previous years.

Most importantly, we are in the final stages of preparation to petition the F.I.G. for recognition as the sole and legitimate Governing Body of gymnastics in Zimbabwe.

The Z.G.F. exists in order that gymnastics can grow strong and vibrant in Zimbabwe and so that ALL the participants can find success. We will not rest until our vision is reality. “United we are strong, together we ALL win.”

Khumbulani Moyo Z.G.F. President
Men’s Gymnastics - it’s Past and Future as seen in the Context of the 2001 World Championships

By Hardy Fink CAN
Member, FIG MEN’S Technical Committee

During the 35th World Championships in Artistic Gymnastics in Ghent, male gymnasts seemed once again to have pushed the boundaries of gymnastics on all apparatus. Nevertheless, an observer of the men’s competition may well wonder if, after one-century of seemingly continuous evolution, the skill of gymnasts has finally peaked and the sport of gymnastics has reached a permanent plateau; a sort of end to its history. Is it possible for this new century to bring any additional significant advances?

With this article, I will try to present a brief overview of the historical landmark developments in men’s gymnastics on each apparatus and try to assess if any of the new advances shown by the world’s best in Ghent were significant enough to also be remembered as landmark developments. Finally, I will try to speculate briefly about the developments that can be expected in the decades to come.

On Floor Exercises, the historical “trend setters” - those who broke the mold and made us think of gymnastics in a new way - included Menichelli, Nakayama, Andrianov, Tong Fei, and Gogoladze. Even though Korobchinsky, Sherbo, Li Xiaoshuang Nemov and others performed magnificently in recent years, it is interesting that no one has significantly changed our expectations for Floor Exercise since 1988 when Gogoladze unveiled both his circle work on floor and his triple back salto which Ljuikin showed in lesser competitions as early as 1986. In 1987 Novikiov seemed to hint at a new direction with his astonishing single acrobatic line of double salto stretched, back handspring, double salto tucked. What about Ghent? Nothing trend setting! But one gymnast, Lipsky UKR, probably set the upper limit, not, perhaps, of what is possible but of what the authorities of FIG can responsibly permit in the direction of “roll out” skills. He performed a 1¾ salto backward with 2½ turns in the stretched position. And Leon CUB performed a jump backward with ½ turn to double salto forward straight. But both of these were special marginal skills rather than “trend setters”. It is interesting to note, that in spite of many excellent performances over the past fifty years, very few can be said to have approached the excitement of Menichelli and the futuristic elements of Mitchell in 1964, the virtuosity of Nakayama in 1968, or the difficulty of Gogaladze in 1988.

The “trend setting” situation in Ghent was somewhat different on Pommel Horse where a new trend was definitely in evidence. Incrementally, over nearly a half-century, Cerar, Magyar, Delesalle, Nikolay, Mougilny, Pae, and Urzica expanded the various boundaries on that apparatus. Keen observers of gymnastics developments over the past year or two will have noticed youngsters in several countries being prepared for a new technical and aesthetic level of performance. It was left to Xiao Qin CHN to introduce this new performance level to the world and once he had performed in Ghent, pommel horse would never be the same again. Ghent confirmed that dozens of gymnasts have mastered the required difficulty on pommel horse but no others were able to do so with such extraordinary virtuosity. Consequently, it seemed to many observers that the judges did not fully appreciate that history had been made.

