WAG What is the physical limit of skills? Where will WAG plateau?

[Pineapple_Lump]

Why do you think the Yurchenko was admitted as a "safe enough" move when they had to change the vault table to achieve the safety of it? Meaning, do you think the influx of Eastern Bloc coaches who lacked the university training in things like safety and sports ethics or whatnot was responsible for this move being competed by girls before the vault change?

Ahhh... you might want to check your facts/assumptions regarding coach education throughout the world...

 

[iwannacoach]

^^^^^^^Waaaaay definitely, by far^^^^^^^^

 

[M&G'sMom]

Ahhh... you might want to check your facts/assumptions regarding coach education throughout the world...

I'm taking this from the beloved Dunno's history dissertation on gymnastics in the US from the 60's to the present. Dunno said there was an influx of coaches from the Eastern Bloc who had been great gymnasts but lacked the university training in safety and whatnot because of Perestroika, and they came over to the US to fill our coaching gap that was caused by US gymnasts going to college for tech and business instead of PE and to be a coach like they used to.

Don't jump all in my KoolAid when you don't even know the flavor.

 

[M&G'sMom]

^^^^^^^Waaaaay definitely, by far^^^^^^^^

Take it up with Dunno then. He said:

now to ronald reagan, the tech/bus boom, and gymnastics. he told east berlin to take those walls down. so they did. then poland with perestroika. then the soviet union and the end of the cold war. how did this affect gymnastics? ready??

the tech boom looked a viable option for new high school grads. the computer generation. and of course this included former gymnasts that formerly would go into PE or related curriculum. athletes were leaving the sport. this meant no male coaches after college. yet later, the number of females coaching increased. but those same edu. programs i received were no longer there for the females either. and were approaching 1988 and the inception of the usag level system and gymnastics difficulty increasing at the speed of sound. usag saw the chasm being created from the training that coaches formerly received to what they were now receiving. and i will expound later on the implementation of the level system usag designed later and what it has to do with all of this in some way, shape or form.

gymnastics programs in the other countries were funded fully by their governments. the eastern block athletes/coaches were also paid thru a caste system that afforded them a nicer place for their families to live, more bread, more meat, even cars. they were essentially government employees. and 'army' and 'dinamo' and 'round lake' were famous gymnastics training facilities in the former soviet system. east germany had their swimmers and weightlifters. romania their gymnasts., etc; and now, thanks [or not?] to reagan, and what would become the 'global economy' [in a few short years] also moving at the speed of sound, the former eastern bloc countries began to fall apart. and they all had an allegiance and dependency to the soviet union. and now the cold war ended. this created unemployment for sports coaches in those countries [sport coaches were the prestige of their societies above doctors and nuclear physicists] because the soviet government, and all the other countries that were dependent on their financial support, could no longer support their athletic programs. perestoika and the end of the cold war literally demolished eastern block sports. china also had/has a nationalized system, but at the time those coaches could not easily leave their country. it would be a couple of years later that china would open its gates and those coaches could find employment elswhere.

so, what country was their 1st choice to coach. america. after the karolyi and pozar defection, and before perestrioka, the foreign coaches were looking to see how they would fare in our country. after america it was australia, canada, then south america. england gymnastics was so far behind at this time that they weren't considered. but the global economy now sees their national gymnastics program being run by a romanian. and ironically, an american running australia's women's program. her name is peggy liddick and was shannon miller's other coach alongside steve nunno.

so, the foreign coaches began taking coaching positions here in our states. the industry grew and coaching employment deficits were being satisfied by this influx of foreign coaches. and we lost our own training grounds for gymnastics coaches in the US. so the clubs had to do it. now the owner who was a former gymnast had to train not only the deficiencies of the american coaches, but now had to americanize quickly the foreign coaches and address their deficiencies also. not all of them were knowledgable, and in some cases had less knowledge than their american counterparts. remember, when perestroika hit, the foreign coaches lives were disrupted as was their educational training. and training that would not be easy for them to attain at a college in america as they didn't know the language. ask around...it wasn't nor will it ever be easy or seamless. and then, that same owner also had to run the business. and maybe he was married. and maybe he wanted to start a family. get the idea? the perfect storm would now play out. gymnastics kept growing, foreign coaches temporarily filled our coaching shortage, and more clubs were on the horizon. even a layperson could see that if programs were not in place to train coaches...well then...you're going to eventually run out of coaches. and as the 1st generation of coaches aged, then this might even reach an expedited speed of light.

