GYMN-L Digest - 30 Apr 1995

There are 13 messages totalling 468 lines in this issue.

Topics of the day:

  1. Bonus Questions (2)
  2. Title IX/College Scholarships
  3. <No subject given>
  4. No, you're not unsubscribed
  5. VISA Challenge -- scores (again)
  6. Thoughts on USA-BLR-CHN
  7. Visa Chal-Bars Scandal!
  8. Coaching/spotting while on the apparatus?
  9. Visa Challenge (2)
 10. Visa Challenge/NCAA observations
 11. Fwd: Re: Visa Chal-Bars Scandal!


Date:    Thu, 27 Apr 1995 21:16:20 -0700
From:    ***@SEATTLEU.EDU
Subject: Re: Bonus Questions

A Jaeger is a D worth can also receive another +0.1 or +0.2 in
connection bonus depending on what it is connected with.  The most common
element is a back giant with a half turn in handstand.  That element is a
C and the combination with get +0.1...if the half turn is after the
handstand it is a B and will only receive bonus for the Jaeger.  Same
thing regarding the double front dismount.  It depends on what they do
before it.  On beam there are no backward tumbling connections of two
elements that receive connection bonus.  Therefore, there is no bonus for
a ff, chen-flic.  However, if the gymnast did ff, ff, chen-flic there
would be +0.1 combination bonus.

On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Brian wrote:

> I have a few questions about what's considered combination bonus and what's
> not.  Is a half-turn right into a straddle Yaeger worth 0.2?  Or is it not a
> combination and worth 0.1?  How about a half-turn right into a double front?
>  Is it worth 0.3 for a combination?  Or 0.2 for the "E" dismount?  I was also
> wondering if Pod's FF into a piked Chen received bonus?  It seems with the
> trend of routines that you need two ff's before an element to get bonus (i.e.
> Piskun's two ff's to layout  to two feet)  Thanks for any help.---Brian


Date:    Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:18:53 -0400
From:    ***@DELPHI.COM
Subject: Title IX/College Scholarships

The postings regarding Title IX and its effect on all of collegiate sports
have been most informative.  Is anybody actually tracking the number of
schols and number of scholarships being awarded.
 December post on USAGO indicated that 44 schools were giving a total of 93
scholarships.  The current issue of "USA GYMNASTICS" also lists the schools
offering scholarships for 95-96(although I have not yetcounted them)
Is the number of schools and scholarships declining, growing or status quo?
Let's face it folks, as much as we are avid fans of the sport it may be time
to face reality.  The growth in womens sports is in soccer, basketball,
volleyball and track.  Women's basketball is drawing crowds,  Volleyball is
making a resurgence at several colleges which had dropped the program and if
you don't think soccer is the biggest growth sport in the US look at your
town leaques.  When my son started soccer 10 years ago the only womens teams
were for those 16+---now my township which had 0 girls teams in 1984 has
thirteen recreational teams and 6 travellling compettive teams.
Parents love these sports because they can feel they are a part of the
activity.  And they can afford it.

We all would like gymnastics to grow but sadly it may appear that the sport be
be going the way of the blacksmith and the shoemaker.


Date:    Fri, 28 Apr 1995 00:17:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Bonus Questions

On Thu, 27 Apr 1995, Brian wrote:

> I have a few questions about what's considered combination bonus and what's
> not.  Is a half-turn right into a straddle Yaeger worth 0.2?  Or is it not a
> combination and worth 0.1?  How about a half-turn right into a double front?
>  Is it worth 0.3 for a combination?  Or 0.2 for the "E" dismount?  I was also
> wondering if Pod's FF into a piked Chen received bonus?  It seems with the
> trend of routines that you need two ff's before an element to get bonus (i.e.
> Piskun's two ff's to layout  to two feet)  Thanks for any help.---Brian

By a half-turn do you mean a giant-1/2 (blind change)?  If the 1/2 is
completed by the handstand, it's a twisting C, so added to the D Jaeger,
it has 0.1 bonus.  Added to the E double front, it also has 0.1 bonus.  If
the E is extra (if all the difficulty requirements have been fulfilled
without it) it gets 0.2 bonus in addition to the 0.1 for the connection
to the giant-1/2.  On bars:

C+C = 0.1
C+D/E = 0.1
D+D/E = 0.2

*if* the C-element has a twist or flight.  Btw, if the 1/2 turn is after
the handstand, it is a B-element, and there is no bonus on bars
for connections using B's.

FF to piked Chen has no connection bonus.  To get connection bonus for back
tumbling series, the series has to have at least 3 elements.
Certain series of two elements can get bonus if they are side and
forward tumbling or if they have direction changes.  Certain series of
two mixed or gym elements also have bonus.  But you can get 0.1 for the
piked Chen itself because it is a D (if difficulty requirements have been
fulfilled without it).

