Sovetsky Sport. August 18, 1976. Women's gymnatics is on the agenda. The gymnastics competition in Montreal, like four years ago in Munich, once again became one of the most vivid, dramatic, and memorable presentations. It raised so many questions, so many problems, so many contradictory clashes that even more specialists are eager to return to these competitions in their research. After all, women's gymnatics has overcome a very important, fundamental stage in its development, a high peak of perfection.
Soviet gymnasts also made a noticeable qualitative step in mastering the art of movement. Almost all participants of our team received high, almost maximum, scores. I will talk about the rules, judging, and the legitimacy of such scores below, but for now I want to emphasize this fact: our girls demonstrated virtuoso mastery and superb technique. There were also some miscalculations - more about them later.
To correctly and objectively evaluate the performance of the Soviet gymnasts, we must first simply remember our achievements and failures.
A confident team victory was achieved, the seventh in a row at the Olympics. This is, of course, a huge achievement. The Olympic 'crown' was lost. The title of all-around champion went to Romanian Nadia Comaneci. After the triumph of Turischeva in Ljubljana, Munich, and Varna, this is certainly a step back. On the other hand, in the all-around finals we have the following places: second - Nellie Kim, third - Lyudmila Turischeva, fifth - Olga Korbut. In the individual event competition, we got two gold (Kim - vault and floor) and three silver (Turischeva - vault and floor, and Korbut - beam) medals. As we can see, the stockpile of medals is solid. And we must take into account one important circumstance - in the all-around finals, only three gymnasts from one country could compete, and two in the apparatus finals.
I would like to make a small digression, because it will be appropriate here, to clarify this innovation. The decision was made by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG). Of course, many national federations were interested in it. However, there is also an element of bias here - not all the strongest athletes will be able to fight for medals. Let's say that Elvira Saadi, Masha Filatova, and Svetlana Grozdova did not make it to the all-around finals, and the same Saadi and our other gymnasts did not make it to the apparatus finals. Thus, during the all-around and apparatus competitions, the spectators did not see the unique floor routines of Saadi and Filatova, the amazing balance beam routine of Grozdova, the rarest vault of Olga Korbut. I believe that the decision, which can conditionally be called 'three and two,' should be reconsidered by the new composition of the FIG.
Let me make a second digression right away. Since I first listed the team championship among our successes, I cannot help but dwell on our national team. I had the chance to compete as part of the Soviet team at the Olympics in Mexico City and at two world championships, so I know well how these collective victories are achieved. It so happened that at the 1966 world championships our team lost by several thousandths of a point, and the debutantes of the competition (Natasha Kuchinskaya, Larisa Petrik, Zina Voronina, and I) saw the genuine grief of our older teammates, Larisa Latynina and Polina Astakhova. How many years they competed together, and not once did the Soviet team lose at major competitions. And we, young girls, were terribly upset by this loss in Dortmund. It seemed like we were fighting desperately, but something wasn't working out, it was just a little bit lacking...
And one can understand the extraordinary joy in Mexico City, where the familiar four, but still Olympic debutantes, together with the newcomers to the Olympic platform, Lyuba Burda and Lyuda Turischeva, who replaced Latynina and Astakhova, were awareded gold medals. I remember well, there were moments when the scale of everything was teetering, when a chain reaction of falls would have brought to naught the common efforts. However, high responsibility to the Soviet school of gymnastics, some amazingly touching support and care for each other, and mutual assistance helped us to stand firm, to come forward and win beautifully.
I saw the triumph of our girls in Munich andhere on Montreal. The gap in points is significant, but at what cost! And these team medals are very dear to all of us, Soviet gymnasts. Our women's team is invincible at the Olympics!
Compared to the Munich Olympics, we had three debutants in our team. But that's not all. The places of Nina Dronova and Rusiko Sikharulidze, who competed two years ago at the world championships in Varna, were taken by Sveta Grozdova and Masha Filatova, who have virtually no experience in serious tournaments. Was there only one possible team line up? Of course not. In Montreal, Lida Gorbik (she was the reserve), Elena Davydova, Natasha Shaposhnikova, Elena Mukhina, and perhaps someone less well-known, if that were necessary, could have competed. The question of the sixth member did not cause alarm - there were enough contenders. I think that Gorbik with her amazing purity of lines and Shaposhnikova with her unusual-for-15-years-old lyricism, softness and at the same time difficult routines would look good on the team. But that place was 'won' by Filatova - a stubborn, tenacious, and charming little girl. Masha caused such a 'commotion' in Montreal as Olga Korbut did in Munich four years ago. Spectators always choose their favorite of the competition, and passionately and selflessly root for her. In Mexico City, they rooted for Natasha Kuchinskaya, in Munich - for Korbut, in Montreal - for Comaneci, for Korbut, for Kim, for Turischeva, but still the most sympathy fell to Masha Filatova. With her spontaneity, small stature and serious independence, Masha literally conquered the Montrealers. And on top of this she demonstrated the riskiest routines...
