gymn
Digest
Thu, 21 Apr 94 Volume 2 :
Issue 109
Today's Topics:
(spoil) Men's top 12 (3 msgs)
(spoil) response
Mens NCAA
Qualifying and names (2 msgs)
ROV (2 msgs)
Scherbo
Worlds on TV--CORRECTION!!
This is a digest of the
gymn@athena.mit.edu mailing list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 13:59:43 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject:
(spoil) Men's top 12
>From AP (or was that UPI...?)
1. Ivan Ivankov
(Belarus)
57.012
2. Alexei
Voropaev (Russia)
56.924
3. Vitaly Scherbo (Belarus)
56.350
4. Valeri Belenki (Germany)
56.312
5. Evgeni Chabaev (Russia)
56.275
6. Igor Korobchinski (Ukraine) 55.812
7. Lee Joo-hyung
(South Korea)
55.800
8. Yuri Chechi (Italy)
55.762
9. Zoltan Supola (Hungary)
56.662
10. Li Xiaoshuang (China)
55.650
11. Hikaru Tanaka (Japan) 55.575
12. Alexei Nemov
(Russia)
55.362
Other scores:
1 equal.
Scott Keswick (U.S.) *
55.275
16. Neil
Thomas (Britain)
55.200
?. John Roethlisberger (USA) *
55.075
20. Eric Poujade (France)
55.037
?. Chainey Umphrey
(USA) *
54.625
30. Alan Nolet (Canada)
53.725
* That is how Keswick's rank came across... it
obviously a mistake... I
would guess he was either
13th or 14th (not 15th b/c since it was a
tie,
then there couldn't be a 16th place).
I inserted Roethlisberger
and Umphrey in there, with the scores I downloaded earlier, but
have
no data on what their rankings were. Still three US men
"legitimately" in the top 36 is better than the past
(where our guys
could only get into finals because
of the country limit rule).
Rachele
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 94 17:47:18 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: (spoil) Men's
top 12
> Still three US men
"legitimately"
in the top 36 is better than the past (where our guys
>could only get into finals because of the country limit
rule).
But how many are competing AA per country? I think it's 4 at most, right?
If
that's right, the US men's ranking in the top 36 is not necessarily that
much more accurate than when AA finals were limited to 3 per
country. I
think
what does lend their rankings more credibility is that (from this
limited information) there weren't all 4 from many (any?) countries
ahead of
them, which would make you wonder how
many more from those places would also
have been
better, had they competed.
-- Gimnasta
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 18:01:25 -0500 (EST)
From: <***@gateway.us.sidwell.edu>
Subject:
(spoil) Men's top 12
On Thu, 21 Apr 1994, Rachele
wrote (part):
> Other
scores:
> 1 equal.
Scott Keswick (U.S.) *
55.275
>
> * That is how Keswick's rank came
across... it obviously a mistake... I
> would
guess he was either 13th or 14th (not 15th b/c since it was a
> tie, then there couldn't be a 16th place).
According
to USA Gymnastics Online! Keswick did indeed come in 13th. I don't
know
about any of the other American men.
Lisa
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:46:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***@alexia.lis.uiuc.edu>
Subject:
(spoil) response
First of all, thanks for the frequent updates on all
the scores. But
since when is Belenky from
Germany? When I competed against
him in July,
he wasn't sure if he was really
Jewish,
but he seemed very confident that his
home was Azerbaijan.
david
>From
AP (or was that UPI...?)
1. Ivan Ivankov (Belarus)
57.012
2. Alexei Voropaev
(Russia)
56.924
3. Vitaly Scherbo (Belarus)
56.350
4. Valeri Belenki (Germany)
56.312
5. Evgeni Chabaev (Russia)
56.275
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:34:04 -0400 (edt)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject:
Mens NCAA
Who's covering the Men's NCAA
Meet? With all this talk of Australia
everyone
seems to be forgetting the NCAA Meet this weekend! Hope to see
some results!!!!
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Apr
94 15:04:13 EDT
From: <***@BBN.COM>
Subject: Qualifying and
names
So only 1 woman (Milosovici) qualified
for all 4 events, and no
men qualified for all 6
(although Scherbo and Ivankov
both
qualified for 4; [did I miss
somebody?]).
I'm glad Chainey Umphrey is doing so well, but what happened
to Scott Keswick on high bar (7.975--yikes!)?
