GYMN-L Digest - 6 Apr 1995 to 7 Apr 1995
There
are 29 messages totalling 751 lines in this
issue.
Topics of the day:
1. Weird Annoucements/Calls:
2. Opinion poll (5)
3. FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
(6)
4. Gymn
Forum stuff
5. Jen Ward
post
6. Help, need tape of
PAC-10 meet on ESPN
7. A-E
difficulty
8. Floor
routines
9. Romania vs. GB/Cacovean
10. Where are they? (2)
11. values of
skills, etc on floor (2)
12. nadia's
10
13. Opinion poll (fwd)
14.
Best FX routines
15. Peachtree
& Poll
16. Pac-10
17. Peachtree/Kodak--Pac 10
18. FX routines
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 23:48:10
-0400
From: ***@EMERALD.TUFTS.EDU
Subject:
Re: Weird Annoucements/Calls:
> [lots of dumb things Gordon Maddux has said in his commentary
deleted]
>
> The classic *worst* commentator line *ever* by far,
of course, belongs to
> Gordie, from LA '84,
when Tim Daggett was on PH and Gordie
said he was
> all over the horse like a naked
woman. :P
>
> :)
> Adriana
>
Ugh!!!
That is awful! He could probably be sued for saying something like
that these days! I agree-this is the worst ever!
Melissa
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 02:04:45
-0400
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll
Nadia's "perfect 10" floor at the '76
Montreal Olympics rates up there for
sure, as does
Olga's in '72 Munich.
Jeff
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 16:54:27
+1000
From: ***@STUDENT.GU.EDU.AU
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll
Hi Folks,
Since I wasn't around for the
original talk on this issue, I thought I'd
add my
top 10 Floor routines of all time:
1 Laschenova 89 Worlds
2 Silivas
87 Worlds
3 Podkopayeva 94 Europeans
4 Omeliantchik 85 Europeans
5 Rusan
93 Junior Europeans
6 Gurova
87 Worlds
7 Onodi
92 Olympics
8 Dudnik
89 Worlds
9 Milosovici 92 Olympics
10 Davidova 80
Olympics (coreography wise - tumbling wise
I'll
give No. 10 to Yulia Kut at
87 Moscow News, who did the full-in
punch front long before Milosovici!)
Michelle
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 02:54:57
-0700
From: ***@ASU.EDU
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
> Shannon did a first pass of RO,
whip,whip, ff,ff, tucked full in.
> My question is about the value of the sequence.
How much bonus does
> she get for this pass? Does the two whips upgrade the tucked
full-in to an
> E (or is it
already?), Is there a value difference between atucked
and
> piked full-in? How about a Double layout and a double
that was layout on
> the first and a pike on the second?
I
THINK she gets +.2 in bonus. I know it is +.1
for whip to
full-in.
A full-in is a D, tucked or piked. A previous skill doesn't
"upgrade" a skill after it, it only gives bonus for the
combination. A
double layout is an E (and so is a full-twisting double
layout, go
figure). A layout/pike double is a D.
Other people were talking about the A-E system and its faults and
I
have to agree. Even 5 different
categories of difficulty are not
enough to
accurately seperate the moves. Really, a piked
salto IS harder
than a
tucked salto.
It is is rated harder on vault, bars, and beam
but
not floor. But is it so much harder that it should
be in the higher
category (ie
tucked full-in D, piked full-in E)? Then what happens to the
double layout, that must be upgraded to an
"F." Of course the
full-twisting double layout should then be made a
"G." Scary stuff,
because
when a gymnast then does the next hardest
skill, the double-twisting
double layout, it can't
be suddenly made an "H" move if there are no H
moves
yet, so it would have to be a "G" until the "H" family is
created.
I
think instead that the skills should be numbered. Yes I am a
"mitigite." :-) Numbers would more accurately seperate the skills.
