Wikipedia

Talk:Balance beam

Latest comment: 6 years ago by KWiki in topic Dead references
Learn more about this page

Male performance

edit
Latest comment: 17 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I deleted a sentence that said men don't perform on balance beam because they have external genitals. Perhaps that is one reason, but it probably has more to do with history of the sport. --Fang Aili 22:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)Reply


Well it would appear that this statement has since been added back into the article—and was done so in a way that is very nontechnical (perhaps by someone that is not a native speaker of English, or simply as an intentional joke). It uses the term "balls", and includes a link to the disambiguation page for the word (not solely regarding testicles). The sentence reads, "It is not used by the male gymnasts because they have balls, which are very sensitive parts of the male body." I have changed it to read, "It is not used by male gymnasts because of a significant risk of injury to the testicles." This version, however, should be regarded as a temporary fix, as the article is in significant need of further improvement.

I think it should also be verified whether there is more of a historical reason (as was mentioned above) for males not participating in the event, rather than simply one due to the risk of injury. That being said, surely there are some cultures, regions, or organizations ('professional' or not) that do have male balance beam participation and/or events.

Additionally, it is stated that "The maximum exercise time is 1 minute 30 seconds." Where is this time taken from? A modern Olympics standards body? These kinds of things need to be referenced if statements are going to be made about them.

On a more general note, shouldn't this article have a disambiguation page (or at least clarification) that discusses balance beams as something other than merely a gymnastic apparatus? Either way, this entire article is very poorly written, both in terms of content and formatting. I would recommend this be addressed by someone who is knowledgeable about the subject. — Poga — 05:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've tried to punch this up a little. All of the rules given, such as the time limit, are clearly spelled out in the Code of Points, which has already been linked from the article, so I don't think there's an additional citation needed for that.
As for the issue of "possible testicular injury", that's complete nonsense. For starters, the way gymnasts usually fall off the beam wouldn't really risk any injury to that area of the body (usually, gymnasts fall to the side or head). Second, male gymnasts do plenty of skills on other events--such as pommel horse and parallel bars--where they're straddling the apparatus and are in much greater danger of falling and hurting those bits.
The real reason men don't do balance beam probably is based in old-time sexism, to be honest. Way back when, beam routines were basically dance exercises--if you ever see footage from the 1950s, the gymnasts basically walk and pose. It probably would not have been considered a masculine event, and thus was left to the ladies.
For the disambig page, I'm not sure if I've ever heard of balance beams used in any other context besides artistic gymnastics, but if you know of one, feel free to add. DanielEng 02:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply


It is definitly also an issue of "possible testicular injury". Men will not be able to straddle hard on the beam like women are able to do.

No, this is not true. For one thing, the beam wasn't developed as a gymnastics event until way after the men's progam was formed. For another, male gymnasts DO perform on beam on some American high school teams. Thirdly, events such as p-bars and pommel horse pose much greater risk of injury to the genitals. Also, female gymnasts don't 'straddle hard' on the beam. When they do skills that require them to land in straddles, they actually take the impact on their stomachs, not lower. When they sit, they're on their tailbones, and men could do that without hurting themselves.
It's a silly, unfounded rumor and has no place here. DanielEng 05:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply
Oh...and to add more support to my argument, here's a video of a high school gymnast (male) competing at Western Mass on the balance beam (about halfway through the clip). Notice that a) he's allowed to compete (they wouldn't allow him to do so, if there was a serious threat of injury); b) he DOES straddle the beam, and lives! [1] DanielEng 07:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suggest that sentences like "The gymnast must mount and dismount the beam on her own" should be changed to be gender-neutral. as I am moderately drunk (which may be the reason why I ended up on an article about the balance beam), I'm not going to edit this myself. :] number29 22:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sorry if I seem a little testy.

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

And why do you feel the need to put this on a Wikipedia page? Thats what social media is for. Please only post logical and educational information here. we aren't here to read your thoughts. I came here to learn with information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.60.7 (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made some minor changes to the main page. Sometimes sh*t just gets to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I AM JOHN SMITH (talk • contribs) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sure, but they were changed back. Artistic gymnastics is the official name of the sport, and differentiates it from general gymnastics, rhythmic, etc. And I realize you're new here, but you might want to avoid using words like "retarded" in your edit summaries. DanielEng (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Look, I'm not trying to be a dick, I just never heard of it referred to as "artistic". Anything can be called art if it has movement or a frame around it, but applying it to gymastics, when I've never heard anyone call it that is stupid.I AM JOHN SMITH (talk) 02:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well, that's why it's sometimes necessary to click on those blue links--or have some familiarity with the subject--before you start deleting material out of hand. You're welcome to your opinion on the name of the sport, but it is in fact called artistic gymnastics, which differentiates it from the five other disciplines of gymnastics, three of which are also included in the Olympics. Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't exist; the name has been used since the 1800s. You're welcome to refer to the FIG, the governing body of the sport, if you'd like a reliable reference which will show you the official and internationally recognized names of the various separate disciplines of gymnastics. [2] If you want to change the name, you'll have to argue it out with them, and then go to the IOC and every other governing body for the sport in the world. It's an official term, it's well recognized, it's used on every single score sheet at every single meet (WAG/MAG--that A stands for 'artistic'), and arguing that it shouldn't be used just makes you seem foolish. We don't edit pages based on personal opinion, but on fact.
I don't think you are purposely trying to be a dick, and Wiki certainly needs bold editors, but if you keep calling things "stupid" and "retarded" you're liable to irritate a lot of people and start racking up NPA warnings. If you're not familiar with a subject, changing what's written because you don't like it is liable to cause trouble and just get your edits reverted. You might want to read over WP:NPOV, WP:NPA, WP:PROVEIT and WP:CIVIL just for reference about what is acceptable here. Good luck. DanielEng (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is MAG in the second paragraph Male Artistic Gymnastics?? Hugo999 (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yep. Men's artistic gymnastics, actually. I've clarified. DanielEng (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

-- Conversion error -- Under the apparatus section, 125cm is stated as being about 4'5". It should be stated approximately 4'1". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.146.59.162 (talk) 06:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

New Section, Maybe?

edit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I included information on the history of the balance beam. It was interesting how the balance beam was created and what it was like in the past. If anybody wants to add on to it or know more about the history, feel free! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.230.156 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply

History:Germany

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Early forms of the balance beam were invented by German Friedrich Ludwig Jahn. 77.181.22.240 (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Balance beam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add

{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Balance beam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dead references

edit
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The links in "References" section are dead now (despite the archived versions) or PDF files on them cannot be opened. – KWiki (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Balance_beam&oldid=1238759160"