GYMN-L Digest - 19 Nov 1995 to 20 Nov 1995 - Special
There are 21 messages totalling 618 lines in this issue.
Topics in this special issue:
2. Amy Chow article on WWW
4. "E" Elements (2)
5. Article on Euro Juniors semi-final
7. Please repost AGI results (2)
9. Atlanta Information
10. Kim Young/College
11. recent meets (fwd)
12. No Subject
13. Where happened to them?
14. Sergei Grinkov dies (2)
15. peachtree Invite in Atlanta
16. slight correction
17. AGI: That Nutty Announcer
18. Lighter fluid (ie The Book)
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 23:01:34 -0500
Subject: Re: Champs
Women's World AA Champions who have not won an Olympic Gold:
93 & 94 Miller
* = Never competed in the Olympic Games
Obviously the list is more extensive as far as event winners go, and off the
top of my head I can't name winners prior to 68 but Gorovorskaya (sp?),
Latynina (both USSR) and Caslavska (TCH) pretty much dominated everything
since the 50's.
The last two World Champs have not retired (with Zmeskal still yet to compete
since her "come back" over a year ago).
The depth of the Soviet team was incredible, noting so many consecutive World
Champs who could not even MAKE the Olympic team. Omeliantchik won three
golds in 85 but could only make alternate in 88 (as well as 84)!
To sum it up, Turisheva, Kim, Shushunova, and Boginskaya have won world
championships and Olympic gold medals.
PS It was Nelli Kim who won in 79 (20 or so *and* married!)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 00:14:24 -0800
Subject: Amy Chow article on WWW
For those of you who are interested and have web access, the Palo Alto
Weekly did an article on Amy Chow, who attends a private school in Palo
Alto, in their Nov. 8 issue. I just happened to see the paper on the
kitchen counter and then remembered that the paper is also available on
the web. I have no idea what the ratio of web-linked to non-web-linked
subscribers is, so if there's interest, I can post or privately email the
text if I can get permission from the Weekly (which actually comes out
twice a week). Please let me know (BY EMAIL) if you would like to see
the article but can't access the web.
The URL is:
...which reminds me, I didn't mention that this was their cover story!
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 12:29:10 --100
Hello ther we're a club from Capelle a/d IJssel (near Rotterdam) in Holland. My
request is if anyone has a scoring template for some spreadsheet program. I
know I can find one on this webpage, but for some strange reason I can't reach
the thing. If you would have such a template would you contact me , because we
would like to use this for one of our contests in the region (near
Greetings from Holland. RICHARD !!
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:17:08 -0500
Subject: Re: "E" Elements
> I was wondering if someone could list for what moves are "E" moves,
> most notedly on the floor exercise.
I would look in the FIG Code of Points available through USA Gymnastics.
There are both E acro as well as gym (dance) elements.
> I know that a triple twist and a double layout are both "E" moves,
> but what is that value of a tucked full-in, a piked full-in, a double
> twist, etc.? Does adding a whip before these moves add value?
Combinations give a female gymnast bonus points (up to .2 in FIG and up
to .3 in the JO Program) depending on the combination.
> about adding a punch front, before or after?
> Also, what bar moves/releases/and dismounts are "E" moves?
> (This is a lot to ask, but any answers would be welcome!)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 08:48:07 -0500
Subject: Re: "E" Elements
> Combinations give a female gymnast bonus points (up to .2 in FIG and up
> to .3 in the JO Program) depending on the combination.
A gymnast can get up to 0.3 bonus for combinations in FIG, and there are
certain combinations that by themselves are worth the full 0.3.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:33:57 GMT
Subject: Article on Euro Juniors semi-final
Just a note about the European Junior Championships semi-finals, the
results of which I think Sherwin has posted (the Russians won, big
Anyway, I thought you might like to hear a British journalist (Mike
Rowbottom)'s point of view, as gym is so rarely covered in the press
over here. The article appeared last week in a daily national
"quality" paper called "The Independent". It's called
"Demonstration of waif power" and has a fantastic (B&W) picture of
Julia Korostelova in the middle of a side-somersault on beam. (Am I
right in thinking that's also called an Arabian? Or is that
The article is basically about the dominance of the Russian team,
with a quote from Alexandre Kirjashov (Russian juniors' coach) saying
that Elena Prudonova and Eugenia Kuznetsova will be picked for the
Atlanta team in his opinion, because they are good all-rounders.
