gymn Digest                 Mon,  5 Sep 94       Volume 3 : Issue  13

Today's Topics:
                  '91 FX once and for all! (2 msgs)
                     Bashing in general (2 msgs)
                            CG EF (2 msgs)
                  CG Men's Event Finals Full Results
                 CG Women's Event Finals Full Results
                       many short or one long?
                         NCAA Men's (2 msgs)
                         This forum (2 msgs)
                         USA Champs: Men's EF
                        USA Champs: Women's EF
                         US Team predictions

This is a digest of the mailing list. 


Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 21:25:15 EDT
From: ***
Subject: '91 FX once and for all!

I know Zmeskal's dance wasn't "fantastic" and that was the wrong word to
describe it but, it wasn't exactly horrible.  It was sure as hell a lot
better than her 92 routine.  She stayed with the music and was very
expressive.  The dance was poor all throughout 91 until worlds and then she
seemed a lot more comfortable with it.  Mitova and Bogy definitly had the
best dance in the competition also.---Brian


Date: Sat, 03 Sep 94 11:25:52 EDT
From: ***
Subject: '91 FX once and for all!

>[Kim Z] stayed with the music and was very expressive.

I must take issue with this.  Kim *expressive*?!  I never saw so much as a
shadow of emotion cross her face during her floor routine.  A smile only
rarely and only as a reaction to completing some tumbling pass successfully
or perhaps at the end of a routine if it went well.  Don't get me wrong -- I
do think the choreography was very appropriate to the music (I'm just sick of
that music and I don't think cutesy prancing is usually particularly
artistic).  I also think she executed all of the movements very well (she hit
all the positions correctly, finished the turns and leaps and all that sort
of thing), which is important, but to me she always looked thoroughly
uninspired, and her claim that she really enjoyed doing floor always puzzled
me, because it certainly didn't look like it to me.

>But regarding "posing", I don't feel this was the case at all.  Boginskaya
simply has  her own style of artistic impression...

But that could be said about anyone; for example, one might say
(hypothetically), "Regarding 'doing basically nothing to the William Tell
Overture and totally disregarding the music', I don't feel this was the case
at all.  Chusovitina simply has her own style of artistic impression."  In
this kind of sport, a judgment has to be made about good and bad (or no) art.
 So the first statement (that the routine was good) is appropriate, but it
has to be for some reason other than that this is just "her own style."

>But I'm afraid she'll [Mitova] end up in the same situation as Chusovitina
and Yang Bo - best in the world on vault and beam, respectively, but never a
gold medal to show for it...<

Yang Bo did manage a gold at the '90 World Cup.  I know it's not the same,
but I guess I mention it b/c there was once a time when the World Cup was
actually kind of important.



Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 15:16:59 -0500 (CDT)
From: ***
Subject: Bashing in general

Ben said:
>hand. I loath USA Online for some of the same things I am seeing here.
>Express an opinion that is negative about a gymnast and a bunch of people
>get upset all out of proportion and start in with admonations about picking
>on kids and lecturing about how hard they work,etc. I think we all know how
>hard these kids work and no one attacks them personally. Are we all in

You are right in that everyone knows how hard these kids work etc etc.
No one takes that for granted.  I guess my problem is that (and Ben,
you'd call this lecturing) a lot of people either:

1. Feel like you can separate an athlete as a gymnast and as a person, or
2. Bash with a little more venom than is necessary to express their opinion.

(Right now, I can see a lot of you rolling your eyes.  If you're *not*
rolling your eyes and happen to agree with me, please do email me --
I'd like to know I'm not alone in my opinions here.)

Regarding number one -- as pointed out, these gymnasts do train
extraordinary hours; thus, their life as a gymnast is really *who*
they are.  Criticism of their gymnastics *is* taken personally.
Several people have said "Hey, I'm not criticizing them as a person,
I'm just criticizing their gymnastics."  So, you think that if a
gymnast reads your words, s/he thinks "Oh, well, they're not
criticizing me as a *person*, so it's ok"?  It seems like we could use
a little more tact sometimes.  (And yes, quite a few of the gymnasts
we've discussed (bashed) *do* read Gymn -- or at least they used to.)

Regarding the venom -- well, I certainly think negative comments are
welcome on Gymn, but sometimes they're expressed with such animousity!
Lots of people told me they feel like they can only post Happy
Thoughts about gymnasts.  That's simply not true.  If you don't like
the way Dawes' legs fly out the sides when she does flip-flops, or if
you don't like the bows that all the Dynamo gymnasts wear (although
why one would be concerned about bows, I can't imagine why) -- then go
ahead and say it.  If you think Jennie Thompson is overrated, then say
it.  If you think the men's competition was really boring, then fine,
go ahead and say it.  But there's no need to slam.

And, now to air some other Not Happy thoughts about postings on

Re Jennie Thompson being overly depressed, pressured, etc.  *NONE* of
us are qualified to make that judgement.  Watching her on TV is no way
to make this judgement.  Even if you've met her or been watching her
from afar, unless you're _really_ close to her, it really is doubtful
that you can draw that kind of conclusion.  Yeah, she may have looked
really pressured when she was in Nashville -- well, we've all been
pressured at some points, and really, isn't it perfectly logical to
think she'd be pressured at one of the most important competitions in
her career thus far?  She was perfectly happy-go-lucky at the banquet
that night, out on the dance floor (as were all of the Dynamo girls).
Now, just as she cannot be judged by her behavior at Nationals, I'd
say she cannot be judged by her behavior at the banquet.  I have no
idea what her mental state is -- but I'm not qualified to judge it,
and it's really none of any of our business to know that kind of info.

