Sovetsky Sport. May 22, 1981. At the European Artistic Gymnastics Championships, Maxi Gnauck from the GDR achieved a magnificent result, claiming four gold medals. Our own gymnasts, however, failed to win any gold medals for the first time ever. How should we evaluate their performance? And what, if anything, new was showcased on the European stage? Olympic champion and current international-level judge Olga Kovalenko reflects on these questions.
We were flying to Madrid for the 13th European Women's Gymnastics Championships, wondering: how would this competition unfold for us? After all, Nadia Comaneci had already won the all-around title at three consecutive championships, while our gymnasts had yet to manage to repeat Lyudmila Turischeva's success of 1973.
...And so, the day of podium training arrived. We hurried to the Sports Palace. There was no denying it - everything looked magnificent and beautiful. Standing on the podium were the uneven parallel bars, the balance beam, and the vaulting horse - all gleaming with nickel and fresh paint. But, you know, those brand-new pieces of equipment didn't exactly delight the gymnasts: they had to be treated with chalk and sandpaper to ensure their hands wouldn't slip.
I gaze out at the vast, empty arena, and my soul feels restless. Nine years have passed since I stepped off the platform, yet a certain poignant sense of anticipation still stirs within me every time the eve of a major competition arrives. No, there are not mere memories of the past; this is the present - precious precisely because it serves as a continuation of what has gone before.
The gymnastics floor and the spectator stands - much like communicating vessels - are filling up steadily. The warm-up session begins - a procedure essential not only for the gymnasts and coaches, but also for the specialists, as well as representatives of the press and television: it's a time for making predictions and sizing up the competition.
Seated in one of the stands is Aman Shaniyazov, senior coach of the USSR women's national team and Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences. It is not difficult to divine his thoughts: they center on who will correctly identify the fundamental trends in the development of women's gymnastics - and who will be able to prove the validity of their vision in the days immediately ahead, and later, in the future.
I approach Aman Muradovich - and, as it turns out, just in time. One of the foreign correspondents is looking for information about our gymnasts. My knowledge of French proves invaluable. Shaniyazov answers patiently, never taking his intent gaze off the podium.
It is now confirmed: the Soviet Union will be represented by young gymnasts who have yet to test their mettle at competitions of this caliber - Alla Misnik, Natalia Ilienko, and Olga Bicherova. The most experienced of this group - Olympic champion Elena Naimushina - remains in reserve ("An old injury prevented the gymnast from reaching peak form and participating in the competition," the head coach explained to a journalist.)
The conversation with the correspondent had ended, and now the two of us were watching the gymnasts, occasionally exchangiing remarks. It is precisely at this moment - during training - that one can clearly see just how much the overall standard of women's gymnastics in Europe has risen. Admittedly, experts believe that some of the gymnasts lack difficulty; though that, of course, is a relative matter. By and large, all the routines meet the judging criteria.
Shaniyazov reflects: "To stay ahead, you cannot merely 'conform' - you must offer something new." I think to myself: the word 'new' invariably implies increased difficulty in the exercises. But perhaps the girls shouldn't be chasing after difficult elements? As if readiing my mind, Shaniyazov says aloud: "Without an increase in difficulty, gymnastics would become an end in itself - it would lose its beauty."
-- Aman Muradovich, look at what Birgit Senff, the gymnast from the GDR, has come up with: a back handspring on the balance beam, immediately followed by a straddle jump. It's not overly technically complex, but it looks great.
"So what? Tomorrow everyone will be doing it - but what Alla Misnik demonsrates, the gymnasts will have to spend years mastering," comes the reply.
"But tomorrow, our opponents will come up with something, too," I say, refuding to give in."
-- Please don't worry; we aren't standing still either.
And so, the long-awaited day of the competition finally arrived. Renowned gymnasts took to the podium: Maxi Gnauck from the GDR - the Moscow Olympic champion on the uneven bars; Marta Egervari, Erika Flander, and Eva Ovari - members of the Hungarian Olympic team; representatives of the Romanian school - Olympians Emilia Eberle, Cristina Grigoras,and Rodica Dunca; young women from Bulgaria, also Olympic participants - Krasimira Toneva and Silvia Topalova; and the Czechoslovak athletes are already familiar to us - Radka Zemanova, Jana Rulfova, and Eva Mareckova.
Maxi Gnauck - now a mature competitor, yet still appearing almost girlish - was in peak form; indeed, many had tipped her specifically as the favorite to win. For the past two years, Maxi had been striving for the all-around title, but isolated technical errors and a weak vault had hindered her from achieving that goal. In Madrid, however, the gymnast improved her vault execution, delivered a flawless performance, and truly outshone everyone else - rightfully claiming the title of European Champion.
Major Spanish newspapers have published glowing reviews of the Soviet gymnasts' performance. The judges' "harsh" treatment of Alla Misnik's routines also drew comment. Furthermore, sports commentators expressed the view that our team's approach warrants study: for the first time in an official competition, a completely revamped national squad was fielded.
