@@MD-722 I'd say that TV production shouldn't be the paramount concern here. Adding 12 gymnasts means adding 3 per rotation for women and 2 per rotation for men. We know it's possible because it was done for years. Besides, from an American point of view we all know that NBC would rather show an American stretching on the sidelines rather than (heaven forfend!) show a non-American routine.
Margo Johnson there’s a pressure to add more sports to the games but without increasing the overall number of athletes (cost). Gym team competition keeps shrinking and it’s not unthinkable that it will disappear.
To me the situation in 2016 was even more egregious. Gabby Douglas placed third in qualifications and outscored the 4th place qualifier, Rebeca Andrade, by nearly 1.5 points. No one really talks about this one, possibly in part because of (completely unfair) Gabby hate and in part because of the (somewhat legitimate) fact that Gabby already had an Olympic AA gold medal while Jordyn never had her chance. The size of the AA qualifying field was reduced from 36 to 24 after the 2000 Olympics, mostly for reasons related to TV production. When there were 36 athletes in the AA final, three athletes per country were allowed to qualify. When the size of the field was reduced by 1/3, so too was the number of athletes per country. The thing is, "they" told us this would result in a more diverse field. I'm not sure if they were dumb or if they thought we were dumb, because either way the same proportion of the field could come from one country. 3/36 equals 1/12 and 2/24 equals 1/12. Any kid in the fifth grade could tell you that. Personally, I definitely want to see the AA field returned to 36 athletes. I'd like to see kind of a hybrid model in terms of representation per country. The top 5 or top 10 automatically qualify, regardless of country. After that, it's 2 per country. With a 36 athlete field, this would increase the number of countries represented. It would also eliminate the current situation where an athlete who is a legitimate medal threat and has a good qualifying competition is eliminated from finals by being slightly outscored by a teammate. It doesn't make sense to exclude one of the best competitors from finals (unless s/he has a rotten day in qualifying; in that case, it's sad for them but this is a competition and you can't win unless you compete well). As much as I love Aliya Mustafina, it is unlikely she would have won either of her Olympic AA medals if Jordyn and Gabby had not been 2-per-countried out of finals. In 2012 she fell on beam. In 2016 she competed a beam routine that was missing a required acro series. All Jordyn and Gabby would have had to do was compete 4 routines the way they normally did and they both would have been on the AA podiums. They know this, and I am certain Aliya knows it too.
Well said 👍🏼😊 I would totally agree with your hybrid model. And I would keep the current rule for event finals. Here it is much more likely for smaller gymnastics nations to medal and if the medal chances are cut buy having three or more gymnasts from one country, that could be bad for their programs. Unfortunately, a lot of money is somehow attached to success in each sport, so probably funding would decrease if their is nearly no chance to medal.
@@lauura I'd be very supportive of increasing the size of the event finals field, maybe to 12 instead of 8. In many recent major international competitions, this would have placed athletes from smaller programs into event finals. As it is, these days it's easy to have an event finals field of 2 Americans, 2 Russians, 2 Chinese, and 2 from other countries (and in the not so distant past, those spots could easily have been 2 Romanians). If diversity is the goal, it's definitely not being achieved. Many countries have seen great growth in their programs in the past decade or two. Sometimes it takes the form of a great individual, like Giulia Steingruber or Jonna Adlertag and their World and/or Olympic medals. Sometimes it's the steady growth of a program that precedes any great individual achievement, such as has happened with Belgium and Canada in recent years. It's even been seen in Sri Lanka, which went from a program that was described by Monica Phelps at the 2010 Commonwealth Games as "very much beginners in gymnastics" to producing a home grown athlete who competed a *bars* routine in the 2019 World Championships that, while still far from a contender for finals, was a routine that did not look at all out of place at a World Championships.
@@Margo-oj5yc Yes, I'd also be in for that! And the point that the competition would be too long doesn't count for event finals in my opinion, since they are rather short.
The fact that Douglas outscored the 4th qualifier for more than 1.5 point actually reinforces the reason for the rule. The rest of the world want to root for an actual chance of medal, not watch a podium already closed by the dominant country.
I agree the rule should be a thing, but if I was the athlete that qualified for my rightfully deserved spot I would be mad as hell and that is understandable.
I’ve never approved of the two-per-country rule. For example, a gymnast from Kazakhstan who placed 30th, or something like that, really has no true shot at medaling. The top 24 gymnasts in quals should be the ones to advance to the AA final. However, with event finals, I see more of the logic behind the two-per-country rule.
exactly. the two per country rule didn’t help any other countries medal that i know of and the gymnasts that get in in place of the qualifying athletes are in the bottom at the end. i would much rather see the actual best compete.
Pity throws to countries with no real gymnastics programs are vile. RUclips is full of vids of gymnasts from a resource poor countries barely grinding out a level 8 bar routine. I don't need to see that, and 10K+ comments of how the gymnast sucks. FIG wants to to the 2 placement rule for lower level competitions? No problem for me. I really hate it though for Worlds and the Olympics. It's not feel good, it's pandering and self pats on the back.
I support the rule. of course it's a pity for gymnasts from stronger countries but at least they have a high chance of winning the team gold and thus be olympic champions :)
I like the 2-per-country rule as a viewer because it promotes different styles / schools of gymnastics. Very often gymnasts from the same country have the same style, similar strengths / weaknesses, similar routine compositions. So it's more enjoyable to have gymnasts from various countries in the run for the medals.
@@FrancesBaconandEggs I never said the 2-per-country rule allows gymnasts from weaker programs to win. I'm talking about being IN THE RUN FOR A MEDAL. Like Andrade 2016, Steingruber 2015 for example. They weren't weak gymnasts or weak programs, but they weren't from the big-4. Had all the USA, China, Russia team, plus Larisa 2015, they would have been in a more difficult position and would probably have less television time.
mrparts well if the US girls are better why don’t they deserve to medal? if the gymnast from the United States performs better that day or if the girl from Brazil performs better, the better score advances.
Sam Butterfield the goal of these meets is representation of the best of each country. But theres a limit in the number of athletes allowed because hosting meets isn’t cheap. So a cutoff has to be applied.
I think the rule is ridiculous because even with the 2 per country rule other countries don’t medal so they should give the gymnast that earned it the chance to medal.
The two per countries rule was help spear headed by the USA when countries like Romania and Russia was dominating but years later it came back to bite the USA when they start to dominate. I strongly believe only best 24 should be in final.The two for country rule water down the competition some what
i think the rule works in event finals because it’s only a field of eight gymnasts, but when you look at the all around it’s 24 gymnasts and the ones who move into finals because of the rule they aren’t going to get near medals. as for ones who end up medaling because a better gymnast got taken out it just doesn’t make sense to me. the best deserve to be rewarded.
I agree with it, for the most part. Although I do think that there should be an exception so that the top 3 or 4 qualifiers in the all around advance to the final regardless of the country. It just doesn’t seem like it’s the absolute best in the world when the 25th place qualifier advances while the 3rd or 4th place qualifier sits in the stands.
exactly. gabby Douglas had a shot at bronze in the all around and qualified in that position. she should have been allowed to compete considering the gymnast who would’ve ended up competing most likely didn’t end up top ten.
I dislike this rule. In my opinion, whether the podium is all Romanians or all Americans, whoever scores higher than other gymnasts should get to move on to the finals. If the podium is all one country, then so be it. That would show that that country has the best gymnasts, and if the other countries want to place, they should work harder for the next Olympics. Just my opinion though.
Fitzle witzle i definitely agree. personally it would suck knowing if someone else was allowed to compete you probably wouldn’t have your medal. especially when people on the internet talk about it too.
I do think, whoever qualify top6 should qualify to the AA final regarding any country. For god sake, they are top 6 in the world. And 7-24 should apply the 2 per country rule.
JGSHEW organizers care because it’s an event to represent the best of each country. It is not meant to be a replay of the national championship of a dominant nation in an international setting.
I wish the rule would be done away or altered so that anyone in the top six or top ten automatically go through. Then do some kind of evenning-out the playing field from there. Every country that has had a golden age in gymnastics deserves it's time in the public eye and on the podium. Romania earned the podium sweep!
The only reason I think this rule is unfair is because it doesn't apply in other sports. We had American women sweep the podium in an Olympic hurdles event fairly recently I believe. If athletes in other events get that opportunity I think gymnasts should too. And I also think, that if the Olympics is about competing against the best of the best, then you should let the best compete
That's not true, there are several sports that have this kind of limitation. For example in swimming there is a two country rule even to qualify in the semifinals! And no one ever complain.
I understand that there are other sports, but I think if it applies to one it should apply to all. And like in some sports they narrow the list down to 2 per country at Olympic trials, but you couldn't necessarily do it the same way in gymnastics
@@harry4596 Not just semis; athletes below the top two in any given race at Trials don't even QUALIFY for the Olympics. The TV broadcasters were talking about that during the Trials back in June this year. Lydia Jacoby won Gold in the 100 Breaststroke in Tokyo, but finished 3rd at the Trials this year, & thus didn't even make the Olympic team (that was her only event at Trials this year).
The Olympics is about bringing the best in the world together to compete and see who is the best in the world. The Two Per Country rule contradicts this mission.
True, but as well as the OG are about bringing the best individual athletes in the world together, the Olympics are also about bringing COUNTRIES together. The question, in my opinion, is where you choose to draw a line to secure that there are enough different countries represented in a final.. The ones in charge could also be more extreme and decide that each country was only allowed to have ONE gymnast in the final. Or they could in an imaginary experiment choose in the team competitions to allow countries to send MORE THAN ONE team to the Olympics! I’m sure a US B-team would do quite well. 😉 My opinion is that the two per country rule is good because it secures at least those two gymnasts per country plus in also secures several different countries to be able to qualify. This rule exists also on Trampoline Gymnastics where I’m from, and here the rule counts in ALL international competitions. I don’t know if it’s the same in artistic gymnastics...
I don’t think that this rule promotes diversity among winners. It always comes down to the same handful of countries with strong programs. It’s not as if countries like Turkey or Mexico are medaling now that the USA, Russia, and China can only qualify two gymnasts per final.
Yes. I think this comment sums up the fatal flaw of this rule. If the main argument for the 2 per country rule is to increase podium diversity, then it’s not very effective. Especially in the context of AA, it seems to give an advantage to gymnasts from other dominant countries not gymnasts from countries with underdeveloped programs. I think we should absolutely do something to help gymnasts from countries with weaker programs, but I’m not sure this rule is helping them much.
MD-722 I agree with a lot of what you say, because diversity has increased. I just don’t know if bringing up Alexa Moreno or GB really works, because both Alexa and team GB make it to finals without needing the 2/country. Which is a compliment to them because it’s a big deal making the top 8 but I don’t think that demonstrates the 2/per country rule promotes diversity. But again I agree that diversity has exploded since 2001.
Josh - right. I’m not sure exactly why diversity has increased since Sydney (maybe the new code?) but excellent athletes like Onder and Moreno didn’t make it into finals only because of two-per-country. In the cases of Wieber and Douglas, the bronze went to athletes from gymnastics powerhouses.
