In 1979, there was finally a vague sense of harmony between the men’s and women’s Codes of Points. Both the Women’s and Men’s Technical Committees emphasized risk, originality, and virtuosity, and both used four difficulty categories: A, B, C, and CR (for extra-risky skills).
While this was a major change for the Women’s Code of Points, the 1979 Men’s Code of Points was quite similar to the 1975 Men’s Code of Points. Let’s take a quick look at it.
In 1968, the Men’s Technical Committee published its Code of Points, which introduced the concepts of risk, originality, and virtuosity (ROV) for apparatus finals. In the decade that followed, the MTC continued to tinker with the formula for ROV.
Meanwhile, the Women’s Technical Committee continued to discourage excess difficulty. In fact, in 1973, the Women’s Technical Committee unsuccessfully tried to prohibit a few skills that Olga Korbut popularized at the Munich Olympics.
But all that changed in 1979 — the year when ROV were finally added to women’s artistic gymnastics.
At the 1977 European Championships, something new happened. Instead of there being six gymnasts in event finals, which had been the norm for nearly two decades, there were eight gymnasts in each apparatus final.
I know, it doesn’t sound like a major change, but the FIG lagged behind other sports like track and field, which started allowing eight finalists instead of six in the 1960s.
But catching up to other sports wasn’t the only reason for including more gymnasts in finals. It was also to offer more opportunity to other athletes or, as it was phrased, to offer “greater equality of chance.” Arthur Gander and the executive committee, however, weren’t in favor of this proposal.
Let’s dive into what the FIG bulletins said…
This might be hard to believe, but, once upon a time, event finals did not exist. I know, right? Most gymnastics fans cannot remember an era without them. However, there was a period when the concept of “finals” didn’t exist. Team medals, all-around medals, and apparatus medals were all determined by the same set of scores: compulsories plus optionals.
After the 1956 Olympics, that changed. Not only were the women’s group rhythmic exercises struck from the program, but apparatus finals were also created at the behest of the International Olympic Committee. As a result, the 1958 World Championships and the 1960 Olympic Games were the first major FIG competitions with apparatus finals.
Here’s what the FIG leadership wrote to the IOC in 1957 about the disappearance of the ensemble exercises and the creation of event finals.
Where were China’s gymnasts in the 1970s? Why did they suddenly appear again at the 1979 World Championships, where Ma Yanhong tied for gold on uneven bars?
The answer has to do with the People’s Republic of China’s status with the FIG. Sounds kind of dull, right? But I don’t know that you can call delegations storming in and out of an FIG meeting “dull.” At any rate, unless you were a gymnastics fan in the 1970s, you might not know the story of China’s readmittance to the FIG because little has been written in English about the subject.
To be sure, this story touches upon the relationship between China and Taiwan, which, to state the obvious, is a complicated one. I am not about to dive into centuries of Chinese and Taiwanese cultural and sports history. Instead, this story will be told primarily through the FIG’s very own minutes — with a little IOC history sprinkled in for context.
It’s important to document the floor music used at major gymnastics competitions. It tells us a lot about the general cultural zeitgeist in the world, as well as what gymnasts and their coaches think the judges will or will not like.
Here are a few trends that emerged this year.
What’s it like to try to defend your Olympic all-around title? At the time of this writing, only two female gymnasts have done it: Larisa Latynina (1956, 1960) and Věra Čáslavská (1964, 1968). Many are betting that Simone Biles will become the third.
Below, I’ve translated a portion of Čáslavská’s The Road to Olympus (1972), in which Čáslavská recalled her quest to defend her all-around title in Mexico City. She discussed everything from the inane questions of journalists to rivalries to intimidation tactics to nerves to bad lighting in arenas to difficulty adjusting to the bars during podium training.
Enjoy this excerpt from her book!
In 1972, Berthe Villancher stepped down as the president of the Women’s Technical Committee (WTC), but she gave one final report on the Olympic Games in Munich.
All in all, she was pleased with the progress on floor and uneven bars. Vault was a different story. She was the most worried about this apparatus, noting that it had fallen into a “rut” and that the WTC would need to study that apparatus closely.
Reminder #1: The WTC followed through. Prior to the 1974 World Championships, the WTC changed the requirements for vault finals — as did the 1975 Code of Points.
Reminder #2: Men’s gymnastics had its own vaulting crisis after the 1968 Olympics.
As for the judging in Munich, Villancher felt that there was partiality shown towards gymnasts with “a name,” and she alluded to the emotional nature of the women’s uneven bars final.
My thought bubble: The emotional nature of the uneven bars final could be a veiled reference to the tight competition between Janz and Korbut and to what some believed was the impartiality of Sylvia Hlavacek, who, according to the Soviet press, was to be sanctioned after the competition. (If she was sanctioned, it did not last long, as Hlavacek was a judge at the 1974 World Championships.)
In 1975, the Women’s Technical Committee published a new version of the Code of Points. Below, you’ll find some of the updates, as well as the complete English text.
Happy gym nerding!
In Some Ways, Execution Started to Matter More in 1975.
Compared to the 1970 Code of Points, the 1975 Code of Points put slightly more emphasis on execution, making it worth 5.0 points (rather than the previous 4.0 points).
| 1970 | 1975 | |
| Composition of Exercise | 6.00 Total | 5.00 Total |
| -Value of Difficulty* | 4.00 | 3.00 |
| – Originality and Value of Connections | 1.50 | 1.50 |
| – Value of General Composition | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Execution | 4.00 Total | 5.00 Total |
| – Execution and Amplitude | 1.50 for execution 1.50 for amplitude | 4.00 |
| – General Impression | 1.00 | 1.00 |
But More Elements of Superior Difficulty Were Required in 1975.
| 1970 | 1975 |
| 4 elements of medium difficulty (0.50 each element) | 4 elements of medium difficulty (0.30 each element) |
| 2 elements of superior difficulty (1.0 each element) | 3 elements of superior difficulty (0.60 each element) |
Related: According to the 1975 Code of Points, the “final phase should contain an element or acrobatic series of superior difficulty” on floor exercise.
Changes to Vault
Notable Changes to Beam
As You’ll See…
One More Thing
With No Further Ado…
Here’s the 1975 Code of Points for Women’s Artistic Gymnastics.
More on the Code of Points
In 1975, the Men’s Technical Committee published a new version of the Code of Points. Below, you’ll find some of the updates, as well as the complete English text.
Happy gym nerding!
