Olympic Women's Gymnastics

[ugadevil]

I'm just glad basketball message boards don't decide which games are played at the olympics, how the games are handled, and what age participants are allowed to compete. They may be flawed, but the ones involved know a little more than we do in most cases.

The basketball board may not be able to make good decisions, but the Off-Topic board sure would know what to do!

[waveletanalysis]

If you don't know the A score of each move, or don't know what combination can boost the score, it doesn't make sense to complain about the unfairness. Flying high doesn't mean more difficult. Nastia opened her legs in the dismount from the uneven bar, looks quite ugly. Tied in score was not bad for her.

I was lol. watching Bela Karolyi begging why Alicia Sacramone didn't got the bronze. "Why! Why!", he said. He seemed very sincere and innocent. After all, it's a bronze. Grow up!

Don't get influenced by the commentator. Karolyi admitted the scores were fair, of course, until Alicia Sacramone's routine.

[blublood]

The basketball board may not be able to make good decisions, but the Off-Topic board sure would know what to do!

We always do, brother.

[hc5duke]

I've stopped caring about the age controversy, and it seems most people have made up their minds that some of the girls were underage. But here's some pretty concrete proof that at least one girl (He Ke Xin) is 14:

http://strydehax.blogspot.com/2008/0...-olympics.html

Basically, cached version of a deleted Excel spreadsheet on a Chinese government server states her birthday as 1994.1.1 (#618 here and #1040 here)

[hughgs]

you are just ignoring what i wrote and continue asking me the same thing. for about the 3rd time, there already is regular volleyball. beach volleyball is EXTREMELY similar to regular volleyball. here's what wiki has to say:

Beach volleyball evolved from indoor volleyball, and the two sports remain very similar: a team scores points by grounding the ball on the opponents' court, or when the opposing team commits a fault (error or illegal action); teams can contact the ball no more than three times before the ball crosses the net; and consecutive contacts must be made by different players [emphasis added].

as i stated earlier, it would be like adding indoor soccer to the olympic program and that would be redundant since regular soccer already is played in the olympics. would you do everyone a favor and give this a rest?

You're right I am ignoring what you are saying and repeating the question because you haven't (until now) actually answered the question of why the two sports are redundant. It's not like I drew the question out of thin air. You made the assertion and I simply asked you for an explanation.

So, you're criteria is that since the two sports are derived from each other, then they must be redundant. That can be true up to a point, but I think in this case the differences between the sports make them very different. You've cited the most basic rules of the sport to say that they are the same (one of which is incorrect as pointed out previously). You can make the same argument about basketball and team handball. Points are scored by putting the ball into a goal. Players are required to dribble or pass the ball to advance. Defensive players have a right to their part of the court (offensive players can't simply run over defenders). Should we then say that basketball and team handball are redundant? Of course not.

Here are a couple of differences that (to me) make the sports different. First, as prfduke pointed out, the number of touches allowed are different. Being able to ignore touches by the block completely changes how the offense can be run. Second, the fact that beach volleyball is played outside forces the players to change tactics depending on the side they are on. Everything from the types and placements of the serves to the passing and setting and even the types of spikes used change depending on whether the wind is in your face or at your back. The side of the net one starts on is so important that most players would rather choose their starting side than serve/receive. Indoors the Duke team always starts games one on the same side. Third, there are no substitutions allowed in beach volleyball. Substitutions are allowed in 3, 4, and 6 man volleyball, but if you lose a player to an injury on the beach you're done. I've played with a sprained ankle on the beach to avoid losing. Same injuries on the hardwood just resulted in my sitting and cheering.

As to whether there other sports that are more closely related, I'm not sure how that information makes indoor and beach volleyball more or less redundant. Volleyball isn't like the decathlon and made of a number of separate events. They are two events and their relationship to each other exists independently of the relationship between any two other sports.

Since you've finally answered the question, I'm done. I'll let others judge whether the two sports are redundant. I apologize if you thought the thread was too long but if you're not going to answer a question that is directly related to an assertion you make on the topic of volleyball then maybe you should rethink making such an assertion. The length of this sub-thread is because you skirted the question in your previous posts. As to whether I'm doing "everyone a favor", when you become a moderator on this board then I will take that statement as something that should be heeded but until then I think I will continue to post as I see fit (within the rules of the board). Thanks for protecting everyone else, but I would appreciate it if you would leave those types of comments out of you replies and simply report my posts if you think I've crossed the line.

