Evaluation of scores of the 33rd and 34th Junior European Championships in Men's Artistic Gymnastics - Dialnet
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Original research
Evaluation of scores of the 33rd and 34th Junior European
Championships in Men’s Artistic Gymnastics
Merve Koca Kosova 1*, Sercin Kosova 1
1
Dokuz Eylül University, Necat Hepkon Faculty of Sport Sciences; İzmir, Turkey.
*Correspondence: (Merve Koca Kosova) merve.koca@deu.edu.tr https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-2790
Received: 27/01/2021; Accepted: 29/03/2021; Published: 30/06/2021
Abstract: To determine the effects of difficulty (D), execution (E), and total score of the apparatus
on the all-around total score, and compare the scores of the 33rd and 34th Junior European
Championships in Men’s Artistic Gymnastics (JECMAG). The data of the study are the all-around
scores of the final of the 33rd (2018) and 34th (2020) JECMAG. The all-around total score (AATS),
apparatus total score, D and E score of each apparatus were evaluated. A multiple regression was
run to predict AATS from the total score of the vault, pommel horse, horizontal bar, floor
2018
exercise, parallel bars, and AATS from the parallel bars (p
Koca Kosova & Kosova
2012), scoring in artistic gymnastics is participating countries, athletes, and other
performed by judges in line with the rules in competition dynamics. In addition, changes
the code of points (COP) and special booklets in the COP after each Olympics may result in
published on the FIG website. These rules are different results as a result of these different
different for men and women and updated rules.
after every Olympic Games. The gymnast's The 34th Junior European
total score for an apparatus is calculated by Championships in Men’s Artistic Gymnastics
adding the difficulty (D) and execution (E) (JECMAG) was held in Mersin, Turkey, in
scores, and subtracting penalty scores, if any. 2020. There were far fewer participants in this
The D score is about the value of elements competition than in the 33rd JECMAG held
(according to the difficulty of the elements), in 2018. The fewer participating countries in
the connection of the elements, and the the last championship can be explained by
special requirements for each apparatus. The the athletes not being able to train as much as
E score is for how correctly the elements are they wanted due to the effect of the COVID-
executed according to the rules. E-juries 19 pandemic. All-around medals were also
make point deductions according to esthetic distributed in the junior age category of these
and execution errors and the sum of these competitions. The aim of this study was to
deductions is subtracted from the highest investigate the effects of D scores, E scores,
score of 10. Examples of these errors include and total scores of apparatus on the all-
bending the knees, bending the arms, or around score in the last two JECMAGs. The
deviating angularity in the position of comparison of these two competition scores
elements (Bouchard, Tremblay, Leblanc, with each other can be stated as another
Lortie, Savard, & Theriault, 1983). objective of the study.
Competitors can earn a medal in the team
final, all-around final (with the sum of each
apparatus scores) or the apparatus finals 2. Materials and Methods
(score of a single apparatus) depending on Participants: In the study, the scores in
the format of the competition. The best 24 the all-around final in the individual
gymnasts in the qualification round category of the 33rd JECMAG (09-12.08.2018,
including the specific qualification rules, can Glasgow, UK) and the 34th JECMAG (09-
join the all-around fınal. 13.12.2020, Mersin, Turkey) were used as
Given that there are six apparatus and data. Only one of the 24 athletes competing
each apparatus has D and E scores within in the finals took part in both championships.
itself, it is important to determine which type The results of the championships were
of score affects the all-around score more. obtained from the official result book
The effects of D and E scores of the apparatus published by European Gymnastics
on the all-around results have been (https://www.europeangymnastics.com/).
investigated in rhythmic gymnastics (Örs, Design: Twenty-four gymnasts
2020). Massidda and Calò (2012) studied competed in six apparatus. All-around total
apparatus total scores and ranking in the scores were obtained by summing the total
43rd Artistic Gymnastics World score of each apparatus. The total score of
Championships according to the 2009 COP. each apparatus was determined by summing
Čuk and Forbes (2010) investigated the the D and E scores and subtracting penalties,
effects of each D score on all-around scores in if any. In this study, a total of 48 gymnasts’
men’s artistic gymnastics. Atiković, (24 gymnasts for the 33rd European
Kamenjašević, Mujanović, Užičanin, Championship, 24 gymnasts for the 34th
Tabaković, & Ćurić (2020), researched the European Championship) all-around total
differences between all-around results in scores, apparatus total scores, and D and E
senior female artistic gymnasts at the Word scores of each apparatus were evaluated.
