IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpanxx/v19y2019i3p417-434.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An analysis of variations in body movement difficulty of 2016 Olympic Games rhythmic gymnast candidates

Author

Listed:
  • Ani Agopyan
  • Berfin Serdil Örs

Abstract

The aim of this study was to determine the use and the variety of body movement difficulty in the routines of individual rhythmic gymnasts aiming to compete in the 2016-Olympic Games, both those who qualified and those who did not. The research data was collected from the routines of 24 rhythmic gymnasts, from a total of 96 videos that were recorded during an Olympic qualification competition for the 34th Rhythmic Gymnastics World Championships of 2015 in Stuttgart/Germany. The gymnasts were divided into G11-15, the top 15 gymnasts, and G216-24, the remaining 9 gymnasts. The number of body movements (jumps/leaps, balances and rotations) and their comparative execution “difficulty” values were examined by quality and quantity. Penché rotation on a flat foot (79.2%), a jeté with a turn jump (66.67%) and balancing with a high back scale leg (57.29%) were the most frequently used body movements. The preferences of G1 gymnasts over G2 gymnasts for different types of static and dynamic difficulties across different movements even where there was not a wide variety. Rhythmic gymnasts at different performance levels generally tend to use the same body movement difficulties for all of their routines and this clearly indicates a lack of body difficulty variation.

Suggested Citation

  • Ani Agopyan & Berfin Serdil Örs, 2019. "An analysis of variations in body movement difficulty of 2016 Olympic Games rhythmic gymnast candidates," International Journal of Performance Analysis in Sport, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(3), pages 417-434, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:417-434
    DOI: 10.1080/24748668.2019.1617017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/24748668.2019.1617017
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/24748668.2019.1617017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rpanxx:v:19:y:2019:i:3:p:417-434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RPAN20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.