gymn Digest Mon, 3 Jan 94 Volume 2 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
Chinese women in SC; "John Roth"? (2 msgs)
Floor Ex - Height (4 msgs)
Floor ex - height? (7 msgs)
Here's the scoop!
John Who?!
Kerri Strug
Scoreing and rules
Scoreing and rules (fwd)
Shannon Miller--Training! (2 msgs)
Signature again
training camp (fwd)
Trivia Set #6, answers
Yuri Chechi wins award

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

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 17:07:02 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: Chinese women in SC; "John Roth"?

Hey gymn,

On 21 Dec, there was a story by the AP about Russian Olympic teams
that will be training in Columbia, South Carolina, as their primary
training site for the 96 Games. While the Russian gymnastics team is
not one of the teams, (basketball, swimming, T&F, and sailing), the AP
report did state that the Chinese women's gymnastics team will train
in the Greenville area, "and will stage an international exhibition in
the state this January". (So if you live in or near S. Carolina, get
busy and figure out where! Wouldn't it be nice if Huilan Mo were
there and you could see her Gaylord?)

Also, on a humorous note, on 22 Dec the AP ran a story about the NCAA
"Top Six", an award that recognizes the top six student athletes based
on athletics, academics, character, leadership, and so forth. One of
the six winners was John Roethlisberger from UMN (he's been racking up
those awards lately, hasn't he?). However, the AP listed his name as
"John Roth". He'll be honored along with the others at the 1994 NCAA
Honors award dinner in San Antonio at the annual NCAA convention.

Rachele

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jan 1994 23:12:45 -0500
From: ***@cykick.jvnc.net
Subject: Chinese women in SC; "John Roth"?

Rachele writes (in part):
>Also, on a humorous note, on 22 Dec the AP ran a story about the NCAA
>"Top Six", an award that recognizes the top six student athletes based
>on athletics, academics, character, leadership, and so forth. One of
>the six winners was John Roethlisberger from UMN (he's been racking up
>those awards lately, hasn't he?). However, the AP listed his name as
>"John Roth". He'll be honored along with the others at the 1994 NCAA
>Honors award dinner in San Antonio at the annual NCAA convention.

Just thought you might want to know that ESPN, in the past, has shown the
tape of the awards segment of the dinner m-o-n-t-h-s later. You might want
to keep an eye out for it in your favorite TV listings...

Helena

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 12:28:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: floor ex - height

Dennis asks: is the height factored into the scoring and was it considered
to be 'a high full-in' in feet for example?

-----------

Height is supposed to be factored into scoring. I don't believe there are
any minimums that are strictly set, but I could be wrong. Height is not only
a factor in tumbling; it's very important in vaulting, and also leaps on
floor and beam.

The area of amplitude in tumbling and leaps is often where the reputed
gymnasts are given "gifts" in scoring. For example, if Gogean does a
routine without any tangible mistakes (say bending legs on a Tkatchev,
that's a tangible mistake), but with low amplitude (doesn't rotate above the
high bar on her dismount, for instance), then she will in probability score
higher on the routine than a "no-name" gymnast. This is especially true in
"TV" meets -- the scores tend to be inflated in these meets and judges seem
reluctant to deduct for non-tangible errors.

Btw, "tangible errors" is not a technical term; just how I'm referring to
it.

Re: Dennis's other post regarding Kerri Strug, I personally haven't heard
anything. I wouldn't be surprised though. I hope this is a sign that she
wants to keep on improving and finds it difficult under Miller and with all
those young ones coming up behind her, as opposed to a sign that she's
getting frustrated with gymnastics in general and just trying random
solutions. (Maybe Strug will go to Cincinatti or Cypress, which just happen
to be the two gyms I've interviewed... =)

Rachele

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 15:06:16 -0500
From: ***@riscee.bxb.dec.com
Subject: floor ex - height

There is a minimum height that gymnasts must reach when tumbling. I believe
that a gymnasts hips must be at least the height of the gymnasts shoulders.

When you get great height in tumbling (or vaulting), that's when you can
get "bonus" points. When you get great height, you are able to open up early
(like Zmeskal's vault). That looks better than an "average" Yurchenko full,
and should be rewarded for it.

