Korean Gymnastics Review

Japan has sustained the prejudice attitude, as best remarked by a German literature scholar Kanji Nisho when he commented, “I wonder why they haven’t grown up at all…They don’t change. I wonder why China and Korea haven’t learned anything.” However, with the 2002 World Cup, South Korea emerged as a legitimate rival in East Asian. The spread of the “Korean Wave” phenomenon began to displace Japanese pop culture exports and Japan as the focus of East Asian popular culture in general. The threat of another East Asian culture and sports team equaling Japan created a sense of pressure upon Japanese popular culture. The “Hate Korea” movement commenced, which was best manifested through manga. Surprisingly, despite Japan’s allure to Korean drama and elements of its popular culture, a tremendous number of Japanese generated hostility towards South Korea through expressing their dislike for Korea and its progress, which resulted in a backlash. Withstanding this hostility, Koreans fought to attain the spotlight on the East Asian stage and eventually stand in the limelight of the world stage. This was most evident in the men’s gymnastics venue at the 2004 Olympic summer games.
In this competition, Paul Hamm won for the United States its first All-Around Gold title through the smallest margin in the history of men’s all-around, 0,012 points, triumphing over South Korea’s Dae Eun Kim (silver) and his teammate Yang Tae-young (bronze). Then the controversy exploded when the South Koreans realized the possibility of a first-place title. Apparently the judges began Yang Tae-young’s start value from a 9.9 instead of a 10.0, which cost him the gold; however, although this appears unfair, once the event is concluded, petitioning for recounting the score is prohibited. When asked why Yang did not take the initiative then, both Yang and Kim admitted that they “did not even think they would be on the medal stand at all on that night” but once they knew the possibilities, they did not expect Hamm on the two final events to rise from twelfth to first place. Kim suggested that, “I thought maybe I could get first. I’m rather disappointed and angry in a way.” Yet, notice how he revealed he “could” not “should”. Although these medals were the first two for South Korea in men’s all-around, they were still seeking more, the gold medal. Perhaps their desire for perfection and the spotlight demonstrates their tenacity for gaining world attention and proving that said attention is valid through honest means.
Unfortunately, the Court of Arbitration for Sports ruled that Korean protest was submitted too late and that CAS was not in the position to correct results. Throughout the entire process, the Koreans were “chaotic and dynamic” and Mike Celizic, a commentator for MSNBC, branded U.S. Paul Hamm “selfish and arrogant”. Although Hamm relates, “the decision from CAS confirms what I’ve always felt in my heart, which is that I was champion that night and the Olympic gold medalist,” Celizic notes Hamm’s irresponsibility to his country since yielding the medal was “not something Hamm had to do, but it was something he or anyone in his situation should do.” Instead, according to Celizic, Hamm’s narcissism tarnished American’s reputation more so since, “it’s taken as proof that America is an arrogant and bloated monolith that won’t be satisfied until it owns the world and all the gold medals in it.” However, if this were vice versa, I am positive that any country in the position of losing a gold medal would fight to win it back and be reluctant to renounce the symbol of a country’s superiority.
In addition, this event was adding insult to injury with the previous fall from fame two years ago at the Salt Lake City Winter Games. The U.S. short-track speed skater Anton Apolo Ohno got tangled up with a South Korean skater on the last turn of a race and ended up with a medal while the Koreans got nothing. Therefore, the judge making such an obvious mistake on Yang’s routine reminded them of another loss that could have been a win. Although, the International Gymnastics Federation announced Yang had been wrongly docked a tenth of a point on his second-to-last routine, the parallel bars, Yang still finished third instead of first. Celizic comments, “even though the rules say he should keep the medal, the fact remains that he won it because the judges goofed in rating the parallel bar routine of Yang, giving it a starting value of 9.9 instead of the 10 it should have had”; although the facts lean to Yang as the possible winner, who could say the outcome would have been the same? Paul Hamm could have fallen on his best event and the 0.1 point the Koreans petitioned for would have been in vain, or vice versa, Yang could have fallen. Either way, it was the fault of the Korean’s for not catching the mistake sooner. And speaking from a perspective of a competitive gymnast who has competed at various levels for the past sixteen years, I believe it’s innate to sometimes not question your score, but even still, my coach would still check the judge’s remarks for clarity and accuracy of deductions.
What is the relationship between Korean-Japanese rivalry and the 2004 gymnastics event? Or Ohno versus Kim (speed skating)? Make the relationship more explicit by discussing the world cup and media culture. Or frame your discussion of gymnastics in a different way, so that you will be able to include both issues. What is the larger framework through which you are analyzing these two events which, though could be counted as Korea’s success, ultimately revealed Korea not yet having reached the advanced level to compete successfully and fairly with the most advanced countries and athletes.

(I am sorry for being so delayed in updating. Please feel free to comment and discuss my thoughts. I am curious as to others', especially native Korean's, impression of this situation.)
(EB)