[pfrduke]

Here are a couple of differences that (to me) make the sports different. First, as pfrduke pointed out, the number of touches allowed are different. Being able to ignore touches by the block completely changes how the offense can be run.

After all this discussion about the relative difference/similarity of beach and indoor volleyball, I noted with great amusement that the gold medal clinching play last night came about because of the touch rule. Had Kerri Walsh not gotten a partial block, she likely would have set the ball at the net, rather than spike it over for the win.

[Bostondevil]

I've stopped caring about the age controversy, and it seems most people have made up their minds that some of the girls were underage. But here's some pretty concrete proof that at least one girl (He Ke Xin) is 14:

I haven't, stopped caring about the age controversy I mean, because to me it's just as much cheating as steroids are. If it's against the rules, it's against the rules. They took away Spearman's bronze for stepping on the line in the 200m. Why? Because it's against the rules. He (last name, not pronoun) is the gymnast who won the gold medal in the uneven parallel bars. That medal should be forfeit. So should the team gold.

I am however very unhappy to hear that Americans have been sending hate emails to the Australian judge in the uneven parallel bars event.

[bjornolf]

so much to comment on for me.

First off, I don't get how someone can land on their hands and knees, not to mention have at least two other MAJOR problems with their vault, and still get a medal. That is INSANE to me.

As for the "16" year old gymnasts from China... the reason they are all so young is that their bodies are used up by the time they're "legal". The Chinese coaches travel around schools and "test" kids at the earliest ages (1st-3rd grades). If you show aptitude, they transfer you to a "special" school for your sport, sometimes hundreds of miles from home (the 20 or so year old girl from China playing table tennis for us talked about how she was "recruited" and was a "professional" by age 11). Academics become secondary to the sport. So, that "16" year old gymnast has been practicing and competing 8-12 hours a day for about 10 years. Compare that to Shawn Johnson, who was talking about the punishment her body has been taking. She led a pretty normal life outside gymnastics with school and all until a few years ago when she started preparing for the worlds and the olympics. The Chinese girls haven't had "normal" lives since they were 4. There probably aren't TOO many young people who can take that much punishment to their bodies for that amount of time. The "older" chinese gymnasts are probably mostly broken by now.

I have a question about gymnastics in general...am I just remembering wrong here? Before I start this, my wife, who is admittedly only a year older than me, agreed completely with me. She was pointing it out as I was, so I don't think I'm TOTALLY off the mark here. I was pretty young, but I remember back in the days of the Mary Lou's and even into the 90's, you had to STICK all your landings and nail all your routines. I remember seeing landings I thought were good or the tiniest of wobbles on the beam and hearing the announcers talk about how huge a fault it was and how it would keep a competitor off the medal stand. Now they just gloss over it unless it's GLARING. Are the gymnasts just not as good? Do the judges just not care about that anymore? Am I just not remembering correctly? I remember thinking all the medalists back then looking just about perfect. Most of the gold medalists now wouldn't have gotten the bronze back then. Again, am I remembering wrong?

Also, people were talking about Nastia looking distant and dour. I thought it was hilarious that a couple times they showed her standing a few feet away from her dad while waiting. Almost every time, they were standing in IDENTICAL poses with IDENTICAL expressions on their faces. Like father, like daughter I guess.

As for the tie-breaker, which is ridiculous in my mind...might as well have a coin flip. Here's how it works. Two gymnasts tie with these scores:

9.0 9.1
9.0 9.0
9.0 9.0
8.9 9.3
9.1 8.7
8.8 8.8

We throw out the highest and lowest for each, leaving us with:

9.0 9.1
9.0 9.0
9.0 9.0
8.9 8.8

A tie. The tie-breaker is to throw out the NEXT lowest score, leaving us with:

9.0 9.1
9.0 9.0
9.0 9.0

The one with the 9.1 wins. Again, dumbest tie-breaker EVER in my mind. TOTALLY arbitrary with NO accounting the skills of the contestants AT ALL. I think the only fair tie-breaker would be for those two to go again and the winner gets the gold, loser gets the silver. Or let them go at it grecco-roman style on the floor exercise matt. I've got Nastia in that one. More weight and reach. Talk about ratings!