I think that height requirement is in the FIG, but I haven't seen one of those
in a long time.

Steve

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 17:13:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: floor ex - height

Steve is right, the hips must reach shoulder height. I know I have often
heard that layouts on beam shouldn't be called "layouts" because the hips
don't reach shoulder height.

Dave is right too; since virtuousity was eliminated, the score (as reflected
on paper) bonus isn't there. I think virtuousity was just on the men's
side, however, am I right? Anyways, in addition to Dave's comments about
judging bias in accordance with event lineup, certainly if you just *barely*
made the double layout you would be penalized for poor execution (even if
body was tight and so forth). Am I right? Or has the Code changed that
much? And of course there are still deductions for bent legs and so forth.

Making this discussion a bit more general, the FIG does have lots of
"measured" requirements. For example, I believe that the men's vaulting
bonus is dependent on how far they land from the horse; there's actual lines
on the floor mat to measure. The women must reach at least a 90 degree pike
in the compulsory Tsuk vault before they flair (if they are capable of it).
(That one is obviously estimated by eye.) At the US Classic, I asked someone
why the girls opened out of the tuck early in the compulsory floor routine
when in last year's set of compulsories, the men *delayed* the tuck in their
compulsory. I was told that the FIG was that specific in their rules of the
compulsory. Maybe something like "the gymnast must achieve rotation of xxx
degrees before opening out of the tuck position". A Popa must be spun the
full 360 degrees to receive credit. And so forth

Rachele

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 93 00:02:00 BST
From: ***@genie.geis.com
Subject: Floor Ex - Height
To: gymn@MIT.EDU

Rachele wrote:

> certainly if you just *barely* made the double layout you would be
> penalized for poor execution (even if body was tight and so forth).
> Am I right? Or has the Code changed that much?

According to the current women's Code of Points, a gymnast may receive up to
4.40 points for execution, which includes:

1. correct technique, amplitude and posture;
2. exactness of phases during turns around several axes; and
3. flight height during acrobatic and gymnastic leaps/jumps, flight
elements on UB, the second flight phase at V and on dismounts.

Looking at the Table for General Faults, a gymnast may receive up to a 0.2
deduction for "relaxed body/leg/trunk posture throughout exercise", for
"insufficient height of acrobatic elements with flight", and for
"insufficient tuck, pike, or stretch position" (on V you'd lose 0.3 here),
among other things. So it seems that "just barely" doing a skill would
result in a lower score.

> I think virtuosity was just on the men's side, however; am I right?

I don't have a copy of the 1989 women's Code, but the 1985 women's Code
states that bonus points (bonification) are made up of:

1. originality - max. of 0.2
2. additional "D" - max. of 0.1
3. virtuosity - 0.2
for a total of 0.5 max. points

In the current Code, a gymnast earns bonus points for:

1. special connections - max. of 0.3
2. additional "D" elements - each 0.1
3. "E" elements - each 0.2
for a total of 0.6 max. points

Hope this helps.

Debbie




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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 09:49:40 EST
From: ***@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov

Subject: Floor ex - height?

I have a question that I wondering about for a while now...on floor ex it
is often commented that some athletes have greater height/amplitude when
they execute salto elements..is the height factored into the scoring and
was is considered to be 'a high full-in' in feet for example?

Just currious,
Dennis

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 11:46:14 PST
From: ***@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Floor ex - height?

Dennis writes:
> I have a question that I wondering about for a while now...on floor ex it
> is often commented that some athletes have greater height/amplitude when
> they execute salto elements..is the height factored into the scoring

I believe with the new scoring system they have dropped the
'virtuousity' (sp?) component entirely from the score. Before, with this,
a gymnast could gain a few tenths by doing their moves with extra emphasis,
height, power (for strength moves) or beauty. Under that scoring system
having very high tumbling could actually give you those extra tenths.