 

[iwannacoach]

Take it up with Dunno then. He said:

I think you missunderstood the context of dunno's content. What I understand is the coaches who were fully vested and evolved had a gymnastics pedigree and knowledge that exceeded many of the top US coaches. He's more likely making a reference to coaches who were in the process of receiving an education and moving through the eastern bloc system when it all fell apart.

remember, when perestroika hit, the foreign coaches lives were disrupted as was their educational training.

This means that a bunch of coaches with alluring accents and broken english....... hey don't get me wrong, I know about five words in russian, four in polish, and the phrase "Can I have a little kiss" in Japanese, so their english far surpasses my 2nd language abilities, unless you count spanish.....

Where I was heading, is these "unfinished coaches" spread through out the world where the streets were reportedly paved in gold. They showed up on the doorsteps of many gyms, tried to explain themselves in broken english, and were assumed to be a heart beat's distance from a soviet "Master of Sport" degree/certification/credentials. It may be that dunno was trying to characterize these individuals as unwitting imposters who took up positions they weren't quite qualified for, that would otherwise be taken by USA collegiate gymnastics grads with degrees in Phys Ed.... had there been any.

The real deal, full blown soviet master of sport was quite educated, as I understand it, in all things gymnastics and sports science, and provided a gaggle of talented kids to "bring up" in a system that rewarded the coach as well as the gymnast and the gymnast's family.

Kinda motivates a kid when she knows her enthusiastic participation and progress can get her parents an apartment all their own, where they can raise their remaining children (dd's not there any longer) without having to share the space with uncle Anatoly, his wife, and their three kids. Throw in the perk of her parent's application to buy a car being moved to the top of the list, and greater ease in purchasing every day items.

Throw in the dream of winning an Olympic gold and being regarded as a national hero who just validated the communist socialist model of life, and viola....you got a world class athlete being trained by a world class coach who rubs elbows daily with all the other coaches who've brought up their own highly qualified athlete to live and train at the national training center. Now that's gotta look good on a resume'.

That's pretty much what I remember understanding from conversations, with pauses to pour a little more "Vwodka", with two of the "first wave" of soviet masters, and a third who popped up years later after coaching a young lady who still competes internationally.

So rally up with dunno to check me if I'm wrong, but I kinda think I got the "gist" of the situation.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Okay, I've read the other thread, and now I have different questions:

Why do you think the Yurchenko was admitted as a "safe enough" move when they had to change the vault table to achieve the safety of it? Meaning, do you think the influx of Eastern Bloc coaches who lacked the university training in things like safety and sports ethics or whatnot was responsible for this move being competed by girls before the vault change? If not, what was responsible for it being admitted with equipment changes instead of just banned? If so (the Eastern coaches were responsible), do you see big changes to equipment and whatnot ever being made again unless we get into another bad situation of a huge coach shortage that pushes skills beyond the safety limit on the current equipment?

At this point, I realize there's no way to predict for sure where the sport will go, but I'm fascinated by the theoretical discussion of it, and everyone's differing opinions and the history lessons. Good stuff.

i'm not certain why this is so difficult to understand. this might be my communication skills once again in a forum of this kind.

the "eastern bloc" coaches were responsible for the development and the modification of the horse for Yurchenkos. they were truly visionaries on this particular vault and apparatus.

the old horse, which was essentially a pommel horse with a bit of padding, was woefully insufficient for the safe training and daily execution of the Yurchenko vault. this horse had to go if the Yurchenko was going to evolve for all gymnasts. not just lower level gymnasts. and because it takes years to learn this vault, the old horse had to be scrapped so kids could start developing the vault on an apparatus that was safe to use ALL the time. additionally, the safety zone and hand mat were added shortly thereafter.

the first gymnast i had compete a Yurchenko layout full, and another front handspring yurchenko front pike, was performed with no safety zone and no hand mat. and this was performed on that old horse. truth be told, it made me a neurotic and obsessive compulsive madman in that the board had to be set to perfection. you had to count steps. you had to remember which foot they started with. just a lot of stuff. not that we don't pay attention to that stuff today...but the margin of error has been reduced tenfold from those old days with the old horse and not having a safety zone and hand mat.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I think you missunderstood the context of dunno's content. What I understand is the coaches who were fully vested and evolved had a gymnastics pedigree and knowledge that exceeded many of the top US coaches. He's more likely making a reference to coaches who were in the process of receiving an education and moving through the eastern bloc system when it all fell apart.

remember, when perestroika hit, the foreign coaches lives were disrupted as was their educational training.