And so, we have arrived at the most important part: the evaluation of our girls' performances. But first, I would like to tell our readers a little more about the various "currents" within gymnastics judging.
It has been just over a year since new rules were introduced for women's gymnastics. These rules reward gymnasts who demonstrate original elements or combinations - where the definition of originality is quite specific - as well as tecnically difficult elements requiring a high degree of precision in execution and precise coordination of movement (such elements are referred to as "risky").
The new requirements have once again stirred the minds of coaches - interesting exercises have emerged, for everyone is eager to earn those extra tentht of a point for creativity.
At the European Championships, quite a few such "gems" were performed. This demonstrated that gymnastics is not standing still; it continues to evolve and improve. For instance, take Maxi Gnauck's mount onto the balance beam - a round-off off the springboard followed immediately by a back handspring. Natasha Ilienko proposed a similar approach for her mount onto the uneven bars. Birgif Senff went even further, executing a tucked salto following a round-off as her mount onto the beam. These are highly promising variations. Do you remember a time when a gymnast would clamber onto the beam using nothing more than an ordinary chair? Amusing, isn't it?
And what astonishing changes have taken place in the uneven bars! No gymnast's routine is complete without swings into a handstand with straight arms - yet not so long ago, this element seemed purely "masculine." Alla Mismik performed an entire cascade of such swings, further increasing the difficulty of the routine by incorporating a 360-degree pirouette while in the handstand position.
I speak with complete objectivity: Misnik's routine on the uneven bars is a composition of the future. And she executed it flawlessly. Alla also demontrated one of the most complex and original routines on the balance beam. Take her uneven bars routine, for instance: it features the Tkachev release (famous in men's gymnastics), the Janz salto, and breathtaking giant swings on the high bar. But the routine's greatest merit lies in the connections linking these "impact" elements. All of this is performed at a stunning pace, in a single, seamless flow. Not even Gnauck possessed such an interesting and diverse array of connections.
So what is the explanation? Why did Misnik and Ilienko receive lower scores than Gnauck? I must emphasize once again that the GDR gymnast was the standout performer at the European Championships. She is an excellent all-arounder who competed on the first day with virtually no noticeable errors - and the difficulty level of her routines was certainly up to par.
However, in certain instances, the scores awarded to our girls were unfairly low. Regrettably, we are once again compelled to speak of biased judging - and of an unwritten "law" whereby unknown gymnasts - those, so to speak, "without a name" - are invariably left in the shadows. Unfortunately, this is precisely what transpired at this tournament as well.
I am not claiming that our young gymnasts achieved perfection in every respect. Perhaps some judges took issue with the girls' overly dense, concentrated routines; perhaps they simply disliked their style of execution. However, from a technical standpoint, Misnik and Ilienko appeared every bit as strong as the other frontrunners. And that constitutes an objective criterion for evaluation - one that, in this instance, was not fully upheld.
Let's take a specific example. During the apparatus finals, Gnauck executed her routine on the balance beam poorly; she came perilously close to falling on two separate occasions. Her score: 9.65. Ilienko, on the other hand, performed almost flawlessly and should have received additional tenths of a point for dificulty, risk, and originality. Alas, the judges "failed to notice" any of this. Her score, too, was 9.65. It was unfair.
Indeed, following the championship, some judges faced criticism from the leadership of the International Gymnastics Federation. However, in my view, more effective measures are needed to curb subjectivity in judging. As a member of the championship's judging working group, I - alonsgide the judges and members of the FIG Technical Committee - had to spend until deep into the night reviewing video footage and identifying the errors that had been committed. I would like to believe that this analysis will prove beneficial.
To sum up everything that has been said, I cannot help but note the following with concern. Why did we send such very young girls to Madrid? Why did we not provide them with experienced gymnasts to back them up? As demonstrated by the USSR Cup competitions held in Leningrad in April, many of our renowned athletes were poorly prepared. Old injuries took their toll, and in some cases, a decline in the rigor of their training also played a role.
Elena Davydova, Natalia Shaposhnikova, and Nellie Kim did not compete (for various reasons). Stella Zakharova and Maria Filatova committed serious errors, and Elena Naimushina also failed to demonstrate consistency. There were criticisms regarding Elena Gurina, Natalia Yurchenko, Tatiana Arzhannikova, and Elena Polevaya.
As you can see, the inclusion of Ilienko and Bicherova in the team - Misnik being the Cup winner - was, to some extent, a forced measure, even though these girls are undoubtedly promising.
Indeed, in Madrid, we realized that women's gymnastics continues to evolve, exploring interesting new avenues for its development. Gymnasts such as Gnauck, Senff, Grigoras, Dunca, and Toneva will be contenders for the top spot at the upcoming World Champoinships in Moscow (the tournament is scheduled to take place at the Olimpiisky Sports Complex from November 23 to 29 of this year). And in order to defend our Olympic achievements, we must - for the time being - forget about them and train with redoubled energy.
O. KOVALENKO, Merited Master of Sports