@@FrancesBaconandEggs because building a gymnastics program takes time. Years, quads, sometimes decades. It takes funding (equipment, skilled coaches, specialised medical care, travelling to international competitions...), and to get funding you very often need to get media exposure. Dipa Karmakar put Indian gymnastics on the map by getting into vault finals, even if she was unlikely to medal at Worlds /Olympics, it was a huge deal for them. Same for Yamilet Peña for the Dominican Republic. Daiane Dos Santos was a huge star in Brazil after being floor world champion, and it helped the Brazilian gymnastics program growth in a big way. The Ukrainian men's team has competed with watered down routines ( Rio team final, Worlds 2019 TF) because they can't turn down the exposure a TF gives them, even if their athletes are injured.
cyrielle _ that’s a good explanation, thanks. Carlos Yulo 😍 might be another good recent example. I don’t think that two-per-country is responsible for the growth of new programs, though. For instance Dipa was in the top 8 during quals and that’s why she made the Rio vault final.
There are so many similar rules in other sport fields to prevent the one-country-domination, not just in gymnastics. The athletes in a doninant country should totally realize this and try to perform better than their teammates in the qualification.The extreme cases on Douglas and Wieber just indicate that the America is too strong on this event and the two athletes do not perform well enough to exceed their two teammates. I think it might be pity for the atheletes being edged out, but not for the donimant country. Like the two cases above, the athletes that edged them out finally won the gold for their American, Douglas in 2012 and Biles in 2016.This rule tells us that if you are an athlete in a country with better training conditions, you need to perform better than your teammates with the same training condition as you to prove yourself.
Well, if this was a competition for the best gymnasts around the world, there shouldn’t be a 2 per country rule as the bronze medalist would not be totally deserving of the medal, owing that there is a better gymnast than her/him so it’s a bland victory. Also for the gymnast who didn’t qualify due to this rule, she/he also worked as hard to achieve that medal only to be yanked it out by a more inferior gymnast so it would not be fair. It’s that country’s fault that they didn’t train their gymnast as hard as the dominant country did. I’m not from the top 10 gymnastic countries, bu the way, in fact, our gymnastic program sucks!!! I just have this absolute view on what’s fair and what’s not.
Can't wait for 2021 Olympics, imagine qualifications. There will be a lot of 2/country drama with up to six gymnasts from one country with the chance to compete full all around sets.
Not just for AA, but apparatus finals also. Like Carey got 2-per-countried of floor final at Worlds 2019, Chen Yile off BB final... I love that it gives every gymnast the same opportunity to qualify for as many finals as possible.
@@cyrielle_ Wait so lets say Biles and Lee qualify FX through team and Carey through individual, the 2 per is still in affect even though Jade is not on the official team?
@@Smielyb2000 the top 2 gymnasts from each country advance to finals, wether they're on the 4-AAer team or not. Every gymnast will have the opportunity to compete AA in qual, and then the 2-per-country rule is still applied. The weird format of team + individual gymnasts doesn't change the existence of the 2-per-country in finals.
I get that they want diversity on the podium but I think that the reigning Olympic Champion should get a chance to defend her title if she qualified to the finals.
@@gymstyle5091 Don't come at me like that. Don't say "you won four years ago", say instead "olympic champion". Yeah, the title defender who qualified should get a spot. Just my opinion ofc.
@@MD-722 I'm not talking about Liukin. Gabby qualified in 3rd, that's what I mean. She's the champion and because of that rule she may not compete? Nah, I don't like it, especially in the AA.
@@MD-722 I'm just confused on how you use the term "free pass". To me it isn't a free pass when a gymnast qualifies in 3rd and gets to a final but whatever. I'm from Germany and we ofc are proud of our athletes but there's generally not much pride in individual sports and most people don't care which country a gymnast is from. So I don't care about a gymnast's country, but just about them as an individual competing for themselves. So I think it's ridiculous when a great gymnast, a champion can't qualify to the finals because of their nationality. That's my point.
@@johannas5622 Your opinion is completely stupid. Allowing someone a free pass to an Olympics 4 years after the fact is cheating and unfair to the real gymnasts who EARNED their spot. Winning gold isn't a right
i do not support this rule because the best in the world should be recognized as the best in the world no matter what country they’re from. i mean, if a us gymnast got cut and could’ve taken third place all around, then those other gymnasts really aren’t best in the world.
in 2016 gabby Douglas literally placed third in the Olympic all around but couldn’t compete because Simone biles and aly raisman places first and second.
I don’t like it because we truly don’t get to exactly see the best of the best compete. And really the girls that make it in to the AA final because the two per country rule, don’t actually have a shot at medaling. I question how the rule not existing would’ve shaken up the beam finals from the past two worlds though, possibly a Chinese dominated podium, or maybe another beam medal for Morgan.
Oof. I love Chen Yile, but I don't see her winning over that BB routine from Simone in EF 2019 ( I can see Ou Yushan potentially overtaking a super hit from Simone). China could have gone 2-3-4, but that's it. And I love Chinese BB, but as a viewer I enjoy watching multiple different styles in finals ( 2 China BB, Ana Padurariu, Simone, Kara, Flavia...)
I don’t see it as controversial. I think it gives the opportunity to other countries to medal during the final events. Of course, for the athlete is difficult to understand how they can be out of a competition if they technically ‘qualified’ to the final.
As much I would like to see other countries have a chance to medal, it's not fair to exclude those who actually placed in the top 6 to not qualify, since their results prove that they are the best in the world, how can other gymnasts compete with the best when the best aren't even allowed to qualify? After all, the purpose of the Olympics is to see who is the best. I can understand if it's just for event finals because of the 8 spot limit, but not the AA. I think the best compromise is to allow whoever placed in the top 6 to qualify regardless of their nationality or how many of their teammates qualified above them, and apply the 2 per country rule after that. Again, you can't compete with the best when the best aren't even there in the finals
True. I don't think it's so controversial but i have a love/hate relationship. Many didn't follow the sport closely until 2012 when jordyn wieber was the it girl (her coaches set her up for failure by taking her small wins for granted) but yeah part of the reason the 2 per country was put was cause back in the day USSR and Romania dominated.
Vanessa Ebony Yeah those godamn “upgrades” in her beam routine that her coach obviously knew she was inconsistent in contributed to her not making the AA. But I think it’s different now before each country allows their top 3 AA competitors to go for the final when back in the day, every single person in the team can qualify. So I think the 2 per country rule shouldn’t apply for the top 6 qualifiers, that way the actual best are going head to head
Marisela Navarro is the Olympics about having the best athletes compete against each other or is it about making sure other countries get medals? I’d rather see the best athletes.
People who think a diverse podium is better just for the sake of diversity are insane. The best gymnast deserves the chance to win. I said below I am fine with this rule because it prevents the judges from cheating but when someone from a smaller Country ends up on the podium just because a two per Country rule kept out a gymnast that isn't really winning by anything but default... Amanar qualified into the UB in 1996 in first place based on judges holding her up in compulsories. Judges cheat to get who they want into EF all the time.
The rule is extremely necessary, so the other gymnasts know they can fight, at least, for the bronze. If you allow 3 gymnasts, basically the dominant country will fight against itself, people will have less interest and the sport will slowly loose popularity. That's why we also don't have 3 Jamaicans in a 100 meters final, 3 Russians in a Rhythmics AA final or 3 Chineses in a Tennis Table final. Know why we have such this big fussy in WAG? Because the dominant country is United States, not Jamaica, Russia or China.
I think the rule is stupid and needs to go. If you qualify in the top 24 for the AA, why should your place go to a gymnast who qualified in 25th place? That’s not fair. The top 24 means the top 24! The same with the apparatus finals. The top 8 means just that. The best compete for the medals. If a country sweeps the podium so what? Why should a gymnast suffer just because her country has more than two great gymnasts?
It used to be 3...I think that perhaps a way to mediate this is that more people are eligible to qualify for all-around...maybe let a 3-per country rule in the AA and keep the 2-per country rule for event finals.
So we really don’t see the true champions because the athletes are not given the opportunity. The whole gymnastics all around finals is fake. We might as well just add up all their complete scores, bring back compulsories, team and finals. The gymnast with the highest score from these three days is the all around winner. This would mean they would have to qualify for finals to win. The more finals apparatus you qualify for, the more chances your scores will add up. Now, there’s your winner.
This rule can be inclusive, but it's not meritocratic. And affects how athletes approaches qualifications, since for some of them is not simply sufficient to qualify, but they must beat teammates, they must risk more respect others athletes... This happen when you force equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunities.
It's a stupid rule. It eliminates who are actually the best in competition. It unfairly pulls the rug out from those who have trained just as hard, or even more to arrive at their life's dream. It's stupid & it spits in the face of TRUTH of who are actually the best as they rank in the world & that particular competition. Eliminate it.
I think although it gives other countries a chance yo make the podium, it's unfair. Winning is about equality, it's about the score. We need to bring back the old way. The 3 top scores win.
Honestly I would have no problem with ending the rule. It simply selects by your county. You can be the third best in the world. But you can't get credit for it. This rule isn't based on who is the best but how boring it would look if three hard working athletes would be from the same country. If you transfer to another country like chuso did (for other reasons) your back in the game. If suni simone and mykayla are the best AA gymnasts in the competition, let it be. They deserve it by their archievements. And the "countries that support their athletes more"-argument can be seen by two sides. Which county that doesn't care about their athletes and lets them pay everything by themselves should be allowed to get credit for a medal it didn't do anything for?
exactly. i don’t care if some other country swept the podium. they had the best athletes. it’s a competition the best should be competing. it makes me really mad in cases like gabbys in 2016 where she qualified third and was like a point and a half above the next person and she still gets cut from the final. the person going in her place wasn’t gonna have a chance for a medal anyways
I think the rule needs to be modified. If the olympics as we know it is to find the best of the best, this rule does not allow for that. THe all around should consist of the 24 best no matter what country they are from. Just as in swimmin ortrack and field, the top contenders go to the finals, not the best 2 of each country. Those athletes have put time, dedication, sweat, tears, and a lot of training into making it as far as they have. I feel they are being overlooked. The goal asstated by the Olympic Committee is "contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understaning with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fairplay". How is it fairplay not to allow the best to complete and for that matter not discrimatory against them for being from the same country as other great athletes. Just my opinion...
I'm ok with this rule, but perhaps just for EF. What I do think is that all athletes should get a chance to go for the all around, regardless of team qualifications. Case: 2016, Laurie Hernandez didn't get a chance to go on bars (and therefor AA) so that Madison Kocian can get into Bars final, and Aly, Gabby and Simone to the AA.
@@cyrielle_ I like it too but that really just means that the qualifications are going to be a blood bath. Undoubtably more exciting than the finals will be.
Every gymnast or sports person works so hard to be in the final and to win a medal this rule is absolutely ridiculous how can rule can ignore the hard work put into by an athlete. Rules must be there to make the sport clean and to do proper justice. While this rule is definitely doing the injustice. And should be removed.