The writer points out that the code of points has changed a lot in
the last 15 years and that Korbut's routines would have had
difficulty making it into the top 10 today. Interestingly, he says:
"The dominance of the waifs has raised inevitable suggestions that
some competitors are having puberty delayed by illegal chemical means
- allegations that are strongly denied."
but doesn't really say anything else about this topic. He notes the
success of the Russian scouting program and says that potential
champions' parents are assessed to determine how the kids will turn
out physically. Kirjashov says, "For the first two years, we don't
push them to do difficult things. The important thing is that they
must love gymnastics for itself." There is predictable mention of
the social & economic problems in Russia and that 800 gyms have
closed, although Kirjashov says they are on the point of rebuilding.
The article finishes with a comment that you might expect a "burn-
out" rate equivalent to tennis (Capriati, Jaeger) with the kind of
pressures that gymnasts are under, but that in fact, most drop-outs
will have dropped by the time they reach the top level.
If anyone wants a copy of it, mail me privately.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 13:43:30 GMT
Isn't a Rulfova just a full-twisting Korbut flick on beam?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:18:23 EST
Subject: Please repost AGI results
If anyone could, I would greatly appreciate someone reposting or
emailing me the AGI results. Stoopid me got trigger happy with the
Thanks in advance,
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:53:08 +0000
Hiya y'all! I've been a little eavesdropper of gymn for nigh on
18 months now - rather rude of me not to introduce myself. My
name is Vic and I am a student in England.
All I would like to know is whether anyone knows of any mailers
concerning Track & Field athletics? (my No. 1 passion in life -
No. 2 being gymnastics!) Refs for any Web pages would also be
I'd be ever so greatful if anyone could help me out
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 10:59:21 -0700
Subject: Please repost AGI results
The results are available on the Gymn WWW page
(http://rainbow.rmii.com/~rachele/gymnhome.html). If someone does not
have WWW access and needs the AGI results resent, please email me and
I will send them to you. No need to repost to Gymn and clutter
| If anyone could, I would greatly appreciate someone reposting or
| emailing me the AGI results. Stoopid me got trigger happy with the
| delete key.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:38:52 -0500
Subject: Re: Atlanta Information
> so my assumption is that they took the standings from 1994 World
Championships >and predicted who the top 12 teams would be as they issued the
ivitations to the >countries before Sabae, but the invitation did say that
they were inviting the top 2 >finishers on their team at Sabae.
Well, like almost all the info provided to the press/public at the
pre-Olympics this is totally wrong. Since the invite was scheduled so close
to the '95 Worlds ACOG, with the help of the USAG, decided to invite only the
top 9 countries from the '94 Dortmund team Worlds and not the actual 12
Olympic qualifiers from Sabae. The reason being that the preperation involved
required knowing who was going to come long ahead of time which would just
not have been possible otherwise.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 16:58:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Kim Young/College
<Isn't the former Desert Devil Tiffany Simpson???>
No, there were 2. Chapman and Simpson. Chapman dropped out of elite
gymnastics after bad knee problems, and then came back at a different gym, to
compete level 9.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 15:32:29 -0500
Subject: recent meets (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Is there any reason why the US chose to send younger women to the past
two meets (Subway and Pre-Olympics)? It seems that most of the other
countries sent world team members with excellent Olympic prospects. It
seems that if the US had sent some of their Olympic hopefuls (Not that
I'm saying Teft isn't one) like Powell, Kulikowski, or Moceanu (I realise
she pulled out) then the team would be helped more in the next year
because the girls who will probably be on the Olympic team would have gotten
more international experience. Any reason for this
decision? Its a shame Moceanu pulled out, because it would have been
great to see her compete with Marinescu.
P.S. When is the next international competition in which we might see
some of our "young" national team members like the ones previously
mentioned? DTB Cup? Chunichi? Have the delegations been announced yet?
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 17:29:36 -0500
Subject: No Subject
Does anyone know of any other magazines beside IG and can you give me their
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 23:36:41 GMT
Subject: Where happened to them?
While we have been doing a lot of, "Where are they now?" questions. I
thought I would ask a few of my own.
1) Why did they leave gymnastics?
2) Where are they now?
Kristen McDermont (Parkettes Gymnastics)
Anne Wynerowski (Spg?) (North Stars Gymnastics)
Amanda Urick (Karoly's)
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 18:27:00 -0500
Subject: Sergei Grinkov dies
I know this isn't gym-related, but many gym fans are ice skating fans,
and this is such devastating news for sports in general. Sergei Grinkov,
of the two-time Olympic gold medalist figure skating pair Gordeyeva &
Grinkov, died of a heart attack today while practicing in Lake Placid.
Yelena Gordeyeva was his wife as well as his figure skating partner, and
the couple also had a daughter, Darya (who is 3 or 4 years old now). Don't
know any more details about his death.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 23:38:02 GMT
Subject: Re: Sergei Grinkov dies
I can't believe it! Oh dear...... Gordeeva/Grinkov are due to compete
in a meet next month here in London... very very sad news...