This means that a bunch of coaches with alluring accents and broken english....... hey don't get me wrong, I know about five words in russian, four in polish, and the phrase "Can I have a little kiss" in Japanese, so their english far surpasses my 2nd language abilities, unless you count spanish.....

Where I was heading, is these "unfinished coaches" spread through out the world where the streets were reportedly paved in gold. They showed up on the doorsteps of many gyms, tried to explain themselves in broken english, and were assumed to be a heart beat's distance from a soviet "Master of Sport" degree/certification/credentials. It may be that dunno was trying to characterize these individuals as unwitting imposters who took up positions they weren't quite qualified for, that would otherwise be taken by USA collegiate gymnastics grads with degrees in Phys Ed.... had there been any.

The real deal, full blown soviet master of sport was quite educated, as I understand it, in all things gymnastics and sports science, and provided a gaggle of talented kids to "bring up" in a system that rewarded the coach as well as the gymnast and the gymnast's family.

Kinda motivates a kid when she knows her enthusiastic participation and progress can get her parents an apartment all their own, where they can raise their remaining children (dd's not there any longer) without having to share the space with uncle Anatoly, his wife, and their three kids. Throw in the perk of her parent's application to buy a car being moved to the top of the list, and greater ease in purchasing every day items.

Throw in the dream of winning an Olympic gold and being regarded as a national hero who just validated the communist socialist model of life, and viola....you got a world class athlete being trained by a world class coach who rubs elbows daily with all the other coaches who've brought up their own highly qualified athlete to live and train at the national training center. Now that's gotta look good on a resume'.

That's pretty much what I remember understanding from conversations, with pauses to pour a little more "Vwodka", with two of the "first wave" of soviet masters, and a third who popped up years later after coaching a young lady who still competes internationally.

So rally up with dunno to check me if I'm wrong, but I kinda think I got the "gist" of the situation.

yes, iwannacoach. you understand precisely what i meant. there is more to it, of course. and my opinion is that this all began with the boycott in 1980 and the subsequent Russian boycott. and then the world went to hell in a hand basket. there were a few "posers" but the USA has their share too.

i'm thinking that M&G's mom is not a gymnastics person. and that's okay. i think you have to have been in gymnastics for quite some time to fully understand what took place and how coaches were impacted all over the world and including right here in the USA. imagine, there is no longer a university here where you can receive a gymnastics curriculum. truly sad.

 

[iwannacoach]

Sad indeed. I was amazed at the extent of knowledge the first two possesed, the third was good but I think I gave him a "run for his money" when we worked together. Funny thing is, whenever I spent much time weeth heem I vwood bekin to sownd like russian ak syent. Da?

 

[M&G'sMom]

I think you missunderstood the context of dunno's content. What I understand is the coaches who were fully vested and evolved had a gymnastics pedigree and knowledge that exceeded many of the top US coaches. He's more likely making a reference to coaches who were in the process of receiving an education and moving through the eastern bloc system when it all fell apart....

Yes, and these were the coaches I was talking about. I think you assumed I was making some exophobic statement about all foreign coaches in general, but I wasn't. I specifically referenced the influx of Eastern Bloc coaches we got when we had a coach shortage. Not the Belas and Martas and whoever else that everyone loves.