I don’t like the rule. Wouldn’t you want to compete to see who is the best? It’s not really a fair representation of who wins then because their might be people from other countries that would’ve won too. I understand why they did it and it makes sense but so many gymnasts work their whole lives for winning and then get affected by this rule
This rule surely hurts, but it's as unfair, as having only 3 medals, not 4 or 5. And there have been A LOT of people in history crying after ending up 4th. There are similar rules in other sports as well. If there weren't, it would be pointless for most to even try competing. So it has to be a compromise. Even with such rules, it's nearly impossible for others to win gold and sometimes silver in some sports dominated by single country. First two places are always won by: rhythmic gymnastics - russia, archery - south korea, table tennis - china, women's artistic gymnastics - you know who. If number of participants wasn't capped at one point or another, each of these Olympic events would look like their national championships. This rule would be pointless if athletes represented just themselves, not their country. But in olympics we have flags and anthems and you actually win medals for your nation.
Am I the only one that supports this rule in other sports such as open water swimming and track cycling it’s only per country I also think you’re for spectators it’s nice to have competition between different countries if you know your country is going to win either way a lot of people don’t care especially in the Olympics where a lot of people only watch that sport once every 4 years and they don’t know/ haven’t heard of the Athelstan before
I would like to see some of sort of season rankings, like we see in tennis, where gymnastics competitions results are totaled to determine a season ranking. We are accustomed to the world championships being the be-all end-all of who is best, but it’s actually just one competition (albeit the most important of the year). A season tally would (1) make all competitions during the year important; (2) reward those that compete and therefore support those competitions; (3) provide perhaps a better look at the best performers throughout the year; (4) allow more gymnasts for country to compete and get ranked, thereby bypassing some restricting selection process in their country.
Controversy ?. LOL. The idea is to to prevent worlds or Olympics to become monopolized by one dominant country. This isn’t new. There’s always a cutoff.
It's still controversial. There are people disagreeing about how much better this is compared to a free for all. It makes sense, but it's still controversial.
It gives other countries opportunities..Look at the countries that have broken through. Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Brazil, Sweden with just one or two gymnasts..
I would question if 2-per-country is what gave those countries the opportunities. The top athletes from the countries you mentioned, except for Sweden, have all placed in the top 5 at some point in a World Championships or Olympic AA competition. (Here I'm counting Rebeca Andrade's 4th place score in 2016 qualifications) and Jonna Adlertag of Sweden has been a World Championships medalist on bars. The top athletes from these countries are giants in the sport in their own right and not because of 2-per-country.
I support the rule. It's unfair from an athlete's point of view, but on a larger scale, it surely brings diversity both in the competition and the podium, especially when the field was narrowed from 36 to 24 athletes in AA finals. Also, everyone saying that some gymnasts are robbed of their chance, this rule has affected many gymnasts from other countries as well, especially when USA wasn't as dominant as it is now. You can't keep changing rules according to someone's changing preferences. That's hypocrisy.
but it doesn’t bring that much diversity to the podium when the top four or five countries all qualify two gymnasts to the final. and if a gymnast places third behind her teammates she should be allowed to compete for a medal.
it makes sense in event finals because it’s only a field of eight so it does bring diversity but not in a field of 24. the people who replace the top qualifiers left out due to the rule never medal or get close to medaling.
Since I don't think Canada will dominate gymnastics I am all for preventing one country domination and allowing others a chance at the top. It sucks for those that get hit by this because you know they worked really hard to get there n the first place. I did check out the 2018 & 2019 women's gymnastics world championships all-around qualification results and this rule both years only affects three countries, China, Japan and the USA in 2018 and China, Russia and the USA in 2019. Currently, those countries are really the only ones with enough depth for this to affect so I can live with it. Is it a perfect system, no but it is the best compromise to prevent single country domination of the results.
jtjr26 you never know. Romania didn’t even qualify a team to the olympics and the swept the all around podium in 2000. i personally couldn’t care less because the ATHLETES worked hard for their success NOT their COUNTRY. we shouldn’t be putting down athletes just because they are from the US, Russia, Japan, or China. and im sorry but it’s not like it’s actually affecting the podium. i have yet to hear of someone who made the podium who didn’t qualify to the final initially. it think the rule can stay for event finals as it’s only 8 people so gymnasts May have a chance if others don’t hit. but in the all around the top six athletes should qualify. because honestly anything below 6th isn’t really gonna qualify. the US has had the all around champion since 2011 and 07-09 i believe. that’s because the girls worked hard for it. and you say you’re all for it now but if in 20 years canada was suddenly more dominate than the US would you say the same thing? the two per country rule doesn’t stop the dominance of the US, Russia, and China. it diversifies the field *kind of. no one who makes a final because of the rule makes podium especially in the all around. if a girl qualifies 30th and makes it in because of the rule there is no way that girl is making podium or being televised.
It's funny how sport coverage and USOPC, the US Olympic Committee, has been pushing for the 2-per-country rule for Archery and Figure Skating recently, due to S. Korea and Russia dominance; funny that nobody complains about the rule in Rhytmic Gymmastics, Tenis Table and Track & Field, but in artistic gymmastics, and specifically all-around? What a hideous crime is this rule!
I think it’s ridiculous that you can be ranked 4th best in the entire world and not even get to compete in the AA (like Jordyn) and someone who’s 30th does. It’s horrible.
@@sambutterfield8960 that's true but she was AA in 2012 so it's harder to feel bad for her. Whereas Jordyn had a much shorter career and didn't get anywhere near the sponsorships and endorsements Gabby did. But it was unfair to Gabby too.
The Olympic Games are not only a place to throw people at a mat and let them compete with each other to see who's best, it looks like it but it's not. They are about creating friendships amongst all nations of the world. They are about being the best YOU as an individual can possibly be and inspiring others to follow your example of hard work, determination, courage, and resilience. If you happen to be the best of the best, like Michael, Simone, Comaneci, Bolt, etc, you WILL get a medal no matter what, but for competing and competing ONLY, each sport has its own leagues, world championships, and tournaments aside from the Olympic Games. The Games are the way all countries have to make heroes of their own, to have figureheads on which the dreams of future generations can rest upon, it's about getting families close to sport again (at least for a couple of days or months), it's about making a compelling case against un-healthy living styles, it's about winning battles with culture and education and Olympic Values. Of course, all of them would love to beat the very best, but what better way to start than to actually be standing there and watch them and maybe even talk to the very best, take those experiences and transform them into courage. The connections, the stories, the statements countries make when they step up to an Olympic event are far deeper than just getting a medal. That's why the rule was implemented, to keep inspiring, to keep the spirit of Olympism alive, to make it more about the competition (way back the Olympics were purely amateur, no "professional" athletes could compete), and less about overpowering domination, again, that's for other types of competitions. The spirit of Olympism is to achieve excellence in all ways of life through sport, it's not JUST about "who's the best swimmer, or gymnast, or runner, or pentathlete, or rider, or boxer" in the world, it's about all of us being able to have a hero that represents our community, medal or no medal around their necks.
If Jordyn Wieber wanted to be classified she just needed to be better than her teammates. You compete with your country and other countries. That improves competition 😘
But it isn’t motivating if you always perform well during qualifications but never get to compete in a All-round final because your teammates are called Nikita Nagornyy (2019 world champion) and Artur Dalaloyan (2018 world champion)
Is this only a thing in gymnastics? I feel like it’s a bit ridiculous.. the top best should be against the top best regardless of NOC IMO. Jamaica was able to go 1-2-3 in a track event in Tokyo and that’s fair compared to this? 🤷🏼♀️
I hate that 2-per-country rule, because of it we only ever get to see Nikita Nagornyy and Artur Dalaloyan in All-round finals (nothing against them they are outstanding gymnasts). Other countries may have one world champion but Russia has two of them so how are the others ever supposed to qualify for All-round finals? This year David Belyavski was able to win a silver medal in the All-round competition at Europes but that was only possible because Artur Dalaloyan did not compete because of a injury.
I don't mind the rule but wish the 2 athletes would be chosen during trials. A lot of other sports have similar rules of certain amount of athletes from one country can qualify. Gymnastics is the only one that I can think of where you have to battle your teammates at the Olympics for those spots.
I think the rule is dumb. Yes, the rule does make the competition more fair for other countries to place on podium. However, it causes athletes from countries like USA and Russia to get screwed over. The AA is an individual competition and has nothing to do with your country. Yes, you are representing your country, but it's not about that. It's about you as the gymnast competing against other gymnasts for an AA title. Your country has nothing to do with the competition. If that means that there are three or four gymnasts from countries like USA and Russia, and one gymnast from other countries, then that's how it will be. It's about the individual gymnast who scored high enough to compete in the AA, regardless of their country. Yes, this does mean that we might get a podium of gymnasts from one country. However, I think this will help motivate other countries and gymnasts from other countries to become better than their competition. I think having this rule allows certain countries to settle for "good enough for the AA". This rule isn't fair for countries like USA and Russia who have gymnasts like Jordyn and Gabbie who score higher in QF than gymnasts from other countries who were allowed to compete in the AA final for their country. I know that all gymnasts strive to be the best and I know other countries don't have the same resources in gymnastics as countries like USA and Russia. This is just my opinion.
For me it's a love/hate for the two per country. If anything I think the 4 per team is ridiculous along with the age. Keri Strug was 14 in 92 OG! The FIG who did that was because he didn't like where the teams would give the spot to someone who could only do one event if that was the case, do 7 per team, all 7 do qualification, and in the team finals 7 up 6 count. On the 2 per country rule, the USA was also one of the countries that pushed for the rule after 2000 when Romania swept all the medals in the AA, but now that they're the powerhouse they don't like the rule. People only became outraged when Jordyn Wieber didn't compete but I will explain in the paragraph below. The purpose was to give other countries who aren't powerhouses in the sport a chance at the medals. So that means Sanne Wevers wouldn't have gotten a chance, neither would have Dipa Krakamar in 2016. For those who don't follow gymnastics, when FIG did the 2 per country rule it was taken into consideration back when USSR (Not just Russia the USSR was a bunch of countries together Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan ETC) and Romania dominated the sport. Also in 2000 Romania swept up all the medals in the AA. Same like in Rhythmic USSR Dominated. It was to take into consideration that other countries who don't have great training facilities aren't powerhouses like USSR was, Romania, China, USA. The USSR was a powerhouse gymnastics factory, always creating. After the dissolution of the USSR Romania dominated for a while before they kind of fell off the gymnastics world. So instead of competing against one huge powerhouse, it was now more countries to compete against (Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Russia, Lithuania, Georgia, Latvia, etc). From 1992 United Team, Boginskya represented Belarus, Chusovitna represented Uzbekistan, Podkopayava represented Ukraine at the 1996 games when USSR collapsed. In regards to Jordyn Wieber, in sports this big your teammates are also your competition. You are all competing against each other for spots on the team and for medals. Jordyn's was overhyped by NBC as the next big thing and her coaches set her up for failure by taking her small wins for granted. In the US she was always over-scored and never made her beam connections which caused her to get hammered internationally. Even if Jordyn was in the AA she wouldn't have won gold. Jordyn was solid but she didn't have one event where she truly shined. I'm going to give examples. In 2004, Carly was descent on vault but made up for it on beam and floor. In 2008, Nastia was weak on vault but made up for it with her execution along with beam and uneven bars. Komova had higher score on bars and upgraded her beam dismount which gave her the advantage over Jordyn. Komova, Aly and Gabby all upgraded their routines for the Olympics. Jordyn didn't have one event were she really got really high scores that she shined on and she wasn't in a position like Simone where small mistakes would cost her the podium. In 2011 Worlds in the AA, Jordyn was 59.382 Komova 59.349 the win was a very small margin.
