Two-per-country Rule: Another View
There has been much debate over the last few days about Jordyn Wieber’s failure to qualify for the All-Around finals. This is all somewhat baffling to me, someone who lives in a country which has achieved respectful results in gymnastics after the two-per-country rule was applied. It is a pity that people from other countries can not really fully understand and experience the popularity of gymnastics in Brazil and see how the development of the sport helped changing so many lifes. Brazil has never won a medal in gymnastics at the Olympic Games. Still, a great deal of people love gymnastics and there are some very passionate fans over here.
Regarding Jordyn Wieber’s situation, the reason for so much distress is that people believe she should be awarded the right to compete for a medal because she is one of the most talented and powerful gymnasts in the world (which I agree). Therefore, people claim that the two-per-country rule must be changed for a three-per-country rule. There is a very important point no one is considering, though: What about the other countries?
If the three-per-country rule was to be applied in London, France’s Aurelie Malaussena and Poland’s Martha Pihan-Kulesza would be left out of the finals. Both gymnasts were the only female gymnasts from their countries to qualify for a final in London, the all-around final. If the rule was to be applied, France and Poland would not be represented in the finals whatsoever. Some could argue that this could be remedied by increasing the number of spots in the final, to 32. The competition is already chaotic with 24 gymnasts; 32 would be an excessive number and spectators would feel at loss about who to follow (and harder for the TV channels to package- part of the reason it was reduced, I would bet ed.).
Now, imagine what it means for gymnastics to have two more countries supporting their athletes, cheering for them. There is a relatively large number athletes from non-powerhouse gymnastics countries reaching the finals in London, both male and female gymnasts, who come from countries like Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Argentina, Puerto Rico, Mexico and Chile. Among all those countries, only one athlete from Puerto Rico managed to win a bronze medal at the 1996 World Championships. No athletes from the other aforementioned countries ever earned a medal in Artistic Gymnastics at World Championships or the Olympic Games.
The two-per-country rules mean that, in theory, a bigger number of countries will have the opportunity to be represented in the finals. Gymnastics, like every other sport, has a clear and well-defined set of rules. By these rules, the USA has two shots at gold in the All-Around competition with Alexandra Raisman and Gabrielle Douglas. Wieber played by these very rules and rightfully accepted the results. All the other athletes played by the very same rules and accepted their fates as well. Wieber still has a chance to earn gold with the US team, and what a wonderful achievement that would be. The glory of earning a medal, any medal, of any color, should be enough for an athlete to be sure that he or she made his or her nation proud. I am sure Wieber made her nation proud with her performances, and will show the same dedication in Team finals. By these rules, she could become an Olympic Champion with the US team, and this should not be considered an easy feat, at all.
Brazilian women failed to reach Team Finals at the London Olympics, finishing 12th overall. I can assure you we are very proud of our girls for reaching this far. The spirit of the sport is in the competition itself. It would be wrong for any Brazilian to contest the rules and demand that all twelve teams reach the finals, just because the girls finished last. They played by the rules and accepted their fate, and it made us, Brazilians, proud of them. I really hope that Americans are proud of Jordyn Wieber. She played by the rules and supported her best-positioned teammates. We should all take a hint from her elegant actions instead of blindly demanding a change in the rules, disregarding other countries that could be affected by this change, and going against the whole Olympic spirit.
Article: Thiago Simoes
Join in the conversation on Facebook on The Couch Gymnast’s News Page.
Join the TCG Twitter
30 Comments
SixFeetBelow
Nothing helps more than funding and attention. That’s IT. That’s the magical formula.
Two per country and twenty-four total is no different, mathematically, than three per country and thirty-six total.
01 Aug 2012 09:08 am (@Twitter)
Charity
Don’t hate me for saying this but Brazil: I honestly don’t feel sorry for you.
I think that would make your odds higher.
Should have brought Jade Barbosa in
I am also from a small country, the Netherlands, and in my opinion the AA final should be available for the best 24. (Or maybe the best 10 and then go on to the 2 per country rule)
Because I think a Olympics Finals should inculde the best gymnasts.
The best against the best matter what country you are from.