Now to volleyball: I have played both forms of volleyball extensively. I do NOT think they are redundant or the same, or even that similar. Others have pointed out the similarities and differences, so I'll leave it at that. As for the let serves and the rally scoring, I thought that had been in beach volleyball forever (we had always played that way at least...back in the late 80's and early 90's when I played). If anything, INDOOR has moved towards BEACH in that respect. If you want two different sports that are better for TV, I'd replace INDOOR volleyball with wallyball. Now THAT'S a fun, different sport, darnit. I would relate indoor volleyball vs. beach to NBA basketball vs. the old outdoor streetball tourneys with two- or three-man teams. Same sport but TOTALLY different games. Or maybe NFL vs. Arena football. I think there is a place for both. One could similarly ask why we need all the snowboarding when skiing was just fine alone? OR field-hockey vs. lacrosse?

And lastly, I'm wondering about all these Jamaican sprinters. I heard they don't have testing there. Could they have used until a couple months before the olympics, then flushed their systems so the testers couldn't catch them? I was wondering about that. I'm not sure how it works.

I know I've got more, but that's enough for now. I'd like to get some of those answers first. Thanks.

[billybreen]

Looks like the IOC is investigating.

[Duke4Ever32]

Looks like the IOC is investigating.

It's about time they did something. Had they refused to investigate, their credibility would have taken a real hit. I just hope they have the chutzpah to do a credible investigation and levy penalties if they are deserved.

[bjornolf]

So much for that investigation. They basically just said "Hey, the government says she's legal, so we'll believe them over some 'website' somebody found."

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/bei...yhoo&type=lgns

[blublood]

I have a question about gymnastics in general...am I just remembering wrong here? Before I start this, my wife, who is admittedly only a year older than me, agreed completely with me. She was pointing it out as I was, so I don't think I'm TOTALLY off the mark here. I was pretty young, but I remember back in the days of the Mary Lou's and even into the 90's, you had to STICK all your landings and nail all your routines. I remember seeing landings I thought were good or the tiniest of wobbles on the beam and hearing the announcers talk about how huge a fault it was and how it would keep a competitor off the medal stand. Now they just gloss over it unless it's GLARING. Are the gymnasts just not as good? Do the judges just not care about that anymore? Am I just not remembering correctly? I remember thinking all the medalists back then looking just about perfect. Most of the gold medalists now wouldn't have gotten the bronze back then. Again, am I remembering wrong?

It's because of the new code of points and also because gymnasts as a whole are doing insane stunts now that Mary Lou Retton could never have dreamed of in the 80's. The code of points rewards difficulty over execution which is why you got that ridiculous result with Chung Fei. (well, that plus the Chinese gymnasts clearly benefited from some kind of political effort to give China as many gold medals as possible) Yes, her landing was awful, but she got credit for 2.5 twists, 2 flips, blind landing, or whatever that vault was which outweighed her .8 deduction for falling on the apparatus.

It's part of a generalized zeitgeist in the sport right now to push human bodies to the outermost limit and to reward tricks completed rather than what's usually referred to as "artistry." For instance, I saw Nastia Liukin on the balance beam during the exhibition night and she was incredible. Beautiful feet, beautiful legs, gorgeous arabasques on the beam, just sailing through the air. Why don't we see that in competition? Because she could never win with it. So instead we end up with exactly what you saw the first week - 8 essentially identical routines with a tangle of flips and twists your eye can't even follow, rushed through, arms flying everywhere, everybody trying to pack in their tumbling elements before the buzzer sounds. (and really, isn't the whole point of the balance beam to, uh, balance? To show extension, flexibility, you know, all that stuff? It's turned into just another version of floor exercise)

So to answer your question no, the gymnasts are actually much, much better these days, but the rush to pack in as many flips and twists as possible into every conceivable space has really hurt the look of everybody's routines.

[Bluedog]

So much for that investigation. They basically just said "Hey, the government says she's legal, so we'll believe them over some 'website' somebody found."

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/bei...yhoo&type=lgns

Link didn't work for me. This one works for me though

http://sports.yahoo.com/olympics/bei...v=ap&type=lgns

[bjornolf]

It's because of the new code of points and also because gymnasts as a whole are doing insane stunts now that Mary Lou Retton could never have dreamed of in the 80's. The code of points rewards difficulty over execution which is why you got that ridiculous result with Chung Fei. (well, that plus the Chinese gymnasts clearly benefited from some kind of political effort to give China as many gold medals as possible) Yes, her landing was awful, but she got credit for 2.5 twists, 2 flips, blind landing, or whatever that vault was which outweighed her .8 deduction for falling on the apparatus.