Re all the posts about the men's meet being so slow and boring.  I
too, was really disappointed with the meet.  I like to cheer for the
men, but I like it much more when I have lots of good routines to
cheer about.  But to say that there were no human interest stories...:

1. Scott Keswick won his first national title, despite the fact he's
regularly been our best international performer (Scott-bashers, gag
all you want, but I think it's fantastic that he pulled it off.)

2. Bill Roth, after goodness knows how many injuries for something
like three years, finally came back healthy to competition and threw
some great routines, especially high bar.  He's easily the most
popular guy on the National team -- he was the talk of press row for
his personality.  (Sort of the men's Amanda Borden, if you will.
Everyone just seems to like them and their attitudes.  Everyone wanted
to interview him.)

3. Steve McCain also medaled -- that's two UCLA guys in the top three,
a good indication that their program is still going strong.

4. John Roethlisberger, in search of his fourth title, went through
all of his optionals with a busted ankle that just kept swelling
bigger and bigger throughout the night -- largely to obtain National
training funds and make the Worlds team.  Guts.

5. Jeremy Killen walked into the arena on Saturday thinking he was a
finalist only in pommels, and an alternate on floor and pbars.  He
didn't even bring his floor shorts with him (he was the fourth
alternate).  He ended up with a gold on floor, silver on pbars (and,
ironically, nothing on pommels.)

Re the bashing of men's gymnastics in general -- if you really cared,
you should be asking about what you could do to help men's gymnastics.
Even something small like a note to the NACGC or USA Gymnastics saying
you support the men's program would be something productive (such as
Mara posted info about a little while ago).  If you *don't* care --
fine, you don't like men's gymnastics, no big deal, but there's no
reason to sour it for the rest of us.  And YES, I can take criticism
of men's gymnastics, and you might even find that I agree with your
opinions (I can see it when they fall just as easily as you do) -- but
there's no need to ridicule them or paint them as losers.  They *do*
work hard (sorry, Ben, if you think I'm lecturing, but I don't know
how else to express my opinions), and when they're bashed left and
right on this forum, it's as if people have no respect for the work
they've put into their sport.  Whether male or female; elite,
collegiate, or grassroots; American or Soviet; -- etc -- this is all

Working away on those Nationals reports...



Date: Sun, 04 Sep 94 01:01:02 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Bashing in general

>1. Feel like you can separate an athlete as a gymnast and as a person, or
2. Bash with a little more venom than is necessary to express their opinion.

I have to agree on these points, even though I've occasionally been guilty of
such transgressions.  To put this in a more personal way, now would you like
it if someone started *harshly* criticising you in front of others for the
way you do your job (or performed on your last exam)?  I have a feeling you'd
either be very hurt or very angry...

>Regarding number one -- as pointed out, these gymnasts do train
extraordinary hours; thus, their life as a gymnast is really *who* they are.
 Criticism of their gymnastics *is* taken personally.

Multiply how you would feel on the above *times 10* (*times 20* if the
gymnast you are criticizing is under 18).

If you're not sure whether something your posting crosses the line, consider
how you would feel if the equivalent was said about you.  Use how you would
feel as a guide to whether or not you should be more tactful.



Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 16:59:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***
Subject: CG EF

     What happened during the beam final?? Did everyone fall? And did Stella
make a mistake on floor? I was sure she'd take that gold. Oh well...



Date: Mon, 5 Sep 94 1:35:41 BST
From: ***
Subject: CG EF

Beth asked:
>      What happened during the beam final?? Did everyone fall? And did Stella
> make a mistake on floor? I was sure she'd take that gold. Oh well...

Six out of eight gymnasts fell in the beam final. The ones who didn't were
Salli Wills of Australia who thus won the title, and the South African
Ilse Roets but she didn't have the difficulty to get her in the medals.
Stella was within the majority of those who fell.

Meanwhile on the floor Stella didn't have an major mistakes, but there
were some "noticable" errors, including a little bounce on her double back
second tumble, a "struggle" to make the final front tumble, and falling
off spins, etc. She gave a nice smile though when the score came up which
was nice, even she was the second to go and was behind her team mate Lisa
Simes score-wise at the time.



Date: Sat,  3 Sep 1994 22:44:48 UTC-0700
From: ***
Subject: CG Men's Event Finals Full Results

CG = Commonwealth Games
(AUS = Australia, CAN = Canada, ENG = England, NGR = Nigeria, NIR = Northern
 Ireland, NZL = New Zealand, SCO = Scotland, WAL = Wales)

    The top 8 in each event from the all-around competition qualified for the
event final with a limit of 2 gymnasts per country.


1. Neil Thomas          ENG   9.662
2. Kristan Burley CAN   9.437
3. Alan Nolet           CAN   9.150
4. Bret Hudson          AUS   8.950
5. Lee McDermott  ENG   8.925
6. Cletus Okpoh         NGR   8.825
7. Craig Bruce          NZL   8.700
8. Mark Lister          NZL   8.650

    Brennon Dowrick of Australia qualified to the floor event final but did not
compete on floor.  He aggravated a former injury (?ankle) earlier in the
competition and as a result decided not to compete in the floor event final.
    Mark Lister of New Zealand competed in place of Dowrick.  Lister and
Kindsley Eragbhe of Nigeria tied on the floor in the all-around competition.
I assume that Lister got the nod over Ergabhe since Lister finished higher
overall in the all-around competition.  However, I don't know why Peter Hogan
or Nathan Kingston, both of Australia, didn't replace Dowrick since they both
scored higher than Lister and Eragbhe and weren't in the final initially because
of the 2 per country rule.