P.S. Sorry for my bad English
01 Aug 2012 10:08 am (@Twitter)
Anne
I Dont think people are “blindly demanding a change in the rules”… it is somethnig that has been talked about for years… I completely agree with the idea of having as many countries represented as possible… but what happened to Jordyn is terrible and it has been terrible for other athletes in the past as well… the rule should be revisited, to modernised it with the reality of today… something like top eight qualify, and then, 2 per country… in the final tomorow, I feel like some gymnasts will be missing, yes, Jordyn, but also Yao Jinnan, Anastasia Grishina, and even Jenni Pinches… but the rules are the rules and thats it for these games… lets see what the next quadrennium brings…
01 Aug 2012 10:08 am (@Twitter)
Nancy
Thank you for this perspective; it was one that I was asking for. It has been a long time since the USA was in this position – sort of outside looking in. If you really believe having an athlete in the Olympic AA competition will grow sport in some countries, then that’s a good thing. (In these economic days, I have reservations.)
While much attention is focused on Jordyn Wieber missing out, there are still many of us who are not really on this rule because of her specifically. I don’t want a Wieber exemption, I want Wieber and Grishina both in the meet. I want the best going against the best. I don’t want the rules of the meet to be written by television companies who won’t even show me the whole meet.
Thanks again for the article.
01 Aug 2012 01:08 pm (@Twitter)
Lizzy
Or just make another meet, that IS a meritocracy. I think that gymnastics fans worldwise ARE interested in seeing the best gymnastics being done. If being Olympic champion doesn’t mean you earned that by competing against the best, but against the diverse, then let’s have another meet that you do win by competing against the best. The purity of this resulting prestige, I would think, would be something that even the gymnasts themselves would want.
01 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)
Meredith
I think most people are lashing out at this two-person rule purely because of the gymnast left behind. If Aly Raisman had been third among her teammates? Not a chance the media would have latched onto that story. But because Jordyn Wieber is one the U.S. team’s gymnastics darlings, people automatically think it’s “unfair” that she didn’t make it to the AA. Is it unfortunate? Sure. Jordyn’s trained her whole life to make it to the Olympics. Is it unfair? No. Not according to the rules set forth. Douglas and Raisman beat Wieber fair and square, and they deserve to be in the AA competition. Wieber faltered and did not perform as well as her teammates, so she does not deserve a spot. It’s that simple. She shouldn’t get an automatic pass because she’s the world champion. That has happened too often in gymnastics history, and it hurts the gymnasts who worked hard to have their AA shot (here’s looking at you, Roza Galiyeva) and had it taken away.
01 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)
Kat
I agree.
01 Aug 2012 09:08 pm (@Twitter)
Leigh
I totally disagree. This is a REALLY weak argument. And by the way, I’m not excited at all to see Poland’s Martha Pihan-Kulesza in the all around final. She actually placed 26th and I’d much rather watch Wieber and Grishina instead of this girl who averaged 13.59.
Not to be rude, but it doesn’t matter at all how popular a sport is in your country. If you’re not good enough to qualify then that should be the final word. This isn’t about everyone being represented, it’s about having the best athletes in the world compete in the finals and the very best go for the medals.
The AA final should include the best 24 gymnasts in the world based on qualifying scores.
01 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)
Nik
Maybe you're not excited because you're not Polish? In the men an Aussie scraped in because of the two per country rule and finished 19th. The best an Aussie man has finished in history. A quote from him: "I really wanted to represent my teammates well and hopefully get good recognition for the improving men's team back home." - Josh Jefferis.
Get recognition for the sport back home by making the finals. That is key. I don't know your nationality but I woudl assume it isn't Polish because I think the Polish followers of gymnastics would be proud of Marta. Similar circumstances have been seen in rowing (google rowing rowing hammadou) where a super slow perfomance has spurred a nation to think strongly about investing in the sport.
I have no solution for this. Maybe change world championships so that the AA is three per country and 32 through to final or something? The aim of the world championships is to find the champion of the world, the aims of the Olympics Games (note: Games, not Championships) differ and include philosophies on international collaboration and good will.