I get the reasoning behind this, but I think maybe making it so the top 10 automatically make it, then after that implement the rule so that it’s fair to everyone? Just seems so unfair for someone in the top 5 to not even have a shot
I really feel like it was Russia that was the most adamant to get the 2 per country rule after 2000. They KILLED it in EF and proved they had the talent to fill the AA podium like Romania did. But it was embarrassing for them. It wouldn’t surprise me if the US pushed it a lot too, but no one really cared about US gymnastics from like 1997-2002 because they weren’t as strong as before
stupid rule and gymnasts should be ashamed to take those spots, you can't really you are the "third best" in the world when the third best wasn't even allowed to compete. I want to see the best fight for the titles, I find it hard to believe that these athletes appreciate their pity metals. I don't think there should be a limit at all, if a country qualifies all of their athletes to the AA, then it would make it truly a formidable competition. People and their weak notions of competition.
Some say that even if gymnasts from "small" countries are given a chance, the results will still include the same "big" countries in the podium. Well, you can always expect surprises! It's not only about the medals... We get to see very interesting routines from gymnasts from non-dominant federations such as Roxana Popa from spain, Yeo Seo-jeong from S.Korea or Alexa Moreno from Mexico. Giving these gymnasts the chance to compete at finals in a world level competition may come only once in a lifetime so it's important to reward them with this rule, even if they don't get to medal.
The top scorers should advance regardless of their federation. It's not fair that a 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th ( got the picture ? ) member of a certain team got bumped off the competition by a lower scoring gymnast from another federation. Each of the gymnasts had the same chances during qualifying rounds so why should they be punished for posting better scores just because they come from the same federation ? The 3 Romanians deserved to be on the podium because they posted the best scores.To qualify for the all around finals should be an honor in itself. If the finalists did not medal and therefore not stepped up to the podium then they did not deserve it. That should be the guiding force - to.HONOR THE BEST. This is a game of tenths or inches - anything can happen. The top qualifier may not even medal so the 3rd or 4th qualifier from the same country can move up. If the 3 best scres come from the same country after completion of the competition SO BE IT !!!. The idea of making the playing field EVEN is in itself flawed as it will just motivate the individual gymnast to JUST QUALIFY AND GO FROM THERE. It does not address the issue of the federation to " improve " its program .
i think we should let the best compete, no matter what. this includes the minimum age rule for the olympics, too. if the best in the world is an eight-year-old, why aren’t they allowed to be the best in the world if they’re training at that level anyways? i’ve never been a gymnast myself though, so i don’t have an insider perspective on these kinds of things!
IGF after 2000 be like: "A small country without deep pockets just swept the podium, nerf the entire sport!" It's a big club and Romania ain't in it... I wonder if Romania's announced comeback will prompt even further restrictions. And by comeback I mean the extremely promising results of the latest Junior European Championship (December 2020). Romania would have swept again, but due to this rule some Ukrainian girl took the bronze...
I think this rule is hot trash at an elite level. I think the Olympics should be a dog fight the end, and not give the B or C teams a pity throw. I don't want to see NCAA level gymnastics at the Olympics. If the FIG wants to do this nonsense for Worlds or various other competitions, meh. They'd screw up a free lunch. They've made the sport almost unwatchable. It used to the Soviet Union, Romania and a dog fight for bronze. That changed not because of this stupid rule. If the FIG really gave a rat's ass, they would funnel more resources to developing countries for parity. They won't because they suck.
What happened to the gymnasts that qualified instead of Jordyn or Gabby? I have no idea who they are and who is to say that if they take the top gymnasts now that they will have a podium sweep. This year is going to be particularly hard especially for the US because their team is made up of 4 AA gymnasts all of whom could probably make the Olympic final. Not to mention Jade and McKayla whilst AA gymnasts they excel in the same areas as Simone so one is likely to be edged out of the finals and if they both get edged out then it was a waste of time even taking them when they could've taken someone who excelled in different areas giving the US a chance to medal on a different event rather than pin all of their hopes on 2 events. 3 Gymnasts who excel on VT vs 1 who excels of UB. I would've put a bars and beam specialist in the individual spot
Predominately this rule impacts Chinese, Russian and US female gymnasts and Chinese, Japanese and Russian male gymnasts. Is it really an issue any other nation cares about? Especially since they would be disadvantaged if the rule reverted.
Dk Adkins not necessarily. the rule doesn’t really diversify the podium. the people who end up in all around finals in place of the top qualifiers don’t medal or have a chance to. Gabby qualified in 3rd in 2016 and didn’t get to compete. jordyn qualified 4th in 2012 and didn’t get to compete. who was on the podium? both times and American was gold and in 2012 was followed by two Russians and in 2016 another American and a Russian. so other nations wouldn’t be disadvantaged. their athletes aren’t really even mentioned anyways. they mostly talk about the athletes who didn’t qualify. it makes sense kind of in event finals but makes no sense in the all around.
@@sambutterfield8960 Yes, but that was the stated goal. Interesting that it happened just as the US was beginning to insert a measure of dominance but at the time it was more likely to be Romanians who swept the podium. And I would agree that it really hasn't diversified the medals in any significant way but, then again, how many FIG rules and rule changes have accomplished the stated goal of the organization? .
I think the rule is fair if you want diversity, but they're not getting that diversity. If you look at the podium of last years it's almost always two American gymnasts and one other one, most likely Russia, Japan or China. I don't think we see a lot of diversity in this quad because the usa is so on top of it with gymnasts like Biles, Hurd and Lee. The rule should be scrapped because why are the gymnasts getting "punished" for being better than others? It would get boring watching the usa sweep the aa medals but I don't think it's a bad thing if you look at the work the gymnasts put into their training
It’s an absolutely ridiculous rule. You say sweeping like it’s a bad thing. This does not give an advantage to some, but an unfair disadvantage to the ones who do deserve to qualify.
In other sports, sometimes you see most of the American team in the final, and sometimes you see non of them. It truly depends on how qualifications go.
If it actually did increase diversity, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. However, in 2016 the WAG athletes who benefited from 2-per-country were all from countries that had qualified full teams to the Olympics.
@@Smielyb2000 except Produnova did compete on BB final afterwards, so she wasn't too injured to compete... I get that the ussr /Russian way ( Romania and China do this as well) is controversial, but it's also the smart way. They put the gymnast with the best shot at a medal / winning gold, rest some gymnasts somewhere so they can kill it better at their best events. Like Komova withdrawing from fx final at Worlds 2011 so Afanasyeva could end up winning gold. Komova was clearly done after BB final and floor was her most challenging event, she had nothing to win there in 2011, whereas Afanasyeva proved herself in TF and AA. And it's not against the rules to use this strategy.
@@cyrielle_ You right. I didn't understand why they thought Zamo had a better chance than Prod. Whatever I wished Marta used those tactics in London and Rio. 😎
@@Smielyb2000 remember too Alexandra Marinescu in Atlanta 96 Belu do the same whit Simona Amanar: Marinescu was qualified to the AA Finals and her coach put her only in BB final instead Milo and Amanar in AA because she had better chance to win a medal! it's sad for me because I really want to se more from Alexandra
@@omarlicea3518 I Marinescu was a break from the usual boring Belu gymnastics but Simona AA total in the team final was Insane. No way was Marinescu was scoring that. Grant Simona didn't in AA final but she got an AA medal. So the switch paid off. Suck because Marinescu had the best look of the team.
I love it. It's necessary so that we can get a diverse podium, sport and finals. If the Americans, Russians and Chinese are so great, then they should use the rule in their favor, making national selection processes more effective on medals and AA potential. May the two best per country qualify.
How is it fair that Aleksandr Kartsev couldn’t compete in the All-round final at this years European Championship despite ranking 3rd in Qualification?
@@SarahZi1998 If that rule were not applied, in the last world championships or Olympic Games the gymnasts of usa would have perhaps 3, 4 or more representatives leaving out the opportunity for other countries to be represented. I understand your point and it seems unfair to the one that came in third place, but in the end I think we can understand the reason for the rule.
How is it fair that Aleksandr Kartsev didn’t get to compete in the All-round final at the 2021 European Championship despite ranking 3rd in qualifications just because Nargornyy ranked 1st and Belyavski 2nd?
Best thing that ever happened. Countries like the USA and China, not so much Russia anymore, produce athletes on an industrial scale. This levels the playing field and will allow more competitors for more countries to compete at the top level.
It should be 3 per country rule and it's funny cause that rule was made cause of what happened with the romanian team in the sydney olympics and now romania won't even send a full team to the olympics
10 Gymnasts Affected by the Two-Per-Country Rule ruclips.net/video/4Yr9rd4NTlY/видео.html
I feel like the rule should only apply to event finals but the AAs should be the absolute 24 best gymnasts.
Before 2001, it was 36 gymnasts in the AA final. I'd like to go back to that.
@@MD-722 I'd say that TV production shouldn't be the paramount concern here. Adding 12 gymnasts means adding 3 per rotation for women and 2 per rotation for men. We know it's possible because it was done for years. Besides, from an American point of view we all know that NBC would rather show an American stretching on the sidelines rather than (heaven forfend!) show a non-American routine.
MD-722 It’s okay NBC doesn’t actually show the gymnastics. It’s more like a podcast about Simone Biles.
I do like this idea!
Margo Johnson there’s a pressure to add more sports to the games but without increasing the overall number of athletes (cost). Gym team competition keeps shrinking and it’s not unthinkable that it will disappear.
To me the situation in 2016 was even more egregious. Gabby Douglas placed third in qualifications and outscored the 4th place qualifier, Rebeca Andrade, by nearly 1.5 points. No one really talks about this one, possibly in part because of (completely unfair) Gabby hate and in part because of the (somewhat legitimate) fact that Gabby already had an Olympic AA gold medal while Jordyn never had her chance.
The size of the AA qualifying field was reduced from 36 to 24 after the 2000 Olympics, mostly for reasons related to TV production. When there were 36 athletes in the AA final, three athletes per country were allowed to qualify. When the size of the field was reduced by 1/3, so too was the number of athletes per country. The thing is, "they" told us this would result in a more diverse field. I'm not sure if they were dumb or if they thought we were dumb, because either way the same proportion of the field could come from one country. 3/36 equals 1/12 and 2/24 equals 1/12. Any kid in the fifth grade could tell you that.
Personally, I definitely want to see the AA field returned to 36 athletes. I'd like to see kind of a hybrid model in terms of representation per country. The top 5 or top 10 automatically qualify, regardless of country. After that, it's 2 per country. With a 36 athlete field, this would increase the number of countries represented. It would also eliminate the current situation where an athlete who is a legitimate medal threat and has a good qualifying competition is eliminated from finals by being slightly outscored by a teammate. It doesn't make sense to exclude one of the best competitors from finals (unless s/he has a rotten day in qualifying; in that case, it's sad for them but this is a competition and you can't win unless you compete well).