Pommel Horse

1. Brennon Dowrick      AUS   9.425
2. Nathan Kingston      AUS   9.400
3. Richard Ikeda  CAN   9.225
4. Neil Thomas          ENG   9.050
5. Colin Close          NIR   8.975
6. Kristan Burley CAN   8.800
7. Lee McDermott  ENG   8.775
8. Steven Frew          SCO   8.175


1. Lee McDermott  ENG   9.475
2. Peter Hogan          AUS   9.275
T3 Brennon Dowrick      AUS   9.150
T3 Richard Ikeda  CAN   9.150
5. Alan Nolet           CAN   9.025
6. Neil Thomas          ENG   8.625
7. Mark Lister          NZL   8.600
8. Colin Close          NIR   8.150


1. Bret Hudson          AUS   9.375
2. Kristan Burley CAN   9.312
3. Neil Thomas          ENG   9.306
4. Travis Romagnoli     CAN   9.087
T5 Brennon Dowrick      AUS   9.050
T5 Kindsley Eragbhe     NGR   9.050
7. Innocent Eragbhe     NGR   9.000
8. Lee McDermott  ENG   8.850

    Paul Bowler of England qualified to the vault event final but did not
compete due to the injury that he suffered during the team competition.  He
was replaced by Lee McDermott of England who had initially not qualified due
to the 2 gymnast per country rule.

Parallel Bars

1. Peter Hogan          AUS   9.400
2. Kristan Burley CAN   9.350
3. Brennon Dowrick      AUS   9.250
4. Neil Thomas          ENG   9.175
5. Alan Nolet           CAN   9.075
6. Lee McDermott  ENG   8.650
7. Colin Close          NIR   8.425
8. Gareth Irwin         WAL   8.400

High Bar

1. Alan Nolet           CAN   9.512
2. Richard Ikeda  CAN   9.500
3. Nathan Kingston      AUS   9.325
4. Neil Thomas          ENG   9.300
5. Steven Frew          SCO   9.075      
6. Gareth Irwin         WAL   8.875
7. Brennon Dowrick      AUS   8.700
8. Robert Barber  ENG   8.450

That's it for men's results.  Stay tuned for my write-up on the competition
and text from the press conference.



Date: Sat,  3 Sep 1994 23:11:46 UTC-0700
From: ***
Subject: CG Women's Event Finals Full Results

CG = Commonwealth Games
AUS = Australia, CAN = Canada, CYP = Cyprus, ENG = England, NZL = New Zealand,
RSA = Republic of South Africa, WAL = WALES

    The top 8 in each event from the all-around competition qualified for the
event final with a limit of 2 gymnasts per country.


1. Stella Umeh          CAN   9.556
2. Sonia Lawrence       WAL   9.543
3. Lisa Simes           CAN   9.506
4. Karin Szymko         ENG   9.431
5. Zita Lusack          ENG   9.418
6. Rebecca Stoyel AUS   9.356
7. Jo-Anne West         RSA   9.293
8. Ruth Moniz           AUS   8.431

    Wai Chi Lim of Malaysia qualified for the vault final but did not compete.
(I don't know why.)  Jo-Anne West of the Republic of South Africa took Lim's

Uneven Parallel Bars

1. Rebecca Stoyel AUS   9.525
2. Stella Umeh          CAN   9.450
3. Sarah Thompson NZL   9.337
4. Jacqueline Brady     ENG   9.150
5. Zita Lusack          ENG   9.025
6. Jaime Hill          CAN   8.887
7. Ruth Moniz           AUS   8.437
8. Bethan Powell  WAL   8.275

    Joanna Hughes of Australia qualified for the bars final but did not compete
due to her elbow injury from worlds earlier this year.  Ruth Moniz of Australia
took her place.  (Moniz didn't initially qualify due to the 2 gymnast per
country rule.)

Balance Beam

1. Salli Wills          AUS   9.075
2. Zita Lusack          ENG   8.987
3. Ruth Moniz           AUS   8.900
4. Lisa Simes           CAN   8.825
5. Stella Umeh          CAN   8.687
6. Karin Szymko         ENG   8.462
7. Ilse Roets           RSA   8.450
8. Andri Agathocleous   CYP   7.637

    Joanna Hughes also qualified for beam but didn't compete (see note above).
Salli Wills of Australia took her place.  (Wills initially didn't qualify due
to the 2 gymnast per country rule.)

Floor Exercise

1. Annika Reeder  ENG   9.750
2. Jacqueline Brady     ENG   9.662
3. Lisa Simes           CAN   9.550
4. Stella Umeh          CAN   9.375
5. Claire Hamer         WAL   9.150
6. Ruth Moniz           AUS   9.137
7. Sonia Lawrence WAL   9.000
8. Rebecca Stoyel AUS   8.887

That's it for women's results.  Stay tuned for my write-up on the competition
and text from the press conference.



Date: Sun, 04 Sep 94 01:01:22 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Kerri

>On Kerri, I guess I don't think she excels in any particular way, though she
is very good at a lot of things.  Very good at many things, not great at any.
 I don't find anything special that attracts me to her gymnastics (though
there was a time when she hammed it up on floor, which gave me hope, but she
didn't keep it up).  And then there's my pet peeve: that a gymnast at that
level can't keep her knees straight on her beam layouts bugs me.

Granted on the layouts, but there is such an emotional intensity about her
that appeals to me.  I'd like nothing better than to see the 'real' Kerri
come out this season.  I think if we see the real Kerri (not the Kim clone or
Shannon clone) she will be great, particularly on UB and FX.  In that case, I
don't think it would be unreasonable for her to win Worlds this year
[unofficially] or next.



Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 15:21:33 -0500 (CDT)
From: ***
Subject: many short or one long?