Floor tumbling (for
example):
back handspring= 1.0
back tuck= 1.2
back layout=
1.3
whip back= 1.3
All
these moves are currently A's. But
most people can tell you
that a layout is harder
than a flip flop, but of course under the current
system
there is no worthwile reason to differentiate between
them. . .
front handspring= 1.5
tucked back full= 2
tucked back
full and a half= 2.2
layout back full= 2.2
layout back full and 1/2= 2.4
front
tucked full= 2.5
front layout= 2.5
tucked back double full= 2.7
layout
front full= 2.9
layout back double full= 3.0
tucked front one and 1/2 (tucked rudi)
= 3.1
tucked back 2 1/2= 3.3
tucked double back= 3.7
layout
2 1/2= 3.8
layout rudi=
3.8
piked double
back= 4.2
tucked triple full= 4.9
tucked full-in= 5.0
piked full-in= 5.5
layout
triple full= 6.2
double layout= 6.5
double layout w/ a full (wherever)= 7.5
Anyway my point is the system of accurately seperating
the skills
not the actual values given in the
three minutes it took to jot that down
so don't
flame me if you think a tucked 3/1 is much harder than a full-in
or whatever 'cause that's not the point I'm making. Anyway routines would
somehow have difficulty values numeric wise (NOT start
values) that would
be multiplied by execution/artistic
value, where the actual score would
come in. So judges could still give 10's, only
the actual score would be
multiplied by the
execution. So this way less
difficult routines done
flawlessly would be on par
with very difficult routines done sloppily.
And of course the very
difficult routines done flawlessly and beautifully
would
be by far ahead of both groups. I
like the multiplication system of
difficulty times
execution because not only would the best win, the best
would
win by points and points.
Anyway that is only if the system was implemented correctly and
the judges could get past throwing 9.9 for flawed
routines. If you think
about it, a score of 9.0 is 90%. A 9.9 is 99%. If you think of scores as
"grades," a 90% is not the disaster it seems to be in
gymnastics. A score
of 8.5 in diving is a HUGE score, as it should be! It is 85% of
perfection.
Anyway this whole thing is just an example and I'm not about to
send it off to the FIG, but I think this is the direction
gymnastics
scoring should be headed, not toward
"Z" moves and 9.8 (98%!) averages
getting
third place.
Amanda
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 06:50:18
-0600
From: ***@RMII.COM
Subject:
Gymn Forum stuff
Hey everyone -
A.
In the past month, I've had at least four clubs write me and ask to
be included on the "USA-Clubs-and-Other" list; I
wrote back explaining
that this list is really our
fan mail list and not meant to be the
beginning to
an email directory of clubs.
At that point, though, I realized that it
*would* be cool to have an
email directory of
clubs. SO, if you attend a gym,
have a kid who
takes gym, or have some other
connection with a gym, please write me
with the
following info. It will be
interesting to see how many gyms
we can put
together with our group of Gymners. There are no
restrictions
-- we want college gyms, pre-school programs, Swedish
gyms,
British gyms, American gyms, etc.
If the gym doesn't have an email
address (most likely) and you are
willing to serve
as a msg-deliverer/contact for the gym, then fill
in
your email address. Email address is optional for an entry
into the
directory. (Only club and address are
required).
Electronic Gym Directory entry:
Club Name (Required):
Head Coach
(Optional):
Address
(Required):
Phone (Optional):
Fax
(Optional):
Email (Optional):
B. Getting too much Gymn
mail? You can switch to the digest
option
and get just a digest of msgs every day instead of having to manage 30
extra msgs in your mail box. To do this, send a
msg to
listserv@psuvm.psu.edu
and in the message body, write "SET GYMN-L
DIGEST".
Relatedly,
if everyone else could be "economical" on their posts, ie
only post if you are saying
something that hasn't been said before and
that
type of thing, then we should be just fine.
C. Flaming?? Lots of posts lately have said
"Don't flame me for this,
but..." This request is not necessary as I hope
everyone is aware
that flaming is _not allowed_ on
Gymn.
Flaming is an unproductive
waste of bandwith; flaming limits, directly and indirectly,
other
worthwhile discussion on the forum.
I've
gotten lots of compliments from people lately saying how they are
enjoying being on Gymn because of
all the great discussion and the
friendliness of
the members. This is great and a
large part of the
reason I like this forum. So let's not ruin it by flaming. There are
plenty
of (good) ways to express opinions while keeping it within good
taste.