Without virtuousity, I don't think there is any numerical advantage
to doing extra high tumbling (or any other sort of virtuousity), meaning a
judge won't up your score by a tenth with that justification. Doing moves
in a way above and beyond the required movements will always impress the
judges, and this will may therefore show on your score, but the paper
justification won't be there. I'm sure if you were to do a high double
layout and later someone did a normal double layout (not that a normal
double layout isn't impressive), they would get as much credit for the move
as you, even though you did it better. If the higher tumbling gymnast went
second, I'm sure it would be reflected in the score, because the judges
would clearly see yours as better. This is a major reason going first in
your rotation is a bummer. Judges have to score you low because they don't
know what will follow you.


> and was is considered to be 'a high full-in' in feet for example?

This depends entirely on the gymnast. A 4'6", 80lb girl won't go
half as high as a 6' 180lb man will, because she doesn't have the power or
need to. I've seen some stop motion photographs of gymnasts in double
layouts (most world class men gymnasts do a full-in layed out, and don't
need to tuck the last flip) where half way through they are about a body
height above ground (it looks really weird to see a straight up and down
that high in the air). I believe one photograph I saw was Yuri Korolev,
the world champion for more than one year in the late 80's (contemporaries
were Dmitri Bilozerchev, Valentin Mogilny, Vladimir Artemov etc.) You
might check older issues of IG around this time and find that same photo...

Dave Litwin

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 15:27:30 PST
From: <***@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Floor ex - height?

Dave sez :

This depends entirely on the gymnast. A 4'6", 80lb girl won't go
half as high as a 6' 180lb man will, because she doesn't have the power or
need to.

Me:

Really ? How many guys at 6' & 180# have the heigh to strength ratio of
Zmeskel ? I sure havent seen many guys at 6' who could get their hips
up shoulder high....

Isnt that why us "goliaths" (guys over 5-5) suck when we go against
"muscle stumps" like Jason Cohen (Stanford U) ?
(Kid's barely over 5' and hes got muscles on him like tree trunks!)

This actually brings up a fascinating new topic, well suited to all us
engineering types. We are just the right folk top do it too !
Height to strength ratios, weight to flight ratios etc.
Anyone got data to use ? And maybe the equations to feed the data too ?
Someone did some studies about joint geometry and strength but I for got who.
(The research led to breakthroughs in artificial joint research)

Im serious, this would be a kewl math project to run.
I really want to get some people interested in this.

Might also be interesting if we could find a way to factor in over dieting
(OZ olympic team) and how while they are lighter, too much weight taken off
kills strength. (We know this, but a math proof would be fascinating to do.)

(Texx calls the power co to bring 2 more power plants online as he begins
warming up the bank of CRAYs....)

Personally, I think this is a good thing, but being a "goliath type",
easing of the virtuosity is to my advantage...

Your milage may vary etc...


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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 16:23:18 PST
From: ***@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Floor ex - height?

> I sure havent seen many guys at 6' who could get their hips up shoulder
> high....

When people say "hips up shoulder high", what are they talking
about?
From my hips to my shoulders is only about two feet, and I can jump
up a foot and a half from a standstill. With a rebound out of a flipflop
on a spring floor I'm sure I could fairly easily double that. That would
put my hips well above my shoulders. Maybe this is measuring something I'm
unfamiliar with, but it doesn't sound that uncommon.

> Isnt that why us "goliaths" (guys over 5-5)

Being tall has the disadvantages of being heavier and having longer
bones (i.e. therefore a longer lever for your muscles to pull). Both
require more strength. but being tall has advantages as well. Tall people
look much more graceful on pommel horse (their swing looks generally slower
because of the length) and highbar as well. On floor having an extra bit
of weight (from size, not lack of shape) gives you more of a punch, which
can translate into height, although I'd still prefer to be lighter...
I wouldn't call a gymnast (male that is) over 5-5 a goliath, I'd
put 'large' at around 5-8. I don't know any numbers, but looking at most
collegiate gymansts I think you'll find most of them are above 5-5. Quite
a few of the better gymnasts I know are 5-8 and above...

Dave "I'm 5-9 :("

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 18:09:28 -0700 (MST)
From: <***@rainbow.sosi.com>
Subject: Floor ex - height?