Rings has always had its “strong men” and, occasionally, it has had someone who would push the boundaries of the “possible”. The first such was perhaps Hudec in 1936 whose incredible strength and rock solid perfect positions were to set the standard for the rest of the century, a standard that was shamefully abandoned during the decade of the 1980’s. He was followed 20 years later by Azarian and then other “trend setters” such as Menichelli, Voronin and Nakayama after which followed a 20-year fallow period where perfection seemed to be increasingly unimportant to performers and judges alike. Nevertheless, some interesting swing innovations by Guzhogy, by Li Ning and by Sherbo with his now prohibited cross-cable work were introduced during that time period. It took a crisis at the World Championships in 1989 to reinforce and re-enforce perfect positions and soon a number of gymnasts - Chechi and Czallony most prominent among them - rose to the challenge and pushed the boundaries of the possible. In Ghent, the strong men were there in proliferation and Jovtchev BUL, the deserving champion, put on an incredible show. Perhaps nothing earthshakingly new could be expected on Rings, but Ghent showed that many gymnasts from countries all over the world could rise to the challenge of perfectly performed serious strength elements.
The evolution of Vault has been one primarily of pushing the level of difficulty by adding one more salto or one more twist. The pioneers are all immortalized with eponymous vaults: Yamashita (Matsuda), Tsukahara, Kasamatsu, Cuervo, Roche, Kroll, Yeo, and, not to forget, the female pioneer Yurchenko who showed us a new way to use the apparatus that opened the door for further innovations by Sherbo and Nemov. The new Code has made 10-point vaults seemingly impossible but then, in Ghent, the introduction of the new vault table helped make the impossible possible again. Two new 10-point vaults were introduced: Melissinidis GRE unveiled a double-Yurchenko-piked and Zimmerann AUT introduced an unbelievable Handspring-salto-forward-tucked-with-½-turn-to-salto-backward. A surprising six different 10-point vaults were shown. Sapronenko LAT reminded us that near-perfect landings rather than lucky landings are possible also for the super vaults. The Cubans re-introduced what Cuervo showed us 27 years ago; a full-out sprinting approach that permitted the generation of incredible heights and amazing after flight distances exceeding four meters. That surely will become the standard expectation and also the biomechanical pre-requisite for any new advances in vault. But we must also begin to insist on perfect leg-together-performances of Roche style vaults such as Misutin was able to show a decade ago.

Parallel Bars is arguably our most varied apparatus; so much so that it is impossible to mention all of its innovative pioneers. Cerar, Endo and Menichelli were perhaps its first innovative, technical, and aesthetic masters followed in quick succession by varyingly skilled pioneers such as Nakayama, Kato, Kenmostsu, Richards, Morisue, Belle, Tippelt, Bilozerchev, Artemov, Li Jing and others. The formulistic routines in Ghent left little to remember, but Tsolakidis GRE showed us an unbelievable level of technical perfection in the amplitude of the simple front uprise, an ability he exploited fully in his front-uprise- Diamidov-front-uprise-Makuts sequence. We are forced now to reconsider the evaluation of the poor, and often very poor, front-uprises (and other simple elements) that have gone unpunished in recent years. Lopez CUB managed already to far exceed the Code expectations on this apparatus with 1.5 in bonus points but this did not suffice to separate him from the pack because the limit is a Start Value of 10.0.

Horizontal Bar advanced only very gradually in the ‘50s and ‘60s with interesting performances by Stalder, Stolbov, Schaklin, Ono, Voronin, Nakayama and others. In 1970, Kenmotsu astounded the gymnastics world with an incredible 11-directly-connected-C-part routine. And then an explosion of possibilities in the 1970’s changed Horizontal Bar forever. Tsukahara, Gienger, Kasamatsu and Andrianov introduced a push towards ever more acrobatic dismounts and then in a span of only five years Jäger, Gienger, Deltchev, Tkatchev, Gaylord, and Kovacs unveiled their innovative flight elements many of which soon had their difficulty advanced with additional twists by Def, Winkler, Ljuikin, Pegan, and Kolman. No significant advance could be seen in Ghent, yet Cassina ITA introduced a Kolman stretched and the essentially flawless performance of Beresch may have reestablished our “old” standard of excellence for the future.

Over the past 40 or 50 years, there have been many memorable gymnasts with landmark performances that pushed the boundaries and re-set our expectations of what gymnastics is on one apparatus after another. The boundaries that were exceeded were variously at the levels of the technical, the aesthetic, the difficulty, and the innovative. Such happened on several (perhaps all) events in Ghent: The full-out-sprinting technique of Cuban vaulters, the amazing strength on rings, the ultimate in front-uprise technique on parallel bars, and the mastered super difficulty on vault. But nothing did this more than Xiao Qin’s fulfillment of our lifetime anticipation of the ultimate and, probably, unsurpassable technique and virtuosity on pommel horse. It along with the introduction of the new vault table and new competition formats will remain the historical legacy of the Ghent World Championships. Most of the many other excellent performances will not be much remembered as either significant or trend setting.

What then is left for the new century? It seems clear that without major changes in the design of apparatus the raw difficulty of single elements on each apparatus had approached its limit as the new century began. Of course there is room here and there to add another twist or another salto, but each of these possibilities and limits can now be easily predicted. We should also never discount, and we should hope for, the possibility of as yet unimagined innovations prepared by coaches and gymnasts.

It seems though, that the significant development that we must somehow promote for the future is the absolute technical and aesthetic precision or virtuosity of performances and, perhaps even more importantly, the excitement and entertainment value of performances. More excitement and entertainment value will likely require the reduction or removal of "bonus-forced-uniformity” and the elimination of some of the arbitrary restrictions to exercise construction and, will require instead a renewed emphasis on the encouragement of innovative, virtuous and original performances in some way.

