Test Fetishism: Classical Music and the Code of Points

At one of my piano lessons, I finished playing Chopin's Nocturne in F Minor, and my teacher told me about a book he was reading which discussed the concept of "text fetishism." Under the original mentality of classical music, the performer was to create a unique and personal expression through alterations to the text that would be abhorred today. The musical text was expected to be treated more as an outline rather than an unalterable absolute. Modern performance of classical music has come to treat the text as untouchable as if it were the Holy Grail and not a dynamic, living source for expression. Immediately, I found my mind flying to the Code of Points.

The Code of Points under which were are currently operating is similar to this view of classical music. The Code is inflexible, unwavering, and unchallengeable. It's detailed list of intricate methods of deduction are rigid and leave no room for interpretation and allows the judges only to robotically and methodically apply prescribed deductions. I used to be in favor of the strictly defined, take-what-is-written approach of this code, and I used to be in the "deductions and scoring need to be even harsher" camp. But there is so much that can't be captured in a tenth here for this form fault, three there for that bad landing, another on this side for x minor error, and the more-deductions-make-for-better-scores approach clearly isn't working. I think we are confusing "harsher scores" with "more accurate and differentiated scores."

Interestingly enough, I believe this deduct-deduct-deduct approach has only served to create parity in the scoring. The lightning-in-a-bottle brilliant routines are so caught in the rigid confines of never-ending deductions they are unable to soar above the rest of the pack and their scores can rarely really reflect the superiority of the the performance. Simone Biles's floor routine from Classics is an example of a routine which suffers from this phenomenon. It was the single greatest routine on any event I'd say since the open-ended scoring system, possibly exempting McKayla Maroney's vault from team finals in London. It's execution score? 9.2. Perhaps this was the "correct" score under the Code. If anything, I'd assume it would be an excessive score based on the precise, technical deducting of points. Yet that 9.2 came nowhere close to representing just how outstanding her routine wan, nor how much stronger it was in comparison to the field. Another example would be Wang Yan's EF beam at this year's Youth Olympic Games, or really just the YOG as a whole. The bars EF saw not a single E score above an 8, and 8.5s took on an almost 10-like elusiveness. Heck, I'm pretty sure there were more 10s at the Seoul Olympics than there were 8.5 E scores at the YOG (vault notwithstanding.) Yet, was there really any significant differentiation between the best and the worst? This approach to scoring has simply lowered scores overall without actually creating a stronger separation between the highest and lowest quality routines.

I believe the meticulous list of deductions needs to be treated the way classical music text was originally meant to be treated. The judges need to view the execution deduction list of the Code as a guide and not as unwaveringly as the Gospel. The judges need to be allowed to reward the greatest routines with scores the reflect greatness. And for all the supposed harshness of the current E score tabulation, the scores for the least outstanding routines seem strangely close to the E scores of the most outstanding- at least in finals situations. With the formulaic structure of the D score, the E score needs to really be able to "separate the women from the girls," if you will.

Gymnastics has been its most dynamic when judges were given the ability to work with the Code instead of by it in this way. The rules governing the sport acknowledged the dynamic nature of gymnastics itself in the "golden age," and innovation and perfection were staples of the top-level elite scene. Now, I am not one of those fans with an "If it isn't the Soviet Union in the 80's, I don't care" mentality and I certainly to not look at the previous eras with overly rose-colored glasses. I use the term "golden age" hesitantly, and if anything I enjoy the gymnastics of the 1980's less than the average fan. And I am certainly not blind to the judging flaws of that time period. Certainly not. However, the dynamic judging system allowed for a contrast in the scores between the most outstanding routines and the mediocre ones. This kind of contrast is lacking and needs to return.

Now, I am not suggesting the judges be given the free reign they had in the 80's. I am in favor of keeping the set deduction list. However, I think the judges should be allowed to be less regimented and more accurately separate the "women from the girls" with their scores. What I am suggesting is a sort of healthy discrimination in the judging which allows the judges to make the proper distinctions in their scores. The judges should be allowed to deduct harshly for egregious form errors and be less heavy-handed for an overall great routine. They should be allowed to work within the direction of the Code, using it as a tool to guide the judges in how they should score and not as the sole deciding factor. The judges need to reflect the caliber of the routines to accurately express the correct rankings. When in the past I asked for harsher E scores, I was really hoping for more specific scores. The difference may seem minor at first, but it really is the greatest possible.

A Note on Lunges.....

Everyone seems to be discussing what could be done to better the code lately. I plan on also writing my own ideas on this, perhaps in multiple installments. Heck, that was a big motivation for my creating this blog (I really need to get down to that)!

Bruno Grandi released a statement about the need for this after Worlds. His comments were perfunctory, stupid, and uninspiring as always, but one small point made its way into a huge number of the comments- lunges.

I've never understood the nostalgia of the lunge among the gymternet. I never thought they were overwhelmingly graceful, beautiful, or artistic. I thought they looked- well, like you couldn't stick your landing. Most strange to me is the thought by many that a lunge added artistry in any way. It was a step back out of a tumble. In no way did it add anything to the overall beauty, emotional depth, performance quality, or musicality of the routine. Lunges simply were an exit to a skill. Not a unique or a creative one, an exit everyone used. A stuck landing (with the proper upright chest position) is much more pleasing to see. It shows ultimate control and is the perfect exclamation point to a glorious tumbling pass. Think of the satisfaction and excitement of the perfect stuck finish to Aly Raiman's mind-blowing first pass or Simone's drilled landing on her eponymous skill at Classics. No lunge could ever compare.

On the other hand, a lunge is infinitely nicer to the muddy steps and other fudged landings which have become common since the debunking of the lunge. While a lunge may not display the pinnacle of control, a muddy landing is just ugly. I think there needs to be a way to reward perfect sticks while encouraging lunges as the alternative. In this way, I think the whole stick bonus thing might not be such a stupid idea. A lunge wouldn't need to be deducted, but a stick could be rewarded. The motivation is still there to stick, but better to lunge than to fudge the landing. A tenth for every stick might be overkill and unfair, as there are four possible tenths there that aren't available on the other events. However, I think a one tenth bonus for sticking at least two passes- and maybe even two tenths if all four passes are stuck- would be fair and reasonable, as well as doing the job of rewarding stuck landings without having to sacrifice lunges. The best of both worlds!