Why do I claim that the sixth place could have been taken by any gymnast (from among the contenders, of course)? Because our 'big four' - Turischeva, Kim, Korbut, and Saadi - are so strong. No one doubted their reliability or competitive qualities. I would like to highlight Elya Saadi. All these four years after Munich she persistently fought for her place on the team. Thanks to her determination and persistence, Elya won a ticket to Montreal in a tough fight. She won, because at each competition she had to give it her all, be among the winners, in order to prove to some of the skeptics that she had not lost her best qualities as an all-arounder.
The team's coaches and specialists understood perfectly well that the appearance of Nadia Comaneci, a very gifted gymnast, on the gymnastics horizon made the task of our girls much more difficult. Victory at the European Championships, victory at the Pre-Olympic Week, a series of amazing results in a number of international competitions - all this indicated that the Romanian schoolgirl was heading straight for her main goal. Now we are convinced that Comaneci is a unique phenomenon in women's gymnastics, but not the only one. After all, Larisa Latynina, Vera Caslavska, and Lyudmila Turischeva were also called gymnastic miracles. They also had the brightest, most convincing, most beautiful victories.
We had four reliable fighters, but who among them would be the clear leader, who would take the courage to enter the fight against Comaneci at the decisive moments. This, it seems to me, our coaches did not know. Perhaps it was difficult to determine the gymnast on whom to place a bet. All four performed in the Olympic season as a whole satisfactorily, but with varying success. And yet, Nelli Kim's advantage was visible - first of all in psychological stability, in consistency. She had grown a lot technically in the two years since Varna, and modernized her routines. Consequently, she was constantly moving forward. Korbut and Turischeva used mostly old baggage, although you understand that their safety margin was very high. However, to suggest that Kim and only Kim could compete with Comaneci is something we sadly could not do.
What were our gymnasts' shortcomings in general? In the compulsory competition, they lost to the Romanians on the uneven bars and balance beam, and in the apparatus finals on the bars we did not win medals (Korbut - 5th place, Kim - 6th place).
I will say objectively that our gymnasts stood out for their unique work even in the 'dry' compulsory. Each one showed her individual qualities: for example, Kim performed the exercises at maximum amplitude, Korbut - at an unusually fast tempo, Turischeva and Filatova - on an emotional upsurge. And yet almost ideal variants were demonstrated by Nadia Comaneci, and Teodora Ungureanu was close to her in execution on some apparatus. Moreover, almost all the gymmnasts of the Romanian team supported the style of Comaneci. And this style, it must be admitted, is the most modern today, the most 'fashionable.'
It is probably necessary to write a separate article about what the world's leading gymnasts showed on the Forum platform. For now, I will note the main thing - compared to Munich, the difficulty of the exercises doubled for more than half the participants. This is an important point. This is not a thoughtless pursuit of difficulty for the sake of difficulty, but a logical continuation of the direction started in Munich and which can be called the 'Korbut direction.' And the highest class being when performing skills, artistry, and originality of the compositional solution merge and synthesize into a single whole.
At one time Korbut's gymnastics was called 'stunt gymnastics.' But that was at the first stage, before the Munich Olympics. It was four years ago that everyone became convinced that Korbut was not a 'stunt woman' but a gymnast with an excellent school and, first of all, originality. Here we say that the girls are constantly learning the most difficult elements and tricks, but this is done in search of an effect, because new difficult elements, as a rule, are effective.
And here I must express the idea that rules of women's gymnastics are significantly behind the times, behind life. Judge for yourself: in Montreal there was a devaluation of the scores, and they were mostly marginal, when both the strongest and the less trained gymnasts performed. The judges lost their bearings, because quite a few athletes have achieved a high level of skill. But there is no uniform performance, the gymnasts differ in style, manner, and routines of varying degrees of difficulty. Who should be given preference? Alas, there is no strict interpretation in international rules. In Montreal, judges relied more on emotional perception. And where emotions begin, there is less and less objectivity left.
Of course, women's gymnastics has reached such perfection that new criteria for evaluating performance is needed. For example, in the all-around finals and in individual apparatus, increased requirements for the difficulty of exercises, compositional construction, and cleanliness are simply necessary. As per the rules for male gymnasts.
Our national gymnastics is generous with talents. Our national gymnastics continues to set the tone in the international arena. They learn from us, adopt our experience. Bela Karolyi, the coach of Comaneci, Ungureanu, Constantin, and Gabor, does not hide the fact that he learned a lot from Soviet teachers. Yes, we now clearly see what formidable, interesting rivals have appeared in Romania. I am sure that the competition will spur our coaches, make them more actively search for young talents and prepare unique gymnasts for the big stage.
I had the chance to act as a judge in Montreal. I couldn't leave my judge's seat at the end of the competition. And I wanted so much to congratulate our happy girls - Olympic champions. I am doing it now with all my heart. Thank you from all the gymnasts of the older generation.
OLGA KARASEVA, Merited Master of Sports and International-Category Judge