WAG Abuse/dress code tangent: does judging artistry inherently sexualize athletes?

[B&M's mom]

At the JO level, artistry can be a deciding factor. Several years ago, my daughter's gym was hosting its meet. I had a friend sitting at the floor judges' table when my daughter competed. My daughter did one of her best routines of that season and got an appropriate score. The judges commented favorably on my daughter's routine. Next up was another girl who also did a fabulous routine but really danced, unlike my daughter who performed the choreography but without emotion One of the judges remarked that the second girl had really sold that routine. She outscored my daughter, taking first place by .05.

 

[gymmomx2]

The way I think about artistry in gymnastics is the same way I look at visiting an art museum. There are lots of different styles in painting - Impressionism, Modernism, Pop Art, Post Modern, Romantic, Renaissance, Medieval, the list goes on and on. It doesn't matter that most of the artists are using the same materials (oil color and canvas). Each style is distinct and separate.

Some people love and/or appreciate all art. Some people have certain artists/styles that speak more than others. It is the same with gymnastics. Almost every routine I've watched in optionals, elite and NCAA has been artistic (I can't say all because after almost a decade of watching regularly I can remember a couple of doozies along the way with a distinct lack of tying music, skills, dance and performances together into a cohesive whole). Some of the routines are balletic, some focus strongly on rhythm, some show off technique, some highlight raw power and control. But they all are artistic. Some of it works for me personally, some of it doesn't.

It sounds like some on this board would prefer a more minimalist approach to floor routines, some a balletic approach, others may appreciate the hip hop inspired routines, other may love the storytelling 'zombie' routine performed by the Belgium gymnast Eythora Thorsdottir. Deciding what kinds of routines one likes best is very different than passing judgement on what constitutes artistry.

I think the problem arises since judges are asked to judge and deduct execution scores for artistry or lack thereof. If artistry is going to be a part of scoring gymnastics, I wish they would make it transparent and have 3 score components: difficulty, technical execution, artistry.

 

[Flyaway]

I think the problem arises since judges are asked to judge and deduct execution scores for artistry or lack thereof. If artistry is going to be a part of scoring gymnastics, I wish they would make it transparent and have 3 score components: difficulty, technical execution, artistry.

Similar to figure skating? Of course they've had their own share of scoring drama along the years, but don't they still have an artistry score?

From NBC Olympics site:

Briefly: Skaters receive two sets of marks for each program: the technical element score (TES) is based on the difficulty and execution of the technical elements, such as the jumps and spins, and the program component score (PCS) is based on artistry, interpretation and presentation. The TES and PCS are combined for a skater’s total score

 

[tucktwisttumble]

That is not artistry by my definition of it.

Let me try and give you a more quantitative definition. Because judging artistry (for me) is not a matter of me liking or disliking the style of performance.

Think:
Was the athlete successful in performing this 'style', what ever the style was?
Did the athlete have facial expression/ interaction with judges and audience?
Was there coordination to the movements?

Yes? Then to me they 'checked' the artistry box on a score sheet. No? Then they get a deduction.

Doesn't matter if I personally like hip hop or ballet style routines. This is three easy yes/no questions that can make 'artistry' fairly quantitative. I can look at a routine that I might not particularly like but can easily determine if artistry was demonstrated or not.

If someone is doing a 'hip hop' style floor routine, but they are softly hitting their movements, or do it with a straight face - then no that is not artistry. Vice versa, if someone has rough, uncoordinated movements attempting to perform a poetic/ ballet routine = not artistry. Match the choreography to the music to the athletes strengths*, what ever it might be

*IRREGARDLESS of body type. For example: I was a very long/tall lean athlete and I had a Latin flair routine.... I was not type-casted into ballet routine because my body type said I had to. My performance strengths were in a much more upbeat routine, and my coaches and I played with those strengths. Note without a ballet routine I regularly placed top 3 on floor, and won several special awards for 'artistry & performance' just because that came very naturally to me - and I stood-out among girls who were maybe a little more awkward in their movements.

 

[MILgymFAM]

Let me try and give you a more quantitative definition. Because judging artistry (for me) is not a matter of me liking or disliking the style of performance.

Think:
Was the athlete successful in performing this 'style', what ever the style was?
Did the athlete have facial expression/ interaction with judges and audience?
Was there coordination to the movements?

Yes? Then to me they 'checked' the artistry box on a score sheet. No? Then they get a deduction.

Doesn't matter if I personally like hip hop or ballet style routines. This is three easy yes/no questions that can make 'artistry' fairly quantitative. I can look at a routine that I might not particularly like but can easily determine if artistry was demonstrated or not.

