Coaches To Ballet or not to Ballet

[traceyd1]

I'm talking about arms and hands in dance sections of floor and beam. What's your thoughts about someone for example on beam, with either 1) arms in 5th or 2) arms straight but soft ballet fingers as opposed to strong spiky fingers?My view is that as long as it's aesthetically pleasing, and there is control of the body, who cares? For example, I would not like an open 2nd arm on the beam, definitely prefer arms high and back, then it's a matter of my preference.I'm trying to think of an instance where ballet arms could be techinically incorrect/biomechanically, and can think of front/back hs, but in these cases just because someone has ballet arms in dance moves doesn;t mean they will have soft arms when tumbling.Would love some feedback from senior judges, gymnasts or coaches please.

 

[CoachTodd]

From my experience, it's the shoulder position that technically determines stability. The "long neck" forces the gymnast to push the shoulders down and back. This supports the entire upper back and if you add the posture to that, the entire spine is supported. Having said that, the arms can do whatever they need to do to look pretty as long and the shoulders and core are where the should be. I actually believe that Ballet is more correct but only if the basics are done right.

 

[Linsul]

Definitely ballet. There are a lot of aesthetic preferences that can come into play, but that's not a drawback. Having options isn't a bad thing! Ballet is also great for developing core and back muscles, and using/developing the smaller muscle groups. All of this adds to a greater range and ability of movement. A gymnast that can arrange her body artfully and maintain balance, power, and speed = good thing. Also, ballet isn't something you turn off and on. When it comes to precise movements, it's safe to say a gymnast has enough physical command of themselves to move purposefully. Whether their arms are crowned or not has everything to do with intent and the desired outcome moreso than some out of control ballet part of the brain that overrides everything else.

 

[JBS]

Unfortunately the new code has accelerated the level of difficultly so aggressively...it is hard to fit ballet in without running tons of hours. Extra hours are spent on skills...not art. The artistic part of artistic gymnastics is being lost. Ballet is what is needed to bring it back.

 

[Linsul]

If you're spending so many hours on ballet that skills are suffering, you're doing it wrong. That's the best reason for concern I've read so far over the years though honestly. It's very possible to get benefits of ballet even with difficulty in code; because a suitable and adequate ballet program would begin at pre-team levels and carry through a gymnasts competitive years. Ballet for gymnasts has potential to get messed up 2 ways that I've seen.

1. Ballet training with a focus on classical lines (actual ballet) rather than gymnastics enhancement

2. Ballet being implemented right before Optional level gymnastics, or inconsistently practiced. Such as 'ballet every third week of the month for an hour during Thursdays workout' and such.

The first is slamming your head against a wall. Classical lines are something you spend darn near a lifetime achieving; and at the very least require as much time in a dance studio as the gym. Oversplits, gymnastics conditioning, and selective turn out are at odds with the classical lines, extension, and consistent turn out in action that ballet requires. This is unnecessary and will only serve to frustrate all involved.

The second is pretty self explanatory. Gymnastics focused, age appropriate ballet training in tandem with gymnastics during the formative, foundation skill years that's carried through to Optionals is a wonderful thing. Inconsistency rather than time spent per session is the death-knell for most physical aspirations, this is no exception. I brought this topic up with other coaches of top 10 artistic womens programs, they all agree a program without ballet is kicking itself in the shins. That's actually toning it down, chat got pretty colorful when the topic was brought up. I know a lot of competitive womens coaches, and none of them leave ballet out of their training, it's ludicrous to them.

Ballet isn't just about 'art' and too many people get stuck on that. Or look down on it, which is completely incomprehensible to me as this *is* artistic gymnastics. That aside though, ballet is a darn near perfect way to strengthen the muscles required to stick landings, and also the supporting muscles used on things like beam series. A gymnast whose been trained correctly in tandem with gymnastics isn't going to be slamming her feet down on the beam straight, or worse, turned in. She's going to know how to distribute her weight better, be more comfortable should she not be 'square' due to awareness of her center of gravity, have an expanded sense of what to do with a standing vs working leg, and may even retain some of the extension ballet provides which is what leads to the illusion of seemingly effortless movements.

There's no downside, so I'm always surprised when the question of 'to ballet...or no?' comes up. There is a right and a wrong way to implement it though.

 

[JBS]

I had a better response...but I keep getting an internal server error. Here's the short version:

I guess the difference is that I assumed we were talking about what you call "actual ballet". That takes time...a lot of it. We focus on ballet for gymnastics enhancement every day.

Ballet will also fail if you implement it with the wrong person. My wife was a dancer for 15 years....also a D3 college gymnast. She has and will continue to streamline our dance curriculum to be "dance for gymnastics". While she was out having our third child...I tried a couple other dance instructors from local dance studios. It was a nightmare...they focused on "actual ballet"...which of course they were going to give me in 30 minutes 2x per week. I got a bunch of seaweed looking noodly crazy garbage. Beam scores definitely dropped during this phase...I was glad to get my wife back.


So yes..."ballet for gymnastics" is very necessary. However...I voted for the first choice...I would love to see "actual ballet" implemented also. It's just too hard...like doing two completely different and very demanding sports.

 

[Linsul]

Oh absolutely!!!!! I totally agree on everything you posted there. It's a full-on balancing act, the wrong person can completely mess things up. They're very demanding and totally different as you said. Your wife sounds like she's perfectly prepared to mix the best of both worlds for sure. I could be thinking idealistically here; but given the right training background, a gymnast whose had a foot in both worlds could really turn out some legit ballet. With the right choreographer, music, etc.

I'm totally curious about what your wife thinks now!! Does she post here? Her perspective would be awesome. I find her background to be very intriguing in all the best ways. I bet she's got a lot of insight into the synergy of dance and gymnastics!

 

[JBS]

She comes on here from time to time. I'll tell her to take a look at this thread.

 

[CoachGoofy]

All gymnasts should be doing some ballet. Not really-real ballet, necessarily, but oh heavens PLEASE teach them to dance. Pose pose pose leap pose leap pose is NOT dancing!

Not just for aesthetics, either (though those are good)-for efficiency of movement & use of certain muscles. Ballet is the bomb for strengthening toepoint (and push through the toes), and it can make 'hollow' as a position held when everything else moves make sense.