gymn Digest Fri, 4 Mar 94 Volume 2 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:

American Cup Diary (2 msgs)
Another men's program lost
Explanation of Gymn Survey
Gymn Survey
if you're curious
Self-Intro
Skating and gymnastics scores . . . (3 msgs)

This is a digest of the gymn@athena.mit.edu mailing list.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 01:58:00 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: American Cup Diary

...prepared by Debbie (thanks Debbie!)

== Diary ==

1976 New York, NY

Nadia Comaneci (ROM) and Bart Conner (USA) win the inaugural Cup.
Comaneci's AA score will not be bettered until 1991.

1977 New York, NY

Romania is unable to send any gymnasts due to a severe earthquake in
Bucharest.

1978 New York, NY

Kurt Thomas (USA) dominates the men's competition. Women's pre-meet
favorite Natalia Shaposhnikova (URS) does not qualify for the finals,
but astounds spectators by performing giant swings on UB.

1979 New York, NY

Tracee Talavera (USA) becomes the youngest medalist at the age of 12.

1980 New York, NY

Tracee Talavera wins the Cup at age 13. Forty two gymnasts
representing 15 countries compete, making this one of the largest
competitions ever.

1981 Fort Worth, TX

Lavinia Agache's (ROM) appearance lead US officials to discover that
she competed under the name of Ecaterina Szabo at the January '81 All
American Classic. NBC threatens legal action against the Romanians for
this alleged cover up.

1982 New York, NY

Bart Conner (USA), making his sixth consecutive American Cup
appearance, wins for the 3rd time. Romania declines an invitation to
participate in this year's competition.

1983 New York, NY

Mary Lou Retton is a last-minute substitute for Dianne Durham, who is
injured, and wins the Cup.

1984 New York, NY

The Soviet Union withdraws its entries at the last minute due to
"security problems" and the GDR gymnasts withdraw due to the flu.
-_USA Gymnastics_, March/April 1984, p. 22

1985 Indianapolis, IN

Retton becomes the first and only woman to win the Cup three years in
a row.

1986 Fairfax, VA

Kristie Phillips wins her first Cup at the age of 13. The USGF does
not allow Retton to compete because she "is no longer a US National
team member."
-_International Gymnast_, May 1986, p. 13.


1987 Fairfax, VA

Henrietta Onodi (HUN) is the smallest competitor, standing only 4
feet. There is a six-way tie for gold on the men's parallel bars.

1988 Fairfax, VA

Another USA/ROM victory, this time Phoebe Mills and Marius Toba.

1989 Fairfax, VA

Spain's Alfonso Rodriguez, second in preliminaries, withdraws from the
final because of an injury sustained during a fall from HB.

1990 Fairfax, VA

The FIG designates the preliminary competition a points qualifier for
the '90 World Cup. Brandy Johnson undergoes surgery for a kidney
problem only 10 days before the competition.

1991 Orlando, FL

Prize money is awarded for event winners and All Around finishers.
Betty Okino sets a new women's AA record.

1992 Orlando, FL

Shannon Miller dominates the women's preliminary competition, while
defending men's champion Trent Dimas fails to qualify for finals.

1993 Orlando, FL

Vitaly Scherbo (BLR) becomes a father the night before the start of
the competition. Kerri Strug (USA) beats teammate Miller in the
women's preliminaries.


------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Mar 94 08:12:54 PST
From: ***@sol.metaware.com
Subject: American Cup Diary

>1981 Fort Worth, TX
>
>Lavinia Agache's (ROM) appearance lead US officials to discover that
>she competed under the name of Ecaterina Szabo at the January '81 All
>American Classic. NBC threatens legal action against the Romanians for
>this alleged cover up.

Does anything know anymore on this? It sounds kinda weird!

>1987 Fairfax, VA
>
>Henrietta Onodi (HUN) is the smallest competitor, standing only 4
>feet. There is a six-way tie for gold on the men's parallel bars.

4 feet tall!!!! She was tiny! She has also been on the internation scene
for quite a while.

--Robin

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 10:11:11 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Another men's program lost

Iowa State has announced that they are dropping men's gymnastics and men's
tennis and adding women's soccer, largely due to gender equity.

The sports will be terminated after this competitive season.

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 11:04:54 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Explanation of Gymn Survey

Just thought I'd note, this survey is not going to be used for any purposes
other than getting a breakdown of Gymn people. (Ie it's not for one of my
wacky surveys or projects.)

