Skip to main content
Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
Did anyone watch?

Thoughs:
* There were 19 girls competing. Would it have killed NBC to show us more than 4 of them? I mean, Randi Stageberg tied for first on floor and from the coverage you couldn't even tell she attended the meet.
* Enough with the parents coaching thing. It was interesting enough for a 30 second mention. Then shut up about it already.
* 5 tumbling passes is too many. I do not like this new direction.
* That being said, wow - they are doing amazing tumbling now.
* The choreography was blah for pretty much everyone they showed except for Nastia.
* 3 months off and then training bars for only 1 week? Sheesh. I hope she heals and then stays uninjured, because Chellsie deserves a chance at an Olympics.
* I like Natasha Kelley, but the girl needs some dance training or something. Her inexperience shows in her hands. With just a little bit of polish she will be exceptional.
* What happened to Shayla Worley? I liked watching her in the Pacific Alliance. She didn't compete at either the junior or senior levels. I assume that means she is injured.
* Al not only does not know anything about the sport, but his math skills are failing him too. Here is a hint. 0.5 > 0.3. Thus Nastia still would have won even had she taken a .8 deduction for a fall instead of the .5 she took. It is great that she pulled off that save, but it did not affect the final rankings. No. It didn't.
* Andrea Joyce, leave the poor girl alone. Saying congrats at the end does not negate the 4 "why did you mess up so much" questions beforehand.
* Valeri - what the heck? Yeah, it wasn't a great meet. But still. That is your daughter. Pointedly ignoring her because she had a bad day? Not good. Deigning to speak to her again because the rankings came out in her favor anyway? Nice way to reinforce that winning *is* everything. I like you in every interview you have given. Do not disappoint me now.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Would it have killed NBC to show us more than 4 of them?


(emphasis mine)

Question asked, question answered.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Yeah, it probably would have. To give all 19 instead of the 6 we saw their fair shake would have required that NBC double the coverage, and that ain't gonna happen outside an Olympic year.

I actually thought Valeri was pretty easy on Nastia. Considering that he is a former Soviet gold medalist who came up through a very strict and harsh system, I'd have thought he'd have been harsher with her, but he was no worse than most coaches. She was probably more pissed off at herself than he was, but maybe she gets it from him.

Pay Andrea no mind. She's just the typical hurricane-brained sideline reporter. Be glad they didn't have Melissa Stark. She was AWFUL when she was on the Olympics.

I think we look pretty weak in women's gymnastics this time around. After you get past Nastia and Chellsie, we don't seem to have too many reliable performers. This for sure ain't no Magnificent 7, and if we're gonna get more than a few individual scraps in Beijing, Marta K. and company better get their crap together posthaste.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
To give all 19 instead of the 6 we saw their fair shake would have required that NBC double the coverage, and that ain't gonna happen outside an Olympic year.

I don't want all 19 to have "a fair shake" - I'd just like to see, maybe, the first place floor routine. It can be done. They just have to lay off the stupid commentary. In fact, they can still do most of the stupid commentary. They just have to lay off the *repetition* of the same exact stupid commentary. (Seriously. I was 8 in 1984 and had just started taking gymnastics. So, you know, my love for the Mary Lou Retton knows few bounds. If even I thought that they needed to shut up about her, they need to.)

I think we look pretty weak in women's gymnastics this time around. After you get past Nastia and Chellsie, we don't seem to have too many reliable performers. This for sure ain't no Magnificent 7, and if we're gonna get more than a few individual scraps in Beijing, Marta K. and company better get their crap together posthaste.

Sort of. We wouldn't want to peak too soon, so I think that for 2 years before the Olympics, we're doing pretty well. We have dominated in international competition lately anyway. And there are also 8 or 9 gymnasts moving up from juniors next year. If we go the same route as last time with the event specialists - well, we do have quite a few gymnasts who could handle one or two events very well. All of which is to say - I don't think we're in trouble at all.

I'm also waiting to see what the Hamm brothers do next year. (NBC, September 10, 1:30 - 3 ==> men's championships)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I don't know, I think you're a little too optimistic. I'm not used to seeing us look this bad, and I haven't seen us look this bad since at least Sydney. The only saving grace, if you can call it that, is that a number of the other gymnastics powers are also abnormally weak. There is nobody out there that can reliably kick your butt in the team events if you screw up most of your routines, and everybody is so bad these days that there are an awful lot of screwed up routines being done out there.
Print the post Back To Top