 

[M&G'sMom]

i'm not certain why this is so difficult to understand. this might be my communication skills once again in a forum of this kind.

the "eastern bloc" coaches were responsible for the development and the modification of the horse for Yurchenkos. they were truly visionaries on this particular vault and apparatus.

the old horse, which was essentially a pommel horse with a bit of padding, was woefully insufficient for the safe training and daily execution of the Yurchenko vault. this horse had to go if the Yurchenko was going to evolve for all gymnasts. not just lower level gymnasts. and because it takes years to learn this vault, the old horse had to be scrapped so kids could start developing the vault on an apparatus that was safe to use ALL the time. additionally, the safety zone and hand mat were added shortly thereafter.

the first gymnast i had compete a Yurchenko layout full, and another front handspring yurchenko front pike, was performed with no safety zone and no hand mat. and this was performed on that old horse. truth be told, it made me a neurotic and obsessive compulsive madman in that the board had to be set to perfection. you had to count steps. you had to remember which foot they started with. just a lot of stuff. not that we don't pay attention to that stuff today...but the margin of error has been reduced tenfold from those old days with the old horse and not having a safety zone and hand mat.

The part I'm not understanding is why *anyone*----you, the Eastern coaches, anyone----let girls perform a Yurchenko when you obviously knew how dangerous it was on that old equipment. Why did you and they think it was acceptable to risk a girl's safety for the more dangerous vault, besides the obvious fact that it would help her win?

I understand why they changed the vault----because it was too dangerous for the Yurcheckos and the other more difficult vaults they were now performing. But the overall question of this entire thread is, will it continue to be a trend, as it was in the past, that girls will have to perform skills that are too dangerous for the current equipment before FIG actually changes the equipment to be safe for the new skills? If your answer is no, the skills won't get too dangerous because the coaches will limit the skills, then why was it that they weren't limiting the skills in the past, like the Yurchenko on the old vault?

Editing to add: this post sounds a little accusatory, and I don't mean it that way. I'm just trying to be as to-the-point as I can be to be sure my question is understood.

 

[M&G'sMom]

i'm thinking that M&G's mom is not a gymnastics person. and that's okay. i think you have to have been in gymnastics for quite some time to fully understand what took place and how coaches were impacted all over the world and including right here in the USA. imagine, there is no longer a university here where you can receive a gymnastics curriculum. truly sad.

I was a gymnast back before 1989, but I was also a kid then, so no, I didn't get the "coach" aspect of the sport. I was forced out of the sport because of money and divorce reasons, but have tried to keep up as much as my broken little heart could manage. I'm actually conditioning to get back in the gym, though, now that I'm not the only adult wanting to fly again. Very happy adult gymnastics is becoming popular [again].

 

[GymSurvivor]

Slightly off-topic,
But in reply to Dunno's Cathy Rigby comment. I'm seeing her in Peter Pan tonight!! Very excited as I've always loved her as a gymnast!!

 

[Deleted member D3987]

sigh..........

 

[M&G'sMom]

sigh..........

I'm not sure where I've gone wrong. Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and am seriously, honestly asking for your expert insight. This is a subject I've been wondering about ever since the vault table change, long before I had kids, and humbly ask for your input. I know there's something I must be missing----about why gymnastics has progressed the way it has, with both men and women achieving amazing skills despite the undue danger----and I humbly look to you for explanation. It's literally why I joined the forum, instead of continuing to lurk.

As someone who has expounded upon the dangers of the Yurchenko back before the vault table change, and how FIG cares more for safety than entertainment, and how coaches tend to be the ones who set the reasonable limits on the sport, I don't understand why you would bow out of the conversation now. It seems like this is the moment where you get to put a lot of information together, from a lot of different threads, and I was looking forward to you being able to give me that moment of clarity I was hoping for.

The question is simple: will it take girls performing unreasonably dangerous skills on the current equipment for FIG to change the equipment or rules, OR will we simply plateau in skills and not change the equipment anymore?

This is pretty much a question only Dunno can answer on this board, IMHO. And I hope you give it another chance. My humble apologies if I have offended you; like I said I simply wanted to be sure my question was understood. As an old-school elite coach, you're the only one on this board who can answer my question of why the Yurchenko was ever performed before the vault table change, and how the situation is different now, if it is at all.

 

[bogwoppit]

I'm not sure where I've gone wrong. Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and am seriously, honestly asking for your expert insight. This is a subject I've been wondering about ever since the vault table change, long before I had kids, and humbly ask for your input. I know there's something I must be missing----about why gymnastics has progressed the way it has, with both men and women achieving amazing skills despite the undue danger----and I humbly look to you for explanation. It's literally why I joined the forum, instead of continuing to lurk.