As much as I love Aliya Mustafina, it is unlikely she would have won either of her Olympic AA medals if Jordyn and Gabby had not been 2-per-countried out of finals. In 2012 she fell on beam. In 2016 she competed a beam routine that was missing a required acro series. All Jordyn and Gabby would have had to do was compete 4 routines the way they normally did and they both would have been on the AA podiums. They know this, and I am certain Aliya knows it too.
Well said 👍🏼😊
I would totally agree with your hybrid model.
And I would keep the current rule for event finals. Here it is much more likely for smaller gymnastics nations to medal and if the medal chances are cut buy having three or more gymnasts from one country, that could be bad for their programs. Unfortunately, a lot of money is somehow attached to success in each sport, so probably funding would decrease if their is nearly no chance to medal.
@@lauura I'd be very supportive of increasing the size of the event finals field, maybe to 12 instead of 8. In many recent major international competitions, this would have placed athletes from smaller programs into event finals. As it is, these days it's easy to have an event finals field of 2 Americans, 2 Russians, 2 Chinese, and 2 from other countries (and in the not so distant past, those spots could easily have been 2 Romanians). If diversity is the goal, it's definitely not being achieved.
Many countries have seen great growth in their programs in the past decade or two. Sometimes it takes the form of a great individual, like Giulia Steingruber or Jonna Adlertag and their World and/or Olympic medals. Sometimes it's the steady growth of a program that precedes any great individual achievement, such as has happened with Belgium and Canada in recent years. It's even been seen in Sri Lanka, which went from a program that was described by Monica Phelps at the 2010 Commonwealth Games as "very much beginners in gymnastics" to producing a home grown athlete who competed a *bars* routine in the 2019 World Championships that, while still far from a contender for finals, was a routine that did not look at all out of place at a World Championships.
@@Margo-oj5yc Yes, I'd also be in for that!
And the point that the competition would be too long doesn't count for event finals in my opinion, since they are rather short.
The fact that Douglas outscored the 4th qualifier for more than 1.5 point actually reinforces the reason for the rule. The rest of the world want to root for an actual chance of medal, not watch a podium already closed by the dominant country.
If Gabby was in the final she would most likely be in top 3. And Aliya won bronze because of judges, Shang was the better one that night
They should just bring the AA back to 36 gymnasts with a 3-per-country rule
I agree the rule should be a thing, but if I was the athlete that qualified for my rightfully deserved spot I would be mad as hell and that is understandable.
I’ve never approved of the two-per-country rule. For example, a gymnast from Kazakhstan who placed 30th, or something like that, really has no true shot at medaling. The top 24 gymnasts in quals should be the ones to advance to the AA final. However, with event finals, I see more of the logic behind the two-per-country rule.
exactly. the two per country rule didn’t help any other countries medal that i know of and the gymnasts that get in in place of the qualifying athletes are in the bottom at the end. i would much rather see the actual best compete.
Pity throws to countries with no real gymnastics programs are vile. RUclips is full of vids of gymnasts from a resource poor countries barely grinding out a level 8 bar routine. I don't need to see that, and 10K+ comments of how the gymnast sucks.
FIG wants to to the 2 placement rule for lower level competitions? No problem for me. I really hate it though for Worlds and the Olympics. It's not feel good, it's pandering and self pats on the back.
I support the rule. of course it's a pity for gymnasts from stronger countries but at least they have a high chance of winning the team gold and thus be olympic champions :)
I like the 2-per-country rule as a viewer because it promotes different styles / schools of gymnastics. Very often gymnasts from the same country have the same style, similar strengths / weaknesses, similar routine compositions. So it's more enjoyable to have gymnasts from various countries in the run for the medals.
cyrielle _ when has the two per country rule resulted in a gymnast from a country with a weaker program winning?
@@FrancesBaconandEggs I never said the 2-per-country rule allows gymnasts from weaker programs to win. I'm talking about being IN THE RUN FOR A MEDAL. Like Andrade 2016, Steingruber 2015 for example. They weren't weak gymnasts or weak programs, but they weren't from the big-4. Had all the USA, China, Russia team, plus Larisa 2015, they would have been in a more difficult position and would probably have less television time.
Yep. Right now it would result in the Olympics or Worlds becoming a replay of US nationals ...
mrparts well if the US girls are better why don’t they deserve to medal? if the gymnast from the United States performs better that day or if the girl from Brazil performs better, the better score advances.
Sam Butterfield the goal of these meets is representation of the best of each country. But theres a limit in the number of athletes allowed because hosting meets isn’t cheap. So a cutoff has to be applied.
I think the rule is ridiculous because even with the 2 per country rule other countries don’t medal so they should give the gymnast that earned it the chance to medal.
The two per countries rule was help spear headed by the USA when countries like Romania and Russia was dominating but years later it came back to bite the USA when they start to dominate. I strongly believe only best 24 should be in final.The two for country rule water down the competition some what
I agree 100%, no matter what country is dominate at the time.
i think the rule works in event finals because it’s only a field of eight gymnasts, but when you look at the all around it’s 24 gymnasts and the ones who move into finals because of the rule they aren’t going to get near medals. as for ones who end up medaling because a better gymnast got taken out it just doesn’t make sense to me. the best deserve to be rewarded.
I agree with it, for the most part. Although I do think that there should be an exception so that the top 3 or 4 qualifiers in the all around advance to the final regardless of the country. It just doesn’t seem like it’s the absolute best in the world when the 25th place qualifier advances while the 3rd or 4th place qualifier sits in the stands.
exactly. gabby Douglas had a shot at bronze in the all around and qualified in that position. she should have been allowed to compete considering the gymnast who would’ve ended up competing most likely didn’t end up top ten.
I dislike this rule. In my opinion, whether the podium is all Romanians or all Americans, whoever scores higher than other gymnasts should get to move on to the finals. If the podium is all one country, then so be it. That would show that that country has the best gymnasts, and if the other countries want to place, they should work harder for the next Olympics. Just my opinion though.
Fitzle witzle i definitely agree. personally it would suck knowing if someone else was allowed to compete you probably wouldn’t have your medal. especially when people on the internet talk about it too.
Do you like 2 per country rule?
USA: No, but in UB and BB yes.
I do think, whoever qualify top6 should qualify to the AA final regarding any country. For god sake, they are top 6 in the world. And 7-24 should apply the 2 per country rule.
Because the olympics/worlds are not meant to be the Soviet/Russia/US national championship (or whatever country is dominant at a given era).
@@mrparts OMG who the hell cares? If a gymnast is good enough to qualify then they deserve to qualify.
JGSHEW organizers care because it’s an event to represent the best of each country. It is not meant to be a replay of the national championship of a dominant nation in an international setting.
@@mrparts no, its not. It's an event to show the best of the world, not the best of every country.
JGSHEW lol tell that to the Olympic committee. The people that organize the games FYI...
I wish the rule would be done away or altered so that anyone in the top six or top ten automatically go through. Then do some kind of evenning-out the playing field from there. Every country that has had a golden age in gymnastics deserves it's time in the public eye and on the podium. Romania earned the podium sweep!
The only reason I think this rule is unfair is because it doesn't apply in other sports. We had American women sweep the podium in an Olympic hurdles event fairly recently I believe. If athletes in other events get that opportunity I think gymnasts should too. And I also think, that if the Olympics is about competing against the best of the best, then you should let the best compete
That's not true, there are several sports that have this kind of limitation. For example in swimming there is a two country rule even to qualify in the semifinals! And no one ever complain.
I understand that there are other sports, but I think if it applies to one it should apply to all. And like in some sports they narrow the list down to 2 per country at Olympic trials, but you couldn't necessarily do it the same way in gymnastics
@@harry4596
Not just semis; athletes below the top two in any given race at Trials don't even QUALIFY for the Olympics. The TV broadcasters were talking about that during the Trials back in June this year. Lydia Jacoby won Gold in the 100 Breaststroke in Tokyo, but finished 3rd at the Trials this year, & thus didn't even make the Olympic team (that was her only event at Trials this year).
The Olympics is about bringing the best in the world together to compete and see who is the best in the world. The Two Per Country rule contradicts this mission.
True, but as well as the OG are about bringing the best individual athletes in the world together, the Olympics are also about bringing COUNTRIES together.
The question, in my opinion, is where you choose to draw a line to secure that there are enough different countries represented in a final..
The ones in charge could also be more extreme and decide that each country was only allowed to have ONE gymnast in the final.
Or they could in an imaginary experiment choose in the team competitions to allow countries to send MORE THAN ONE team to the Olympics! I’m sure a US B-team would do quite well. 😉
My opinion is that the two per country rule is good because it secures at least those two gymnasts per country plus in also secures several different countries to be able to qualify.
This rule exists also on Trampoline Gymnastics where I’m from, and here the rule counts in ALL international competitions. I don’t know if it’s the same in artistic gymnastics...
That rule should maybe exist for EF because there a only 8 places but not for AA
I don’t think that this rule promotes diversity among winners. It always comes down to the same handful of countries with strong programs. It’s not as if countries like Turkey or Mexico are medaling now that the USA, Russia, and China can only qualify two gymnasts per final.
Yes. I think this comment sums up the fatal flaw of this rule. If the main argument for the 2 per country rule is to increase podium diversity, then it’s not very effective. Especially in the context of AA, it seems to give an advantage to gymnasts from other dominant countries not gymnasts from countries with underdeveloped programs. I think we should absolutely do something to help gymnasts from countries with weaker programs, but I’m not sure this rule is helping them much.
MD-722 I agree with a lot of what you say, because diversity has increased. I just don’t know if bringing up Alexa Moreno or GB really works, because both Alexa and team GB make it to finals without needing the 2/country. Which is a compliment to them because it’s a big deal making the top 8 but I don’t think that demonstrates the 2/per country rule promotes diversity. But again I agree that diversity has exploded since 2001.
Josh - right. I’m not sure exactly why diversity has increased since Sydney (maybe the new code?) but excellent athletes like Onder and Moreno didn’t make it into finals only because of two-per-country. In the cases of Wieber and Douglas, the bronze went to athletes from gymnastics powerhouses.
@@FrancesBaconandEggs because building a gymnastics program takes time. Years, quads, sometimes decades. It takes funding (equipment, skilled coaches, specialised medical care, travelling to international competitions...), and to get funding you very often need to get media exposure.
Dipa Karmakar put Indian gymnastics on the map by getting into vault finals, even if she was unlikely to medal at Worlds /Olympics, it was a huge deal for them. Same for Yamilet Peña for the Dominican Republic. Daiane Dos Santos was a huge star in Brazil after being floor world champion, and it helped the Brazilian gymnastics program growth in a big way. The Ukrainian men's team has competed with watered down routines ( Rio team final, Worlds 2019 TF) because they can't turn down the exposure a TF gives them, even if their athletes are injured.
cyrielle _ that’s a good explanation, thanks. Carlos Yulo 😍 might be another good recent example. I don’t think that two-per-country is responsible for the growth of new programs, though. For instance Dipa was in the top 8 during quals and that’s why she made the Rio vault final.