Some people suggested that we start some Gymn polls ("Do you think men should
use music on floor?" is an example). We just thought we'd get the ball
rolling with some easy questions, as people are also often interested in
learning the demographics of Gymn ("how many judges do we have on here? Are
we mostly college students? ... etc.)

The last question ("5. What do you think are the best and worst parts about
Gymn?) is the real question in the survey. Tell us what you don't like about
Gymn and we'll see if we can change it. Also tell us what you do like so
that other people's complaints don't change what you already like. Do you
think there's too much mail? Do you think we're too strict about what can be
posted to the forum? Is Gymn getting too big? Do you wish more people
posted? Or do too many post already? Do you like the idea of Gymn polls?
Do you find Trivia Sets boring and a waste of time? Did you like the Gymn
Holiday lottery? This is a chance for you to make suggestions and so forth
(not that suggestions aren't always welcome).

Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 09:14:31 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: Gymn Survey

Gymn Survey #1

Please respond to this survey by sending it to this address
(***@aol.com). The more Gymn people that respond, the better, so please
answer the following five questions if you have time!

1. Are you male or female?

2. Which age group are you? (under 18, 18-21, 22-30, 31+)

3. What is your involvement in gymnastics? (Check as many as apply)

___ Athlete
___ Coach
___ Judge
___ Parent
___ Other "official" involvement (eg: journalist, scorekeeper, etc)
please describe: _________________________
___ Fan

4. How long have you been involved in gymnastics?

5. What do you think are the best and worst parts about Gymn?

----------------------------------
Rachele

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 94 19:06:00 EST
From: ***@aol.com
Subject: if you're curious

So far, I've had 17 surveys returned.

11 men, 6 women

zero = 18 & under
3 = 18-21
7 = 22-30
6 = 31+

(ahem, George, you never filled in your age...)

6 = Athletes
2 = Coaches
1 = Judge
3 = Parents
4 = Other involvement
14= Fan

Average years of involvement: 9.4 years
5 = 3 & under
8 = 4-19
4 = 20+

Best parts of Gymn:
10 = news, reports, interviews
7 = knowledge of members
5 = open and friendly discussion atmosphere
2 = calendar
2 = making friends, meeting people of similar interest

Worst parts of Gymn:
6 = innappopriate subject matter (notes that shd be in private email, too
much local stuff, drooling over 13-year-old girls, generally off-topic, etc)
3 = the occasional flamer (or just lack of courtesy)
2 = too technical/ need a FAQ

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 03 Mar 1994 15:33:01 -0500 (EST)
From: ***@MIT.EDU
Subject: Self-Intro

>Hi!

>My name is Regina. I am 25 and live in suburban Wash. DC.
>I work at Gallaudet University in the Accounting Dept. As a child
>I took 5-6 years of Gymnastics then quit as I became older and
>taller (now 6 ft.). I love to follow the womens (natl and intl)
>but also enjoy all other aspects. I havent gone to a competition
>since I was eight (saw Nadia!) but would love to start going again....

>I am happy to be a part of GYMN and look forward to participating
>in this forum....

>Reggie

Hi Reggie. Glad to have you aboard. You sent this to me only. If
you want to send mail to the list, you must address it to ***@mit.edu

--Robyn

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 02 Mar 94 10:49:09 EST
From: ***@american.edu
Subject: Skating and gymnastics scores . . .

Hi, everyone. I am back, after some time watching the Olympics etc . . .
Early this week, Anil and I had a discussion about the skating
scoring system. I suggested some changes would be in order based on
the way gymnastics is scored. Here, suitably edited, is the message
and proposal I sent. I thought I would forward it to GYMN because
1. Many members are also interested in figure skating.
2. I am basing my proposal on the way gymnastics is judged. I am no
expert (just a fan, and TV fan at that), and I know that there have
been some controversies in the past. Nevertheless, gymnastics is taken
seriously, partly because of the difficulty of the sport, and partly
because of the guidelines set in judging. I think that figure skating
for men and women (popular, like gymnastics, because it is made-for-
TV, and features "cute women in skimpy costumes": that is a popular
perception, not mine!) is in danger with all the controversy over
judging. I do plan to forward this to someone who is knowledgeable
about skating (on rec.skate), but I would appreciate your comments
first. If you do not want to take up digest space, please e-mail
me your comments. I am especially interested in the way the current
judging/ scoring system has worked for gymnastics (has it made the
judging more or less subjective, etc).

