What an extraordinary statement. What on earth does Karolyi mean by this?
What does she mean - ballerina? When we hear the word, our immediate associations are - elegance, grace, posture, effortless poise, beauty. Aren't they? And isn't this exactly what we would want from our gymnastics?
Well, I can entirely understand why Karolyi wouldn't want elegance to win. Given the state of some of the gymnastics that emanates from her training camps.
This often gets confused with a question of body type, size, shape, weight or looks, quite a sensitive issue given the age of many of these competitors. But I will take just one example that perhaps even isn't at the extreme end of the scale. America's Rebecca Bross. She has more or less the same basic body type as say, for example, Mustafina - powerful, proportionately long limbs, strong bodied. But look at the differences. Just look at the differences. Consider line, elevation, fluidity of movement, range of movement, expression. What makes them so different? I would suggest it is the training ... nothing personal.
Karolyi goes on to say that difficulty is also important, which I would agree. But, as has been demonstrated here in the Ahoy Stadium this week, it is possible to combine elegant grace with difficulty without compromising the balletic qualities of the sport.
Embedded in Karolyi's statement is a deep assumption that it is possible to exert influence over the FIG as regards what constitutes good gymnastics - that she can control what they think. Hrmph. I certainly hope the other Federations, those with good, elegant gymnasts such as Lauren Mitchell, the Chinese whose team are always well prepared, do not let such ignorance pass without comment.
The whole of Karolyi's discussion can be read here.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/brian_cazeneuve/10/22/karolyi/index.html
What does she mean - ballerina? When we hear the word, our immediate associations are - elegance, grace, posture, effortless poise, beauty. Aren't they? And isn't this exactly what we would want from our gymnastics?
Well, I can entirely understand why Karolyi wouldn't want elegance to win. Given the state of some of the gymnastics that emanates from her training camps.
This often gets confused with a question of body type, size, shape, weight or looks, quite a sensitive issue given the age of many of these competitors. But I will take just one example that perhaps even isn't at the extreme end of the scale. America's Rebecca Bross. She has more or less the same basic body type as say, for example, Mustafina - powerful, proportionately long limbs, strong bodied. But look at the differences. Just look at the differences. Consider line, elevation, fluidity of movement, range of movement, expression. What makes them so different? I would suggest it is the training ... nothing personal.
Karolyi goes on to say that difficulty is also important, which I would agree. But, as has been demonstrated here in the Ahoy Stadium this week, it is possible to combine elegant grace with difficulty without compromising the balletic qualities of the sport.
Embedded in Karolyi's statement is a deep assumption that it is possible to exert influence over the FIG as regards what constitutes good gymnastics - that she can control what they think. Hrmph. I certainly hope the other Federations, those with good, elegant gymnasts such as Lauren Mitchell, the Chinese whose team are always well prepared, do not let such ignorance pass without comment.
The whole of Karolyi's discussion can be read here.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/brian_cazeneuve/10/22/karolyi/index.html
0 comments:
Post a Comment