There are so many similar rules in other sport fields to prevent the one-country-domination, not just in gymnastics. The athletes in a doninant country should totally realize this and try to perform better than their teammates in the qualification.The extreme cases on Douglas and Wieber just indicate that the America is too strong on this event and the two athletes do not perform well enough to exceed their two teammates. I think it might be pity for the atheletes being edged out, but not for the donimant country. Like the two cases above, the athletes that edged them out finally won the gold for their American, Douglas in 2012 and Biles in 2016.This rule tells us that if you are an athlete in a country with better training conditions, you need to perform better than your teammates with the same training condition as you to prove yourself.
Well, if this was a competition for the best gymnasts around the world, there shouldn’t be a 2 per country rule as the bronze medalist would not be totally deserving of the medal, owing that there is a better gymnast than her/him so it’s a bland victory. Also for the gymnast who didn’t qualify due to this rule, she/he also worked as hard to achieve that medal only to be yanked it out by a more inferior gymnast so it would not be fair. It’s that country’s fault that they didn’t train their gymnast as hard as the dominant country did.
I’m not from the top 10 gymnastic countries, bu the way, in fact, our gymnastic program sucks!!!
I just have this absolute view on what’s fair and what’s not.
Can't wait for 2021 Olympics, imagine qualifications. There will be a lot of 2/country drama with up to six gymnasts from one country with the chance to compete full all around sets.
Not just for AA, but apparatus finals also. Like Carey got 2-per-countried of floor final at Worlds 2019, Chen Yile off BB final... I love that it gives every gymnast the same opportunity to qualify for as many finals as possible.
@@cyrielle_ Wait so lets say Biles and Lee qualify FX through team and Carey through individual, the 2 per is still in affect even though Jade is not on the official team?
@@Smielyb2000 the top 2 gymnasts from each country advance to finals, wether they're on the 4-AAer team or not. Every gymnast will have the opportunity to compete AA in qual, and then the 2-per-country rule is still applied.
The weird format of team + individual gymnasts doesn't change the existence of the 2-per-country in finals.
I get that they want diversity on the podium but I think that the reigning Olympic Champion should get a chance to defend her title if she qualified to the finals.
So because you won 4 years ago you deserve a chance to win 4 years later? What kind of logic is that?
@@gymstyle5091 Don't come at me like that. Don't say "you won four years ago", say instead "olympic champion". Yeah, the title defender who qualified should get a spot. Just my opinion ofc.
@@MD-722 I'm not talking about Liukin. Gabby qualified in 3rd, that's what I mean. She's the champion and because of that rule she may not compete? Nah, I don't like it, especially in the AA.
@@MD-722 I'm just confused on how you use the term "free pass". To me it isn't a free pass when a gymnast qualifies in 3rd and gets to a final but whatever. I'm from Germany and we ofc are proud of our athletes but there's generally not much pride in individual sports and most people don't care which country a gymnast is from. So I don't care about a gymnast's country, but just about them as an individual competing for themselves. So I think it's ridiculous when a great gymnast, a champion can't qualify to the finals because of their nationality. That's my point.
@@johannas5622 Your opinion is completely stupid. Allowing someone a free pass to an Olympics 4 years after the fact is cheating and unfair to the real gymnasts who EARNED their spot. Winning gold isn't a right
i do not support this rule because the best in the world should be recognized as the best in the world no matter what country they’re from. i mean, if a us gymnast got cut and could’ve taken third place all around, then those other gymnasts really aren’t best in the world.
in 2016 gabby Douglas literally placed third in the Olympic all around but couldn’t compete because Simone biles and aly raisman places first and second.
I don’t like it because we truly don’t get to exactly see the best of the best compete. And really the girls that make it in to the AA final because the two per country rule, don’t actually have a shot at medaling. I question how the rule not existing would’ve shaken up the beam finals from the past two worlds though, possibly a Chinese dominated podium, or maybe another beam medal for Morgan.
How would a change in rules change Biles' gold in 2019? How would the Chinese block her out of the medals?
Oof. I love Chen Yile, but I don't see her winning over that BB routine from Simone in EF 2019 ( I can see Ou Yushan potentially overtaking a super hit from Simone). China could have gone 2-3-4, but that's it.
And I love Chinese BB, but as a viewer I enjoy watching multiple different styles in finals ( 2 China BB, Ana Padurariu, Simone, Kara, Flavia...)
I don’t see it as controversial. I think it gives the opportunity to other countries to medal during the final events. Of course, for the athlete is difficult to understand how they can be out of a competition if they technically ‘qualified’ to the final.
As much I would like to see other countries have a chance to medal, it's not fair to exclude those who actually placed in the top 6 to not qualify, since their results prove that they are the best in the world, how can other gymnasts compete with the best when the best aren't even allowed to qualify? After all, the purpose of the Olympics is to see who is the best. I can understand if it's just for event finals because of the 8 spot limit, but not the AA. I think the best compromise is to allow whoever placed in the top 6 to qualify regardless of their nationality or how many of their teammates qualified above them, and apply the 2 per country rule after that. Again, you can't compete with the best when the best aren't even there in the finals
True. I don't think it's so controversial but i have a love/hate relationship. Many didn't follow the sport closely until 2012 when jordyn wieber was the it girl (her coaches set her up for failure by taking her small wins for granted) but yeah part of the reason the 2 per country was put was cause back in the day USSR and Romania dominated.
Vanessa Ebony Yeah those godamn “upgrades” in her beam routine that her coach obviously knew she was inconsistent in contributed to her not making the AA. But I think it’s different now before each country allows their top 3 AA competitors to go for the final when back in the day, every single person in the team can qualify. So I think the 2 per country rule shouldn’t apply for the top 6 qualifiers, that way the actual best are going head to head
Marisela Navarro is the Olympics about having the best athletes compete against each other or is it about making sure other countries get medals? I’d rather see the best athletes.
@@cookieaddictions AMEN! Talk about an "everyone gets a trophy" mentality 🙄
People who think a diverse podium is better just for the sake of diversity are insane. The best gymnast deserves the chance to win. I said below I am fine with this rule because it prevents the judges from cheating but when someone from a smaller Country ends up on the podium just because a two per Country rule kept out a gymnast that isn't really winning by anything but default... Amanar qualified into the UB in 1996 in first place based on judges holding her up in compulsories. Judges cheat to get who they want into EF all the time.
I think a three-per country rule would be fairer.
I'm completely against the rule. I kind of think it's pointless because no gymnasts that has got in due to 2 per country has ever medelled
It's a competition not a pride march. The goal shouldn't be about making everyone feel included
The rule is extremely necessary, so the other gymnasts know they can fight, at least, for the bronze. If you allow 3 gymnasts, basically the dominant country will fight against itself, people will have less interest and the sport will slowly loose popularity. That's why we also don't have 3 Jamaicans in a 100 meters final, 3 Russians in a Rhythmics AA final or 3 Chineses in a Tennis Table final.
Know why we have such this big fussy in WAG? Because the dominant country is United States, not Jamaica, Russia or China.
I think the rule is stupid and needs to go. If you qualify in the top 24 for the AA, why should your place go to a gymnast who qualified in 25th place? That’s not fair. The top 24 means the top 24! The same with the apparatus finals. The top 8 means just that. The best compete for the medals. If a country sweeps the podium so what? Why should a gymnast suffer just because her country has more than two great gymnasts?
I think the best of the best should compete. Plain and simple.
It used to be 3...I think that perhaps a way to mediate this is that more people are eligible to qualify for all-around...maybe let a 3-per country rule in the AA and keep the 2-per country rule for event finals.
So we really don’t see the true champions because the athletes are not given the opportunity. The whole gymnastics all around finals is fake. We might as well just add up all their complete scores, bring back compulsories, team and finals. The gymnast with the highest score from these three days is the all around winner. This would mean they would have to qualify for finals to win. The more finals apparatus you qualify for, the more chances your scores will add up. Now, there’s your winner.
This rule can be inclusive, but it's not meritocratic.
And affects how athletes approaches qualifications, since for some of them is not simply sufficient to qualify, but they must beat teammates, they must risk more respect others athletes...
This happen when you force equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunities.
It's a stupid rule. It eliminates who are actually the best in competition. It unfairly pulls the rug out from those who have trained just as hard, or even more to arrive at their life's dream. It's stupid & it spits in the face of TRUTH of who are actually the best as they rank in the world & that particular competition. Eliminate it.
I think although it gives other countries a chance yo make the podium, it's unfair. Winning is about equality, it's about the score.
We need to bring back the old way. The 3 top scores win.
Honestly I would have no problem with ending the rule. It simply selects by your county. You can be the third best in the world. But you can't get credit for it. This rule isn't based on who is the best but how boring it would look if three hard working athletes would be from the same country. If you transfer to another country like chuso did (for other reasons) your back in the game. If suni simone and mykayla are the best AA gymnasts in the competition, let it be. They deserve it by their archievements.
And the "countries that support their athletes more"-argument can be seen by two sides. Which county that doesn't care about their athletes and lets them pay everything by themselves should be allowed to get credit for a medal it didn't do anything for?
exactly. i don’t care if some other country swept the podium. they had the best athletes. it’s a competition the best should be competing. it makes me really mad in cases like gabbys in 2016 where she qualified third and was like a point and a half above the next person and she still gets cut from the final. the person going in her place wasn’t gonna have a chance for a medal anyways
I think the rule needs to be modified. If the olympics as we know it is to find the best of the best, this rule does not allow for that. THe all around should consist of the 24 best no matter what country they are from. Just as in swimmin ortrack and field, the top contenders go to the finals, not the best 2 of each country. Those athletes have put time, dedication, sweat, tears, and a lot of training into making it as far as they have. I feel they are being overlooked. The goal asstated by the Olympic Committee is "contribute to building a peaceful and better world by educating youth through sport practiced without discrimination of any kind and in the Olympic spirit, which requires mutual understaning with a spirit of friendship, solidarity, and fairplay". How is it fairplay not to allow the best to complete and for that matter not discrimatory against them for being from the same country as other great athletes. Just my opinion...
My heart still breaks for Jordyn
Why? She didn’t manage to be better than her teammates lmao
I'm ok with this rule, but perhaps just for EF. What I do think is that all athletes should get a chance to go for the all around, regardless of team qualifications. Case: 2016, Laurie Hernandez didn't get a chance to go on bars (and therefor AA) so that Madison Kocian can get into Bars final, and Aly, Gabby and Simone to the AA.
The only thing I like about this quad's Olympic qualification procedure is that every gymnast will be able to compete AA in Qual in Tokyo.
@@cyrielle_ I like it too but that really just means that the qualifications are going to be a blood bath. Undoubtably more exciting than the finals will be.
Every gymnast or sports person works so hard to be in the final and to win a medal this rule is absolutely ridiculous how can rule can ignore the hard work put into by an athlete. Rules must be there to make the sport clean and to do proper justice. While this rule is definitely doing the injustice. And should be removed.
