Abstract
Analyses of the development trends in rhythmic gymnastics have so far provided a lot of useful information to sports experts, which as important guidelines in the training process can significantly contribute to the development of the athletes' competitive abilities. The aim of this paper was to determine the impact of different routine components on the competitive performance of gymnasts in the rhythmic gymnastics individual competition program. In accordance with the aim of the paper, the competition routines performed by the participants in the 37th and 38th World Championships were analyzed i.e., a total of 1044 and 261 routines with each type of apparatus (hoop, ball, clubs and ribbon). For the purpose of the analysis, official data on the results achieved in these competitions were used, and four variables were examined, pertaining to the scores for specific routine components (body difficulty, apparatus difficulty, routine artistic value and quality of execution). The relation between individual routine components and the ranking achieved was assessed by the Spearman's test, while the application of linear regression analysis determined the extent to which individual routine components were predictors of the achieved rankings. The results of the analysis of all routines, regardless of the type of apparatus used, have shown the highest correlation between the score for the technical quality of execution and the achieved ranking, while the lowest correlation was found between the score for the apparatus difficulty and the achieved ranking. However, there are significant differences in terms of the impact of different routine components on competitive performance when the routines with different types of apparatus were observed separately. Regarding the routines of gymnasts at the top level of competition, precision and accuracy in execution generally have the greatest influence on performance, while depending on the type of apparatus used, performance is differently conditioned by the quality of execution of other components of the routine.
Publisher
Centre for Evaluation in Education and Science (CEON/CEES)
Reference23 articles.
1. Agopyan, A. (2014). Analysis of body movement difficulties of individual elite rhythmic gymnasts at London 2012 Olympic Games Finals. Journal of Scientific Research, 19(12), 1554-1565;
2. Agopyan, A., & Örs, B. S. (2019). An analysis of variations in body movement difficulty of 2016 Olympic Games rhythmic gymnast candidates. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 19(3), 417-434;
3. Ávila-Carvalho, L., Klentrou, P., Palomero, M., & Levre, E. (2012). Analysis of the technical content of elite rhythmic gymnastics group routines. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1), 146-153;
4. Batista, A., Garganta, R., & Ávila-Carvalho, L. (2017). Dance steps, dynamic elements with rotation and throw and mastery elements in rhythmic gymnastics routines. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 9(2), 177 - 189;
5. Chiriac, Ș., Teodorescu, S., & Bota, A. (2019). Body difficulties in junior rhythmic gymnastics according to the FIG code of points. Physical Education, Sport and Kinetotherapy Journal, (Supplementary Issue of Discobolul), 48-55;