Shinjinee

About me : I am a 24 year old, to be 25, graduate student in international
relations at a Washington D.C. (USA) university. I am Indian by citizenship
and I (obviously) like the Internet, TV-watching (figure skating,
gymnastics, PBS documentaries, Star Trek-TNG/DS9) etc.


======================================================================== 97
To: ***@halcyon.usc.edu
In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 28 Feb 94 05:03:05 PST

On Mon, 28 Feb 94 05:03:05 PST you said:
>I don't think Nancy was cheated. I think the best woman won the gold.
>But I didn't understand the scores they give. Are the technical merit and
>artistic scores really valid or are the ordinals the only thing that count?

I believe that the ordinals are the ones which matter. So the technical and
artistic scores do count, but only so far as to place a skating. So Oksana
and Nancy were placed 1st by four judges each (out of a total of 9). Thus
the marks of the fifth judge -- Jan Hoffman of Germany -- determined the
gold. He had given Nancy slightly higher technical marks and Oksana higher
artistic marks (but as it happened, the marks were equally evened out).
Since Hoffman's marks (technical and artistic) for both skaters were added
up, the artistic mark determined the gold.

The placement is determined by ordinals to ensure that no country or region's
decision predominates. (I think the system was set up after a scandal with
Sonja Henie, but I may be mistaken). In terms of absolute marks (total
scores), Nancy had the higher. This is what is bugging most American, since
they think that Nancy was "cheated." The problem is that all those scores
are subjective. Some might have placed Chen Lu higher on the free skate.
Ideally, the TV commentators should explain the judging better and the Intl
Skating Union should try to publicize its judging system as well. There
are some unfortunate kinks (as witnesssed in ice dancing where T&D were
penalized but gold medallists G&P were not for violations).

I think that as in gymnastics, each routine should be scored on difficulty
based on different elements performed. There should be mandatory deductions
for bobbles, two-footing, stepping out etc. While I love the artistic
side of the sport, it should be limited to say 30 percent of the score.
That would eliminate some of the problems experienced with the Olympics.

For example, in an Olympic routine, the most difficult routine would have
a triple-triple combination
five different triple jumps (all except the triple axel)
another triple-triple combination OR the triple axel
intricate footwork covering the ice.
This could be scored on a technical difficulty scale of 5.7

The other .30 could come from choreography, aptness of music and costume,
fluidity of execution etc.

I think that figure skating really needs to take a hard look at its
scoring system to be taken seriously. While Baiul is wonderful to watch,
she lacks a triple-triple combination and two-footed two jumps. If she
was a man, that would have lost her all chances for a medal (the men's
competition takes difficulty and cleanness of execution more seriously).
On the technical part, following such a scenario (men's judging standards
and my proposed changes), Yuka Sato and Chen Lu (if I remember correctly)
would have done better, since they skated relatively cleanly. Kerrigan
and Baiul (and Witt) would have been penalized more. Harding would have
had the equivalent of "falling off the beam or bars on a mount."


>I think if the first two were to count, Nancy would have won gold
>(she also had the lead from wednesday -
>did that count for 30%?)

The short program counts for 33%. Thus any of the top three skaters
could have won the free skate and thus become champion. The ordinals count
again.
Here are real and hypothetical placements.

Skater Short Program Free Skate / Long Final Placement
Kerrigan 1 2 1 x 2 = 2
Baiul 2 1 2 x 1 = 2

Actually, the system uses factored placements, so Kerrigan's factored
placement was 2.5 (.5 from the short where she placed first, and 2 from
the second). Baiul was 2 (1 from the short where she placed second, and
1 from the second). So Baiul won on the factored placements, by a very
narrow margin (in scores, ordinals, and factored placements).

I would love to see the judging system changed because I am afraid for
the future of the sport. Crowd-pleasing is really important, but I can
easily see forward where Baiul wins by decent but not brilliant
technical stuff (no triple jump combinations) and lots of flirtation
aka Witt. Witt is a great skater, but she did not do anything for
the sport technically, although she brought in the fans. And there
are many very good young skaters out there who conceivably jump and
do better footwork than Baiul, but lose out in looks or sultriness.

In short, I would love to see a skating scoring system, like in
gymnastics, so that the sport is a lot more objective and more
oriented towards the technical skills.