Btw, Gymn *is* PG
-- (not even PG-13) bc we have
many little ears
online. ;)
Rachele
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:21:35
-0400
From: ***@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll
> I know hardly any of you will remember this, but
i have to bring it
> up. Although she didn't have great tumbling
when i saw her competing
> it
(double tuck mount), the whole set just totally went with the music,
> and she really danced her heart out. The gymnast was Mary(Mimi)
Goyer
> of Cal. She was from a gym in Reno, I
believe.
Mimi was a lovely gymnast, what little I saw of her. At least at some
point
I'm pretty sure she was at MarVaTeens. Whether she ever moved to
Reno, I
don't know. Speaking of MarVaTeens of old, if anyone happens to
have a clue where Marni Rager is, I'd love to know (we were teammates in
college; I lost track of her after she graduated).
:)
Adriana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 08:20:01
-0400
From: ***@A1.CSOC.UMC.DUPONT.COM
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
[This message is converted from
WPS-PLUS to ASCII]
Amanda wrote:
> I
think instead that the skills should be numbered. Yes I am a
>"mitigite." :-) Numbers would more accurately seperate the skills.
[deleted]
>Anyway
routines would
>somehow have difficulty values
numeric wise (NOT start values) that would
>be
multiplied by execution/artistic value, where the actual score would
>come in. So
judges could still give 10's, only the actual score would be
>multiplied by the execution. So this way less difficult routines
done
>flawlessly would be on par with very
difficult routines done sloppily.
>And of course the very difficult
routines done flawlessly and beautifully
>would
be by far ahead of both groups. I
like the multiplication system of
>difficulty
times execution because not only would the best win, the best
>would win by points and points.
This is very
similar to a draft of the '96 Code that I read in Technique
about a year ago.
I think the main argument against it was how difficult
(read time consuming) it would be to judge. For instance, after a
routine was finished, the judges would have to add up the
values of all
of the elements to arrive at a start
(or maybe I should difficulty)
value. This would tend to become very time
consuming in large meets and
lead to long
drawn-out meets.
This draft Code required the gymnast to submit the
routine ahead of time
to be evaluated for
scoring. This is intended to reduce
the amount of
time spent doing what I noted
above. The drawback here is that it
locks
the gymnast into a routine and doesn't allow
for improvisation. For
example, I remember having at least three different PB
routines depending
on how I hit the skills
throughout the routine. PH and SR
are also this
way.
Getting back to
Amanda's Code, I think you are saying that the judges
could
give 10's for execution, and this would be multiplied by
difficulty. This final tabulated score is one of the
other reasons that
there is resistance to this
scoring method. Opponents of this
plan feel
that the American public has become very
comfortable with the idea that
10's are the mark of perfection, and they
like to root for their
favorites
to score a 10.0. Can you imagine
the average, once every four
years, gymnastics
watching American rooting for their fav to score
a
"perfect" 36.4?
If anyone has
access to this Technique issue, maybe they could share some
of the pros and cons of this system and clear up any
mistakes I may have
made. My memory is not what it used to be (I
think am getting
"old-timers
disease").
BTW, I agree with Amanda on this. Even though the transition through
such a change would be difficult, I think that in the long
run it would
be good for our sport. I really hope that we see 1996 bring
some major
changes to our outdated scoring
system.
-Jim
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:44:18
-0500
From: ***@SUVAX1.STETSON.EDU
Subject:
Jen Ward post
I have to agree with Jen Ward in many respects. Yes, college gymnasts often
don't have some of the difficulty the world class gymnasts
do. They do have
form breaks.
With respect to women's collegiate gymnastics, remember, the
competitors are now *women*, not little girls. I tend to agree with Jen that
they should be respected for their continued committment to the sport,
especially
given the NCAA limitations on practice time. I also agree that the
collegiate routines are often much more *mature* than those
of other elites.