As someone who has expounded upon the dangers of the Yurchenko back before the vault table change, and how FIG cares more for safety than entertainment, and how coaches tend to be the ones who set the reasonable limits on the sport, I don't understand why you would bow out of the conversation now. It seems like this is the moment where you get to put a lot of information together, from a lot of different threads, and I was looking forward to you being able to give me that moment of clarity I was hoping for.

The question is simple: will it take girls performing unreasonably dangerous skills on the current equipment for FIG to change the equipment or rules, OR will we simply plateau in skills and not change the equipment anymore?

This is pretty much a question only Dunno can answer on this board, IMHO. And I hope you give it another chance. My humble apologies if I have offended you; like I said I simply wanted to be sure my question was understood. As an old-school elite coach, you're the only one on this board who can answer my question of why the Yurchenko was ever performed before the vault table change, and how the situation is different now, if it is at all.

Dunno is sighing over Cathy Rigby, not over your answer!

 

[GymSurvivor]

I was just about to say that!! I think he's sighing over Cathy Rigby not you!! Who by the way, was excellent even at her age!! Flipping through the air like she was 20. Got to meet her afterwards, very kind lady!!

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I'm not sure where I've gone wrong. Like I said, I didn't mean to offend anyone, and am seriously, honestly asking for your expert insight. This is a subject I've been wondering about ever since the vault table change, long before I had kids, and humbly ask for your input. I know there's something I must be missing----about why gymnastics has progressed the way it has, with both men and women achieving amazing skills despite the undue danger----and I humbly look to you for explanation. It's literally why I joined the forum, instead of continuing to lurk.

As someone who has expounded upon the dangers of the Yurchenko back before the vault table change, and how FIG cares more for safety than entertainment, and how coaches tend to be the ones who set the reasonable limits on the sport, I don't understand why you would bow out of the conversation now. It seems like this is the moment where you get to put a lot of information together, from a lot of different threads, and I was looking forward to you being able to give me that moment of clarity I was hoping for.

The question is simple: will it take girls performing unreasonably dangerous skills on the current equipment for FIG to change the equipment or rules, OR will we simply plateau in skills and not change the equipment anymore?

This is pretty much a question only Dunno can answer on this board, IMHO. And I hope you give it another chance. My humble apologies if I have offended you; like I said I simply wanted to be sure my question was understood. As an old-school elite coach, you're the only one on this board who can answer my question of why the Yurchenko was ever performed before the vault table change, and how the situation is different now, if it is at all.

it's not really different now or then. in 1970, a group of coaches took us to Japan for a "friendly" competition. just a couple years before, many of the famous Japanese men's team came to Northwestern University in Chicago for a meet. this was long ago, a few of my sequential memories are a bit a fuzzy, but i was at this meet as a spectator. i got to see Tsukahara, Nakayama, Takamoto, Ono, and a few others. we had to leave early from the meet because my Grandma from Italy was staying at our house and fainted. no cell phones in those days. i just remember my dad saying we had to go cause Grandma had been taken to the hospital.

so, i missed a couple of events which included vault. flash forward. Nippon University for the friendly meet. my first really big competition as a junior. and we competed trampoline along with the mens apparatus. well...not the Japanese. they were warming up "vaulting". vaulting of which i had never seen. Tsukahara did his vault. Yamash-ita (hyphen due to the word filter) did his vault and also one with a 1/2 twist. wow! all i had seen at this juncture was "buck" horse vaulting. eventually, trampoline was phased out as the 6th event and long horse vaulting was born in the USA. by 1978, trampoline was gone from both high school and college competition as an event.