[stuff deleted]

Shinjinee

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 14:04:27 EST
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject: Skating and gymnastics scores . . .

Note: Those you are not interested in figure skating
can skip either to the last paragraph or to the next message.

Re: a proposed change to scoring ladies' figure skating:

>For example, in an Olympic routine, the most difficult routine would have
>a triple-triple combination
>five different triple jumps (all except the triple axel)
>another triple-triple combination OR the triple axel
>intricate footwork covering the ice.
>This could be scored on a technical difficulty scale of 5.7
>The other .30 could come from choreography, aptness of music and costume,
>fluidity of execution etc.

I notice that there's no mention of spins here, nor of speed over the
ice. (These are two of Kerrigan's weaknesses relative to Baiul.)
These are two of the things that judges count (or at least are
supposed to consider) as part of the technical merit.

Historically, there was a time when technique counted for much
more in figure skating: compulsory figures were once 60% of the
score, before dropping gradually to 20% and then disappearing
completely.

The problem with artistic marks is that at some level, they all
come down to a matter of opinion or taste. The pairs, the
men's, and the women's figure skating gold medalists were
all decided based on this. As it happened, I agreed with the
judges' choice on the pairs and women, but not on the men.
In the women's competition, I would have scored them exactly
the same as the German judge Hoffman did, so I could see the contest
going either way. If Baiul hadn't two-footed her triple flip,
she might well have gotten a 5.8 in technical merit from
Hoffman. If Kerrigan had had a bigger triple lutz and Baiul's,
or not doubled her triple flip, she might well have gotten a 5.9
from Hoffman. If she were going to the World's (which it
seems she is not), and I were Evy Scotvold, I'd suggest
making her triple lutz a triple lutz-double toe and going
for the triple flip; that could be all it would take to edge Baiul.

Unless I'm misremembering, there are only two triple-triple
combinations that have ever been used by women in competition:
triple toe-triple toe (as Kerrigan did) and triple Salchow-triple toe
(I think only by Bonaly, and not at this Olympics). As we all
know, only two women have ever landed a triple axel in competition,
and Harding hasn't successfully landed it in a major competition
since 1991. At any rate, my impression is that at any given time,
there's an acknowledged level for what the strongest competitors
are doing, with the accent for single skaters currently being
a bit lopsidedly on jumps. For men, that level is triple axel-double toe
(or triple axel-triple toe) with a second triple axel later in the
program, and 7 triples overall. For women, it's triple lutz-double toe
with a second triple lutz in the program, or triple toe-triple toe with a
triple lutz in the program, with 5-6 triples overall. Completing these
well, and demonstrating competence in spinning and footwork, should
earn you a 5.9, so you can think of the judges as marking down from
that. If you push the envelope (say if Elvis Stojko had not had
problems on his first triple axel, so that he had done his planned
quadruple toe-triple toe combination), you can earn a 6.0 in
technical merit. If Harding managed to skate her planned long
program, with the triple axel and the triple Salchow-double toe
combination, along with her very nice triple lutz, I think she would
be in the hunt for a 6.0 for technical merit. I think that
the reasons that Kerrigan didn't get a 5.9 from more of the
judges were that her triple lutz wasn't as big as Baiul's,
she's not as strong a spinner, and she doubled her triple flip,
which sort of balanced out Baiul's two-footing her triple flip.
Baiul threw in her extra triple toe to balance out the one
she'd messed up (see below), and has more difficult spins than Kerrigan.
But Baiul doesn't do triple jumps in combination, and Kerrigan's
triple toe-triple toe got her 5.9's from a number of the judges
in technical merit.

In the short program, you can only lose points in your technical
merit score. It's not all that different from a gymnastics
score (see, I mentioned gymnastics :-)
in that there's a (reasonably well-known, anyway) value
for your intended program of fixed elements, and the judges
deduct for mistakes (0.6 for omitting an element, 0.2-0.5
for other types of execution errors). You can start with
a higher base by electing to do harder stuff (within the
fixed list) than other people, like the best women doing a
triple lutz-double toe for their combination vs others doing
triple flip-double toe or triple loop-double toe, but if you
can't execute it well, it can cost you more than doing slightly easier
stuff correctly.