Cara said:

>      One more question - for traffic purposes, I would've thought that one
>long post one or two times a week would be more coherent, easier, and less
>"noisy" than two or three a day, every time I have a response to something.Can
>one of the board people tell us which is preferred? Others seem to get
>overwhelmed with 20 10-line posts every day. Thanks.

Cara, thanks for asking.  I would say that one long coherent post is
much preferable.  It makes for less mail to organize -- less of a
distraction for those who get Gymn at work -- and is just a lot easier
to handle mentally (for me at least!) to get a few long msgs, vs the
series of little one-liners.

For those who do choose to compile their msgs -- it's a good idea to
clearly label what you're talking about (as Cara does) so that we can
follow your discussion.



Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 21:14:43 EDT
From: ***
Subject: NCAA Men's

>And I think some of the reversal needs to come with the assistance of the
press, of which David is in a great position to help the cause.

Again this raises the question:  Is it really David's responsibility to 'help
the cause'?



Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:34:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***
Subject: NCAA Men's

> >And I think some of the reversal needs to come with the assistance of the
> press, of which David is in a great position to help the cause.
> Again this raises the question:  Is it really David's responsibility to 'help
> the cause'?

I don't know that it's his "responsibility", but I think he has the means
to do so if he wishes (not to put any pressure on him, of course ;).  He
has expressed an interest in showing men's gymnastics, he has shown an
interest in our opinions by being on this list, which I respect him
greatly for, and I think he would help if hee could.  I'd like to believe
that some ideas I come up with or support are right, they may not be of
course.  It's up to him to make these decisions in the end, I just hope
they match what I have in mind ;).  I think that with the support of the
press, we can increase interest in the sport, and put some pressure on the
NCAA to keep up support of Men's Gymnastics (and other sports they may
bedropping, if neccesary).  The media is a tremendously powerful tool when
wielded correctly..  He may not have the responsiblity to, but he has the
right to (I guess?) should he wish to.  It would certainly be an excellent
way to shut up loudmouthses like me who complain about such things ;). 



Date: Fri, 2 Sep 1994 21:26:12 -0400 (edt)
From: ***
Subject: This forum

Excellent idea! It would, I assume compliment and meet other needs, not
replace Gymn, and would not require joining Delphi in order to have
access, but just an address on internet.

> Hi, again everyone!
> I recently spoke with some individuals at the University of Chicago
> conerning the possiblity of developing an internet gymnastics forum.
> Unlike Gymn as it is now, my friends were also interested in a forum where
> coaches could discuss techniques (new and old) and the current _technical_
> aspects of the sport.  They were hoping to establish a network through
> which coaches, gymnasts, judges, and spectators could develop closer ties and
> build support groups.
> Does anyone here have any comments?  I would certainly appreciate any anyone
> could give. 
> Thanks,
> Julius


Date: Sat, 3 Sep 1994 13:43:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: ***
Subject: This forum

|    Unlike Gymn as it is now, my friends were also interested in a forum
|    where coaches could discuss techniques (new and old) and the current
|    _technical_ aspects of the sport.  They were hoping to establish a

| When I first read this I thought "Hey, what a great idea".  But the
|  more I thought about it, the more I think that Gymn is the perfect forum
| for this already.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but nothing says that
| we can't discuss technical topics here on Gymn.  From my point of view,
| ...Does it belong
| here or somewhere else?

I personally would love to see more technical discussion here on Gymn.
And, per our guidelines, this forum is for discussion any and all
aspects of gymnastics.  People who are fans should be aware of the
technical sides of the sport -- and people who are deeply involved in
the technical side should, theoretically, want to be aware of what
fans are thinking.

If anything, this type of discussion would serve to demonstrate how
very complicated gymnastics can really be -- easy to forget unless
you're in the thick of it.

The only point I would consider, which has been brought up already, is
that Gymn is already overloaded with traffic.  However, in my opinion,
the solution should not be to start a second forum, but rather to cut
down on the redundant traffic.  I wholeheartedly agreed with David
Litwin when he pointed out the redundancy of a lot of the
conversations lately.  If we've heard it once, we don't need to hear
it again!

Just on a side note... part of the reasons for starting this forum was
to be able to provide information about gymnastics -- and that was
*all* types of information, including technical.  So please, do post!
If anything, it's worth a try to start with Gymn, and if it just
doesn't work, then maybe another forum is in order (and, btw, I would
totally support it and be an avid reader!).



Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 16:50:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: ***
Subject: USA Champs: Men's EF

Men's Senior Nationals
Event Finals
27 August 1994
Municipal Auditorium
Nashville, TN

Well, per usual, the men's event finals began with floor.  Kip Simons
(Ohio) started us off with a botched planche, press to hand. Mark
Booth (Stanford) then fell on a 2.5 twist (he has really interesting
hair, btw).  Scott Keswick (UCLA) then fell on a punch front (I think)
and put his hands down on his last pass -- by this point it was almost
humorous (Keswick himself was laughing -- I was a bit puzzled).
Jeremy Killen (Oklahoma) then impressed with a cool layout Thomas
(which was also done by Simons, McCain, and Hanks, if I got my notes
right), a running Rudi, and a high and stuck full-in dismount.  McCain
(UCLA) then mounted with a high full-in (shuffled), then continued
with the aforementioned layout T, a front full to headspring, and a
full directly into a double full dismount (I think -- that's what I
wrote, but I can't picture it in my memory).  Jarrod Hanks (Oklahoma)
botched his routine by screwing up his full-in dismount, but he had
the coolest move in his routine of planche, press to handstand, *lower
to another planche, press to another handstand*.  (And, interestingly,
the first planche was a bit weak and shaky, but the second one was
great.)  No straddle planche here, either, we're talking a full-blown,
straight body planche.

