Abstract
This study aims to analyze the contribution of each apparatus' score component to the overall score and to identify the key performance indicators that distinguish medalists from non-medalists among the 10 finalists in rhythmic gymnastics at the 2020 Olympic Games, Tokyo. Medalists (n=3) and non-medalists (n=7) were separated in the sample. Each apparatus (hoop/ball/clubs/ribbon) had seven components [body difficulty (DB), apparatus difficulty (DA), D total, artistic execution (EA), execution technical (ET), E total, total score (TS) of apparatus, and a total final score (TFS-sum of four apparatus scores)]. A total of 350 scores were analyzed. The Mann–Whitney U tests and Cohen's d effect size (ES) calculation were used to calculate differences. The following variables were determined to differentiate the TFS of the medalist and the non-medalist gymnasts: the large effect with Ball-DA/D total/EA/E total/TS (ES=1.550–1.879), Clubs-DA/D total/EA/TS (ES=0.316–2.080), Hoop-DA/D total/TS (ES=1.897–2.316), Ribbon-EA (ES=1.879), and with a low-effect Clubs-AD(ES=0.316) components. Hoop-DA and Hoop-D-TS (ES=2.316, p< 0.05) have the greatest impact, while all DB and ET scores (p>0.05) have no effect on TFS. The impact of apparatus-specific score components on Olympic medal outcomes varies significantly. Notably, difficulty scores (both total and apparatus-specific) and artistic scores emerged as key performance indicators for achieving high total scores and securing a medal in rhythmic gymnastics at the Olympic Games. Coaches should prioritize choreography planning aimed at enhancing difficulty, particularly the apparatus difficulty score, while also focusing on enhancing artistic quality through flawless execution of routines by the gymnasts.
Subject
Education,Orthopedics and Sports Medicine,Physical Therapy, Sports Therapy and Rehabilitation
Reference34 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. (2021). An analysis of movements with or without back bend of the trunk or large hip extension in 1st Juniors’ Rhythmic Gymnastics World Championship-2019. Is there injury risk for gymnasts?. International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, 21(1), 108-125. https://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2020.1850038
3. 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. tps://doi.org/10.1080/24748668.2019.1617017
4. Ávila-Carvalho, L., Palomero, M. L., & Lebre, E. (2010). Apparatus difficulty in groups routines of elite rhythmic gymnastics at the Portimão 2009 World Cup Series. Science of Gymnastics Journal, 2, 29-42.
5. Avila-Carvalho, L., Palomera, M. da L., Klentrou, P., & Lebre, E. (2012). Analysis of the technical content of elite rhythmic gymnastics group routines. The Open Sports Sciences Journal, 5(1), 146–153.