Sometimes when I watch gymnastics, the announcer comments
about how graceful the
particular gymnast is and
how good her dance technique is. As
a person
invovled with
dance for many year, I often get sick to my stomach. If you
really
want to see grace and maturity coupled with dance ability, I will take
some of the floor routines on the college level any
day. They may lack
some of the difficulty, but certainly not presentation. I applaud the student-
athlete and am glad they still have the fire to perform at a
high level.
Mike
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 10:11:52
EDT
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject:
Help, need tape of PAC-10 meet on ESPN
Can someone out there help
me? I misprogrammed
my VCR, and
ended up with only half of the ESPN
PAC-10 coverage from
last night/early this
morning. I don't get ESPN2, so
I
won't have a chance on the rebroadcasts.
I'll gladly
pay tape and postage costs for
a dupe or loan.
BTW, if someone out there missed the Peachtree meet
and,
like me, gets ESPN but not ESPN2, ESPN is
rebroadcasting
it early Sunday morning, from 5
a.m. to 6:30 a.m.
>>Kathy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:05:29
+0200
From: ***@MAIL.LSS.CO.ZA
Subject:
A-E difficulty
>Numbers would more accurately seperate
skills.
>Floor tumbling (for example)
>Back handspring=1.0
>Back
tuck=1.2
>Back layout=1.3
etc.
Amanda
you've got it right! I never really thought of it that way, but
now that you mention it, it would be a great improvement on
the current
system. Infact,
it sounds like the only way to go.
Helen.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 11:14:15
EDT
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
As Amanda points out, the use of
difficulty factors in scoring diving
helps
discriminate among the various divers.
I agree that a similar
scoring system would
help gymnastics. Anytime you have a
judged
sport with scoring (gymnastics, diving, and
figure skating come to mind),
you have the problem
of the scoring system keeping up with the
skills
of the athletes. This is much more
of a problem in gymnastics
than diving or figure
skating. It's not that often that
someone
comes up with a new dive or a new jump or
spin, so the judges
don't have to work so hard to
"keep up" with the athletes.
But
in gymnastics, with all the different
possible skills to
perform in various
combinations, new moves and combos are submitted
for
rating all the time. I think the
current code has exacerbated
the problem,
especially with the front tumbling scoring on floor ex,
but
the problem's been there for a long time.
Did anyone else
out there take the Advanced
Math Placement Test in high school?
When I took the test, a perfect score
of 800 was only at
the 95th percentile, meaning
that the test couldn't discriminate
between the
great and the near great--not very informative
for
either the test takers or the schools to which they
submitted
their scores. Gymnastics has the
same
problem when there's no way to differentially
score two
great floor ex routines that differ only
in whether
the gymnast twisted in her double
layout.
If gymnastics did switch to a diving-like scoring method
(multiplying execution score by difficulty rating),
something
else might happen. The scoring system could be set up
so that a gymnast with stunning form but not quite
the highest possible level of difficulty could be
very competitive with someone who's got all the tricks
but not perfect execution. (In diving, a lot of strategy
comes to bear in deciding whether to go for a really
difficult dive that you may not execute really well
all the time vs. a not so difficult dive that you
execute well consistently.)
>>Kathy
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:11:17
+0200
From: ***@MAIL.LSS.CO.ZA
Subject:
Floor routines
In no specific order, here are my favourites:
Omelianchik '85 Europeans
Milosovici
'92 Olympics
Onodi '92 Olympics
Boginskaya '89 Worlds
Mo Huilan
'94 Worlds
Can't think of any others at the mo.:-)
Helen.
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 09:29:19
PST
From: ***@CCM.FM.INTEL.COM
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
Text item:
Since none of the judges on line
responded to this, I'll try to add a few
answers where
Amanda did not... (I'm far from an expert on the women's latest
code)
>>>The question was:
How much bonus does
she get for
this pass? Does the two whips upgrade the tucked full-in to an
E (or is it already?), Is there a value
difference between atucked and
piked
full-in? How about a Double layout and a double that was layout on the
first and a
pike on the second?
>>>See Amanda's answer about the
rest. But to add a few
comments: The two
whips to a tuck
full-in I believe count as "C indirect to a D", which is worth
0.2 in combo bonus. There is no value raising
(anymore) in women's floor. A
double layout
is an E and a layout/pike is a D, I believe.