It's part of a generalized zeitgeist in the sport right now to push human bodies to the outermost limit and to reward tricks completed rather than what's usually referred to as "artistry." For instance, I saw Nastia Liukin on the balance beam during the exhibition night and she was incredible. Beautiful feet, beautiful legs, gorgeous arabasques on the beam, just sailing through the air. Why don't we see that in competition? Because she could never win with it. So instead we end up with exactly what you saw the first week - 8 essentially identical routines with a tangle of flips and twists your eye can't even follow, rushed through, arms flying everywhere, everybody trying to pack in their tumbling elements before the buzzer sounds. (and really, isn't the whole point of the balance beam to, uh, balance? To show extension, flexibility, you know, all that stuff? It's turned into just another version of floor exercise)

So to answer your question no, the gymnasts are actually much, much better these days, but the rush to pack in as many flips and twists as possible into every conceivable space has really hurt the look of everybody's routines.

Yeah, that makes sense. Exactly what my parents said when I asked them. Here's my question about the vault though. With all these camera angles and computers and slo-mo replays the judges can use, how did they score the vault so badly? According to the "experts", the landing not only deserved a deduction, but her hand placement and leg position both deserved major deductions as well. There was no was she should have scored over an 8.6, let alone a 9.0, with those few deductions, which would have given Alicia the bronze over her. Those things are so easy to see on the equipment available to the judges, and they are easily verifiable, even to a peon like me. I'm just baffled. She did EVERYTHING wrong in that vault, yet she got over a 9.0 for execution. That seems like the real travesty to me.

As for the scoring taking so long and yet being so poor. I was thinking about it, and I was wondering. The judges are under a ton of pressure to get it right fast, yet because they are inexperienced from countries without good gymnastics programs, they need to look at the video again and again. Meanwhile, the gymnasts have to wait and wait and wait. Why do scores have to be given at the exact moment? Why not give the judges as much time as they want, but NOT make the athletes wait for a score EVERY time? Let every athlete go bam, bam, bam, then let the judges do the scoring before they go on to the next apparatus and present the scores in a row together in the order the athletes went at the end. The athletes don't have to wait forever getting nervous before they go, and some of the advantage of going later is lost. You only know if somebody REALLY screws up, which you'd know anyway. The judges would have more time to look at all the angles without as much pressure to go fast. The gymnasts could start prepping for their next event (changing gear, wrapping ankles and hands, stretching, warming up on the next apparatus, etc.) while waiting for the scores. Then they announce the scores are coming up and the gymnasts could all gather to hear them and see them on a big screen. It would be better TV-wise, cause you could cut to another venue or look at the replays and analyze the ones that need it while waiting for the scores instead of just sitting around twiddling your thumbs when one is "not that interesting". Bela and Bob could talk while we wait or something. The athletes wouldn't have to sit around waiting to go, getting nervous either. Seems like you'd have more accurate judging as well. It just seems the current method is unfair to everyone... the gymnast that just went, the gymnast about to go, the judges, the fans in the stands, the viewers. With the gymnasts warming up for the next apparatus while waiting for scores, it wouldn't take any longer than now, and might even save a little time in the long run. Just a thought. Tell me where I'm wrong here.

[Lavabe]

GOT to love that ribbon competition.

Rhythmic gymnastics vs. traditional gymnastics ... discuss. Sort of reminds me of the beach volleyball vs. indoor volleyball debate.

I do, however, like the trampoline.

Cheers,
Lavabe

[sue71, esq]

Yeah, that makes sense. Exactly what my parents said when I asked them. Here's my question about the vault though. With all these camera angles and computers and slo-mo replays the judges can use, how did they score the vault so badly? According to the "experts", the landing not only deserved a deduction, but her hand placement and leg position both deserved major deductions as well. There was no was she should have scored over an 8.6, let alone a 9.0, with those few deductions, which would have given Alicia the bronze over her. Those things are so easy to see on the equipment available to the judges, and they are easily verifiable, even to a peon like me. I'm just baffled. She did EVERYTHING wrong in that vault, yet she got over a 9.0 for execution. That seems like the real travesty to me.

I'm curious... did the US lodge a protest in regards to the vault results/scoring? It would seem logical that they would, but is that something that can be protested- another country's athlete's score?