Though the FIG-MTC emphasized B-jury instruction in Ghent, only one of the seven individual gold medals - the one for rings - was awarded without controversy. For a variety of reasons that are outside the scope of this article, the B-jury does not have sufficient tools to discriminate among performances or it chooses not to use the tools that it does have available. For this reason it will be necessary to allow the performers, at least in part, to separate themselves by “opening” the Code upwards and by allowing gymnasts to exploit more fully their own unique capabilities. Ghent showed us that the more perfect, the more aesthetic, and the more virtuous performances could not always win against lesser quality exercises of equal difficulty even though it is those that impressed us most.

Significant in the coming decades, as was already quite evident in Ghent, will be the ever-increasing numbers of high difficulty performances and high quality gymnasts on each apparatus from all over the world. This performance density will essentially mandate the directions suggested above because there simply will be no way within our historic evaluation paradigm to separate them and to identify clear and unambiguous winners. The growing importance of prize money and possible sponsorship value of champions will make such “clear and clean” results paramount.

The men’s competition at the Ghent World Championships was exciting in many ways. It may well have marked a new chapter in our history by bringing the gymnastics evolution of the past century near to its natural culmination and by prophesizing or at least anticipating the regulatory needs of the new century. I remain optimistic that our sport will see continued evolution in the decades to come. As long as human beings challenge themselves to explore new dimensions of the human movement spectrum, there will be those who will be eager to explore and expand the boundaries of human movement capability in all levels of gymnastics competition. If we give them more free reign to exploit their unique abilities and to excite the fans and the public they, the gymnasts, will be the biggest factor in helping us in our efforts to generate interest in gymnastics and to “grow” our sport. But without significant changes in our regulation paradigm, I fear we will never again see the technical, aesthetic, difficulty and innovative advances that we have enjoyed in the past.

Designing Optional Routines

by Jim Holt USA
Zimbabwe Coach, 1995 All-African Games

At the beginning levels of optionals, a coach may be bewildered as to how to put together a routine efficiently and effectively. The simplest way to approach this issue is not to turn everything over to a choreographer, but to identify what the Code of Points requires.

As with every other aspect of skill acquisition in gymnastics, this challenge can be broken down into its’ component parts. For example, in the US High School system, the difficulty requirement is 3 As, 4Bs, and 1 C. There are 6 special requirements.

It is essential that the coach understand precisely what the requirements are for a given level of competition. He she should know the fundamental principle of routine presentation (as stated in the men’s Code of Points): “difficulty shall never be escalated at the expense of proper form and execution.”

The coach must work to build a routine to a gymnasts strengths. A skill should never be included in a routine unless a gymnast can perform it regularly in practice without a spot.

“Working to your strengths means avoiding or at least, walling off your weaknesses!”

Some tips on how to use the Code (or any level of rules that are being used):
Repeat value skill (or sequence depending on the context)
Pay attention to value raising
Do not attempt to innovate or do something “unusual” (Gymnastics is a very conservative sport and innovation at less than the international level is considered a sign of ignorance)
Watch videotape of international gymnastics; this is the best way to become educated about trends and fashions.

FLOOR EXERCISE

Let us consider, for example, how to construct a women’s floor exercise routine.
For beginning gymnasts, we suggest outlining an optional floor routine as follows:
The gymnast will start about 10 feet from the corner of corner A in the diagonal.
We know that the music will begin, and she will do 5-10 seconds of dance (which will be filled in later). At the conclusion of the dance, she will do a jump that has B value or higher (tuck jump full for example). The jump should always finish facing the diagonal.

Next, she will perform her first tumbling pass. If the gymnast cannot perform a salto (at which point we concede the special requirement for the time being), she will do a tumbling pass consisting of forward rolls, cartwheels, et.al. It is extremely important that regardless of the content of the tumbling pass that the skills flow together in a logical pattern, and that the gymnast executes cleanly!

In the C corner, the gymnast will have another 5 seconds or so of dance, then will have another value part of B level or higher. Usually, we try to have beginning gymnasts learn a double turn right away; this is a (relatively) easy C to perform.

The gymnast then does a side pass consisting of her leap series. It is essential that the coach choose skills that complement the gymnast’s strengths and best qualities. A rather simplistic example would be for a very flexible, willowy gymnast to do switch leaps, or wolf fulls rather than tuck jumps. Conversely, a gymnast with a more compact (and perhaps less flexible) physique, should place emphasis on skills that make her look good.

