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 6121The Helsinki Games were the first Olympics that used an official Code of Points for men’s gymnastics. (The 1950 World Championships had used the 1949 Code of Points, as well.) But not everything could be covered in the extremely short Code of Points. As a result, the program for gymnastics in Helsinki included an additional 24 pages of rules for the men’s competition. Let’s take a look at some of the rules in place.
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…
How did one of the top U.S. judges perceive her profession in 1972?
Before the Munich Olympics, several newspapers printed profiles of Jackie Fie, who would later go on to become the president of the Women’s Technical Committee. Fie didn’t hold back in her statements. She confessed that judges had to show some favoritism towards their gymnasts “on the battlefield.”
“If you’re not going to go in there and fight for your kids, there’s something wrong with you,” she says. “I don’t think anyone is going to outright cheat, but you have to be lenient in judging your own team.
“If there’s a question in your mind whether one of your girls is worth 9.2 or 9.3, you’re going to give the 9.3—because you know that every other country is going to do the same for its girls.”
That’s just a little teaser of what you can find below…
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!