If there is interest, I can post the rules for connection bonus on each



Date:    Thu, 27 Apr 1995 20:47:41 MDT
Subject: <No subject given>

Subject: Federations

 #                                                                 #
 #  ________ G y m n ________                 \       |      ___   #
 #                               o     __o     |o     |o    (o     #
 #     An electronic forum       !__   \!      !      !      \.    #
 #       for gymnastics.       ====== ====== ====== ====== ======  #
 #                                                                 #

                        International Federations
                     last updated: November 9, 1993

This list is maintained by Gymn.  Any corrections or additions should
be sent to ***  The accuracy of these addresses
is not guaranteed.

Azerbaijan National Olympic Committee
Leningradski Prospect

Belarussian Gymnastics Federation
Kirov Street, 8/2
220600 Minsk

British Gymnastics Federation
BAGA, Ford Hall
Lilleshall National Sports Centre
NR Newport/Shropshire TF10 9NB
Great Britain

Bulgarian Gymnastics Federation
Bd Tolboukhine 18

Canadian Gymnastics Federation
Suite 510
1600 James Naismith Drive
Gloucester, Ontario  K1B 5N4

Chinese Gymnastics Federation
Rue Tiyukuan 9
People's Republic of China

Dutch Gymnastics Federation
KNGB Bondsbureau
Postbus 142
7360 AC Beekbergen
The Netherlands

French Gymnastics Federation
7 ter
Cour des Petites-Ecuries
75.010 Paris

German Gymnastics Federation
Deutscher Turner-Bund
Otto-Fleck-Schneise 8
6000 Frankfurst-am-Main 71

Hungarian Gymnastics Federation
Magyar Torna Szovetseg
Dozsa Gyorgy ut 1-3
1143 Budapest

Italian Gymnastics Federation
Viale Tiziano 70
00196 Rome

Japanese Gymnastics Federation
Nippon Taiso Kyokai
1-1-1 Jinnan - Shibuya - ku
Tokyo 150

Romanian Gymnastics Federation
Str. Vasile Conta 16
70139 Bucharest

Russian Gymnastics Federation
Lujnetskaya Nabereynaya 8
Moscow 119.270

Spanish Gymnastics Federation
c/. Maria de Molina
no. 60-1 derecha
28006 Madrid

Ukranian Gymnastics Federation
Esplanadnaya Street 42
252023 Kiev

United States Gymnastics Federation
Pan American Plaza, #300
201 S. Capitol
Indianapolis, IN  46225

Uzbekistan Gymnastics Federation
PO Box 15
Ul. Poltoratskogo 83


Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:27:36 -0600
From:    ***@RMII.COM
Subject: No, you're not unsubscribed

For some reason unknown, the Gymn listserv decided to "hold" the list
which is why no mail was sent over the last three days.  I have just
issued the command to "free" the listserv, so by now you should have
received all of the mail that's been waiting to be sent.

Whenever administrative question arise, please send them either to (Robyn) or to me at this address... this
way we don't clutter the list with messages that have nothing to do
with gymnastics!  We'll be more than happy to answer any questions you
might have.

If you are concerned that you've missed some mail, then please either
retrieve the right digests at our ftp/gopher site or from our Web
pages, or, if you don't have access to this, then send me email and I
will forward the digests to you.

Thanks for everyone's patience!
<still scratching my head trying to figger this one out>



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:43:31 -0600
From:    ***@RMII.COM
Subject: VISA Challenge -- scores (again)

Sorry, here are the men's team scores:

1. USA 168.350 (27.45, 27.75, 27.90, 28.05, 28.35, 28.85)
2. CHN 166.050 (26.45, 28.15, 28.10, 27.55, 28.15, 27.65)
3. BLR 164.550 (27.25, 27.70, 27.50, 27.40, 27.25, 27.45)



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 17:50:20 -0600
From:    ***@RMII.COM
Subject: Thoughts on USA-BLR-CHN

Mara asks:
| -*What* were the values assigned to the one-arm giant and one-arm Geinger?  I

Originally, they assigned the one-arm giant a B, and the one-arm
Gienger a C.  After all the controversy, they assigned it a C and a



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 20:09:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Visa Chal-Bars Scandal!

I was really impressed by the one-arm giant to one-arm Geinger.  I don't
know what value was assigned, but wow!  Also, the inverted giant to Gaylord
combination was gorgeous.

>there was also some mention on this telecast that the judges tried to do the
>same thing when Olga Korbut first introduced was she
>able to get around them and get the skills in...

I remember this.  I don't remember exactly what the judges did or said, but
I remember a long controversy over whether two moves would be banned.  One
was the back tuck on beam, which people thought was too dangerous, and
perhaps not graceful enough.  The other was the back dive regrasp move she
did on bars.  I think that eventually, as more and more gymnasts started
doing those tricks, the judges simply became more comfortable with them.
From my perspective, a back tuck on beam is, in many ways, easier than a
back handspring.

Judging was much simpler in those days, with only three ratings for tricks,
and I assume both of those tricks were rated "difficult."



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 18:02:34 -0600
From:    ***@RMII.COM
Subject: Coaching/spotting while on the apparatus?

| During the USA-BLR-CHN meet, Bela seemed to be coaching his athletes through
| several of their routines.  I was under the impression that this was a 0.2
| neutral deduction.