A simple side pass for a beginning gymnast might be step, step, step, cat leap full (B), cat leap full (B), split lead, tour jete into the corner (either B or D depending on direction). In the corner, the gymnast will have another 5-10 seconds of dance, then prepare for her tumbling pass. Depending on the level of the gymnast and whether she has additional skills, it is possible to combine this with the gym-acro B dismount requirement, and finish the routine with a brief dance to finishing pose right after this.

It is usual that the beginning gymnast will be under time, but this is of no importance. It is much more important that the gymnast do cleanly the skills that she can do that fullfill difficulty and special requirements, and then GET OFF the event rather than stumble around piling up deductions!!

The reader should note that this is, in brief, an outline. It provides structure, clarity, and economy to the coach. There are a limitless number of combinations and choreographies that are possible in women’s floor exercise. Having an outline allows the coach to tailor or customize the routine to take advantage of each gymnast’s strengths.
If a gymnast can do a single salto, insert the salto in the first tumbling pass.
If a gymnast can do 3 different saltos, then the most difficult one should be put in the first tumbling pass, and the 2 salto pass (usually) will be in the second.
For example, as a gymnast progresses, if her highest difficulty is a layout full, then the full would usually be included in the first tumbling pass; a front through to tuck or layout back would be in the next.

If a gymnast has good switch and split leaps she should do those in the side pass after doing a value part in the C corner. As a gymnast develops higher difficulty, she can combine difficult skills for bonus.

With respect to dance, we suggest, in essence, that the choreographer work within the broad parameters of an outline. The coach should map out the specific places in the routine where value parts will be inserted and outline the tumbling passes. It is at that time that the dance and choreography elements should be inserted. Just as more difficult skills (and passes) can be substituted within the outline, the dance should be inserted as a tertiary consideration.

Many coaches make the mistake of choreographing a routine around a specific piece of music. We suggest that coaches place their emphasis on fulfilling the requirements within the Code of Points.

It should be noted that while dance is a defining feature of women’s gymnastics that the judges have no specific category where they can deduct for variations in the dance. Deductions can be taken from Execution if the gymnast shows bad positions or is technically flawed. The only other place a judge can deduct for dance (and if a coach is applying the lessons of this book no gymnast will be showing bad positions or technical flaws because if they have them in a given element, that element won’t be in the routine!!) is in combination, and the combination deductions are both clearly outlined and a maximum total of 6 tenths.

Caveat: at the elite level, this “cookie-cutter” approach to floor design and choreography can and depending on the expertise of the coach/choreographer, should be dispensed with.

CONCLUSION

It is very important the coach be aware of all the difficulty, special requirements, and where appropriate, bonus in a routine. In order to best keep track of these, and to implement effective changes, coaches should keep a written record of all the gymnasts routines. While one of the authors prefers paper, a simple spreadsheet will also suffice quite nicely. Include the following:
number the skills
name of skill
code number of skill in Code of Points
does it fulfill special requirement? Which one (roman numeral usually)?
difficulty value
bonus where applicable
at bottom, put down Start Value

In principle, the coach should structure routines based on the requirements of the Code of Points and the generally accepted “standards” of contemporary gymnastics. What might the latter be? We again suggest that the coach watch as much videotape of international gymnastics as possible; after several hundred hours, the coach should have a reasonably well-grounded sense of what fits and what doesn’t.

Hoorah for the Z.G.F.!!

Guest Editorial
by Yvonne Chaora

The growth of the Zimbabwe Gymnastics Federation is a wonderful development for the sport indeed!

For far too long, gymnastics in the country has suffered from a lack of leadership, organization, and communication.

We have found our aspirations and efforts thwarted by a bureaucracy and entrenched hierarchy largely composed of former colonials who have, in large part, effectively blocked access to the corridors of power and policy development to those not of their own background and class.

Sport, and gymnastics in particular, around the world is changing dramatically. Governments topple, businesses fail, and organizations become obsolete when they don’t provide for the people.

It has long been clear that ZAGA has failed to meet the needs of the gymnasts, students, and coaches in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe needs a new vision for a new millenium. This MUST entail a change in leadership. It is time for a new generation of coaches and athletes to lead.

I think I reflect the feelings of all Zimbabweans in the pride I have in this new generation of leaders who have formed the
Zimbabwe Gymnastics Federation as a response and answer to the needs of the sport in the country. As President Moyo has put it so eloquently, “Together, we ALL win.”