01 Aug 2012 11:08 pm (@Twitter)
Allison
The all around gymnasts should be the top 24 in the world period. Its about finding out who is the best gymnast in the world thus it should be the top gymnasts who get to perform. I think the giving other countries opportunities is dumb because of the fact that because of that rule…all of the best gymnasts in the world will not be competing in the All-Around. This is the olympic games. It should be the best of the best. The American earned their reputation as the best and then get denied the right to defend it because someone who came in 24th gets their spot in the all around.
01 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)
Name
36 and 3 per country used to be the standard. Those of us who remembered those days are still a bit baffled by the need to reduce. It was no more or less chaotic, and there was better overall representation. I miss the idea of a medal sweep from any country… how exciting! I hate that the sport has effectively enacted affirmative action for less talented gymnasts.
01 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@Twitter)
Mina
Absolutely agreed with this point. I railed against the reduction from 36/3 to 24/2 in 2004. Not only does it hamper the possibility of a sweep of the podium, but it means less gymnasts from anywhere get to compete. And, given the numbers cited by Kim on this website, the reduction and the 2 per country rule hasn't changed a thing for gymnasts who hail from countries that do not qualify a full team.
For me, this isn't just about Jordyn. I love Jo as a gymnast and think that there were some awfully strange applications of judging regarding her routines at this Olympics. Beside that point, however, I hope that the incredibly mature, sweet 17 year old decides to continue on to 2016 where the all-around field will hopefully be 36 gymnasts and 3 per country. Gymnastics, particularly women's gymnastics, is one of the premier sports of the Olympics and it should get the extra time for an additional 12 gymnasts in the all-around.
02 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)
Laura Marcella
You make a terrific point. I still think whoever qualifies top 24, regardless of how many per country, should get to compete. It doesn’t seem right to win in a field that doesn’t contain the very best in attendance at the Games because of such a rule. However, I see your point, and it is fantastic to see various countries represented in the finals.
Though not quite the same without the 2011 World All-Around Champion–we’ll always be wondering what could’ve been–it’s still going to be a spectacular Olympic AA final!
And yes, USA is super proud of Jordyn Wieber! She’s still all over the primetime coverage here in the States. She was a rock in team finals, and she’ll be awesome in floor finals. In fact, I think she’s even more famous now because of the unfairness of it all than she would’ve been if she’d qualified!
01 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@LauraMarcella)
Gymfan
I don’t see how allowing Malaussena and Pihan-Kulesza (who qualified with 54.3 range AA scores- and who will only round out the bottom of the competition as total ‘also rans’) at the expense of such an exquisitely talented gymnast can honestly be considered ‘the olympic spirit’.
To me that’s the absolute opposite- this is ludicrous tokenism that achieves nothing other than dragging the overall quality of the meet down. The Olympics should celebrate the finest talent and athleticism- something that Wieber’s stuck double double captures that more than Pihan-Kulesza’s 5.0 D vault.
01 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@Twitter)
Ques
People will be proud of anyone who competes in the Olympic, not matter which prize.
But is it fair for a talented athlete who prepared a lot, put one’s soul in it, and performed with high quality to be blocked by her own teammates instead of a better competitor?
01 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@Twitter)
Gustavo
While I see your point, and I am Brazilian, I don’t think it’s strong enough to allow for Jordyn WIeber, who — I’m sorry — certainly worked harder than any Brazilian and achieved 4th all-around, to be deprived from her most earned spot in the final just because she happened to be born in a country that has structure to place 3 in the top 4 — it was she who put in the effort; it’s not like everyone born in the US is automatically a Jordyn Wieber.
To be sure, Malaussena and Pihan-Kulesza would certainly not cry — in fact would probably not even be surprised — if they hadn’t qualified for the final, because they know they are not as well-prepared as Jordyn. They would resign because they know it’s only fair. Of course Jordyn here can be replaced by many other gymnasts – Grishina, for instance.
And Jade would have qualified top 24.
01 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@Twitter)
Lyn G
Although I agree with much of your commentary, arguing that 24 gymnasts is “too chaotic” and therefore 32 would be impossible is a rather ridiculous argument.
For DECADES, everyone coped with 36 gymnasts in AA finals, not 24 or 32. No one got dizzy and fell over from confusion.