If someone is doing a 'hip hop' style floor routine, but they are softly hitting their movements, or do it with a straight face - then no that is not artistry. Vice versa, if someone has rough, uncoordinated movements attempting to perform a poetic/ ballet routine = not artistry. Match the choreography to the music to the athletes strengths*, what ever it might be

*IRREGARDLESS of body type. For example: I was a very long/tall lean athlete and I had a Latin flair routine.... I was not type-casted into ballet routine because my body type said I had to. My performance strengths were in a much more upbeat routine, and my coaches and I played with those strengths. Note without a ballet routine I regularly placed top 3 on floor, and won several special awards for 'artistry & performance' just because that came very naturally to me - and I stood-out among girls who were maybe a little more awkward in their movements.

For me, I get caught up on your first item- successfully competing the style- I couldn’t even tell what style that was (to use the video as an example), but it wasn’t pleasing to my eye so where would I go from there? I love hip-hop dancing- it’s my favorite style. I adore ballet as well. I enjoy jazz and everything else I can think of besides lina dancing. It’s not about style preference imo, and I certainly don’t care about body type. I guess I may just be in the camp that prefers minimalism in floor and beam routines.

 

[Tumbellina82]

That routine strikes me as corner dancing, and as a series of connected poses and arm waving, albeit not in the typical ballet style. Within the context of the FIG scheme it meets the criteria fine, with the possible exception of "expressiveness", because that isn't defined in the scheme so judges may interpret it in the way you do or not. Taken out of the context of a gymnastics routine I don't think it really looks like dance though. If you suggested someone dance their heart out to that music I don't think that's what you'd get.

 

[3rd_time_around]

Let me try and give you a more quantitative definition. Because judging artistry (for me) is not a matter of me liking or disliking the style of performance.

Think:
Was the athlete successful in performing this 'style', what ever the style was?
Did the athlete have facial expression/ interaction with judges and audience?
Was there coordination to the movements?

Yes? Then to me they 'checked' the artistry box on a score sheet. No? Then they get a deduction.

Doesn't matter if I personally like hip hop or ballet style routines. This is three easy yes/no questions that can make 'artistry' fairly quantitative. I can look at a routine that I might not particularly like but can easily determine if artistry was demonstrated or not.

If someone is doing a 'hip hop' style floor routine, but they are softly hitting their movements, or do it with a straight face - then no that is not artistry. Vice versa, if someone has rough, uncoordinated movements attempting to perform a poetic/ ballet routine = not artistry. Match the choreography to the music to the athletes strengths*, what ever it might be

*IRREGARDLESS of body type. For example: I was a very long/tall lean athlete and I had a Latin flair routine.... I was not type-casted into ballet routine because my body type said I had to. My performance strengths were in a much more upbeat routine, and my coaches and I played with those strengths. Note without a ballet routine I regularly placed top 3 on floor, and won several special awards for 'artistry & performance' just because that came very naturally to me - and I stood-out among girls who were maybe a little more awkward in their movements.

Exactly. Courtney McCool was a stocky gymnast in college, short with muscular legs. She usually performed more of a ballet routine while longer, taller Courtney Kupets performed more hiphop or modern-type dance. I don't look at the style of dance in a floor routine, I look at: does the gymnast own this routine? Does she put some personality in it? Does she execute it well? Do the movements match the music genre? Does it flow and is it engaging? Does she look like she just wants to be someplace else or bored or "Dear God, just take me now"? That's what I consider when looking at "artistry." There actually are 3 parts, as a previous poster mentioned, and each is worth .1 up to .3 total for the whole routine.

 

[mommyof1]

At the compulsory levels, I don't see dance being rewarded, only form. My kid has made huge improvements in dance and genuinely performs to the music, but it has made exactly zero difference in her scores. Kids who look wooden but have perfectly straight (preferably hyperextended) legs seem to get the highest scores.

 

[amiandjim]

At the compulsory levels, I don't see dance being rewarded, only form. My kid has made huge improvements in dance and genuinely performs to the music, but it has made exactly zero difference in her scores. Kids who look wooden but have perfectly straight (preferably hyperextended) legs seem to get the highest scores.

I remember us discussing this a couple years ago? It seems some gyms/judges prefer very precise, almost robotic dance moves in compulsory vs fluid/artistic.

 

[wandrewsjr]

At the compulsory levels, I don't see dance being rewarded, only form. My kid has made huge improvements in dance and genuinely performs to the music, but it has made exactly zero difference in her scores. Kids who look wooden but have perfectly straight (preferably hyperextended) legs seem to get the highest scores.

Artistry is up to 0.3 overall for the whole routine. Bent legs are up to 0.3(and flexed feet are 0.05 and uneven leg sep up to 0.1 and lack of split up to 0.2 and lack of releve up to 0.1 and feet not landing together on jumps 0.1 and posture up to 0.2...) on every element in the routine. So, yes, form breaks are most definitely deducted more than lack of artistry.

And it is the same at the optional and elite levels. If you see a more "balletic" routine scoring higher, it is much more likely it is because the dance technique on the elements is being rewarded - turns are fully completed, in control and in high releve; leaps and jumps show height and hip rise with good posture and fully extended legs that are straight and feet pointed - than the actual artistry being rewarded.