How Successful Are Men All-Around Olympic Medalists on Apparatus Events at Olympic Games from 1924 to 2016
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS ON APPARATUS EVENTS AT OLYMPIC GAMES FROM 1924 TO 2016 Ivan Čuk Karmen Šibanc University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Sport, Slovenia Original article Abstract At Olympic Games (OG) 1896 in Athens all-around competition in gymnastics was not a discipline. First time all-around title in gymnastics at OG was awarded in Paris in the year of 1900, however there were no apparatus awards given until OG 1924 in Paris. The article shows a historical research and follows development of OG all-around medallists and their success with relation to winning medals on individual apparatus. In Paris1924 Leon Štukelj (Slovenia, ex-Yugoslavia) won all-around and horizontal bar gold medal. Since then all-around medallists shared very different success in apparatus ranking. The last multiple winner was Vitaly Scherbo (Belarus, ex-Soviet Union) who at OG 1992 won all-around and three apparatus finals (rings, vault and parallel bars). Since then such achievement has not been repeated yet. With open- ended difficulty value in the Code of Points and special competitions held by FIG for apparatus specialist, the doors are opening to more apparatus specialists to attend OG and chances to repeat Scherbo’s success are getting smaller Key words: history, men artistic gymnastics, Olympic Games, medallists. INTRODUCTION Gymnastics for men was on the only for apparatus results on pommel horse, schedule of the first modern Olympic still rings, vault, parallel bars and high bar. Games in 1896, and it has been on the At OG 1900 in Paris (France), only medals Olympic agenda continually since 1924 for all-around results were awarded. At next (Strauss, 2017). Development of disciplines OG in St. Louis (USA) in 1904 in artistic gymnastics at Olympic Games competitions were organized separately and (OG) went through burning beginning and months apart for all-around and for since 1932 it became constant as number of apparatus (without floor exercise). At OG disciplines, but a format of how winners 1906 in Athens celebrating 10 years of the were determined has been changing until first OG only all-around results were nowadays. At the first OG of modern age in awarded. Next OG from 1908 London (UK) 1896 in Athens (Greece), medals were given up to OG 1920 Antwerp (Netherland) again Science of Gymnastics Journal 369 Science of Gymnastics Journal Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 only all-around medals were awarded Code of Points (COP) determined the (Wallechinsky, 2004). Next two OG in Paris rules of how to evaluate routines. Between (1924) and Amsterdam (1928, Netherland) 1924 and 1996, gymnasts had to perform besides all-around medals, also apparatus two routines - compulsory and optional - on medals were awarded for all disciplines each apparatus. Despite the fact that in the except for floor exercise (Štukelj, 1989). past many changes were made in the COP, Leon Štukelj (Slovenia, ex Yougoslavia) but until 2006 the highest value of was the first Olympic champion in all- gymnast’s score limited towards fixed around who also won the apparatus gold number (mostly towards 10.0 points). After medal for horizontal bar. Since OG in 1932 2006, the difficulty values of the score are (Los Angeles, USA) onward for all-around evaluated upon open end of the score (each and six apparatus disciplines – floor gymnasts have his theoretical maximum exercise, pommel horse, rings, vault, score determined with content of his parallel bars, horizontal bar – medals were exercise) (FIG, 2013, Kunčič & Mešl, awarded. Later up to OG in Melbourne 2017). The rise of precision of judging and (Australia) 1956 team competition served its regulation was paralleled by the fact that also to determine all-around and apparatus values of difficulty elements increased medallists. At OG in Rome (Italy) 1960 (Čuk, & Atiković, 2009; Čuk, & apparatus finals competition began, with all- Forbes,2010; Bučar Pajek, Čuk, Pajek, around finals gymnasts started at OG 1972 Karácsony & Leskošek, 2012; Bučar Pajek, in Munich (Germany). Since then the format Čuk, Pajek, Kovač, & Leskošek, 2013; of disciplines is the same, with changes of Delaš Kalinski, Atiković, Jelaska, & Milić, number of gymnasts in all-around finals 2016). It is important to notice that (drop from 36 to 24) and apparatus finals apparatus events are designed according to (rise from 6 to 8) (Wallechinsky, 2004). For gymnast’s main position obtained on the last OG 2016 in Rio (Brazil) apparatus. In such we distinguish apparatus International gymnastics federation’s (FIG) with dominant support on their feet (floor selection process of gymnasts