Anyways, so went floor finals with only two of six routines hit.
Unfortunately, this kind of ratio would hold up throughout the night
-- although there were a few bright spots, overall, I was pretty

The story of floor finals, I should point out, though, is that Jeremy
Killen was the 4th alternate in this event (ie ranked 10th on floor
after AA) yet won the event!  He only competed because three people
ahead of him scratched.  One of the scratchers was Bill Roth (Temple),
who unfortunately was sick to his stomach right before the start of

1. Killen 9.275
2. McCain 9.100
3. Booth 8.925
4. Simons 8.800
5. Hanks 8.650
6. Keswick 8.350


Well, this commentary will be short because I still get utterly
confused on this event.  I've decided that I just can't identify with
events where support is primarily on your hands.  I have difficulty
interpreting various hand switch intricacies on bars, pommels
altogether -- pbars makes me dizzy -- I have a hard time figuring out
anything other than crosses and L-seats on rings -- etc etc.

Keswick was first up and made it through his routines with no big
trouble, but it just wasn't really a gold medal routine.  Mihai (Gold
Cup) then obliged with a clinic on pommel horse finesse.  I may not
understand pommels, but I do know a good routine when I see it -- this
one was long, had lots of one pommel work, had points where he reached
across the pommels, had smooth changes in rhythm, and of course form,
form, form.  Mihai must've intimidated everyone, because the next
three competitors (Stein/Stanford, Bryan/Oklahoma, and Killen) all
fell off.  Hanks was up last and attacked with an aggressive routine
(high and smooth flairs!), albeit with a couple of rough spots.

1. Bagiu 9.637
2. Hanks 9.225
3. Keswick 9.125
4. Stein 8.525
5. Killen 8.450
6. Bryan 8.325


Well, rings was a better story with some nice stuff on display.
Keswick has an inverted cross, giant swing to inverted cross that
really impresses -- his head is down with the rings now and he doesn't
have too far to go until his arms are flat.  He also successfully
landed his double double dismount.  Blaine Wilson (Ohio) had a pretty
Maltese; Kyle Asano (OTC) had a difficult dismount of double back
between rings, giant (I think), into double layout.  Simons held his
inverted forever, and then swung to another inverted, but then put his
hands down on a piked full-in dismount.  Robby Kieffer (Gold Cup)
broke pretty badly on rings, and JD Reive (OTC), last in the rotation,
despite showing a cool mount sequence, bounced on his butt in his

1. Keswick 9.625
2. Wilson 9.450
3. Simons 9.225
4. Asano 9.025
5. Reive 8.550
6. Rob Kieffer 8.500


Unfortunately, we were back to the story of "so what happened to him?"
on vault.  McCain started off well with one and a half twisting
Yurchenkos.  But then Brent Klaus (International, son of Bruno) came
barreling down the runway (you've got to see this run) first with a
double front, and second a Kasamatsu-full (hands down).  Jeff Lutz
(Gym Oklahoma) vaulted a Kas- full -- but the judges, whose view was
obstructed in a sense because there was a bright window in their line
of sight, needed a conference to determine if it was a Kas or a
Kas-full.  The audience, not understanding what was happening, began
to hound the judges with rhythmic clapping, foot stomping, etc.
Someone yelled out "Hey!  He did a double!" and everyone in the crowd
laughed.  After the judges had gathered for the conference (not all of
them had the window blinding them) and given the score for the first
vault (9.275), Lutz then sprinted down the runway only to miss his
hands on his next vault. Sigh.  Booth, next in line, did a layout Tsuk
and a Kasamatsu (which is a Tsuk-full, according to a coach I talked
to), but just didn't have the difficulty. Bill Roth of Temple was next
up -- this guy is *so* popular, sort of the men's Dominique or
something.  Everyone likes him and wants him to do well.  He did a
Kasamatsu 1/2 in layout with a large step to the side. Then, walking
back down the runway, he stops and turns around and yells "Hey Fred
[Turoff, his coach]" Fred says "yeah?"  Roth says "Was I supposed to
flash my vault number?"  The crowd is small enough that everyone can
hear what he's saying and everyone just begins to laugh.  The new
men's rule is that you have to flash your vault number, but since it's
a new rule, you don't get penalized yet if you don't.  So Fred tells
him to flash the number the next time.  Roth goes back down the runway
and turns the vault number board around so that none of the judges can
see it; he then looks all serious, like he's going to vault, and the
judges are like "whoa wait wait wait Fred do something!"  and Roth
then just laughs, goes to the vault board, and turns it back around
and puts the right number up.  Very lighthearted; very very different
from a women's meet.  So anyways, on this second vault, he totally
botches the landing (was totally disoriented and didn't know where he
was when he touched down) and said that he didn't want to run into the
judges table so he aimed for the cameraman.  And trust me, he took out
that camera man in royal fashion; however, he couldn't avoid missing
the judges table either and crashed into it with his shoulder.  He
then gets up, salutes the judges, and walks back down the runway
shaking his head and laughing and then pumps his fist into the air --
much to the crowd's amusement.

Keith Wiley (Stanford) then vaulted with a Kas 1/2 (I think) and a second
vault that I didn't catch.  Not very reporter-like of me...