Date: Sun, 19 Nov 1995 00:02:56 -0500
Subject: Re: peachtree Invite in Atlanta
>What are the exact dates and are there tickets left?
There are plenty of tickets left, these meets are big for the kids, but from
what they say, not huge in spectators (outside families) so all are welcomed
Feb 3 & 4 for women's
Feb 10 & 11 for men's
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:36:38 -0500
Subject: slight correction
I meant Yekaterina, not Yelena, Gordeyeva.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 19:42:31 -0400
Subject: Re: AGI: That Nutty Announcer
We had similar musings with names at the Subway World Gymnastics Challenge.
I was watching the rehearsal on the Saturday night before the meet and
when Gene Sutton saw me cringing over the way the Chinese names were being
announced, she asked me to help prep the announcer.
The basic guide goes like: X = Sh, Q = Ch, I = Ee, and everything else
is pretty well pronounced the way it's written. Chinese family names first.
Like my Chinese name is supposed to Qiu Hua (or Chiu Hua).
Then they asked for help with the Russian and Romanian names. Whoa- sorry
no help there other than pronounce it the way it's written. Apparently the
poor announcer had already been told by various delegation folks several
different pronounciations of names -- who knows what's right?
Elena Grosheva: YEE-LEE-YAH-NAH GROW-SHEE-YAY-VAH, GRAW-SHAV-HAH
Rozalia Galieva: ROZA-LEE-YAH (gets mixed up with Ji Liya) GAW-LEE-VAH
Lilia Podkopayeva: LEE-LEE-YAH (gets mixed up with Ji Liya,...)
Mirela Tugurlan: MEE-RAY-LAH SHOO-GER-LAN (like Sugarland)
Shanyn MacEachern: MAH-KAK-RAN
So, the guy practices over and over, sounds okay. Lise Goertz ('76 Olympic
team member and now a brevet candidate) does the French announcing with no
Come showtime on Sunday, either the guy's hair has gone completely white or they
replaced him with someone else. I didn't want to stare. The names come out
all mangled again.
The final press release came out with "Huang Dong" instead of Huang Huadong.
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 1995 20:21:25 -0500
Subject: Lighter fluid (ie The Book)
If you are not all too tired of the subject, I expect to get a
little flamed here -- but wanted to register some deviant
opinions, since the expressed point of view seems pretty uniform
and I think dismisses the book too casually (warning -- quite long):
Having heard so much about the book (Little Girls in Pretty
Boxes, for anyone entering the discussion late) on this forum, I
decided to read the thing and see what all the fuss was about. I
expected to see, from the criticism I'd read, a great deal of
reasoning from insufficient numbers: that she'd simply found a
few people who'd had unhappy experiences and concluded from that
that the whole system is corrupt.
Well, there's some silliness in the book (government monitoring
of gym coaches, for example) and I agree that a lot of these
girls probably would have had problems anyway and that a number
had sports parents from hell -- but she's also onto something
important, just as the author of that essay about Elena Moukhina
was. If it is true that Julissa Gomez had technical problems
with the Yurchenko that made it dangerous for her to perform it,
as everyone Ms. Ryan quotes seems to think, then she shouldn't
have been doing it. That's a coaching responsibility. Moukhina
thinks she shouldn't have been doing her tumbling move, either,
because she didn't have the power or the technique (I forget
which was the problem in her case). Freak accidents happen, but
pressure that leads coaches and gymnasts to push a girl to do a
trick that's beyond her skill level (not that she can't do it
most of the time, but that she can't do it without risking the
type of fall that could produce a cervical fracture) indicates
that something is out of whack with the system.
Fourteen-year-olds who have gotten that far (and I know both
gymnasts were older, but those at risk are not) are by definition
risk-takers, and they want to succeed: it is part of the coach's
job to ensure that this ambition is channeled in a way that
doesn't put the kid at risk. And again -- at inappropriate risk
-- not spotting someone who should still be spotted. And why
didn't the protective mat system show up earlier (and how much of
the risk does that really eliminate?). Now some kids are going
to insist on a coach who doesn't hold them back; but the rest of
us should not be endorsing such coaches even when they get
results. We never see many of the kids who get injured earlier
And in both the Gomez situation and the Moukhina one (more subtly
expressed in the latter article, I think), part of this pressure
came from societal image-building that drove everyone -- coaches,
parents, nation (fans), and gymnast -- to take too many risks, to
set aside the individual and create a symbol. Whether of the
superiority of Soviet sport and society, of a particular vision
of ideal girls, or what, once so much is invested in the idea, it
is predictable that some coaches, some parents, and some kids
will take things too far. And, as both pointed out, this is
particularly risky when we're dealing with child athletes in a
sport that presents great risks (greatest cause of spinal
injuries among athletes, I was told when I injured my back in
1977 in a vaulting accident). Moukhina didn't think the Soviet
system was "brutal": she objected to its failure to stop her from
doing something that was too risky, indeed its encouragement of
her taking a chance for the goal of national glory. The system
used her for a symbolic statement and when she was injured
regarded her as essentially disposable. Yes, she was bitter:
but cervical spinal injuries are devastating injuries and if the
way she described what happened is accurate, the risk she was
taken was treated far too cavalierly by everyone involved
(herself included, at the time -- but coaches should be
protectors here. A gymnast should be sure that her coach will
only be encouraging her to take appropriate risks.).