As for the scoring taking so long and yet being so poor. I was thinking about it, and I was wondering. The judges are under a ton of pressure to get it right fast, yet because they are inexperienced from countries without good gymnastics programs, they need to look at the video again and again. Meanwhile, the gymnasts have to wait and wait and wait. Why do scores have to be given at the exact moment? Why not give the judges as much time as they want, but NOT make the athletes wait for a score EVERY time? Let every athlete go bam, bam, bam, then let the judges do the scoring before they go on to the next apparatus and present the scores in a row together in the order the athletes went at the end. The athletes don't have to wait forever getting nervous before they go, and some of the advantage of going later is lost. You only know if somebody REALLY screws up, which you'd know anyway. The judges would have more time to look at all the angles without as much pressure to go fast. The gymnasts could start prepping for their next event (changing gear, wrapping ankles and hands, stretching, warming up on the next apparatus, etc.) while waiting for the scores. Then they announce the scores are coming up and the gymnasts could all gather to hear them and see them on a big screen. It would be better TV-wise, cause you could cut to another venue or look at the replays and analyze the ones that need it while waiting for the scores instead of just sitting around twiddling your thumbs when one is "not that interesting". Bela and Bob could talk while we wait or something. The athletes wouldn't have to sit around waiting to go, getting nervous either. Seems like you'd have more accurate judging as well. It just seems the current method is unfair to everyone... the gymnast that just went, the gymnast about to go, the judges, the fans in the stands, the viewers. With the gymnasts warming up for the next apparatus while waiting for scores, it wouldn't take any longer than now, and might even save a little time in the long run. Just a thought. Tell me where I'm wrong here.

Ok as for this, not going to happen. Judges are supposed to score each routine on its own merits, without comparing it to any other routines (this seems to be the job of the tv commentators ). Following the procedures you mention, there is first and foremost, the extreme likelihood that judges will start comparing one routine to another. Again, each routine is supposed to be scored independently. Waiting until the end of a round to give all scores allows for judges to make, ahem, adjustments on contestant A's scores once they've seen what contestant B has done. Secondly, and perhaps as importantly, judges wouldn't have the luxury of seeing routines over again once a contestant has performed. As such, the memory of contestant A's routine fades and distorts rather quickly once other competitors have performed. The more athletes that have competed, the less fresh in the judges' minds the earlier routines become.

[bjornolf]

I'm curious... did the US lodge a protest in regards to the vault results/scoring? It would seem logical that they would, but is that something that can be protested- another country's athlete's score?

I think this is something they said they couldn't protest. I think they could protest a mistaken difficulty rating, but NOT an execution score.

Ok as for this, not going to happen. Judges are supposed to score each routine on its own merits, without comparing it to any other routines (this seems to be the job of the tv commentators ). Following the procedures you mention, there is first and foremost, the extreme likelihood that judges will start comparing one routine to another. Again, each routine is supposed to be scored independently. Waiting until the end of a round to give all scores allows for judges to make, ahem, adjustments on contestant A's scores once they've seen what contestant B has done. Secondly, and perhaps as importantly, judges wouldn't have the luxury of seeing routines over again once a contestant has performed. As such, the memory of contestant A's routine fades and distorts rather quickly once other competitors have performed. The more athletes that have competed, the less fresh in the judges' minds the earlier routines become.

Well, they can still compare contestant 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc. now, they just can't go backwards. And as for distorting previous routines, that's what the computers, cameras, and angles they ALREADY have would be for. They already have all that technology. They showed the judges using them during the TV coverage. Anyway, point taken. However, why CAN'T they compare? I thought that was kind of the point. The best of the 8 competing should get the gold, the second best should get the silver, and the third best should get the bronze. It's all relative amongst the eight who qualified, isn't it?

[sue71, esq]

Well, they can still compare contestant 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 etc. now, they just can't go backwards. And as for distorting previous routines, that's what the computers, cameras, and angles they ALREADY have would be for. They already have all that technology. They showed the judges using them during the TV coverage. Anyway, point taken. However, why CAN'T they compare? I thought that was kind of the point. The best of the 8 competing should get the gold, the second best should get the silver, and the third best should get the bronze. It's all relative amongst the eight who qualified, isn't it?

Well, they're not SUPPOSED to compare routines. If athlete A scores a 16.250 today for a particular performance, if you take that EXACT SAME performance and put it on a different day, it *should* score the same. That's why the performance is scored independent of the others. If it were just who did better, then they would just rank the competitors at the end without scoring them.

Believe me, I understand what you're saying. But assuming judging was perfect , then a 16.5 performance would always merit a 16.5, and so on.