1. Wiley 9.112
2. McCain 9.075
3. Klaus 9.025
4. Roth 8.912
5. Booth 8.662
6. Lutz 8.650

Parallel Bars

Overall, this was the best event of the night, as there were five guys
to break 9.0 here.  Lutz began the event with a nice mount, and then a
cool sequence (hell if I know what it was, sorry!) ending in a double
front.  However, he then fell on his piked double back.  What a shame.
Jeremy Killen then mounted pbars and did a nice routine that included
a double front too, but then took a step on his double pike.  (Btw, he
was an alternate for this event, too.)  Bagiu then did his standard
routine (oohs and ahhs for the Manna) but then took two steps on *his*
double pike.  (Double pike is to pbars as double tuck is to beam, I
think.)  Richard Grace (Nebraska)'s routine was pretty different --
no, of course I can't tell you what the moves were; if it's a
"different" routine then I *really* can't figure it out.  Keswick then
did an awesome double front to Maltese... way cool.  He then sat on
the bars later in the routine (on an easy move, I think, but I'm not
sure); but he did stick his dismount.  McCain, who had the luck of the
draw on two events (Pbars, Hbar) then mounted the bars and easily
outclassed everyone there by executing a Makuts for the third trick in
his routine.  It really caught your eye.  Hard to describe.  (McCain
tried to describe it, in the interview, but it's just not something
you can picture in your mind.)  Btw, he says he rarely ever makes that
move.  Anyways, he got his double pike dismount and executed quite a
high level of difficulty to dominate the event in the same way that
Mihai did on pommels.

1. McCain 9.600
2. Bagiu 9.250
2. Killen 9.250
4. Grace 9.225
5. Keswick 9.150
6. Lutz 8.750

High Bar

Ahh, here we go, high bar is to men as floor is to women, right?
They're both the "fun events" for the crowd and they're even both last
in Olympic rotation (coincidence?).  High didn't go terribly well,
however.  There were some cool things: Blaine Wilson had two
consecutive hop-fulls (full hops?)  and a triple flyaway - however, he
broke mid routine.  Keswick made it through a nice set with his
awesome Kovacs (extra sweet since he missed it in AA); a hop-full into
Gienger; and a triple flyaway.  Casey Bryan was next and apparently
did a good routine (he got the silver) -- however, I spaced out a bit
here so I didn't write down his routine.  (Hard to concentrate on
every routine, you know...).  Mihai had nice Endo work (I think it was
Endo, not Stalder, but I was still somewhat spacey), and a Kovacs, and
a triple flyaway -- however, he apparently lacked in other difficulty
because even though it looked like he hit his routine, he didn't pull
in a big score.  Mike Moran (Daggett's) fell on a second Tkatchev to
end up in 6th.  Steve McCain then mounted -- and I was sure he was
going to execute the routine of the night, after doing well on Pbars
and being up last and needing to beat only the 9.525 posted by
Keswick. McCain is easily capable of that.  And he did hit all of his
big moves: a Stalder into piked/layout (your call) Tkatchev into
Gienger; a one-arm giant to Gienger (he's capable of a full-twisting
Gienger, or Def, here); and a full-twisting double layout.  However,
he stuttered twice in the routine on what I think were supposed to be
pirrouetting moves -- couldn't tell for sure -- and so gave away the
title.  Total loss of momentum -- very disappointing.  I think I will
never give up in my hope to see him execute another routine like he
did at '93 NCAAs.  It hasn't happened yet, but ONE day... =)

1. Scott Keswick 9.525
2. Casey Bryan 9.225
3. Mihai Bagiu 9.175
4. Steve McCain 8.850
5. Blaine Wilson 8.250
6. Michael Moran 9.200

Yours in gymnastics,


Date: Sun, 4 Sep 1994 18:43:54 -0500 (CDT)
From: ***
Subject: USA Champs: Women's EF

USA Championships, Senior Women
Event Finals
27 Aug 1994
Municipal Auditorium
Nashville, TN

The fact that Dominique Dawes won the all-around made event finals
just that much more exciting.  The anticipation was even greater than
it was for the all-around. Dom had won the big title; would Miller now
pull off a Silivas and win the lion's share of the event finals? Or
would we see total and utter DOMination?  (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

Well, all of you already know the end of the story -- and trust me,
you'll see more bad puns on Dawes' and Moceanu's name, no doubt, in
the year to come.  Lots of the color writers on press row (like USA
Today, the local papers, etc) were so excited about the "Double Dom!"
win because they could do all sorts of creative things with their
headlines.  Whoo hoo, hold on tight.

I was fortunate enough to be sitting in the middle of three coaches
during event finals, who helped me break down all the routines.  (One
of them was Terry Walker, whom you all may remember from the Cypress
interview?  He was very helpful.)  It was a bit intimidating -- having
them all peek over my shoulder and correcting me more often than I'd
like to admit (grin)!  But it was still fun, listening to them discuss
the routines and the strong points, weak points, etc.


This event began with the stylish Sarah Cain.  Her first vault was a
Yurchenko Arabian (the half turn to front somi that they all do).  I
saw it as a piked somi.  I turned to someone and said "hey, what do
you call that, a half turn to front pike?".  He smiled and said "Well,
the number she called was for a layout."  She scored high (9.712), so
I guess the judges "saw" the layout too.  On her second run, she
balked, but didn't touch the horse, so was allowed to redo it.  She
then popped a hand tucked front.

Miller did her typical Yurchenko Arabian (called a Hristakieva -
-sp)-- down to her piked position and step forward.  She took a big
step to the side on her Tsuk Arabian (same postflight as the first).
Wendy Bruce -- who really does look amazingly trim -- stuck a great
hand front-1/2, tucked, and also had a fairly clean Tsuk tuck-full.

Martha Grubbs then won the respect of every gymnastically
knowledgeable person there by throwing a Yurchenko double full.  Her
entourage of coaches whooped it up and everyone who knew anything
about gymnastics threw in their applause.  Only a 9.6? It was then a
bit anticlimatic when she threw a hand front tuck, with a step.