Actually, I heard a story about this just this weekend.  Apparently
the rule was instated in the '50's when during some competition (I
can't remember which, maybe the '52 Olympics?) the Russians were
constantly coaching their gymnasts through routines.  Even so far as
to stand directly underneath the rings to shout up at the gymnast!  So
the FIG passed the no-talking rule.  (I may have my decades wrong,

According to the coach who was telling me this story, however, this
rule has only been enforced once to his knowledge, and that was at the
Pan Am Games -- I think 1963.  The coach, Art Shurlock, was not used
to coaching internationally, but only collegiately, where you are
allowed to root for your team.  So he was rooting for the guys doing
their routines and unknowingly incurred a .6 deduction (.3 for fx, .3
for pommels...?) before a judge told him to shut up.  [And yes, the
Americans lost by more than six tenths.]  I thought it was pretty
funny.  ;)

Actually, a lot of coaches coach their gymnasts through routines, it's
just that Bela is more noticeable on TV because they often mike him.



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 21:25:13 -0400
Subject: Visa Challenge

I was thoroughly impressed by the Chinese on the bars and beam. I thought
they were underscored all around. I loved the one armed move and the
Gaylord-they took my breath away. Also, Meng's front with a half on beam
was unreal.

Now, I have a question, Why did Dom M. get peanalized .3 for posting the
wrong vault? What is the purpose of this rule? I was disappointed to see
her score scaled down over something like that. Any ideas?



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 18:32:00 -0700
From:    ***@DANA.UCC.NAU.EDU
Subject: Visa Challenge/NCAA observations

        Did anyone else notice that the Chinese gymnast who did the
one-arm giant and Geinger did the entire routine with only a dowel grip
on her right hand? From someone who competed bars both with dowels and
without, I think that this would be obnoxiously hard.
        Wow - both Moceanu and Boguinskaya looked great, happy and
confident. What's with the fact that no other Belarus gymnasts were
shown? I wanted to actually see the fabled Yurkinas... ;)
        The thing that impressed me about women's NCAAs was Jenny Hansen.
To look at her body and her demeanor, I would never guess that she had
that kind of air sense, grace and determination to put together routines
*that* well. She's amazing!! Especially that tucked front-full vault...
        I'm sorry, but as an older, bigger ex-gymnast, why do teams
insist on using primarily white leos? I thought the Utah leos were much
nicer than the UCLA and 'Bama leos. White leos do look good on certain
gymnasts who have more muscle definition and next-to-nothing body fat,
like a Dom Dawes, but not when you have breasts and hips and such like
most normal-sized college women have, it don't work. Can someone please
inform these college teams and coaches of this?
        Gee, put some blinking lights on the Utah leos and they might
even be considered by the Ukranian Gymnastics federation!!! ;)



Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 21:33:05 -0400
From:    ***@AOL.COM
Subject: Visa Challenge

Just wanted to put in my thoughts about the Visa Challenge.  Personally, this
was the first televised competition of 1995 that I really, really enjoyed!
I have to admit that, until Saturday, I was NOT a Svetlana Boginskia fan, but
this meet definately changed my mind!!  The difference in her outward
appearence (smiling and happy) made me more able to appreciate her skill.  I
was so impressed with her increased difficulty.  After seeing Svetlana, I am
even more excited to see Kim Zmeskal compete!

I think Dominique Moceanu is destined for stardom!  She just has
that...SOMETHING that everyone loves.  She said in her interview that she
wants to be like Mary Lou, "jumping around and stuff."  I think she's
adorable...AND talented!

Also great to see Dominique Dawes again, although I was disappointed not to
get to see her perform on floor!

Ann Marie


Date:    Sun, 30 Apr 1995 22:56:30 -0400
From:    ***@AOL.COM
Subject: Fwd: Re: Visa Chal-Bars Scandal!

Forwarded message:
Subj:    Re: Visa Chal-Bars Scandal!
Date:    95-04-30 22:55:36 EDT

>For those who didn't see the meen on of the Chineese women introduced
>a one arm giant swing followed by a one arm Gienger. Kathy Johnson (the
>announcer) mentioned that since it was a new skill the athlete had
>to perform it for the judges to get a rating. Well the controvery is
>that Kathy said it was assigned a very low value. She went on to say
>that they was a sign from the judges in order to discourage this move.

The mean, nasty, rotten fact about gymnastics, at any level, is that if you
don't have political clout, your athletes will be regularly slammed by those
who do, and the Chinese are at the short end of the political stick in the
FIG. Period.

So much so, in fact, that the coaches keep the top kids away from podunk
meets like the Visa Challenge, and the kids that go (outstanding as they are
by ANY international standard) simply expect that no matter how well they do,
they will probably get shorted at least once at the meet. If the coaches
complain, people will think the Chinese are bad losers, and will never listen
when the protests come at the IMPORTANT meets.

I say this all not as any kind of call to arms, and certainly not with the
expectation that anything will change. I say it so that you all understand
the next time a Chinese athlete gets bitter about a judgement, and so that
you don't use the eyes of the judges or announcers to appraise the
performance of a Chinese athlete.


I'm done now...



End of GYMN-L Digest - 30 Apr 1995