Championships organized in 2009-2019. Accordingly, the scores evaluated in the
These results may differ according to the study are given below:
Citation: European Journal Of Human Movement 2020, 46:50-58 – DOI: 10.21134/eurjhm.2021.46.8
All-around total score (AATS), floor exercise method was used as the variable selection total score (FETS), floor exercise D score method. Model fitting performance was (FEDS), floor exercise E score (FEES), assessed using a coefficient of determination pommel horse total score (PHTS), pommel (R2). Regression coefficients and their 95% horse D score (PHDS), pommel horse E score confidence intervals (CI) are also given. The (PHES), rings total score (RTS), rings D score independent sample t-test and Mann- (RDS), rings E score (RES), vault total score Whitney U test (VDS, VES, HBDS, HBES) (VTS), vault D score (VDS), vault E score were used to compare all competition scores (VES), parallel bars total score (PBTS), in 2018 and 2020. The value of p was adjusted parallel bars D score (PBDS), parallel bars E to p
Koca Kosova & Kosova VTS2018 0.615 9.818
prediction, p
D&E SCORES
10.000
p=.001
9.000
8.000
7.000
6.000
p=.012
score
5.000 p=.009 p=.001
4.000
3.000
±0.37
±0.32
±0.43
±0.31
±0.60
±0.71
±0.44
±0.68
±0.23
±0.35
±0.38
±0.39
±0.58
±0.38
±0.32
±0.39
±0.61
±0.48
±0.61
±0.64
±0.43
±0.42
±0.31
±0.29
2.000
4.754
4.471
8.304
8.355
4.400
4.042
8.033
7.757
4.262
4.030
8.575
8.148
4.717
4.350
8.965
8.890
4.471
4.175
8.426
8.318
4.292
3.746
8.026
8.219
1.000
0
FEDS FEES PHDS PHES RDS RES VDS VES PBDS PBES HBDS HBES
Apparatus D&E Score
2018 2020
Figure 2. Comparison of the apparatus D&E scores of the 33rd and 34th European Championship
FEDS: Floor exercise D score, FEES: Floor exercise E score, PHDS: Pommel horse D score, PHES: Pommel horse E score,
RDS: Rings D score, RES: Rings E score, VDS: Vault D score, VES: Vault E score, PBDS: Parallel bars D score, PBES:
Parallel bars E score, HBDS: Horizontal bar D score, HBES: Horizontal bar E score.
scores, and some D or E scores, compared
with the championship in 2018.
For the finals of the 43rd Artistic
Gymnastics World Championships total
scores of the horizontal bars and pommel
4. Discussion
horse were the most important scores for
The primary goal of this study was to ranking (Massidda & Calò, 2012). Similarly,
determine the effects of total scores and in the current study, PHTS and HBTS were
parts that make up the total score of each determined as the second and third most
apparatus on the all-around ranking in the effective scores for AATS. Unlike the
last two JECMAGs. The present study also previous study, in this paper, the total vault
compared these championships scores. score was found to be the most important
According to the results of the regression predictor for AATS in the 33rd JECMAG.
analysis for total scores, VTS, PHTS, HBTS, When evaluating the differences between
FETS, and PBTS were included in our model studies, it should be remembered that our
in 2018, whereas in 2020, only PBTS was study sample comprised junior gymnasts.
included. According to the results of Generally, the scores of juniors and seniors
regression analysis for D&E scores, VDS, also differ (Atiković, Mujanović, Petković,
PHDS, VES, HBES, HBDS, PHES, and FEDS Kalinski, & Kremnický, 2020). In the present
were included in the model in 2018, and study, among the D&E scores for the same
PBDS, PBES, and PHES were included in championship, the scores with the highest
2020. In the championship in 2020, it was effect in determining AATS were found as
determined that there were significant VDS, PHDS, VES, and HBES. Unlike other
decreases in AATS, some apparatus total apparatus, it can be said that in general, less
time is spent on the vault during training
Citation: European Journal Of Human Movement 2020, 46:50-58 – DOI: 10.21134/eurjhm.2021.46.8Koca Kosova & Kosova
(Čuk, Karacsony, 2004) because gymnasts scores on the all-around score, it was shown
have not worked on more than a few in both years that the first highest effects
movements that will create a routine or try were achieved with the D scores of the most
to achieve connection points. Nevertheless, important apparatus for that championship.