Dawes landed her Yurchenko 1.5 (crossed legs) pretty well and boomed a
great handspring piked front.  Can't wait to see the vault she's
building up to -- I assume a pike front with 1/2 out, but who knows.

And speaking of a piked front with 1/2 out, here came Amy Chow to demo
this exact vault.  Paul Ziert certainly liked it -- he was yelling to
the judges to "go home!" when they scored her with only a 9.562.  She
then popped a nice Yurchenko-full with flair for also a 9.562 (not
hard to average those two scores).  I thought that score should have
been higher -- certainly at least in the 9.6's.

1. Dawes 9.75 (SV= 10, 9.7)
2. Miller 9.70 (SV= 10, 10)
3. Chow 9.562 (SV= 9.9, 9.8)
4. Bruce 9.506 (SV= 9.8, 9.7)
5. Cain 9.468 (SV= 10, 9.7)
6. Grubbs 9.437 (SV= 10, 9.7)


The quality of bars finals was really high -- really outstanding.  The
first four competitors all threw Tkatchevs... pity that Rachel
Rochelli wasn't in bars finals to one-up them with her full-twisting
Tkatchev.  Anyways, Jaycie Phelps had some nice swing and dismounted
with the Cincinatti double front which rebounded back and forced her
to take a small hop.  Miller then threw her latest set, with the cool
clear hip-1/2, Healy into straddle back (a Healy is a full-twisting
front giant) which ended in a complete handstand.  Her double layout
showed better form than she had in AA -- but still really loose.

Jenni Beathard then threw a cool combination of back uprise to
handstand, giant full, into Gienger (thanks to Terry for catching that
combo and many others for me).  She had a high Tkatchev -- and yes,
her legs were straight and her toes were pointed, but did anyone seem
to notice that she had very minimal rotation?  Anyways, she stuck her
full-in dismount.

At this point, the judges had Borden wait a minute or two so they
could rearrange their tables.  Isn't that, well, wrong?  Seems to me
that the judges should judge from the same viewpoint for the duration
of the rotation.  Even if there are problems, if you move the tables
around so that you can get a better viewpoint -- doesn't that give an
unfair advantage to the later gymnasts?  Well, it's unfair of me to
really comment, I guess, since I don't know the story, but maybe
that's also a clue that they should have explained what was going on.

Anyways.  Borden had some happening bars, with good combinations into
both of her releases: a giant-1/2, front giant, straddled Jaeger; and
a giant-full into Tkatchev.  And yes, she dismounted with the
Cincinatti double front (with a hop, as Jaycie did).

And yes, it was Dawes time again.  She has no "real release" (she said
this herself in the post-meet interview), but she did hit her
Shaposhnikova from low to high, her pirouette, giant, giant 1.5 twist
to overshoot, and her full-out dismount.  There was no beating
Dominique tonight -- she just had it all going for her.

Chow again went last, and again followed Dawes (as she had in vault).
She threw a complicated combination of back uprise to handstand, giant
with 1.5 twists, front giant, to piked Jaeger (got all that?) -- and
fell on her Jaeger.  Bummer, man.  But then, she hit her now famous
full-in full-out dismount -- something short of amazing.  (Btw, Eileen
Diaz can throw that dismount -- in the layout position.)

1. Dawes 9.90 (SV=10)
2. Miller 9.762 (SV=9.9)
3. Borden 9.712 (SV=10)
4. Beathard 9.675 (SV=10)
5. Phelps 9.625 (SV=10)
6. Chow 9.112 (SV=9.9)


OK, so Dawes has won two events now, and Miller placed second to her
in both of those events.  This time, Dawes was up first on beam, and
Miller was last.  Hmm.

Dawes showed no signs of pressure and threw her ff to three layouts
(with improved form, no less); her punch front; and her ff, ff,
full-in dismount. Borden then showed us *her* punch front -- for her
mount, which went directly into a leap; a ff, ff, layout (pretty good
form, I thought); a 1/2-twisting straddle jump; another punch front; a
Chen (remember the Paul Hunt stunt from last year?); a double stag
leap with her head back (I think -- it was a bit far from where I was
sitting); and a ff step- out, ff, double tuck dismount -- putting her
hands down.  A shame for an otherwise great routine.  I know I've
mentioned it, but I feel like saying it again -- Amanda is *so*
improved and has added so much poise to her presentation... wow.

Summer Reid (Flips), who has always been a great gymnast but has never
managed to really break into the top ranks, mounted beam with a
tumbling sequence that took her all the way from one end to another.
RO layout on, ff, layout, ff (slight bobble).  She later threw a
gainer ff, ff, layout.  So, she's already cruising, right?  Then she
takes everyone's wind away by throwing a gainer layout landing in
arabesque -- with a half turn out!!  (Everyone was like -- "and with
that half turn out!!" -- it was just too much for some people to
believe.)  She then dismounted with a RO, double tuck and received
amazing applause -- this was easily the fullest the arena had been the
whole week, including women's AA.  I was really disappointed she
didn't medal -- but the next day talking to a coach, he said "Ahh, but
her leaps -- check out that leap right before her gainer layout to
arabesque and you'll see where her deductions came from."  Sure enough
(check your tapes, people), on the broadcast that night, there it was,
that little hop-aka "leap"?  How disappointing.  But still, after
Grubb's vault, and Chow's bars, it was nice to have Reid's beam to
kind of make you sit up and realize just how much USA women's
gymnastics has improved in just five years.