Results of the 35th World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

28 Oct. - 4 Nov.
Ghent, Belgium

WOMEN

Team
Romania 110.209
Russia 109.23
United States 108.514
Spain 106.678
Netherlands 106.495
Ukraine 104.316
Australia 102.877
Germany 102.848

All-Around
1. Svetlana Khorkina RUS 37.617
2. Natalia Ziganshina RUS 37.305
3. Andrea Raducan ROM 36.949
4. Daniele Hypolito BRA 36.905
5. Tasha Schwikert USA 36.881
6. Sabina Cojocar ROM 36.780
7. Tabatha Yim USA 36.680
8. Sara Moro   ESP 36.662
9. Verona van de Leur NED 36.393
10. Sun Xiao Jiao CHN 36.292

Vault
1. Svetlana Khorkina RUS 9.412
2. Oksana Chusovitina UZB 9.349
3. Andrea Raducan ROM 9.243
4. Jana Komrskova CZE 9.206
5. Andreea Ulmeanu ROM 9.118
6. Verona van de Leur NED 9.112

Uneven Bars
1. Svetlana Khorkina RUS 9.437
2. Renske Endel NED 9.425
3. Katie Heenan USA 9.212
4. Sara Moro   ESP 8.850
5. Tatiana Zharganova BLR 8.825
6. Lyudmila Yezhova RUS 8.625

Balance Beam
1. Andreea Raducan ROM 9.662
2. Lyudmila Yezhova RUS 9.650
3. Sun Xiao Jiao CHN 9.575
4. Sabina Cojocar ROM 9.475
5. Tasha Schwikert USA 9.350
6. Yelena Gomez ESP 9.025

Floor Exercise
1. Andreea Raducan ROM 9.550
2. Daniele Hypolito BRA 9.487
3. Svetlana Khorkina   RUS 9.375
4. Allana Slater AUS 9.337
5. Dalane Dos Santos BRA 9.325
6. Tabitha Yim USA 9.187

MEN

Team
1. Belarus 169.622
2. United States 166.845
3. Ukraine 165.483
4. France 165.283
5. China 165.260
6. Romania 162.920
7. Russia 160.921
8. Korea 153.922

All- Around
1. Feng Jing   CHN 56.211
2. Ivan Ivankov   BLR 56.124
3. Jordan Jovtchev BUL 56.085
4. Dan Potra   ROM 55.899
5. Erick Lopez   CUB 55.722
6. Yernar Yerimbetov KAZ 55.586
7. Paul Hamm   USA 55.335
8. Sean Townsend USA 55.273
9. Marian Dragulescu ROM 55.224
10. Roman Zozulia UKR 54.949

Floor Exercise
1. Jordan Jovtchev BUL 9.550
2.Marian Dragulescu ROM 9.550
3. Igors Vihrovs LAT 9.425
4. Steve McCain USA 9.312
5. Yevgeny Sapronenko LAT 8.962
6. Alexi Bondarenko RUS 8.937

Pommel Horse
1. Marius Urzica ROM 9.800
2. Xiao Qin   CHN 9.775
3. Alexander Beresch UKR 9.662
4. Nikolai Kryukov RUS 9.650
5. Alberto Busnari ITA 9.562
6. Grancois Ruffier FRA 8.987

Rings
1. Jordan Jovtchev BUL 9.775
2. Szilvester Csollany HUN 9.712
3. Andrea Coppolino ITA 9.650
4. Dimosthenis Tambakos GRE 9.600
5. Ivan Ivankov BLR 9.575
6. Walid Elderkiny EGY 9.562

Vault
1. Marian Dragulescu ROM 9.668
2. Yevgeny Sapronenko LAT 9.643
3. Charles Leon CUB 9.624
4. Alexi Bondarenko RUS 9.456
5. Yerner Yerimbetov KAZ 9.456
6. Leszek Blanik POL 9.212

Parallel Bars
1. Sean Townsend USA 9.700
2. Erick Lopez   CUB 9.675
3. Ivan Ivankov BLR 9.637
4. Feng Jing   CHN 9.537
5. Alexi Sinevich   BLR 9.525
6. Xhang Shangwu CHN 9.512

Horizontal Bar
1. Vlasios Maras GRE 9.737
2. Alexander Beresch UKR 9.725
2. Philippe Rizzo AUS 9.725
4. Igor Cassina ITA 9.550
5. Andrea Lipski UKR 9.525
6. Christoph Schaerer SUI 8.812