In finals for AA
1972: 36 women (6 per country)
1976: 36 women (3 per country)
1980: 36 (3 per country)
1984: 36 (3 per country)
1988: 36 (3 per country)
1992: 36 (3 per country)
1996: 36 (3 per country)
2000: 36 (3 per country)
It was only in Athens that they began this nonsense of 24 in finals and 2 er country.
(Back in 1964 and 1968, there were no qualifying rounds all the competitors competed for the AA. More than 80 of them!!)
01 Aug 2012 04:08 pm (@Twitter)
Kathryn Meyer
You seem to be forgetting that the Olympics is first and foremost an athletic competition. Diplomacy comes in with the idea that the athletes are there to compete and not make war and to be exposed to each other as people to help bridge cultural differences. But the 2 per country rule diminished the athletic purpose of the competition and means that whoever wins the All-Around isn’t perhaps the best, simply the best out of that group. To use Jordyn as the example, whoever does win this year won’t be able to say that they beat last year’s World Champion. I think that diplomacy already has a place at the Olympics and should be encouraged by letting the girls mingle more often, but let’s get back to gymnastics and really celebrate what the best in the world can do.
01 Aug 2012 08:08 pm (@Twitter)
becca
Whoever wins can say they either topped Jordyn in qualifications so yes in that case Komova, Aly, Douglas did beat Jordyn. Or if Mustafina wins she cay say she beat the girls who beat Jordyn. At the end of the day tons of sports have qualifications where heck some are harder than others. Jordyn couldn't under pressure beat Douglas, Aly assume she'd do it here? She actually in Team Finals yet again all three of her scores were the third lowest on the team each time...
It sucks for Wieber and yes she could have medaled but she'd need mistakes from both Komova and Douglas to do so.
02 Aug 2012 03:08 am (@Twitter)
kendo
The FIG should have realized the 2 per country rule would become even more ridiculous when they reduced the team size to 5 members. Fewer members = stronger AA athletes in the competition.
And while I absolutely love seeing a wide range of countries represented, that’s why I watch the qualifications– where everyone at the Olympics can compete. The finals should be the best of the best, no matter where they are from.
01 Aug 2012 09:08 pm (@Twitter)
charlie
THANK YOU !!!!!!! this is exactly what i wanted to see i completely agree with you!
02 Aug 2012 06:08 am (@Twitter)
Jayd
” I don’t want the rules of the meet to be written by television companies who won’t even show me the whole meet.”
This comment from Nancy resounded the most with me. I suppose I have a slightly different perspective than some. I’m Australian and not silly enough to waste my money on Foxtel, which means that unless I do slightly dodgy things in order to access it on the internet, I am stuck with the patchy, “oh-look-there’s-a-pause-in-the-swimming-let’s-throw-in-a-routine-or-two” coverage Channel 9 provides us with. I certainly don’t get to see all 24 gymnasts on each apparatus, so I don’t see the big deal about increasing the number to 36. In fact, wouldn’t the routines of the more highly-placed gymnasts be more spread out over each rotation, theoretically allowing the TV cameras to capture more of them? Perhaps that’s wishful thinking.
TV coverage aside, I long for a return to the 36 number, just as I want an increase to team sizes. Is there really that much of a difference between 3 and 4? 3 per apparatus is barely a team. Especially when you consider the rise of the specialists – this is allowing the smaller countries and those not as well-known for gymnastics to get a look in. Well, it would, except that team sizes are so small that it becomes very very difficult to include gymnasts who only compete one or two apparatus. I’m sure even Brazil would be able to field 1 more gymnast for the team finals.
Hopefully what happened to Jordyn (and Grishina) will prompt a rethink of team sizes and the 2 per country rule.
02 Aug 2012 11:08 am (@Twitter)
Carla
I think the 2 per country rule makes sense. In all the other sports a country can field a limited number of competitors in each event (one soccer team, or 3 runners), and these athletes are chosen at the national level before the Olympics starts. It just so happened that in gymnastics, the procedure is a bit different because there is a “final” qualification stage during the Olympics before they implement the limiting (2 per country) rule. Also team qualifications are done together with individual qualifications, so a country who is fielding a team have more athletes who can try to qualify for the individual events.
