The Two-Per-Country Rule: A 1985 Retrospective Part One
This summer in London, the two-per-country rule was once again questioned when reigning World AA Champion Jordyn Wieber was denied a spot in the Olympic AA because two of her teammates placed ahead of her. Even though she qualified fourth, she was bumped out of a spot, while the twenty-eighth qualified gymnast got in the competition.
Other gymnasts who suffered the same fate as Wieber were Anastasia Grishina (RUS, qualified 12th), Jennifer Pinches (GBR, qualified 21st); and Yao Jinnan (CHN, qualified 22nd, 2011 World AA bronze medalist).
After Wieber failed to qualify (a first for a reigning world champion who competed at the Olympics), shouts of unfairness and despair flooded the gymternet. Even four-year fans felt the harshness of the rule: how could it so negatively affect a gymnast they had been prompted to root for, one who didn’t have that major mistake?
Among the naysayers’ arguments was that they would rather see the third best American than the best gymnast from Poland. Also, why do we only have 24 gymnasts in the AA, when prior to 2001, we had 36 gymnasts? Immediately, fans called for the FIG to change the rule for future competitions (some people even called for it to be changed in time for the London AA final!) A flurry of suggestions sprung forth to make the qualification more “fair.”
Through it all, my heart broke for Jordyn, and I was so impressed with how she conducted herself in interviews and continued to support her team, both as a competitor in team finals and then as a spectator during what many thought was her competition to win.
But I also felt for Aly Raisman, who was often vilified for “taking” Jordyn’s spot (when in reality Aly was the first qualified American; Gabby Douglas took the second spot from Jordyn.) If Aly had finished behind her two teammates, would there still be such an outcry? What if Grishina placed ahead of Mustafina—does this scenario affect our sense of fairness?
The rules are well established ahead of time (despite the commentary that these were “new” rules; in reality, this generation of gymnasts –minus Chusovitina and a few others—always competed under these rules). Watching the competition in London brought me back to my “first” Olympics—Barcelona 1992. Watching Kim Zmeskal and Kerri Strug battle for the third spot on the American team was grueling. While Kim was hands down my favorite gymnast, I understood that she should only get to compete if she fairly qualified.
Of course, on the other side of the arena, the “Unified Team” (made up of the defunct Soviet Union) made sure that their top three were in the AA no matter what. After Tatiana Gutsu fell off beam in team optionals, leaving her fourth on her team, the coaches informed third-qualified Roza Galiyeva that she had a knee injury, thus allowing Gutsu back in the competition. She ended up winning the AA Olympic gold.
At this time, there was a large protest of unfair play (though the facts of Galiyeva’s “injury” were not disclosed until well after the competition.) On one side, fans were upset that Gutsu was allowed in—the point of the top 3 rule was so that dominant countries like the former USSR wouldn’t, well, dominate the competitions. If the European Champion failed to qualify, so be it—her own team beat her, the rest of the world shouldn’t have to. The other side felt it was unfair that Gutsu was even disqualified to begin with—the fourth best gymnast from the Unified Team still qualified twenty-four spots ahead of the first qualified Australian (Lisa Read.)
In an attempt at fairness and parity, the FIG has put these rules in place so that competitions are not dominated by one country, or a country’s name. They are also in place so that gymnasts from less-dominant countries can be given moments to shine. After the top Australian AA was 19th in 1992, few thought an Australian would finish in the top 10 in the AA by 2000 (Lisa Skinner, 8th.)
Despite these good intentions, and despite the successes of trail-blazing gymnasts that I am thrilled to celebrate (Verona van de Leur, Daiane dos Santos, Allana Slater, Elyse Hopfner-Hibbs, Elizabeth Tweddle, etc.), I understand the frustration of the London Summer Games. Truth is, no matter what amazing “solutions” we come up with, there will always be scenarios where the rules do not work to our sense of fairness or what is right. Barcelona 1992 is a prime example, but lesser discussed is the 1985 World Championships, wherein not one but two gymnasts replaced their own teammates who qualified ahead of them…..
Read the rest of the story in Part Two
Article: Kristen Ras
Photo: Jordyn Wieber
Join in the conversation on Facebook on The Couch Gymnast’s News Page.
Join the TCG Twitter
6 Comments
JAS4
It wouldn’t fix everything but I think it would be better if they are doing a top 24 then let the top 16 (no matter how many from each country) in qualifying scores move on to the AA and then the final 8 could be the top 8 from countries who don’t already have a gymnast in the top 16 that way you get the best gymnast get their opportunity as well as giving gymnast from “non-powerhouse” countries their chance to shine as well or if they were to go back to 36 in the AA then have the top qualifying 24 and then 12 from countries who don’t already have a gymnast in the top 24 in the AA final
03 Dec 2012 06:12 am (@@gymnasticsfan4)
AllHailQMustafina
Great article!
But…nothing about stuttgart?
03 Dec 2012 07:12 am (@Twitter)
Inks
Achieving long-term global growth and greater parity within gymnastics are hugely significant objectives for the FIG, which have underpinned almost all of the major format changes introduced since 1996. It’s an even stronger driver than improving TV appeal. First, it’s an important commercial and ‘moral’ objective in and of itself. But it’s also a major factor in terms of the ‘gymnastics narrative’ to take to the market as well as in terms of the IOC and its tiered-ranking of Olympic sports, which determines how big a share each one gets of the TV money.
Whatever you think of the policy, it’s hard to argue that it isn’t working overall, although it has to be said that all but one of the women’s medals in London went to the usual suspects….
03 Dec 2012 08:12 am (@Twitter)
Louise Anderson
The argument that I’ve heard about unfairness of the 2 per country rule that I disagree with is that the competition is about the best in the world. Because that’s not true. The Olympics is about the best in many countries in the world coming together to compete against each other. That’s what the Olympics is about in EVERY sport. In EVERY sport, there are fabulous athletes left out of the games b/c it’s not about the best in the world. If it was about that, there would be competitions made up only of people from one country. The Olympics is to celebrate athletes and their skills from as many countries as possible. I’m not saying it isn’t heartbreaking for those on the bubble – I’m just saying that in many of these gymnastics arguments, people are missing the point of the Olympics.
04 Dec 2012 03:12 am (@Twitter)
admin
I think you make a good point there- that is behind most Olympic selection process- only it usually happens before athletes even get to the Games.
04 Dec 2012 06:12 am
Holly
I don't know if you can refer to Jordyn Wieber as being "on the bubble." She was 4th in qualifications, which proved that she was perfectly capable of contending for a medal had she been allowed to advance. I understand the argument for celebrating as many athletes from as many countries as possible, but to have the 4th place qualifier be excluded from a field of 24 competitors simply because of the country she is competing for - surely there must be a better compromise. The athletes from less dominant countries did get a chance to compete in qualifications, if they didn't advance based on having one of the top 24 scores, they shouldn't get to take the spot of a far better gymnast. I personally would have much rather seen Jordyn Wieber compete in the all around final than an athlete who advanced into the 24th position for the sake of diversity, whose only chance of landing on the podium was if 21 other contestants got food poisoning.
06 Dec 2012 11:12 pm (@Twitter)