The rule in the long program is supposed to be that the
technical merit score reflects what you do, not what you mess up;
that is, if A does two triple axels but two-foots, pops, touches
down, turns out, or falls on one of them, and B only tries one
but does it well, they've both demonstrated they can do one
triple axel, although some judges might wonder how consistent
skater A is. (This was probably why Baiul ad libbed the extra
triple toe.) On the other hand, depending on how much a judge
feels the mistake detracted from the program, they can deduct
varying amounts from the artistic score, and thus penalize
the less consistent skater. Usually a fall disrupts the
program much more than a two-foot landing or turn out, so
mistakes like Baiul's have less effect than mistakes like
Bonaly's in this Olympics. As mentioned above, other components
of technical merit are speed over the ice and general control
(centered and fast spins, good speed and flow out of jumps, attacking
the jumps [some of the women were *awfully* hesitant in the
long program at the Olympics]). And, of course, some amount
of prejudging occurs when judges give a benefit of the doubt
to skaters who do jumps flawlessly in practice all week have
a small bobble or two in the final, and perhaps not give full
marks to skaters who are notoriously inconsistent (like Harding).

The bottom line here is that I think to some extent, the
judges are already using the technical score as you envision
your base 5.7 score, except that I'd guess from my observations
that the base is more like 5.9 for the equivalent of a 10.0 routine
by the Code of Points in gymnastics. The other 0.3 you leave for
other items is pretty much what the artistic impression score
is for. In fact, since the artistic scores seldom vary by
more than 0.5 from the technical scores, you could think
of it as mostly another 0.5 worth of points that the
judges decide. Choreography, presentation, costume, and
such intangibles as "skating from the heart," as the Russians
call it, are what determine those 0.5 points, and often, as
in this Olympics, the winner.

Obligatory gymnastics reference:

Some people like a "no bones"/clean/uncluttered/powerful [choose
whatever you think appropriate] style, like Mary Retton or Kim
Zmeskal; others like a more lyrical/fluid/elegant/balletic [choose
whatever you think appropriate] style, like Svetlana Boginskaya. The
same choices are there in figure skating. You don't often get
competitors who are simultaneously doing the hardest technical skills
and also demonstrate the height of elegance in their presentation. If
you did, it would be too easy for the judges.

>>Kathy Godfrey
kgodfrey@bbn.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Mar 94 14:04:27 EST
From: ***@BBN.COM
Subject: Skating and gymnastics scores . . .

Note: Those you are not interested in figure skating
can skip either to the last paragraph or to the next message.

Re: a proposed change to scoring ladies' figure skating:

>For example, in an Olympic routine, the most difficult routine would have
>a triple-triple combination
>five different triple jumps (all except the triple axel)
>another triple-triple combination OR the triple axel
>intricate footwork covering the ice.
>This could be scored on a technical difficulty scale of 5.7
>The other .30 could come from choreography, aptness of music and costume,
>fluidity of execution etc.

I notice that there's no mention of spins here, nor of speed over the
ice. (These are two of Kerrigan's weaknesses relative to Baiul.)
These are two of the things that judges count (or at least are
supposed to consider) as part of the technical merit.

Historically, there was a time when technique counted for much
more in figure skating: compulsory figures were once 60% of the
score, before dropping gradually to 20% and then disappearing
completely.

The problem with artistic marks is that at some level, they all
come down to a matter of opinion or taste. The pairs, the
men's, and the women's figure skating gold medalists were
all decided based on this. As it happened, I agreed with the
judges' choice on the pairs and women, but not on the men.
In the women's competition, I would have scored them exactly
the same as the German judge Hoffman did, so I could see the contest
going either way. If Baiul hadn't two-footed her triple flip,
she might well have gotten a 5.8 in technical merit from
Hoffman. If Kerrigan had had a bigger triple lutz and Baiul's,
or not doubled her triple flip, she might well have gotten a 5.9
from Hoffman. If she were going to the World's (which it
seems she is not), and I were Evy Scotvold, I'd suggest
making her triple lutz a triple lutz-double toe and going
for the triple flip; that could be all it would take to edge Baiul.

