Notice: Function _load_textdomain_just_in_time was called incorrectly. Translation loading for the twentytwenty domain was triggered too early. This is usually an indicator for some code in the plugin or theme running too early. Translations should be loaded at the init action or later. Please see Debugging in WordPress for more information. (This message was added in version 6.7.0.) in /www/gymnasticshistorycom_663/public/wp-includes/functions.php on line 6121 FIG Bulletin – Gymnastics HistorySkip to the content
If you’ve ever flipped through old Codes of Points, you might have noticed something. The old tomes are typically filled with ads from equipment manufacturers like Janssen & Fritsen and Spieth. However, the 1979 edition introduced a newcomer: a full-page advertisement from ABC, the U.S. television network. This addition was no coincidence; it came on the heels of a $1.5 million deal between ABC and the Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG).
How did this partnership materialize? And in the landscape of sports contracts, was $1.5 million a significant investment? To unravel the story behind this pivotal moment in gymnastics broadcasting, let’s examine the details and draw comparisons to other agreements ABC negotiated during the 1970s. But first, let’s set the stage…
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.
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.
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 vaultingcrisis 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 FIG reprinted an article that analyzed three Tsukahara vaults by three gymnasts: Lyubov Bogdanova, Ludmilla Tourischeva, and Alina Goreac. It includes drawings and tables that compare every fraction of a second of their vaults.
Context: Keep in mind that, in 1973, when the aforementioned vaults were performed, Tsukaharas were relatively new. Tsukahara himself performed the vault at the 1970 World Championships. Two years later, at the Riga International, East German gymnast Beate Gehrke did one of the first Tsukaharas in women’s artistic gymnastics. By the 1974 World Championships, Tsukaharas had become commonplace in WAG.
Have fun looking at this document from the archives.
What did the leaders of the FIG think about the 1974 World Championships?
For starters, none of them was thrilled about having to move the location of the competition. As you’ll see, both presidents of the technical committees and the president of the FIG mentioned the challenge of choosing a host for the 1974 World Championships. (More on that decision here.)
Valerie Nagy, the president of the Women’s Technical Committee, was generally displeased with the level of the gymnasts, writing: “Even without preliminary qualifications, the national federations should have been more severe when making their selections.”
In addition, she didn’t like the direction of balance beam, where she felt that gymnasts were trying to perform too many difficult acrobatic elements, which impacted the flow of the routine.
In that same vein, Arthur Gander, the president of the FIG, railed against the emphasis on risk and difficulty at the expense of execution.
Below, you can find Gander’s comments, as well as those of the MTC and the WTC.
My thought bubble: Yup, this is pretty nerdy stuff, but most people who read this site are pretty nerdy people. 🙂
A little trivia: Did you know that there were three score protests during the men’s competition? Guess how many of those protests were rejected.
In 1973, the IOC Programming Commission and the FIG engaged in a delicate dance in which the IOC presented a list of concerns and the FIG had to come up with solutions that appeased the IOC. (This wasn’t new. For example, in 1957, this dance led to the elimination of group rhythmic exercises in women’s gymnastics and the creation of event finals.)
In 1973, one of the IOC’s concerns was the number of gymnasts per country in the all-around and event finals. The FIG’s solution allowed only three gymnasts per country into the all-around finals and two gymnasts per country into the apparatus finals.
Keep in mind that the apparatus finals, in particular, were heavily dominated by the top teams. For example, at the 1972 Olympics, there were four Soviet gymnasts in the women’s vault finals, four Japanese gymnasts in the men’s floor finals, and five Japanese gymnasts in the men’s high bar finals. (There were only six gymnasts per final.)
Another interesting tidbit: The IOC was already pushing to reduce team sizes to five members in 1973.
Below, you will find the letter that the FIG published in its Bulletin of Information in December 1973 (issue no. 4).
In a 1971 bulletin, Arthur Gander, who was president of the FIG at the time, published a long series of remarks about the state of optional exercises in men’s gymnastics. Gander’s article touches upon some of the challenges in both men’s and women’s gymnastics that persist to this day.
For example, monotony. Even in the era of risk, originality, and virtuosity, there were certain skills and combinations that had almost become compulsory. (Granted, risk, originality, and virtuosity were still in their infancy at that point.)
Side saltos. Gymnastics fans love to hate on side saltos on beam, and guess what! Arthur Gander didn’t like them, either, on men’s floor!
Value assignments. What constitutes an A, B, or C part? Should such-and-such skill really be a C? Yup, the FIG was wrestling with those questions back in the day, as well.
There’s also the question of nostalgia. As you read Gander’s remarks, you might find yourself wondering, Does Mr. Gander want to see these skills because they would add variety or because they are representative of a different era of gymnastics? And how often does nostalgia for a past era color our view of gymnastics today?
Finally, the fear of the “feminization” of men’s gymnastics. Though Gander believed that men could learn a thing or two from women’s uneven bars, he feared that men’s floor exercise could become too feminine, especially if floor music were included. It’s a question that has been raised as gymnasts like Heath Thorpe (AUS) incorporate more leaps into their floor routines.
Another interesting tidbit: Gander mentions that the IOC was not pleased with men’s vault in 1968, questioning whether the event was worthy of an Olympic medal.
Below, you’ll find my translation of Gander’s remarks. (The FIG provided its own English translation in its bulletin, but the translation was quite rough and difficult to follow.)
In 1970, the Women’s Technical Committee set the competitive age limit at 14. One year later, they issued an explanation of sorts. It included a warning to members, recognizing that abusive methods were leaving child gymnasts damaged. By setting the age limit at 14, their hope was to see more “mature work” that displayed a “woman’s charm.”
Here’s what was recorded in the 1971 FIG bulletins about the question of age in women’s artistic gymnastics.