10-15 years later (from 1970) the Russians developed the round off entry vault. they were competing the vault across the pond before anyone knew they were doing it. as i said, Jackie Fie was our only FIG rep. and gymnastics was an "Eastern European" sport and tightly controlled by them. they controlled the flow and direction of gymnastics. and they were the absolute best doing that. it's just the way it was. but after Gomez at Chunichi, i think the whole world came to the realization thru their minds eye that the horse had to change. the margin of error was to great. but Julissa also had a "backwards" problem, or what i have tried to educate/convey to all all of you as a vestibular condition. she used to balk all the time. so did Wendy Bruce. no one considered that an accident like that could take place. very unfortunate and sad for her family and the gymnastics community family.

if not for the 'crude' type table with mats that the Russians were using, the engineers would have taken longer to come up with what you all now know as the table. this is not only my strong opinion. i was at Chunichi when it happened. Gogoladze was at Chunichi. to this day we are still best friends even before he moved to the states. we were all shaken. we still talk about that day to this day.

after Gomez, and knowing what everyone then knew, the world could not go on developing that vault with a side horse. it was that simple. today, i don't believe any of the skills are unreasonably dangerous. it's the biology of the human body that is precarious. some of the skills just have no margin of error. so for the time being, i believe we have reached a plateau until major modifications take place with the apparatus. and i don't believe i will see that in the rest of my career. but maybe in my lifetime. i hope now this answers your question...as least from where i sit.

 

[M&G'sMom]

it's not really different now or then.....

I really appreciate your response, but it doesn't answer my question, at all, LOL! Like I said at the end of page 7, I understand WHY the vault table changed, but what I don't understand is:

1)WHY you all allowed girls to perform Yurchenko vaults before the table change when you (as you indicated) understood how dangerous the vault was on that equipment;

2)and most especially, whether the same applies today----that girls (or boys, whatever) will be performing skills that their coaches know are obviously too dangerous for the current equipment before FIG makes changes to the equipment or rules?

3)OR, will we just reach that current-equipment-plateau and stop there for some reason? If yes, then why?

 

[txgymfan]

" i don't believe any of the skills are unreasonably dangerous. it's the biology of the human body that is precarious. some of the skills just have no margin of error. so for the time being, i believe we have reached a plateau until major modifications take place with the apparatus. and i don't believe i will see that in the rest of my career. but maybe in my lifetime. i hope now this answers your question...as least from where i sit. Dunno" I believe he answered questions #2 and #3 here. As for #1 I believe he thought that there was a reasonable amount of safety.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

1. only the best of the best were doing Yurchenkos. it was not performed in the JO program. we allowed them because we weren't having extraordinary problems with them. but we were only dealing with "ELITE" gymnasts. the best of the best. and a coach name Dr. Bill Sands conducted a study to confirm what we all suspected but did not have the scientific equipment to do so. that this vault was moving backwards at speeds that humbled fighter pilots. and this was according to recorded data. Bill had 2 athletes on that ill fated 1980 boycott team. he is one of the most respected gymnastics people that we have ever had in the sport. the USAG archives don't go back that far as to an article he had published at that time with his opinions and findings. his opinions helped along the change. and when i said the vault was dangerous, it was the margin of error of the side horse. NOT that the vault was inherently dangerous. gymnastics is only as dangerous as the coach's hand.

2. you did not listen to what i wrote. is a triple back possible as a dismount off the balance beam? yes! but not from 37 1/4 inches from the top of the mat. it'll never happen. but you will still find legends in their own mind who will have level 8's doing tuck yurchenkos that have no business doing so. and of course, this has even been witnessed by the untrained eyes of parents here on this site. is a quad somi possible from the boys high bar? yes? but no one will do it cause the bar is not high enough to safely screw up and the mats are to damned hard from that height. and if coaches use poor judgement (because they are undereducated and inexperienced and legends in their own minds) in an athletes ability and the skills they choose for them to do you can rest easy knowing that THEY WILL NEVER HAVE THE EXPERTISE OR KNOW HOW TO TEACH EITHER OF THOSE SKILLS. they'll just keep smashing level 8's. they will never get their hands on elite athletes. it's the way the sport flows.

3. i said we're there at that plateau. and i dont think the FIG will authorize upending the entire apparatus in what's left of my career. maybe in my lifetime. if they do i hope it's when i'm retired. you didn't listen to my post. in 1991 the table was 3 grand. it's now almost 5. so for example, if they built a raised podium with which to run on so that you could land on a resi? add a few thousand dollars for the podium and 2 or 3 grand for the resi. before you know it, you're over 10 grand for a piece of apparatus FIG approved. that means EVERY gym in the world with Olympic level athletes will have to purchase this. and more than one. do you understand the cost i spoke of earlier? THIS IS THE WHY.

now does it answer your questions?