the greater effect of vault scores (VTS, VDS, Exercises to improve the difficulty scores in
VES) in determining the AATS is an the content of training should be carefully
important finding. With the 2006 COP, the planned.
difficulty values of the vault in men’s artistic In this study, the apparatus that
gymnastics were found significantly higher affected AATS in the last two European
than other apparatus at an Olympic Games championships were different. The
qualification event in Beijing 2008 (Čuk & significance of the correlations between the
Atiković, 2009). Contrary to the present scores of the two championships with AATS
study, vault D scores did not predict all- also mostly differed. Although the same
around scores according to the 2009 COP at COP was used, the main reason for these
the 2009 European Championship differences may be that the routines and
qualification event (Čuk & Forbes, 2010). techniques of elements are not as well-
These changes are expected to occur over the established in young gymnasts as in older
years because the judge evaluations are gymnasts. The necessity of training for long
made with different COPs and the number years in artistic gymnastics to ensure
of gymnasts evaluated also differs. High performance stability was emphasized in
run-up speed (Schärer, Lehmann, Naundorf, different studies (Erceg, Delaš Kalinski, &
Taube, & Hübner, 2019), some Milić, 2014). There may be several reasons
biomechanical characteristics as the length that we found significant decreases in 2020
of flight on the springboard, position of feet when the scores of the two European
on the springboard, and duration of the 1st championships were compared. First, many
and 2nd flight phase are critical factors (Čuk successful national federations did not
& Karacsony, 2004) for good performance in participate in the championship held in
the vault. Difficulty values of vault can be 2020. The fact that the Olympic quota would
defined as biomechanical parameters as not be awarded and the countries were
degrees of turns on different axes (Atiković inadequately prepared due to the COVID-19
& Smajlović, 2011). pandemic may have caused less
For the 34th JECMAG, parallel bars participation. It should not be forgotten that
seemed the most important apparatus for all gymnasts who participated in the
AATS according to regression analyses. championship held in 2020 were probably
Further, PBTS had the strongest correlation recently out of a pandemic period during
with AATS. This was supported by Čuk and which they had to take a break from regular
Forbes (2010) who reported that the D score training or they were unable to participate in
of the parallel bars was the most tournaments while preparing for the
distinguishable score for all-around results championship. Lastly, coaches may have
according to the 2009 COP for Men’s Artistic made some risky strategetic moves in
Gymnastics. The parallel bars routine gymnasts routines in the absence of some
includes swing elements, handstand competitors (Meissner, Rai, & Rotthoff,
positions, turns and somersaults, and 2021).
gymnast’s need to have advanced
coordination and capability of interaction 5. Practical Applications
with the bars (Linge, Hallingstad, & Solberg, It has been determined that the
2006). When evaluating the effect of the D&E effects of apparatus scores on AATS may
Citation: European Journal Of Human Movement 2020, 46:50-58 – DOI: 10.21134/eurjhm.2021.46.8differ according to the competition children and adults. The American journal of
dynamics in junior men artistic gymnasts. In clinical nutrition, 37(3), 461-467.
the current study, the most effective https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/37.3.461
Čuk, I., & Atiković, A. (2009). Are Disciplines in
apparatus in predicting success in AATS
All-around Men’s Artistic Gymnastics
was the vault in the 33rd JECMAG and
Equal. Sport Scientific & Practical Aspects,
parallel bars in the 34th JECMAG. It should 6(1/2), 8-13.
also be emphasized that the effect of D Cuk, I., Fink, H., & Leskosek, B. (2012). Modeling
scores of these apparatus was higher than E the final score in artistic gymnastics by
scores. Accordingly, coaches should different weights of difficulty and
concentrate on increasing the difficulty execution. Science of gymnastics journal, 4(1),
scores of apparatus in accordance with the 73.
age and capability of gymnasts, but without Čuk, I., & Forbes, W. (2010). How apparatus
difficulty scores affect all around results in
decreasing execution scores.
men’s artistic gymnastics. Science of
Funding: This research received no external gymnastics journal, 2(3), 57-63.
funding. Čuk, I., Karacsony, I. (2004). Vault: methods, ideas,
curiosities, history: ŠTD Sangvinčki.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no
Erceg, T., Delaš Kalinski, S., & Milić, M. (2014).
conflict of interest.