As to
names, how many members of the Chinese men's team are named Li
this time?
>>Kathy
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 14:44:11 -0500 (CDT)
From: <***@owlnet.rice.edu>
Subject:
Qualifying and names
Kathy asked:
| As to names, how many members
of the Chinese men's team are named Li
| this
time?
A "grep" of my results file
turns up the following Chinese (although
I'm sure there are more that
didn't come across on the rankings):
Men Women
---------------------- ----------------------
Huang
Huangdong Lu
Li
Li Jing Qiao Ya
Li Dashuang Mo
Huilan
Guo Linyao
Li Xianshuang
Huang
Lipin
So at least four of them are
"Li". A country can only
send a max of
ten gymnasts, and since eight of
them are above, I guess we couldn't
have any more
than six "Li"'s this time.
And
then there is "Li Donghua" competing for
Switzerland...
Rachele
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 1994 15:46:19 -0400 (edt)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject:
ROV
Maybe the judges did not agree about the cheap c and d parts. If
the
"cheap" parts are done poorly there
should be deductions. If there are
no deductions taken then the judges are not doing
their job. Maybe the
judges were not doing their job with the old code by
starting everyone
with R and V but on the Elite
international level most of the
competitors did
have these bonus points by the rules.
Lets be real
here:A
good coach will find the weak points in the rules ie.
"cheap C and
D parts (I know one High School
coach that is a master at this!) but do
not fault
the rules. You can not expect a code that is as radicaly new
and different as
the current code is to have no problems.
This code will
undergo some growing pains
but every code does. The 1975 code
(in which
bonus was introduced) caused people to
make the same type of comments.
I like the new code; it needed to be done.
The old code left only .2 for
Originality and that was also very difficult
to define. I think if the
judges are honest (oh, oh what a can of worms this statement
is going
to open!) then
the code works!
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 21 Apr
94 17:47:49 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: ROV
I just had to
get into this.
>I think if the
judges
are honest (oh, oh what a can of worms this statement is going
>to open!) then the code works!
I
agree that honesty in judging is *the* major problem of the Codes with
which I'm familiar ('85-present). *If* judges deducted all the errors
they
saw, they wouldn't have that hard a time
differentiating gymnasts (at least
those scoring
above an 8.5 or 9.0) and keeping them meaningfully under a 10
(<-- a questionable thing itself). But that is an "if"
approximating the
size of the galaxy.
On
the flip side, does honesty mean a judge should consider all D-rated
tricks equally, or score a gymnast who does a difficult D higher
than one who
does an easy D? (in other
words, who is being dishonest, the judge in not
considering
the tricks equally, or the Code in rating them equally?) As a
judge,
I'd feel terrible scoring equally two gymnasts (all other things being
equal) one of whom did a full-in and one of whom did a Popa (full-twisting
straddle
jump), both "D"'s.
The Code also doesn't provide for
artistry or originality, though I'm not
sure how
I'd work that one out (I'm haunted by the ugly specter of the
artistic impression mark in figure skating. I would like to investigate
rhythmic).
-- Gimnasta
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 94 17:46:57 EDT
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Scherbo
>If this post appears a tad
vituperative, it is perhaps because if any U.S.,
>Latin, or Asian athelete displayed the same kind of attiude,
their coaches
>would see to it that the athlete
received an instant lesson in humility.
I'm not sure I agree with the
Latin (if by that you mean Latin American, as
opposed
to Italian or something like that) part of that statement. (Also, I
assume
you're referring only to gymnasts when you say "athlete." Certainly
this
does not hold for many other sports, especially professional ones).
--
Gimnasta
------------------------------
Date:
Thu, 21 Apr 94 15:07:20 EDT
From: <***@BBN.COM>
Subject: Worlds
on TV--CORRECTION!!
A couple of days ago, someone (sorry, I deleted
the message)
gave the schedule for ABC's coverage
of the Worlds this weekend
as 4-6 p.m. Saturday
and 4:30-6 p.m. Sunday (Eastern times).
According to TV Guide, the times
are
4:30 - 6 p.m. Saturday 4/23/94 and
4-6 p.m. Sunday 4/24/94
(For
taping purposes, I'm going to be conservative and assume 4-6 p.m.
on both days.)
>>Kathy
------------------------------
End
of gymn Digest
******************************