(What about back tumbling: Anyone seen
Natalia Frolova's combo beat yet:
RO FF 1 & 1/2 RO FF 3/1 twist ! How does she stand still after all that
twisting!!!)
>>>
For tough combos, I think Shevechenko (Sp?) used to do a 1 1/2 twist to a
full-in,
which IMHO is tougher (but not as "dizzy" and, not as difficult,
according to the current code).
Greg
Text item:
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:08:21
-0400
From: ***@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU
Subject:
Re: Romania vs. GB/Cacovean
> One of last
year's IG's had an article on Romania and mentioned something
> like a power shift away from Deva towards Bucharest (and Onesti?).
Aren't
> Milosovici and Gogean at Deva?
Given what could be cited as their
"advanced
> age", does anyone have an
opinion on their presence at Atlanta?
It would
> seem that they are too good
to dispose of in a political move.
IMO, they'll be there, barring
injury. Besides, they may not be as
old as
Romania claims.
:)
Adriana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:28:34
-0400
From: ***@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU
Subject:
Re: Where are they?
> Hi guys
> Does anyone know where Jennie Thompson
and Dominique Moceanu are
> training
at the moment. They seem to keep "club-hopping".
> Happy Handsprings,
> Helen.
>
As
far as I know, Jennie Thompson is training at Dynamos again and
Dominique Moceanu is at Karolyis. Jennie
has moved back and forth between
Karolyis and Dynamos a lot (3 moves in the last 2 or 3 years, I think).
But
Dominique has stayed at the same club for a while.
I was wondering - does
anyone know what injury Jennie had (I heard she
had
an operation) and when she will begin competing again.
Beth =]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:32:54
-0400
From: ***@PRISM.GATECH.EDU
Subject:
values of skills, etc on floor
if you give each skill a differenbt
number as some of you were doing you
will kill the
judges-they cant possibly remember every number for every
skill-it will also take them much much
more time-adrienne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:50:58
-0400
From: ***@BINGSUNS.CC.BINGHAMTON.EDU
Subject:
Where are they?
I was wondering about the whereabouts of Kerri Strug and Dominique Dawes.
I heard the Dominique was
injured, but I didn't hear the extent of her
injury
and when she plans on returning. Kerri seems to have disappeared
after Worlds in November. If anyone has information, please
tell me.
Beth =]
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:07:19
-0400
From: ***@PRISM.GATECH.EDU
Subject:
nadia's 10
this
perfect 10 bar routine has one or more major flaws-the most obvious
being small steps on the landing after ehr
dismount-adrienne
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 14:13:56
CDT
From: ***@ADMIN.STEDWARDS.EDU
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll (fwd)
>
> Nadia's
"perfect 10" floor at the '76 Montreal Olympics rates up there
for
> sure, as does Olga's in '72 Munich.
>
>
Jeff
>
Couldn't agree more.
Olga set the standard. With
the exception of, perhaps,
Oksana Omelianchik, NO
ONE has ever been able to match Olga's ability to convey
sheer
joy on the floor.
Cole
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 15:40:01
-0400
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject:
Re: Best FX routines
I think Lilia Podkopayeva's
routine to the Horah was th best ever!
Emily
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 16:25:41
-0400
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject:
Peachtree & Poll
Just a clarification about ESPN's rebroadcast of
the Peachtree meet: It will
re-air at 4 am Saturday night (technically Sunday morning,
April 9). That
time is central, though, so check local listings.
As
for the opinion poll, my vote goes to Kim Zmeskal's
"Rock Around the
Clock" routine. It was more difficult than her previous
routine (even though
she had to water it down in
Barcelona), but more importantly, it was clean
and
consistant and drew in the crowd. It appealed to my friends and me
(all
non-gymnasts) and is one of the main reasons
I was drawn to learn more about
gymnastics.
