I know I'm not the only one who is tired of two-per-country: the rule that states that only two gymnasts from each nation can qualify into the all-around and event finals. I'd like to see the best of the best, even if fewer countries are represented in finals.
At the 2011 worlds, for example, American Gabrielle Douglas was fifth all-around in prelims, but did not advance to the finals because Jordyn Wieber and Alexandra Raisman were second and fourth, respectively. Sabrina Vega was ninth, and of course didn't qualify either.
Until 2004, three gymnasts per country could qualify into the finals (and two per event), which was at least a little better, but I'd argue that every gymnast who makes the general cut-off (top 24 for all-around, top 8 for event finals) should qualify in regardless of country.
Why? Starting in London, there will only be five members on a team, and only four gymnasts will compete on each event in prelims. So, it could never be more than four gymnasts from the same country in one final. Even if all four of the top countries competed only all-arounders (which would be highly unlikely), that still only takes up 16 slots in the all-around finals.
I want to see gymnasts like Douglas and Vega in the finals -- it would make those meets more competitive, and, in the end, we're not talking about adding that many more gymnasts. Plenty of other countries would still qualify gymnasts into finals.
What do you think?
Comments
Just so you know, there is a very good reason for having that ’2-per’ rule in place….
YES! I totally agree and was just thinking that this Worlds! Gabby Douglass got totally screwed, and it happens every year. Robin, what are these good reasons? I think they should change it.
Maria, there is a very good reason for keeping that rule.
The only problem with it is, that I don’t have the foggiest notion of what that reason is!
Yes, of course, I agree with you that the rule should be eliminated.
???????????
Ummm…Maria, that’s known in many circles as “sarcasm.”
In other words, I was merely kidding.
It’s good idea, but why must in london?
A glaring example of the push for equal outcome compared to equal opportunity. A tragity that a person who has sacraficed blood, sweat, tears, and a normal life to earn a shot at obtaining a personal goal to be reconized as the best, only to be held back by rules to ensure equal outcome. I thought the Olympics were about competiting against the best. So sad.
I’m quite certain that the comments here are from MOSTLY (not all) from fair-weather gym fans. While the 2 per country rule has been in effect since 2004, the 3 per country rule has been in effect for MUCH longer (I believe the late 50′s). It’s interesting that because the USA women were the winning team, that everyone is up in arms about the two per country rule..when in fact, I’m quite sure no one would care if it was the Chinese, Romanian or Russian teams