Too Absent Herald

I don’t know any better way to start this:

1984 was a joke, okay? 1980 was unfair, of course, because the USA was not present. But an archived article on Sports Illustrated’s site makes the claim tha Mary Lou Retton would have done just as well in the all-around even if the Soviet team had been present. In my best imitation of Biz Markie, I have to say: “Tsk. . . C’mon, I’m not even goin’ for it.”:

First, let’s review some magic moments:

The first “10″ was scored by Nadia Comenice for her Uneven bar routine at the 1976 Montreal (why?) games. Beside the remarkable aspect of a Romanian beating the Soviet favorite, Turishcheva, there is this: The scoreboard only had three digits. Nadia’s score was reflected in lights simply as “1.00″ because a ten could not be displayed. Comenice’s A-A score was 79.275. (out of 80, possible).

Now I’ll jump back to Korbut. Turishcheva was the favorite, and did win. But nothing can match the uneven-bar routine by Korbut. Of course, one wonders what it would have seemed like, there.

Digression: One of the remarkable things discovered by the media by Korbut’s routine is that the home viewers could be educated as to what is good, in general, about a routine. Simply looking for evenness and straightness of form (and fluidity on the floor) could give the TV viewer something to gauge. Unfortunately, and as usual, TV has gone too far in its rush for “videobytes.” The dismount has become the over-referenced factor. As a result, often one gets to see only the end of routines.

If you looked at only Nadia’s or Olga Korbut’s dismount, you would never understand the value of the points. Looking at her routine, even now, it outshines many of the past 12 years in intensity, form and skill.

Another important set of points to be made: Turishcheva won the all-around in 1972. Korbut was seventh. Korbut only got a silver on the bars with a 9.6. This, for a routine that included a standing back-flip from the top bar. This move is not even allowed today.

Jim McKay: Has that been done before?
Announcer: Not by any human,…

Frankly, Korbut raised the bar. Her routines made it necessary to have the bars padded (instead of simply wood) and have mats under the bars (there were none, previously). This begs the question: Was Comenice’s bar routine better? The answer points to a split in how you view the event; and it is a division which continues, now. Korbut was 17 years old; 4 feet, eleven inches tall. Comenice measured roughly the same, but her routines gave the appearance of length. Technical flawlessness gave way to a more aesthetic viewpoint, I think. Nadia Comenice’s routine in Montreal seems to last twice as long as Korbut’s.

Here’s another way: Over the past three days I have watched both routines a number of times, and showed them to a number of people. My own, and others’ reactions, summed up in first descriptive utterances, remain constant.

Korbut’s routine is: “Insane, unbelievable.”

Comenice’s is: “Amazing, perfect.”

That’s the difference, for me. And that is why my favorite gymnasts, of my own Olympic viewing history, are Elena Shushunova and Svetlana Boguinskaia. To be discussed tomorrow.

By the way: Comenice got a 79.275 in 1976 for the all-around Gold.

Retton, in ‘84, got a 79.175.

Shushunova, in 1988, got 79.662. Scoring has been changed since.

This entry was posted on Saturday, August 14th, 2004 at 7:57 pm and is filed under the small stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.