Unless I'm misremembering, there are only two triple-triple
combinations that have ever been used by women in competition:
triple toe-triple toe (as Kerrigan did) and triple Salchow-triple toe
(I think only by Bonaly, and not at this Olympics). As we all
know, only two women have ever landed a triple axel in competition,
and Harding hasn't successfully landed it in a major competition
since 1991. At any rate, my impression is that at any given time,
there's an acknowledged level for what the strongest competitors
are doing, with the accent for single skaters currently being
a bit lopsidedly on jumps. For men, that level is triple axel-double toe
(or triple axel-triple toe) with a second triple axel later in the
program, and 7 triples overall. For women, it's triple lutz-double toe
with a second triple lutz in the program, or triple toe-triple toe with a
triple lutz in the program, with 5-6 triples overall. Completing these
well, and demonstrating competence in spinning and footwork, should
earn you a 5.9, so you can think of the judges as marking down from
that. If you push the envelope (say if Elvis Stojko had not had
problems on his first triple axel, so that he had done his planned
quadruple toe-triple toe combination), you can earn a 6.0 in
technical merit. If Harding managed to skate her planned long
program, with the triple axel and the triple Salchow-double toe
combination, along with her very nice triple lutz, I think she would
be in the hunt for a 6.0 for technical merit. I think that
the reasons that Kerrigan didn't get a 5.9 from more of the
judges were that her triple lutz wasn't as big as Baiul's,
she's not as strong a spinner, and she doubled her triple flip,
which sort of balanced out Baiul's two-footing her triple flip.
Baiul threw in her extra triple toe to balance out the one
she'd messed up (see below), and has more difficult spins than Kerrigan.
But Baiul doesn't do triple jumps in combination, and Kerrigan's
triple toe-triple toe got her 5.9's from a number of the judges
in technical merit.

In the short program, you can only lose points in your technical
merit score. It's not all that different from a gymnastics
score (see, I mentioned gymnastics :-)
in that there's a (reasonably well-known, anyway) value
for your intended program of fixed elements, and the judges
deduct for mistakes (0.6 for omitting an element, 0.2-0.5
for other types of execution errors). You can start with
a higher base by electing to do harder stuff (within the
fixed list) than other people, like the best women doing a
triple lutz-double toe for their combination vs others doing
triple flip-double toe or triple loop-double toe, but if you
can't execute it well, it can cost you more than doing slightly easier
stuff correctly.

The rule in the long program is supposed to be that the
technical merit score reflects what you do, not what you mess up;
that is, if A does two triple axels but two-foots, pops, touches
down, turns out, or falls on one of them, and B only tries one
but does it well, they've both demonstrated they can do one
triple axel, although some judges might wonder how consistent
skater A is. (This was probably why Baiul ad libbed the extra
triple toe.) On the other hand, depending on how much a judge
feels the mistake detracted from the program, they can deduct
varying amounts from the artistic score, and thus penalize
the less consistent skater. Usually a fall disrupts the
program much more than a two-foot landing or turn out, so
mistakes like Baiul's have less effect than mistakes like
Bonaly's in this Olympics. As mentioned above, other components
of technical merit are speed over the ice and general control
(centered and fast spins, good speed and flow out of jumps, attacking
the jumps [some of the women were *awfully* hesitant in the
long program at the Olympics]). And, of course, some amount
of prejudging occurs when judges give a benefit of the doubt
to skaters who do jumps flawlessly in practice all week have
a small bobble or two in the final, and perhaps not give full
marks to skaters who are notoriously inconsistent (like Harding).

The bottom line here is that I think to some extent, the
judges are already using the technical score as you envision
your base 5.7 score, except that I'd guess from my observations
that the base is more like 5.9 for the equivalent of a 10.0 routine
by the Code of Points in gymnastics. The other 0.3 you leave for
other items is pretty much what the artistic impression score
is for. In fact, since the artistic scores seldom vary by
more than 0.5 from the technical scores, you could think
of it as mostly another 0.5 worth of points that the
judges decide. Choreography, presentation, costume, and
such intangibles as "skating from the heart," as the Russians
call it, are what determine those 0.5 points, and often, as
in this Olympics, the winner.

Obligatory gymnastics reference:

Some people like a "no bones"/clean/uncluttered/powerful [choose
whatever you think appropriate] style, like Mary Retton or
Kim Zmeskal; others like a more lyrical/fluid/elegant/balletic
[choose whatever you think appropriate] style, like Svetlana
Boginskaya. The same choices are there in figure skating. You
don't often get competitors who are simultaneously doing the
hardest technical skills and also demonstrate the height of
elegance in their presentation. If you did, it would be
too easy for the judges.

>>Kathy

------------------------------

End of gymn Digest
******************************