Ann
Marie
P.S. Thanks to Rachele for reposting the GYMN "rules". I've been very put
off by some of the recent negative posts and especially some
offensive
language. Take that stuff to the message
boards!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 13:41:09
-0700
From: ***@NSN.SCS.UNR.EDU
Subject:
Pac-10
I spaced the Pac-10 broadcast. Does anyone know if ESPN will be
rebroadcasting it and if so when?
Thanks
Greg
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 17:42:06
-0400
From: ***@MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
> >>>The question was:
> How much bonus does
> she get
for this pass? Does the two whips upgrade the tucked full-in to an
> E (or is it already?), Is there a
value difference between atucked and
> piked full-in? How about a Double layout and a double
that was layout on the
>
first and a pike on the second?
> >>>See Amanda's answer
about the rest. But to add a few
comments: The two
> whips to
a tuck full-in I believe count as "C indirect to a D", which is
worth
> 0.2 in combo bonus. There is no value raising
(anymore) in women's floor.
A
> double
layout is an E and a layout/pike is a D, I believe.
2 whips to tuck full-in are indirect A+A+D. There is no C element in
the series. I
can't find anything that speaks directly to the question,
but A+A+C is 0.1, and A+D is also 0.1, so presumably A+A+D
would be 0.2.
:)
Adriana
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 20:59:50
+0000
From: ***@TOTB.DEMON.CO.UK
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll
>Nadia's "perfect 10" floor at the '76
Montreal Olympics rates up there for
>sure, as
does Olga's in '72 Munich.
>
>Jeff
I think you must mean
Nellie Kim, Nadia's 10's were on beam and bars.
Joanna
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 20:46:05
+0000
From: ***@TOTB.DEMON.CO.UK
Subject:
Re: Opinion poll
>Whose floor routine do you think was the BEST of
all time? I know, I know,
it's
Lavinia Milosovich - 1992
Olympics Barcelona
Joanna
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 18:41:53
-0400
From: ***@TIGER.HSC.EDU
Subject:
Peachtree/Kodak--Pac 10
I have both meets on tape if anyone wants a
copy.
I also have all the routines written out (shorthand
practice). Is anyone
interested in my posting them to the list (or some of
them?).
Julius
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 22:01:11
-0400
From: ***@AOL.COM
Subject:
Re: FLOOR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:
>I would have to give best floor
tumbling to Olga Strahzeva (see above),
Laschenova's is right up there
too, but both these ladies tended to cowboy
:-(
Mara
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 22:08:46
-0400
From: ***@TIGER.HSC.EDU
Subject:
FX routines
Hmmm.....here's my $0.02:
Most
mesmerizing--Mitova blues
Also--Bogi's Carmen; '91 Worlds
Most
joyful--Omelianchik 87 worlds? (The routine I was as at an exibition
after the '88
Olympics)
Most fun--Elena Schevchenko (sp?)--Pink Panther
(I'm a sucker for the Pink
Panther)
Other favorites--
Kathy
Johnson--Swan Lake; '79 worlds
Girl from Georgia, All American, on FX to
Black Cat ('91?)
Believe it or not, Miller's '92 Olympic
Grosheva's '91 Europeans
Onodi's
'91 Europeans
Kim Hamilton's Egyptian (?) routine
Kelly Garrison-Steves' Chess '88 Olympics
Strazeva's
Rite of Spring
BTW--favorite beam
routines--
Chari Knight's '94
Kelly Garrison-Steves'
'88 Olympics
Favorite bar set--
Strazva's
'89 Worlds (talk about a moving bar set!!!!!)
Missy Marlowe's stalder work at '87 Pan-Am's
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 1995 19:28:54
-0700
From: ***@ASU.EDU
Subject:
Re: values of skills, etc on floor
On Fri, 7
Apr 1995, Ace Ventura wrote:
> if you give each
skill a differenbt number as some of you were doing
you
> will kill the judges-they cant possibly
remember every number for every
> skill-it will
also take them much much more time-adrienne
>
Every skill already has a number (different than the value), and a
special symbol used to identify it. The symbols have to be memorized
anyway.
------------------------------
End
of GYMN-L Digest - 6 Apr 1995 to 7 Apr 1995
***********************************************