who can exercise, vault), dominant support on arms compete at OG was as follows (FIG, 2015): (pommel horse, parallel bars) and dominant 12 teams of 5 gymnasts, World hang (rings, horizontal bar). According to championship apparatus medallists (7 Arkaev & Suchilin (2003), gymnastics gymnasts fulfilled this criteria; 2 of them cannot be performed without the ability to would qualify also via all-around) who are jump with high level of development of the not part of any competing team, host nation muscles of upper back, lower back and the representative (who was already a member trunk. There were many changes also in from host team qualified), tripartite apparatus design - changes of apparatus invitation (invited gymnast from Monaco, materials or physical characteristics of who competed in all-around), a gymnast apparatus at the competitions - all gymnasts from Africa (all-around gymnast), and 29 competed at particular OG on the apparatus gymnasts qualified via all-around results with same characteristics. Up to now, it was either in 2015 at World Championship found that with open difficulty value in the either at 2016 Olympic test event. At Rio COP the highest predictive value at 2009 OG 98 gymnasts competed, half of them European Championship for all-around (49) competed in all-around, in teams; one results were results for difficulty value on to three gymnasts competed in all-around parallel bars (Čuk, Forbes, 2010). (BBC Sport, 2017). It is worth to notice that The aim of our historical research is to all-around gymnasts competing at OG tend follow the development of OG all-around to be older at OG comparing to previous medallists and their success with relation to ones (Atiković, Delaš Kalinski & Čuk, winning medals on individual apparatus, 2017). addressing their possible causes and future impacts. Science of Gymnastics Journal 370 Science of Gymnastics Journal Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 METHODS (excluding team medals) on apparatus (for individuals altogether it is possible to gain All data from Wallechinsky (2004) were 18 medals), percentage of all medals won by collected. The time span we analysed is Olympic Champion (out of 18 possible from OG 1924 up to OG 2016, as from 1924 apparatus medals), as a gymnast can earn all-around and apparatus medals were maximum 6 apparatus medals, it was awarded. Following variables per each OG calculated also Olympic Champion were analysed: number of participants, efficiency (all apparatus medals divided by number of participant’s nation, name of 6). From results, we determined on which gymnasts who won medals in all-around and all-around champions took most apparatus apparatus, sum of all medals won by all- medals. around medallists, sum of gold medals won by all-around medallists, sum of silver RESULTS medals won by all-around medallists, sum of bronze medals won by all-around Results are shown in Figures 1 to 7, Tables medallists, sum of all medals won by 1 and 2. Olympic champion, percentage of all . medals won by all-around medallists Figure 1. Number of gymnasts competing at OG between 1924 and 2016. Science of Gymnastics Journal 371 Science of Gymnastics Journal Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 Figure 2. Number of participating nations at OG between 1924 and 2016. Figure 3. Percentage of individual medals won by AA medallists between 1924 and 2016 Legend: Blue line denotes the absolute sum of medals. Orange line denotes trends (sum of medals at previous (n-1), recent (n) and next (n+1) OG divided by 3. Science of Gymnastics Journal 372 Science of Gymnastics Journal Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 Figure 4. All-around medallists with gold apparatus medals between 1924 and 2016; Legend: Blue line denotes the absolute sum of medals. Red line denotes trends (sum of medals at previous (n-1), recent (n) and next (n+1) OG divided by 3. Figure 5. All-around medallists with silver apparatus medals between 1924 and 2016; Legend: Blue line denotes the absolute sum of medals. Red line denotes trends (sum of medals at previous (n-1), recent (n) and next (n+1) OG divided by 3. Figure 6. All-around medallists with bronze apparatus medals between 1924 and 2016; Legend: Blue line denotes the absolute sum of medals. Red line denotes trends (sum of medals at previous (n-1), recent (n) and next (n+1) OG divided by 3. Science of Gymnastics Journal 373 Science of Gymnastics Journal Čuk, I. & Šibanc, K..: HOW SUCCESSFUL ARE MEN ALL-AROUND OLYMPIC MEDALISTS… Vol. 10 Issue 3: 369 - 380 Figure 7. Efficiency of Olympic champions on winning apparatus medals between 1924 and 2016; Legend: Blue line denotes the absolute sum of medals. Orange line denotes trends (sum of medals at previous (n-1), recent (n) and next (n+1) OG divided by 3.