Now obviously there's a great deal of difference between people
in their sense of how much risk is appropriate -- but we need to
do everything we can to make sure decisions are uncoerced and
intelligently made. A kid whose coach will ridicule her as a
wimp if she doesn't try something, or who feels she needs to go
to the olympics because her parents have spent so much money on
her, or that she's not a worthwhile person if her gymnastics is
not the best on her team, is at high risk for taking chances she
will regret; and the system needs to be set up to minimize those
pressures. [The key is will she regret it -- not whether she
occasionally will need to be encouraged to do something that
initially scares her. Moukhina would have felt a great deal less
regret if she thought it was a freak accident rather than an
inappropriate indifference to her safety. She doesn't think
nobody should do the move: she doesn't think _she_ should have
been doing the move.]
Ryan is also right that we need to reduce
the pressure to quit school, to eat too little,
to work out too long (which increases the risk of injury, and
which according to Ryan's research, has little effect: 4 hours
or so is as good as 9, and does a lot less damage to a growing
body). This is where rules might make some sense: no more than
x hours a week (she suggests 20; I'd put it higher, and it could
be variable to allow for occasional intense training); minimum of x
hours of school a week; maybe some regular checks for stress
fractures, bone mass, etc. from a doctor not associated with the
gym, and maybe nutritional checks, too. You can't stop parents
from living through their children -- but if we're conscious of
the pressures that are often there, we can do something to
minimize the number of kids who are adversely affected.
Finally, the eating disorders discussion: whatever the numbers
are (and her figures are not re "disordered eating" alone, which
could include munching out on doritos while cramming for a test,
but were a comparison of women college students, women collegiate
athletes in general, and collegiate gymnasts; & indicated both that
gymnasts had more problems and that the term was limited to those
who vomited or used laxatives or other extreme means of getting
food back out of their bodies. No idea how often, no idea how
representative the study was: but there's something going on
here). Anyway -- whatever the numbers are, they are clearly
elevated. Certainly it's hard to know how much is cause and
effect: do girls who are good at gymnastics have personality
traits that put them at risk? But really her point is precisely
that: we know that a lot of these kids are at risk, both because
the survey numbers establish that, and because they are driven,
perfectionist, and highly controlled kids, whose growth spurt
comes as they are peaking and which suddenly makes it difficult
to do tricks they used to do, and who face all the usual societal
pressures about women's weight. Put these kids under
stress that includes berating them about their weight (which
Bela, at least, clearly does, unless everyone who talked to Ryan
lied to her) and trying to govern everything that goes into their
mouths, and they are more likely to develop eating disorders, or
to develop more serious ones, than they otherwise would be.
Mental disorders are a product of personality, brain chemistry,
and the stress in the environment: people under stress are more
likely to succumb if they are psychologically vulnerable; and the
nature of the stressor shapes maladaptive responses. Sure,
many girls survive the abuse, and even thrive despite it -- but
that doesn't mean it makes sense to endorse it. Too many kids
will succumb, and very few of those who thrive need to be told
they look like a pregnant spider on a daily basis in order to be
motivated. Kelli Hill and the Forsters (from what I hear from
you guys) prove that. But I think we
really do need to be more vigilant about the abuses, rather than
defensive when they are pointed out, and to acknowledge that a
disproportionate number of our best gymnasts in the last decade
have been put through the Karolyi mill (Nunno doesn't come
off better in the book). Even if most of the girls who went
there are glad they did, it's still an awfully big chance to
take for any particular girl.
Sorry, very long-winded, I know; I'm pretty sure I can at least
promise that this is just about all I have to say on the
subject(s). And I apologize for my being wrong about Gail
Kachura's age. I was sure I'd heard that she was too young.
Flame away if you like.
End of GYMN-L Digest - 19 Nov 1995 to 20 Nov 1995 - Special issue