> This actually brings up a fascinating new topic, well suited to all us
> engineering types. We are just the right folk top do it too !
> Height to strength ratios, weight to flight ratios etc.
> Anyone got data to use ? And maybe the equations to feed the data too ?
> Someone did some studies about joint geometry and strength but I for got who.
> (The research led to breakthroughs in artificial joint research)
>
> Im serious, this would be a kewl math project to run.
> I really want to get some people interested in this.
>
> Might also be interesting if we could find a way to factor in over dieting
> (OZ olympic team) and how while they are lighter, too much weight taken off
> kills strength. (We know this, but a math proof would be fascinating to do.)

I think that there are just too many factors in something like 'how high can
you jump' to plug in your weight and height, run it through a CRAY :), and
receive a printout of your maximum vertical. Not only does
height/strength make a difference, but WHERE that strength is makes a
huge difference. Just look at Chris Waller--he's strong as hell in his
upper-body, and yet he's a mediocre vaulter/floorX'er because his legs
aren't nearly as strong. Kim Zmeskal's calf and thigh muscles are HUGE
compared to her upper body--definitely more leg muscle per total weight
ratio than Chris Waller.

If you came up with a formula, you'd certainly get my vote for a Nobel in
science!

Andy

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 19:52:14 PST
From: <***@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Floor ex - height?

>I think that there are just too many factors in something like 'how high can
>you jump' to plug in your weight and height, run it through a CRAY :), and
>receive a printout of your maximum vertical. Not only does
>height/strength make a difference, but WHERE that strength is makes a
>huge difference.

I did not mean a single formula. I meant study the math involved in all
these movements. Im not looking for a max height based on a few things.
Im looking for patterns and correlations that are math based.

For instance, a gymnast who weighs x and jumps y distance will hit the floor
with z impact at w degrees. Now this would be a simple one. I am
intrigued with some of the more complicated stuff than this though.

>If you came up with a formula, you'd certainly get my vote for a Nobel in
>science !

Well I had hoped some of the rest of you might like to come and play too ?

Dear lad, the pursuit is most of the fun. Who cares if we get anywhere?
Lets just have ball trying.

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 23:26:07 EST
From: ***@aluxpo.att.com
Subject: Floor ex - height?

I think the USGF folks must have some formulas up their sleeves for
this kind of stuff, because that's exactly what they're testing at
TOPS. I'll admit I'm a proud parent (not pushy - just proud) - I'll give
you some statistics about Sara, who probably has about as high a strength
to weight ratio as you can have ( she's 4'6" but only 75 #s, not 80!) -
standing vertical jump: 24"; bench press: 85; squats: 127; broad jump: 7'8";
bounders: 22'10"; 20M sprint: 3.01; rope climb: 11.43. What this all does
in her gymnastics is stuff like - she doesn't need to run into her tumbling
passes, her layouts on beam are almost head high and she doesn't need to
start with a backhandspring, she can "pop" off the vault, and she can
really swing the bars without muscling them. Of course there's a big
trade-off with all this strength - she needs to spend extra time working on
her flexibility.

On another note - they held a mock meet at the National Team training
camp a couple weeks ago. Kara Fry did happen to mention that she did
get a deduction for insufficient amplitude in one of her leap passes.
As far as tumbling goes, I would think that insufficient amplitude would
have major impact on landings and really make the difference there.

Toby

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

Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1993 20:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: Here's the scoop!

Kerri Strug is now training back at Brown's. (It's really more her style,
in my opinion, than Dynamo...)

Shannon Miller is on a hiatus from training.

Steve Nunno is probably tearing his hair out! =)

Disclaimer: I don't know *any* more information than the above (a little
birdie told me), and it's second hand information. I don't know when Strug
moved, I don't know if Miller is not training at all or just maybe on a
reduced schedule, I don't know if Miller will be back for the '94 Worlds, I
don't know how long this hiatus is, etc etc...

Btw, a hearty congratulations to Toby's daughter Sara for such awesome
results from TOPs testing. Toby's too modest to say it, but Sara was one of
the top (if not the top) gymnast tested in the entire country!

Also, a belated congratulations to another Gymn member, Jessamyn
Salter-Blackwell (hope I got that name right), who was on last year's TOPs
team!