Jaycie Phelps -- who I think looks incredibly like Soni Meduna - -
mounted (like Borden) with a front tuck on; threw a ff to three
layouts; a punch front (bobble); a back dive 1/4 turn with quite a bit
of flight (ie she's actually airborne for more than a split second)
and a very on-center handstand; and dismounted with a ff, ff, double

Jennie Thompson then charmed the crowd with a planche; a standing full
that was just DRILLED, again, into the beam; a back 1/4 dive to
handstand (weak arms here), to 1/4 pirouette step down to to ff
step-outs (why not a layout for the second?); and a full-in dismount.
I wonder why she doesn't throw her Rulfova any more?  It was so good!

Miller had her work cut out for her: she had to beat Dawes' 9.85.
Remember, too, that this was the event that was her problem in the AA.
She threw a clean routine -- no need to list her tricks, as they've
been listed ten other times on Gymn ... for a 9.825.  Another silver.

1. Dawes 9.85 (SV=10)
2. Miller 9.825 (SV=10)
3. Thompson 9.750 (SV=10)
4. Reid 9.625 (SV=10)
5. Phelps 9.350 (SV=9.9)
6. Borden 9.287 (SV=10)


Sarah Cain mounted floor with an Arabian double front (almost fell)
and proceeded to throw lots of combination front tumbling.  Cain is a
tall gymnast, so her lines tend to look nice. Jennie Thompson mounted
with a great whip, whip, whip, ff, triple twist; threw a piked full-in
for her second; had a small front hand, front ff side pass; and
dismount with a triple full.  She didn't get credit, I think, for her
Popa to leap, as her SV was only a 9.9.

Phelps, who really did well to make three event finals, then mounted
floor with a triple twist, threw a w, w, ff, double tuck middle pass,
and a punch front step out, front hand, front full last pass.  We then
got to see Miller's Barcelona routine -- A- gain -- with good
execution on her tumbling passes (w, ff, ff, piked full-in;
handspring, Rudi, ff, layout stepout; front handspring, full twist,
flyspring, front tuck).

And now, Dawes, who we already know is hot for the night having won 3
for 3 thus far.  Her first pass (w, w, ff, double twist, punch front,
ff, ff, ff, 2.5 twist, punch front) was of course the highlight,
though her other passes of piked full-in and ff, 2.5 twist are
certainly none too shabby.  As both she and Miller hit their routines,
it was more a contest of tumbling (Dawes) versus execution (Miller)
--or at least that was the opinion of the coaches sitting around me.
(One coach said he would have picked Dawes' routine over Miller's; the
other coach said no, it should be vice versa.)  Anyways, the point was
that there wasn't a clear cut winner really, in most people's opinion.

But hey, wait!  Floor's not over yet.  Borden mounted with an Arabian
double front and then pranced through one of the most popular routines
of the night.  (It certainly didn't hurt that Stormy announced that
she was "prom queen" at her high school.)  Borden looks *good*.  If
she had more difficulty, she'd be neck and neck with Dawes and Miller,
in my opinion.  Nice kid.

Interestingly, Dawes won floor with three of the judges (Elaine
Thompson, Linda Checinski, and Judy Schalk), and Miller won with the
other three (Sharon Weber, Sandy Thielz, Maria DeCristoforo).  They
were within .05 of each other with every judge except for Thompson,
who gave Dawes a 9.95 and Miller a 9.85 (and Borden a 9.90).

1. Dawes 9.925 (SV=10)
2. Miller 9.912 (SV=10)
3. Borden 9.812 (SV=10)
4. Thompson 9.637 (SV=9.9)
5. Phelps 9.625 (SV=10)
6. Cain 9.00 (SV=9.9)

As all of you know by now, I think, the last person to win the
all-around and all four events was Joyce Tanac Schroeder, in 1969.
And that was at the AAU Nationals, not USGF (however, the AAU was the
governing body for gymnastics at that time, so it would count more
than a USGF sweep). I wonder if it'll be another 25 years before it
happens again!

Yours in gymnastics,


Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 21:14:50 EDT
From: ***
Subject: US Team predictions

Waiting for your US team predictions!  Not much time left!

Since there are 7 spots, list the 7 gymnasts you think most likely to make
the team, IN ORDER:

[ex:  1.  Latynina, 2. Tourischeva, etc.]

1st place-7 points
2nd place-6 points

and on down the line to 7th place (1 point).

No ties!

No, "well if Miller goes then this, if she doesn't then that."  If you want
her on your list, include her.  If not, don't.

Please send your responses to me via PRIVATE E-MAIL, NOT THE LIST.  I'll
tally (deadline is 3pm Saturday 9/3) the results and post them.



Date: Fri, 02 Sep 94 23:27:36 EDT
From: ***
Subject: Various

Cara writes:

>Gimnasta: wasn't Bogie's air guitar '89 and not '88?

Yes, it was.  Now as I reread what I wrote, I realize it was ambiguous.  Let
me clarify what I was saying:  what I meant to say that even though much ado
was made about the air guitar (i.e. '89) routine (it's by far her best known
one), I think the '88 "Carmen" routine was by far her best.

On Kerri, I guess I don't think she excels in any particular way, though she
is very good at a lot of things.  Very good at many things, not great at any.
 I don't find anything special that attracts me to her gymnastics (though
there was a time when she hammed it up on floor, which gave me hope, but she
didn't keep it up).  And then there's my pet peeve: that a gymnast at that
level can't keep her knees straight on her beam layouts bugs me.

I would like to think that Gymn is a place where we can get really technical,
but I wouldn't mind a separate forum.

Finally, I often prefer to cover various threads in a single message, but on
the other hand, it can be easier to sort out threads by having them in
separate messages with their own subject lines.



End of gymn Digest