The score differences between elite europen
junior and senior women gymnasts.
References
Kinesiology: International journal of
Arkaev, L., & Suchilin, N. G. (2004). Gymnastics: fundamental and applied kinesiology,
how to create champions: Meyer & Meyer 46(Supplement 1), 88-94.
Verlag. Kruse, D. W., Nobe, A. S., & Billimek, J. (2020).
Atikovic, A. (2020). Anthropometric Injury incidence and characteristics for elite,
Characteristics of Olympic Female and male, artistic USA gymnastics competitions
Male Artistic Gymnasts from 1996 to 2016. from 2008 to 2018. British journal of sports
International Journal of Morphology, medicine. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-
38(4).https://doi.org/10.4067/S0717- 2019-101297
95022020000400990 Linge, S., Hallingstad, O., & Solberg, F. (2006).
Atiković, A., Kamenjašević, E., Mujanović, A. N., Modelling the parallel bars in Men’s Artistic
Užičanin, E., Tabaković, M., & Ćurić, M. Gymnastics. Human movement science, 25(2),
(2020). Differences between all-around 221-237.
results in women’s artistic gymnastics and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humov.2005.11.008
ways of minimizing them. Baltic Journal of Massidda, M., & Calò, C. M. (2012). Performance
Health and Physical Activity, 12(3), 80-91. scores and standings during the 43rd
Atiković, A., Mujanović, A. N., Petković, E., Artistic Gymnastics World Championships,
Kalinski, S. D., & Kremnický, J. (2020). 2011. Journal of sports sciences, 30(13), 1415-
Analysis of the differences in the results of 1420.
the year 2019 between the world best juniors https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2012.71075
and seniors in men's artistic gymnasts. 9
Journal of Physical Education and Sport, 20(3), Matthews, C., & Welk, G. (2002). Use of self-
1265-1271. report instruments to assess physical
Atiković, A., & Smajlović, N. (2011). Relation activity. Physical activity assessments for
between vault difficulty values and health-related research, 107, 123.
biomechanical parameters in men's artistic Meissner, L., Rai, A., & Rotthoff, K. W. (2021). The
gymnastics. Science of gymnastics journal, superstar effect in gymnastics. Applied
3(3), 91-105. Economics, 1-8.
Bouchard, C., Tremblay, A., Leblanc, C., Lortie, https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.18691
G., Savard, R., & Theriault, G. (1983). A 70
method to assess energy expenditure in
Citation: European Journal Of Human Movement 2020, 46:50-58 – DOI: 10.21134/eurjhm.2021.46.8Koca Kosova & Kosova
Mkaouer, B., Hammoudi-Nassib, S., Amara, S., &
Chaabène, H. (2018). Evaluating the
physical and basic gymnastics skills
assessment for talent identification in men’s
artistic gymnastics proposed by the
International Gymnastics Federation.
Biology of Sport, 35(4), 383.
https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78059
Moeskops, S., Oliver, J. L., Read, P. J., Cronin, J.
B., Myer, G. D., & Lloyd, R. S. (2019). The
Physiological Demands of Youth Artistic
Gymnastics: Applications to Strength and
Conditioning. Strength & Conditioning
Journal, 41(1), 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.00000000000004
04
Örs, B. S. (2020). The effect of difficulty and
execution scores on total ranking during
2019 Rhythmic Gymnastics World
Championships. African Educational
Research Journal, 8(1)(Special Issue ), 37-42.
Schärer, C., Lehmann, T., Naundorf, F., Taube,
W., & Hübner, K. (2019). The faster, the
better? Relationships between run-up
speed, the degree of difficulty (D-score),
height and length of flight on vault in
artistic gymnastics. PloS one, 14(3),
e0213310.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.021331
0
Urzeală, C., Aura, B., Marton, M., & Courteix, D.
(2020). Heart Rate Variability in Male
Artistic Gymnastics A Case study.
Anthropological Researches and Studies, 1(10),
163-171. https://doi.org/10.26758/10.1.17
Citation: European Journal Of Human Movement 2020, 46:50-58 – DOI: 10.21134/eurjhm.2021.46.8You can also read