Rachele

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 23:45:27 -0500 (EST)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: John Who?!

Strange that the incorrect name,(Roth),is the name of another national team
member, Bill Roth, a graduate of Temple University! Bill was coached in high
school by his dad.... John Roth!

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 93 10:57:31 EST
From: ***@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov
Subject: Kerri Strug

I read today on the gymnastics bulletin board on Prodigy that Kerri
Strug is leaving Dynamo Gymnasics and is in the process of finding
another gym. Can anyone out thee confirm this ?

Dennis

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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 18:09:26 -0500 (EST)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: Scoreing and rules

The new mens code of points was designed to eliminate the problems judges have
had in the past awarding bonus points. At the world championship level most
gymnasts were virtuous according to the rules. Virtuosity was simply
performing a skill with more amplitude than required. Tumbling is reqired to
be hips at shoulder height. Show me a double layout done lower(men) and I'll
show you a hurtin' gymnast. The new bonus points allow for a seperation of the
better gymnast; the better gymnast being the gymnast that can perform more
difficulty without sacrificing execution. Exercise presentation is worth 5.4
point for men in the new code as opposed to 4.4 in the old code. Every four
years scores escalate and by the Olympics many gymnasts are scoring 9.8 or
better. I don't think that the rules are too difficult I think that it is
just going to take some time for the gymnasts routines to catch up (and as
they usually do) and surpass the rules. The new code of points finally gives
the judges a way to seperate the superior gymnast from the average gymnast.
Even at world class level thewre are those gymnasts that are visibly better
than their peers. How many times have we seen a routine that scored 9.7 and
then a 9.9 that was much better than .2 btter than the 9.7 routine?
The new rules address this problem. The old bonus rules (ROV) did not really
apply to the world class gymnasts; they were all capable of getting bonus.
Now only the best will get max bonus. Certain events are more difficult than
others to get bonus but now the better gymnast should score higher. Mens
vaulting does require distance for bonus-minimum required distance for no
deduction 2.5 meters bonus awarded for distance beyond 3.5 meters. 3.5 meters
is a hell of a vault. Just throwing in my 2 cents!

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

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1993 10:13:47 -0500 (EST)
From: <***@dorsai.dorsai.org>
Subject: Scoreing and rules (fwd)

The new mens code of points was designed to eliminate the problems judges have
had in the past awarding bonus points. At the world championship level most
gymnasts were virtuous according to the rules. Virtuosity was simply
performing a skill with more amplitude than required. Tumbling is reqired to
be hips at shoulder height. Show me a double layout done lower(men) and I'll
show you a hurtin' gymnast. The new bonus points allow for a seperation of the
better gymnast; the better gymnast being the gymnast that can perform more
difficulty without sacrificing execution. Exercise presentation is worth 5.4
point for men in the new code as opposed to 4.4 in the old code. Every four
years scores escalate and by the Olympics many gymnasts are scoring 9.8 or
better. I don't think that the rules are too difficult I think that it is
just going to take some time for the gymnasts routines to catch up (and as
they usually do) and surpass the rules. The new code of points finally gives
the judges a way to seperate the superior gymnast from the average gymnast.
Even at world class level thewre are those gymnasts that are visibly better
than their peers. How many times have we seen a routine that scored 9.7 and
then a 9.9 that was much better than .2 btter than the 9.7 routine?
The new rules address this problem. The old bonus rules (ROV) did not really
apply to the world class gymnasts; they were all capable of getting bonus.
Now only the best will get max bonus. Certain events are more difficult than
others to get bonus but now the better gymnast should score higher. Mens
vaulting does require distance for bonus-minimum required distance for no
deduction 2.5 meters bonus awarded for distance beyond 3.5 meters. 3.5 meters
is a hell of a vault. Just throwing in my 2 cents!

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

Date: Sun, 2 Jan 94 22:13:55 EST
From: ***@sunland.gsfc.nasa.gov

Subject: Shannon Miller--Training!

Recently someone posted a message saying that Shannon Miller's training
was in hiatus..well news travels quickly and this statement make its
way to America On Line and then it was was passed on to Prodigy where
I read it after originally reading here on gymn.

