The Discussion: Modifying the balance beam

At the World Championships in Rottedam, legendary Russian coach Leonid Arkayev did an interview with GymMedia where he examined a balance beam prototype whose ends were slightly wider than four inches (the video can be seen by clicking the image of Arkayev to the left, or here.)

The beam, if used, might allow gymansts to get greater punch for dismounts, thereby allowing for harder skills done off the end. In addition, a few extra inches for landing ever-more complicated acrobratics is something gymnasts would be able to take advantage of.

Gymnastics bloggers from around the world were asked how they felt about the idea. Here's what they had to say:

Martina Eggeling (Gymnastics United): I have very mixed feelings about this. Whereas I could see it prevent some injuries when going for dismount (much like the change of the vaulting table) on the other hand it would lead for the gymnasts to strive for even more difficulty and I fear we might see even more bad form on skills too.

Also the wider end on the beam does not prevent from landing injuries...one more point would be the question on if the wider end would make it hard to perform close to beam elements near the end of the beam or mounts like the one Lauren Mitchell currently performs. They should test it with some experienced gymnasts and coaches to get their opinion before making a final decision imo.

Katie (Full Twist): I think leave it as it is. I could possibly see more injuries by widening just the ends, also it would look a bit strange. If it was a case of it being for safety reasons then of course make the change but gymnasts at the level we’re talking about should be able to adapt the moves to the equipment.

Brigid McCarthy (The Couch Gymnast): I am not altogether against it. Sport needs innovations. My only real problem is that it detracts from the purpose of the beam and places more focus on the dismount and tumbling. Sure, I loved seeing Aly Raisman's blissfully calm and beautifully performed Patterson dismount last year, but at the same time, what is most important to me are the innovations that are made to beam choreography -- how athletes and coaches work with what they have. Truly terrific beamwork, which to me is inventive and exciting beam performances as much as well-executed performances, relies on great imagination and experimentation on the part of gymnasts and coaches. Heavy focus on the "difficult" elements, such as dismounts and tumbling that the widened end would bring might take away from this. The code does that enough already.

Besides, it is called a balance beam for a reason.

Bronwyn Sanders (STOI!): I remember reading about this when it first came out, and I actually liked the idea. I recall being in the minority. Not only would it allow for the possibility of crazy-hard dismounts, but also lessens the risk for a foot slip, nasty crash, or potential injury.

On the downside, how many once-exciting full twists to the very edge of the beam will we be seeing? And how long before we get sick of them?

Also, there’s the history and nostalgia factor. The beam has always been four inches, even when it was little more than a slab of wood. Can we as gym fans handle Tim and Elfi not mercilessly reminding us of this during every television broadcast?

Clara (STOI!): Not excited. However wide the beam is, gymnasts will still be taking off from only what, 1.25 metres high? That limits what you can do even if the beam's two feet wide. Even if it's slightly wider, it'll still be hard to get the height for skills like double straights and double doubles, which are realistically the next skills to be tried. And anything more than a double twist dismount is usually poorly done, so I have no wish to see gymnasts encouraged to throw 3.5 twists. I worry about the safety implications of gymnasts being encouraged to throw harder dismounts, but doubt it would make much difference to what we see now anyway.

Anne Phillips (Gymnastike): Nice innovation on their part, but I'd rather not see it in the competition arena.

Vanessa Steck (Wild/Precious): As much as I hate change I think this could be kind of cool. I love beam dismounts. On the other hand, this does seem to be taking the sport in the wrong direction: we want MORE artistry. And what could they realistically do with greater punch?

Rick McCharles (Gymnastics Coaching): Don't like it. Beam dismounts are already scary enough. The FIG landing mats are not as forgiving as they should be, either.

Jen (Full In Full Out): You know, I think that if gymnastics is going to survive, it has to evolve to a certain extent. We’ve seen great improvements in safety and training equipment, as well as changes made to the various apparatus in order to allow for the increase in difficulty over the years. Beam has remained the least changed in that time. However…I’m not sure how I feel about widening the ends. It seems like a means to continue putting the emphasis on difficulty while abandoning the idea of doing skills well. I’d rather see a beautiful double twist than a sloppy triple any day of the week. If the goal is to make harder skills easier, it seems like that defeats the entire purpose of gymnastics. I have to give this particular innovation a thumbs down.

Dave (Aunt Joyce's Ice Cream Stand): It could allow for more difficult mounts and dismounts. I am a purist at heart and am generally opposed to radical change, but evolution of the equipment is inevitable and somewhat necessary for the future of the sport.

Beatrice Gheorghisor (Gymnastics No Ceiling): I think we don’t see enough variety of balance beam dismounts these days. This modification would encourage gymnasts to be more daring in that field.

Romila Storjohann (GymNiceTic): First, it looks really strange and somehow malformed. Second, gymnasts could do harder tricks and that's why they would have to do harder tricks -- double backs would certainly be downgraded. Third, it would have to be forbidden to step or land on this part of the beam during a routine (except for the dismount). Fourth, maybe we would see triple backs or quadruple twists in competition. Fifth, vault, floor and the uneven bars all changed a lot in the past, only the good old beam is still the same -- so, yeah, let's give it a try, maybe starting the experiment after the 2012 Olympics?!

Blythe Lawrence (Gymnastics Examiner): I'm torn. I worry that if the ends of the beam were widened to allow for harder dismounts, it would somehow invalidate the wonderful history of beamwork that's been developed over the past 50 years. For example, at the moment everyone is marveling over Katelyn Ohashi's extraordinary routine from last weekend's WOGA Classic. But what would our reactions be if she had landed that dismount and that layout full on a six- or eight-inch surface instead of a four-inch surface? We'd be less impressed, and that would be a shame. That being said, how cool would it be to start seeing 1.5 twists landing on the beam, or double double tucks off?

Your take: Should the ends of the balance beam be lengthened to allow for greater difficulty? Join The Discussion and leave a comment below!

Enjoying The Discussion? Here's a list of recent topics addressed by bloggers from around the world.

Follow The Gymnastics Examiner on Facebook or Twitter, or click the "Subscribe" button above to receive the latest gymnastics news and results via e-mail.