I don’t like the rule. Wouldn’t you want to compete to see who is the best? It’s not really a fair representation of who wins then because their might be people from other countries that would’ve won too. I understand why they did it and it makes sense but so many gymnasts work their whole lives for winning and then get affected by this rule
This rule surely hurts, but it's as unfair, as having only 3 medals, not 4 or 5. And there have been A LOT of people in history crying after ending up 4th. There are similar rules in other sports as well. If there weren't, it would be pointless for most to even try competing. So it has to be a compromise. Even with such rules, it's nearly impossible for others to win gold and sometimes silver in some sports dominated by single country. First two places are always won by: rhythmic gymnastics - russia, archery - south korea, table tennis - china, women's artistic gymnastics - you know who. If number of participants wasn't capped at one point or another, each of these Olympic events would look like their national championships. This rule would be pointless if athletes represented just themselves, not their country. But in olympics we have flags and anthems and you actually win medals for your nation.
Am I the only one that supports this rule in other sports such as open water swimming and track cycling it’s only per country I also think you’re for spectators it’s nice to have competition between different countries if you know your country is going to win either way a lot of people don’t care especially in the Olympics where a lot of people only watch that sport once every 4 years and they don’t know/ haven’t heard of the Athelstan before
I would like to see some of sort of season rankings, like we see in tennis, where gymnastics competitions results are totaled to determine a season ranking. We are accustomed to the world championships being the be-all end-all of who is best, but it’s actually just one competition (albeit the most important of the year). A season tally would (1) make all competitions during the year important; (2) reward those that compete and therefore support those competitions; (3) provide perhaps a better look at the best performers throughout the year; (4) allow more gymnasts for country to compete and get ranked, thereby bypassing some restricting selection process in their country.
Controversy ?. LOL. The idea is to to prevent worlds or Olympics to become monopolized by one dominant country. This isn’t new. There’s always a cutoff.
It's still controversial. There are people disagreeing about how much better this is compared to a free for all. It makes sense, but it's still controversial.
It gives other countries opportunities..Look at the countries that have broken through. Belgium, Switzerland, Italy, Brazil, Sweden with just one or two gymnasts..
I would question if 2-per-country is what gave those countries the opportunities. The top athletes from the countries you mentioned, except for Sweden, have all placed in the top 5 at some point in a World Championships or Olympic AA competition. (Here I'm counting Rebeca Andrade's 4th place score in 2016 qualifications) and Jonna Adlertag of Sweden has been a World Championships medalist on bars. The top athletes from these countries are giants in the sport in their own right and not because of 2-per-country.
I support the rule. It's unfair from an athlete's point of view, but on a larger scale, it surely brings diversity both in the competition and the podium, especially when the field was narrowed from 36 to 24 athletes in AA finals.
Also, everyone saying that some gymnasts are robbed of their chance, this rule has affected many gymnasts from other countries as well, especially when USA wasn't as dominant as it is now. You can't keep changing rules according to someone's changing preferences. That's hypocrisy.
but it doesn’t bring that much diversity to the podium when the top four or five countries all qualify two gymnasts to the final. and if a gymnast places third behind her teammates she should be allowed to compete for a medal.
it makes sense in event finals because it’s only a field of eight so it does bring diversity but not in a field of 24. the people who replace the top qualifiers left out due to the rule never medal or get close to medaling.
You shouldn’t punish a country for being dominant
So then the top 3 aren’t actually the top 3 in the world.... why even have the Olympics then?
Since I don't think Canada will dominate gymnastics I am all for preventing one country domination and allowing others a chance at the top. It sucks for those that get hit by this because you know they worked really hard to get there n the first place. I did check out the 2018 & 2019 women's gymnastics world championships all-around qualification results and this rule both years only affects three countries, China, Japan and the USA in 2018 and China, Russia and the USA in 2019. Currently, those countries are really the only ones with enough depth for this to affect so I can live with it. Is it a perfect system, no but it is the best compromise to prevent single country domination of the results.
jtjr26 you never know. Romania didn’t even qualify a team to the olympics and the swept the all around podium in 2000. i personally couldn’t care less because the ATHLETES worked hard for their success NOT their COUNTRY. we shouldn’t be putting down athletes just because they are from the US, Russia, Japan, or China. and im sorry but it’s not like it’s actually affecting the podium. i have yet to hear of someone who made the podium who didn’t qualify to the final initially. it think the rule can stay for event finals as it’s only 8 people so gymnasts May have a chance if others don’t hit. but in the all around the top six athletes should qualify. because honestly anything below 6th isn’t really gonna qualify. the US has had the all around champion since 2011 and 07-09 i believe. that’s because the girls worked hard for it. and you say you’re all for it now but if in 20 years canada was suddenly more dominate than the US would you say the same thing? the two per country rule doesn’t stop the dominance of the US, Russia, and China. it diversifies the field *kind of. no one who makes a final because of the rule makes podium especially in the all around. if a girl qualifies 30th and makes it in because of the rule there is no way that girl is making podium or being televised.
It's funny how sport coverage and USOPC, the US Olympic Committee, has been pushing for the 2-per-country rule for Archery and Figure Skating recently, due to S. Korea and Russia dominance; funny that nobody complains about the rule in Rhytmic Gymmastics, Tenis Table and Track & Field, but in artistic gymmastics, and specifically all-around? What a hideous crime is this rule!
I think it’s ridiculous that you can be ranked 4th best in the entire world and not even get to compete in the AA (like Jordyn) and someone who’s 30th does. It’s horrible.
cookieaddictions Gabby qualified 3rd in 2016. And she was a point and a half above the 4th place. she was more robbed than jordyn ever was
@@sambutterfield8960 that's true but she was AA in 2012 so it's harder to feel bad for her. Whereas Jordyn had a much shorter career and didn't get anywhere near the sponsorships and endorsements Gabby did. But it was unfair to Gabby too.
The Olympic Games are not only a place to throw people at a mat and let them compete with each other to see who's best, it looks like it but it's not.
They are about creating friendships amongst all nations of the world. They are about being the best YOU as an individual can possibly be and inspiring others to follow your example of hard work, determination, courage, and resilience.
If you happen to be the best of the best, like Michael, Simone, Comaneci, Bolt, etc, you WILL get a medal no matter what, but for competing and competing ONLY, each sport has its own leagues, world championships, and tournaments aside from the Olympic Games.
The Games are the way all countries have to make heroes of their own, to have figureheads on which the dreams of future generations can rest upon, it's about getting families close to sport again (at least for a couple of days or months), it's about making a compelling case against un-healthy living styles, it's about winning battles with culture and education and Olympic Values.
Of course, all of them would love to beat the very best, but what better way to start than to actually be standing there and watch them and maybe even talk to the very best, take those experiences and transform them into courage.
The connections, the stories, the statements countries make when they step up to an Olympic event are far deeper than just getting a medal. That's why the rule was implemented, to keep inspiring, to keep the spirit of Olympism alive, to make it more about the competition (way back the Olympics were purely amateur, no "professional" athletes could compete), and less about overpowering domination, again, that's for other types of competitions.
The spirit of Olympism is to achieve excellence in all ways of life through sport, it's not JUST about "who's the best swimmer, or gymnast, or runner, or pentathlete, or rider, or boxer" in the world, it's about all of us being able to have a hero that represents our community, medal or no medal around their necks.
If Jordyn Wieber wanted to be classified she just needed to be better than her teammates. You compete with your country and other countries. That improves competition 😘
But it isn’t motivating if you always perform well during qualifications but never get to compete in a All-round final because your teammates are called Nikita Nagornyy (2019 world champion) and Artur Dalaloyan (2018 world champion)
If they can have a clean sweep on an athletics podium why not others? In cycling its one per country
Is this only a thing in gymnastics? I feel like it’s a bit ridiculous.. the top best should be against the top best regardless of NOC IMO. Jamaica was able to go 1-2-3 in a track event in Tokyo and that’s fair compared to this? 🤷🏼♀️
I hate that 2-per-country rule, because of it we only ever get to see Nikita Nagornyy and Artur Dalaloyan in All-round finals (nothing against them they are outstanding gymnasts). Other countries may have one world champion but Russia has two of them so how are the others ever supposed to qualify for All-round finals? This year David Belyavski was able to win a silver medal in the All-round competition at Europes but that was only possible because Artur Dalaloyan did not compete because of a injury.
I don't mind the rule but wish the 2 athletes would be chosen during trials. A lot of other sports have similar rules of certain amount of athletes from one country can qualify. Gymnastics is the only one that I can think of where you have to battle your teammates at the Olympics for those spots.
I think the rule is dumb. Yes, the rule does make the competition more fair for other countries to place on podium. However, it causes athletes from countries like USA and Russia to get screwed over. The AA is an individual competition and has nothing to do with your country. Yes, you are representing your country, but it's not about that. It's about you as the gymnast competing against other gymnasts for an AA title. Your country has nothing to do with the competition. If that means that there are three or four gymnasts from countries like USA and Russia, and one gymnast from other countries, then that's how it will be. It's about the individual gymnast who scored high enough to compete in the AA, regardless of their country. Yes, this does mean that we might get a podium of gymnasts from one country. However, I think this will help motivate other countries and gymnasts from other countries to become better than their competition. I think having this rule allows certain countries to settle for "good enough for the AA". This rule isn't fair for countries like USA and Russia who have gymnasts like Jordyn and Gabbie who score higher in QF than gymnasts from other countries who were allowed to compete in the AA final for their country. I know that all gymnasts strive to be the best and I know other countries don't have the same resources in gymnastics as countries like USA and Russia. This is just my opinion.
I hate the rule
For me it's a love/hate for the two per country. If anything I think the 4 per team is ridiculous along with the age. Keri Strug was 14 in 92 OG! The FIG who did that was because he didn't like where the teams would give the spot to someone who could only do one event if that was the case, do 7 per team, all 7 do qualification, and in the team finals 7 up 6 count. On the 2 per country rule, the USA was also one of the countries that pushed for the rule after 2000 when Romania swept all the medals in the AA, but now that they're the powerhouse they don't like the rule. People only became outraged when Jordyn Wieber didn't compete but I will explain in the paragraph below. The purpose was to give other countries who aren't powerhouses in the sport a chance at the medals. So that means Sanne Wevers wouldn't have gotten a chance, neither would have Dipa Krakamar in 2016. For those who don't follow gymnastics, when FIG did the 2 per country rule it was taken into consideration back when USSR (Not just Russia the USSR was a bunch of countries together Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Uzbekistan ETC) and Romania dominated the sport. Also in 2000 Romania swept up all the medals in the AA. Same like in Rhythmic USSR Dominated. It was to take into consideration that other countries who don't have great training facilities aren't powerhouses like USSR was, Romania, China, USA. The USSR was a powerhouse gymnastics factory, always creating. After the dissolution of the USSR Romania dominated for a while before they kind of fell off the gymnastics world. So instead of competing against one huge powerhouse, it was now more countries to compete against (Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Russia, Lithuania, Georgia, Latvia, etc). From 1992 United Team, Boginskya represented Belarus, Chusovitna represented Uzbekistan, Podkopayava represented Ukraine at the 1996 games when USSR collapsed.