Well one of the subsribers of Prodigy, kaitlyn dyson (now training at
Cypress) make a call to some contact that she has back at Dynamo.
She said Shannon was in the gym today (Sunday) training for an event
in January..I believe its for the Resees World Cup.

So as it turns out Shannon is still training. According to Kaitlyn,
Shannon took off three days off for the holidays at San Antonio.
Thought I'd fill you in.....

dennis

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 19:16:03 PST
From: <***@us.oracle.com>
Subject: Shannon Miller--Training!

Dennis sez:

So as it turns out Shannon is still training. According to Kaitlyn,
Shannon took off three days off for the holidays at San Antonio.
Thought I'd fill you in.....

For thoser of you all who dont know.... (^%$#@! YANKEES)
San Antonio during the holidays is quite the place to be.
You must experience it to believe it. The place is absolutely
gorgeous. Im surprised Shannon only took 3 days off.
It is worth it to lay off longer than that for Xmas in "San Antone"

Say all your prayers, live a good life, & maybe SOMEDAY youll get to Texas !

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

Date: Mon, 3 Jan 94 15:35:16 +0100
From: ***@avila.inesc.pt
Subject: Signature again

hi gymn.

I was looking for some news post and I saw an intereesting signature.
Just like that:


.....................................................................
. Paul Dineen pld@fc.hp.com .
. Software Services & Technology (SST) .
.....................................................................
. o \ o / _ o __| \ / |__ o _ \ o / o .
. /|\ | /\ __\o \o | o/ o/__ /\ | /|\ .
. / \ / \ | \ /) | ( \ /o\ / ) | (\ / | / \ / \ .
.....................................................................
. Vs guvf vf cbfgrq gb n aba-qvfphffvba tebhc gura lbh nyy unir zl .
. fvaprerfg ncbybtl. .
.....................................................................

GOOD isn't it?

Bye now


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

Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 22:03:50 -0700 (MST)
From: <***@rainbow.sosi.com>
Subject: training camp (fwd)

There was recently a training camp for the elite women's national team
here in Colorado Springs that I managed to see a little of. Just a few
comments...

Forwarded message:
> From hof Wed Dec 29 17:51:43 1993
> Subject: Re: training camp
> Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1993 17:51:43 -0700 (MST)
> X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 2485
>
> > Did you ever make it to the training camp at the OTC in December? Well, if
> > not, there's another one in January. Don't know exactly when...
>
> Yeah, I forgot to tell you. I went. It was pretty cool:
> I called before hand to find out what times the gymnasts would be in the
> gym. All they could tell me was that they had the gym reserved from 8-5
> and again from 6-10 on both Fri and Sat. So I figured I'd go around 7 on
> Fri (they'd be done with warm up). I got there and found the gym
> completely empty. I asked some janitor and he said they had finished for
> the day. Crap! So I decided to come back the next day around 2. I got
> there and again, nothing. I was pretty pissed. I waited for about ten
> minutes (I figured they were still at lunch), then decided to leave.
> Right as I was walking out the door, Amanda Borden and several other
> giggling girls barged in! Cool. So I ended up watching for about an
> hour. Dominique Dawes was there (although I didn't see Kelli Hill
> anywhere. Wonder who she came up with). I also saw Larissa Fontaine and
> several other girls I recognized but didn't know of their names. I think
> Rachel Rochelli (sp?) was there because I heard a coach yell out her
> name, even though I don't know what she looks like. Unless of course
> there's another Rachel.
> Anyway, practice was pretty interesting. They were doing every event,
> even vault. Dominique looked pretty sloppy, in fact I didn't think it
> was her until she walked right past me to get some water. She has a
> REALLY bad finger nail-biting habit -- the things you don't notice on
> TV. Amanda was mostly doing vault and she looked pretty good,
> considering she's not a strong vaulter. The vault they were doing was
> like this: jump off board, turn 180 deg, push off horse facing up, and
> then layout. Is that the new compulsory vault? What's it called?
> I wish I knew more names. It's really frustrating when you don't.
> Larissa was doing floor ( mostly just dance elements) and she looked
> really good, too. (The coach (Hungarian guy--don't remember his name) was
> constantly praising her) I was not close to bars, so I couldn't see who
> was over there.
> I enjoyed watching practice. One interesting note--I was practically
> the only spectator there (there were maybe two or three others). I
> thought the place would be packed. :(
> Anyway, that's about it. Guess I should've sent this to all of gymn.
> Ah well, you can forward it if you want.
>
> Andy
>

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

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1993 12:01:33 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: Trivia Set #6, answers

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

o o o o o o o Trivia Set #6 o o o o o o o

TOPIC: people with December birthdays

Thanks to Debbie for the first five questions!

