I've gotten a lot of e-mails asking this, so here's the lowdown:
The FIG decreased the team size (from seven members in 1996 and previously and six in 2004 and 2008) to allow for more individual competitors.
The overall number of competitors is still 98, but now there are 12 teams of five members each, with 38 individuals qualifying through various means (earning an individual medal at the 2011 worlds is one way to do it). In 2008, there were only 26 individual competitors, and some very talented world medalists from smaller countries failed to qualify, so this is an effort to rectify that.
Though the reasoning behind it is valid, I disagree with the outcome, because it forces the US and other strong countries to leave yet another potential world medalist off their Olympic team. (One example: Alicia Sacramone did not make the US team, but could easily win a medal on vault.) It also dilutes the team competition even further -- now there are only four routines in Olympic prelims, and three in finals. I want to see more gymnastics than that in a "team" competition. There has to be a better way to make sure the top athletes, from big and small countries, all qualify to the Olympics.
Comments
Ooh…OK, Amy, so you mean to say that it’s a universal Olympic brain-fart!
I thought it was only the US gymnastics team that had dropped it down to just five members. I’d speculated that it may have had something to do with the weak economy, and Martha just couldn’t afford to coach six members.
But why is it only the gymnastics teams that are doing that? Does anybody really expect the basketball, swimming, track & field, and other teams to trim their numbers at all? I don’t think so!
I think, perhaps, FIG ought to change their acronym to RIP, or maybe even…GONE!
I agree that the five per country rule is insanity yet again. I also happen to not be a fan of the two-per-country AA rule. Why can’t we just let the best of the best qualify and compete? To work off of your ASac example, whoever wins Vault this year gets the medal, but the grim knowledge that she did not win against all of the best. Doesn’t she deserve that chance? There has GOT to be a better way of handling it. Not to mention that, like you said, this is a team sport first and foremost. So why are the teams suffering? And now with open-ended scoring, we need specialists more than ever and can’t have them. Is this the FIG’s way of trying to control the scoring so it doesn’t get too out of hand?
So let’s see.. in recent years, the FIG has destroyed the perfect 10 and MINIMIZED team size… does anyone else think they’re doing it backwards?
Yes, FIG is killing me. The doing away of the perfect 10 gave me a straight heart attack! I can’t take anymore changes!!
Well as usual there is more to it than that. First when teams were larger, there was less room for indiviual gymnasts from countries that could not qualify a team. Now there are more gymnasts from other countries which help those countries to grow the sport. and Second, when they lowered the number of counting scores it helped more teams be competitive. Less scores still gave an advantage to large countries with a lot of depth who could put in more specialists. So, they needed to limit the number of competitors. Large teams worked against the US when the Soviet Union was still together and now it does keep some of our great athletes off the team. Don’t forget a lot of sports limit the number of athletes places per event (Swimming, Track, Diving, etc.) No system is ideal.
Well then, I stand corrected.
Thank you, Ron.
I appreciate your candor.
Ahhh…OK, NOW I see what happened to women’s softball in the Olympics….they dropped softball so they could add this to the lineup….
http://tinyurl.com/7ssg99x
While I am always thrilled to see them adding more women’s sports, I just don’t see why they’d need to drop a very popular women’s sport to do it!
And what’s even more confusing, is that they still kept PING PONG?!? That’s not a sport, it’s a freaking board game!!
So what’s next, IOC, you’re gonna drop women’s gymnastics so you can add tiddly winks, or maybe even hopscotch? Sheesh!
I just don’t get it…..there are an estimated 10,500 athletes competing at the London Olympics. And yet, the London Olympic Games Organizing Committee is distributing 150,000 condoms to them. Are you kidding me??
Even Hope Solo was recently quoted as saying “there is a lot of sex going on here.”
So….when do they actually find the time to…oh, I don’t know, perhaps… train???
SHEESH!!
I am not a fan of the 5 member teams, or the limits of 2 athletes in an event or all around final. The open ended scoring system was supposed to fix all of the national bias and team score elevation that the limited representation in finals was supposed to help give the lower ranking teams a chance. New life finals already does a lot of this, and given that even the smallest countries are fighting to get their medal hopefulls in events to the games the system seems to be broken. Do we limit team to top 8? So we can make sure we get FULL teams of 6 to the games and still get all of the event specialists from small countries a chance? That is my vote, it would improve both the top tiered “TEAM” competition and still get the best event specialists to the games. After all, despite all of the efforts to get the best athletes to the games where both specialists from smaller countries and top tier countries full representation. The system excludes them. Drop teams 9-12 and that gets more exciting event finals and allows gymnastics to still come under the cap of athletes but amp up the excitement. I’d say for the next quad, we go back to 6-5-3 but with less teams. It’ a win-win. After all world championships doesn’t limit the size of the meet, this would make the Olympics and Worlds much more consistent.
Top Chinese gymnast injured, withdraws as equipment is called into question…. American gymnasts look “confused.”
http://tinyurl.com/bng5334
Here’s a solution to only two gymnasts per country in the final … why not have the top two per country, but then also include the next four highest scores that fall in the top 24 but didn’t’ get in because of the “two” rule? Basically include four “wildcards” which would allow the sport to continue the goal of broadening appeal to other nations (ensuring inclusiveness of more countries), while still allowing for top competitors to earn their way into the finals.
The competition this year has been very boring. The all around should only include the top competitors and should not be limited two per county, if the point is to metal the best than the best should be competing against each other. This is like giving the losing team a metal.
Also, scoring is now too technical, some of gymnastics is based on the beauty the performer brings to the game and that is based on judges preference. It keeps it interesting. It’s how the tie should have been decided, not by dropping a score.
The way they broke the tie sucked! Ali was robbed! The U.S. is doing very well overall so we should all be very proud of our athletes. Hell, we should be proud of everyone who made it to the Olympics & of all who didn’t but should have. I hate all of the political crap that always seeps into everything.
Sorry, I just felt like stating a few other opinions. : )
I think that the decresing of the team really means that picking a team also requires careful consideration. the change is a disadvantage for specilaists. This is becuase they cant contribute as much and that sixth member porvides a net. i am sure that if the rule hadnt came in elizabeth price or alica sacarmone would of had the spot or been the first alternate along with Anna LI and Sarah Finnegan.