In regards to Jordyn Wieber, in sports this big your teammates are also your competition. You are all competing against each other for spots on the team and for medals. Jordyn's was overhyped by NBC as the next big thing and her coaches set her up for failure by taking her small wins for granted. In the US she was always over-scored and never made her beam connections which caused her to get hammered internationally. Even if Jordyn was in the AA she wouldn't have won gold. Jordyn was solid but she didn't have one event where she truly shined. I'm going to give examples. In 2004, Carly was descent on vault but made up for it on beam and floor. In 2008, Nastia was weak on vault but made up for it with her execution along with beam and uneven bars. Komova had higher score on bars and upgraded her beam dismount which gave her the advantage over Jordyn. Komova, Aly and Gabby all upgraded their routines for the Olympics. Jordyn didn't have one event were she really got really high scores that she shined on and she wasn't in a position like Simone where small mistakes would cost her the podium. In 2011 Worlds in the AA, Jordyn was 59.382 Komova 59.349 the win was a very small margin.
I like it. Send your best two from your country. More of a team thing yet still individual
Should be best score period. It’s not like underfunded countries have a shot at one of their gymnasts placing anyway.
I get the reasoning behind this, but I think maybe making it so the top 10 automatically make it, then after that implement the rule so that it’s fair to everyone? Just seems so unfair for someone in the top 5 to not even have a shot
We want to see the best compete against the best. They should get rid of the ridiculous rule!
I really feel like it was Russia that was the most adamant to get the 2 per country rule after 2000. They KILLED it in EF and proved they had the talent to fill the AA podium like Romania did. But it was embarrassing for them. It wouldn’t surprise me if the US pushed it a lot too, but no one really cared about US gymnastics from like 1997-2002 because they weren’t as strong as before
The rule is trash 🚮
I think they should make it depending on the score aswell. Because if the difference is over 1.0 then I don’t think it’s fare to be thrown out.
stupid rule and gymnasts should be ashamed to take those spots, you can't really you are the "third best" in the world when the third best wasn't even allowed to compete. I want to see the best fight for the titles, I find it hard to believe that these athletes appreciate their pity metals. I don't think there should be a limit at all, if a country qualifies all of their athletes to the AA, then it would make it truly a formidable competition. People and their weak notions of competition.
Some say that even if gymnasts from "small" countries are given a chance, the results will still include the same "big" countries in the podium. Well, you can always expect surprises! It's not only about the medals... We get to see very interesting routines from gymnasts from non-dominant federations such as Roxana Popa from spain, Yeo Seo-jeong from S.Korea or Alexa Moreno from Mexico. Giving these gymnasts the chance to compete at finals in a world level competition may come only once in a lifetime so it's important to reward them with this rule, even if they don't get to medal.
@QPHashSS77 Ok everyone has their opinion. Still why not give a chance to someone who may never be able to make it again
@QPHashSS77 I perfectly understood your point bro. And I implied I support it for both the AA and EFs. Sorry if I didn't make it clear.
The top scorers should advance regardless of their federation. It's not fair that a 3rd or 4th or 5th or 6th ( got the picture ? ) member of a certain team got bumped off the competition by a lower scoring gymnast from another federation. Each of the gymnasts had the same chances during qualifying rounds so why should they be punished for posting better scores just because they come from the same federation ? The 3 Romanians deserved to be on the podium because they posted the best scores.To qualify for the all around finals should be an honor in itself. If the finalists did not medal and therefore not stepped up to the podium then they did not deserve it. That should be the guiding force - to.HONOR THE BEST. This is a game of tenths or inches - anything can happen. The top qualifier may not even medal so the 3rd or 4th qualifier from the same country can move up. If the 3 best scres come from the same country after completion of the competition SO BE IT !!!. The idea of making the playing field EVEN is in itself flawed as it will just motivate the individual gymnast to JUST QUALIFY AND GO FROM THERE. It does not address the issue of the federation to " improve " its program .
i think we should let the best compete, no matter what. this includes the minimum age rule for the olympics, too. if the best in the world is an eight-year-old, why aren’t they allowed to be the best in the world if they’re training at that level anyways? i’ve never been a gymnast myself though, so i don’t have an insider perspective on these kinds of things!
i think it’s a necessary evil
I thought it was about keeping the sport the same as others. You can’t have three athletes from the same country in other sport finals.
IGF after 2000 be like: "A small country without deep pockets just swept the podium, nerf the entire sport!" It's a big club and Romania ain't in it...
I wonder if Romania's announced comeback will prompt even further restrictions. And by comeback I mean the extremely promising results of the latest Junior European Championship (December 2020). Romania would have swept again, but due to this rule some Ukrainian girl took the bronze...
I think this rule is hot trash at an elite level.
I think the Olympics should be a dog fight the end, and not give the B or C teams a pity throw. I don't want to see NCAA level gymnastics at the Olympics.
If the FIG wants to do this nonsense for Worlds or various other competitions, meh. They'd screw up a free lunch. They've made the sport almost unwatchable.
It used to the Soviet Union, Romania and a dog fight for bronze. That changed not because of this stupid rule.
If the FIG really gave a rat's ass, they would funnel more resources to developing countries for parity. They won't because they suck.
What happened to the gymnasts that qualified instead of Jordyn or Gabby? I have no idea who they are and who is to say that if they take the top gymnasts now that they will have a podium sweep. This year is going to be particularly hard especially for the US because their team is made up of 4 AA gymnasts all of whom could probably make the Olympic final. Not to mention Jade and McKayla whilst AA gymnasts they excel in the same areas as Simone so one is likely to be edged out of the finals and if they both get edged out then it was a waste of time even taking them when they could've taken someone who excelled in different areas giving the US a chance to medal on a different event rather than pin all of their hopes on 2 events. 3 Gymnasts who excel on VT vs 1 who excels of UB. I would've put a bars and beam specialist in the individual spot
Predominately this rule impacts Chinese, Russian and US female gymnasts and Chinese, Japanese and Russian male gymnasts. Is it really an issue any other nation cares about? Especially since they would be disadvantaged if the rule reverted.
Dk Adkins not necessarily. the rule doesn’t really diversify the podium. the people who end up in all around finals in place of the top qualifiers don’t medal or have a chance to. Gabby qualified in 3rd in 2016 and didn’t get to compete. jordyn qualified 4th in 2012 and didn’t get to compete. who was on the podium? both times and American was gold and in 2012 was followed by two Russians and in 2016 another American and a Russian. so other nations wouldn’t be disadvantaged. their athletes aren’t really even mentioned anyways. they mostly talk about the athletes who didn’t qualify. it makes sense kind of in event finals but makes no sense in the all around.
@@sambutterfield8960 Yes, but that was the stated goal. Interesting that it happened just as the US was beginning to insert a measure of dominance but at the time it was more likely to be Romanians who swept the podium. And I would agree that it really hasn't diversified the medals in any significant way but, then again, how many FIG rules and rule changes have accomplished the stated goal of the organization? .
I think the rule is fair if you want diversity, but they're not getting that diversity. If you look at the podium of last years it's almost always two American gymnasts and one other one, most likely Russia, Japan or China. I don't think we see a lot of diversity in this quad because the usa is so on top of it with gymnasts like Biles, Hurd and Lee. The rule should be scrapped because why are the gymnasts getting "punished" for being better than others? It would get boring watching the usa sweep the aa medals but I don't think it's a bad thing if you look at the work the gymnasts put into their training
Not for the AA any athlete that qualifies top 10 should make the final.
It’s an absolutely ridiculous rule. You say sweeping like it’s a bad thing. This does not give an advantage to some, but an unfair disadvantage to the ones who do deserve to qualify.
I completely agree with you it's ridiculous
rene ruiz your statement doesn’t make sense. For decades people have won gold from countries that couldn’t afford high tech equipment.
In other sports, sometimes you see most of the American team in the final, and sometimes you see non of them. It truly depends on how qualifications go.
If it actually did increase diversity, I wouldn't have such a problem with it. However, in 2016 the WAG athletes who benefited from 2-per-country were all from countries that had qualified full teams to the Olympics.
Not for All Around pls
The other Third Country didn't qualify to All-Around Final.
what about the russians in 2000 khorkina, Produnova, Lobazniuk and Zamolodchikova.??? lucky for Zamo, Produnova was Injured!
I think this is the only time a Russian gymnast that was replaced was actually injured lol
@@Smielyb2000 except Produnova did compete on BB final afterwards, so she wasn't too injured to compete...
I get that the ussr /Russian way ( Romania and China do this as well) is controversial, but it's also the smart way. They put the gymnast with the best shot at a medal / winning gold, rest some gymnasts somewhere so they can kill it better at their best events.
Like Komova withdrawing from fx final at Worlds 2011 so Afanasyeva could end up winning gold. Komova was clearly done after BB final and floor was her most challenging event, she had nothing to win there in 2011, whereas Afanasyeva proved herself in TF and AA.
And it's not against the rules to use this strategy.
@@cyrielle_ You right. I didn't understand why they thought Zamo had a better chance than Prod. Whatever I wished Marta used those tactics in London and Rio. 😎
@@Smielyb2000 remember too Alexandra Marinescu in Atlanta 96 Belu do the same whit Simona Amanar: Marinescu was qualified to the AA Finals and her coach put her only in BB final instead Milo and Amanar in AA because she had better chance to win a medal! it's sad for me because I really want to se more from Alexandra
@@omarlicea3518 I Marinescu was a break from the usual boring Belu gymnastics but Simona AA total in the team final was Insane. No way was Marinescu was scoring that. Grant Simona didn't in AA final but she got an AA medal. So the switch paid off. Suck because Marinescu had the best look of the team.
It must be 1 per country. This helps and encourage other contenders from non tradicional countries to participate. Not only US, Russia or China.
Like at the European games
I support it. But I wish we would go back to 3 per country top 36.
I love it. It's necessary so that we can get a diverse podium, sport and finals. If the Americans, Russians and Chinese are so great, then they should use the rule in their favor, making national selection processes more effective on medals and AA potential. May the two best per country qualify.
Is Women's Artistic Gymnastics qualified to All-Around Final?
I think is a fair rule, hard for some, but fair
Rulho M. it doesn’t diversify the podium at all
How is it fair that Aleksandr Kartsev couldn’t compete in the All-round final at this years European Championship despite ranking 3rd in Qualification?
@@SarahZi1998 If that rule were not applied, in the last world championships or Olympic Games the gymnasts of usa would have perhaps 3, 4 or more representatives leaving out the opportunity for other countries to be represented. I understand your point and it seems unfair to the one that came in third place, but in the end I think we can understand the reason for the rule.
If it was not for this rule, the USA would not have gotten so many feet in the door!
RIP jordan Wieber
Ah....makes sense
Hard but it's fair
How is it fair. It's not rewarding talent
How is it fair that Aleksandr Kartsev didn’t get to compete in the All-round final at the 2021 European Championship despite ranking 3rd in qualifications just because Nargornyy ranked 1st and Belyavski 2nd?
Best thing that ever happened. Countries like the USA and China, not so much Russia anymore, produce athletes on an industrial scale. This levels the playing field and will allow more competitors for more countries to compete at the top level.
It should be 3 per country rule and it's funny cause that rule was made cause of what happened with the romanian team in the sydney olympics and now romania won't even send a full team to the olympics
Nah this is bullshit politics.