--Q1. Which gymnasts from the December birthday list in _IG_ (1993) have won
the European AA title?

A. Larissa Latynina (URS) in '57 and '61
Stoyan Deltchev (BUL) in '79
Dmitri Bilozerchev (URS) in '83 and '85
Valery Lyukin (URS) in '87
Valentin Mogilny (URS) in '90

--Q2. They were the '88 and '92 alternates on the USSR Olympic team. Who are
they?

A. Valentin Mogilny was the '88 alternate, and Alexander Kolyvanov was the
'92 alternate.

--Q3. Which 2 junior European AA champions have December birthdays?

A. Bilozerchev, who won in '82, and Kolyvanov, 12/6/71, who won in '86 and
'88.

--Q4. Which female gymnasts have represented their countries in at least 3
major internationals (ie, a Worlds or Olympics)?

A. Larissa Latynina (URS): Olympics '56,'60,'64; Worlds '58,'62,'66
Cathy Rigby (USA): Olympics '68,'72; Worlds '70
Pam Bileck (USA): Olympics '84; Worlds '83,'85
Hana Ricna (TCH): Olympics '88; Worlds '83,'85
Sarah Mercer (GBR): Olympics '92; Worlds '89,'91
Cristina Bontas (ROM): Olympics '92; Worlds '89,'91

--Q5. Natalia Kalinina and Alexander Kolyvanov represented the USSR at which
American Cup, and how did they finish?

A. They competed in '90. Kolyvanov won the men's title, which
Kalinina took 2nd behind Kim Zmeskal.

--Q6. Who am I?

a. "I pioneered a major release on high bar, similar to an Arabian, a
half twist into front flip, usually competed straddled."

A. Stoyan Deltchev (BUL).

b. "I competed a full-twisting double layout in the Floor event finals
at 1991 Worlds to tie Chusovitina (who also competed a full-twisting double
layout) for that title."

A. Cristina Bontas (BUL)

c. "I am the youngest men's AA World Champion ever - I was only 16. Not
only did I set that record, but I also won with a record score of 59.85."

A. Dmitri Bilozerchev (URS)

d. "We were 1st and 2nd AA at the 1988 Olympics, both now coach at gyms
in neighboring states of the US, and are on the USA Gymnastics National
Coaching Staff for women."

A. Vladimir Artemov (URS) won the 1988 Olympics and now coaches at KIPS
Heartbeats in Mississippi. Valery Liukin (URS) was 2nd to Artemov, and last
I know was coaching at Elmwood Gymnastics Academy in New Orleans, with plans
to open his own gym. Both of them are on the women's National Coaching
staff.

e. "I invented many moves, including the 1996 Olympic compulsory vault
for women."

A. Mitsuo Tsukahara (JPN).

f. "I did four release moves in my bar routine at the 1993 USA
Championships."

A. Larissa Fontaine (USA, American Academy of Gymnastics).

g. "I am the 1991 men's World Champion."

A. Grigori Misutin (URS).

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

Date: Sat, 01 Jan 1994 10:03:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: ***@delphi.com
Subject: Yuri Chechi wins award

A survey by "Gazzetta dello Sport of Milan", an Italian newspaper,
showed that Yuri Chechi was the top Italian athlete of 1993. Chechi
won the rings event at worlds this year after being injured for much
of 1992 (missed the Olympics).

Miguel Indurain (cyclist from Spain) and Krisztina Egerszegi (swimmer
from Hungary) were the top world athletes, according to the readers.
Michael Jordan was the most popular international athlete.

Rachele

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

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