Think of an alternate scenario where individual selections are done nationally, separate from the team selection. In that case, a country can send a team, and then send specialists for each individual event who are not necessarily part of the team. Would this be better that the current setup? I don’t know. But limiting the number of athletes per country per event is a part of the Olympics.
02 Aug 2012 11:08 am (@Twitter)
Diane Lee
First I love all the comments.. I LOVE that this is being brought up. It should have been talked about a long time ago. And I dont agree that it is only because of Jordyn, but is it is then GREAT. Maybe this is why this has happened because it has gotten eveyone attention. It is a rule that along with other rules that the FIG changed I NEVER understood! I really done even think that Bruno LIKES gymnastics. He changes have really damage this sport and again just doesnt make sense. HE is the one that needs to change. I just hope that all this media attention does change this stupid rule not to mention others. Look in 2008 when Nastia and He tied and they both didnt win eveyone thought that was crasy. NOW that has chaned this year. It should have changed, just like the 2 per country rule. It SHOULD be the best of the best. Bruno is up for re-election this year, I think? How can “we” the fans get rid of him? Please write about that…
02 Aug 2012 03:08 pm (@Twitter)
Roger Davis
So is the Olympics supposed to be a social program/charity event, or is it supposed to be an athletic competition? The gymnasts who compete at the top elite/Olympic level of their sport, who dedicate their lives training to compete in the Olympics since childhood, are not competing for “international goodwill” they are competing to be the Olympic champion – to be the best in the sport.
Jordyn trained most of her life as a gymnast, working hard and dreaming of one day being the Olympic champion. She earned the 4th best score of all the athletes during the qualifications. That is an amazing accomplishment. But no – she doesn’t get to compete in the AA finals – her country was too successful.
The two per country rule means the gymnastics program in a country can be successful, but not too successful.
The person who commented that making the finals was key to increasing recognition for the sport – that is a bogus argument. If the only way your country qualifies for the final is because of charity – because it was a gift, not because you earned it – why should you be proud of that? Your country would probably get more interested in the sport if your athletes earned their way into the finals through legitimate means.
03 Aug 2012 03:08 am (@Twitter)
Christian
How come this article doesn’t appear on the front page?
All this ‘the AA should be the top 24 in the world!!!’ business is annoying me. It’s not the 2-per-country rule that’s making that impossible, it’s the fact that teams exist at all. Sabrina Vega wouldn’t have made a six or even a seven-person US Team, but she’s probably one of the top 24 Senior AA-ers in the world. Lexie Priessman, were she to compete with seniors, probably would as well. If we genuinely had the top 24 all-around gymnasts in the world, there would be literally no-one from outside the top 4 countries … and how boring is that?
Take the best university in the world – normally you can only get in if you have amazing exam scores. BUT, if you went to a really bad school and managed to achieve despite that handicap, you might be chosen above someone with better scores because it’s recognised that yours is the more impressive achievement. Marta Pihan, I salute you!
03 Aug 2012 12:08 pm (@Twitter)
Christian
p.s. Just watched Ethiopia and Kenya utterly DOMINATE the women's 10,000m and thought to myself: if athletics didn't have a 3-per-country rule for these races, USA long-distance runners wouldn't even be at the Olympics.
03 Aug 2012 09:08 pm (@Twitter)
Kathryn Murray
Surely there is a middle ground between the best & inclusivity? Perhaps the #1 athlete from EACH country could go and then take the rest numerically wherever they fell?
03 Aug 2012 05:08 pm (@Twitter)
Maggie
I’m from Poland and I am totally not excited about Marta Pihan-Kulesza. I consider the rule stupid, either you’re good and you qualify for the final or you shouldn’t be there. How fair is that Marta is in the final while Grishina and Wieber aren’t? I could have easily predict Marta’s result in the final: somewhere close to the end. It won’t change in the slightest the popularity of this sport in Poland nor give the gymnastics more funds. There are simply no gymnastics’ tradition in Poland and it won’t ever be a popular sport. Every Pole knows Nadia Comaneci and that’s it. Even though we had an olympics champion in men’s vault (Blanik), even thoug we had and have some good rythmic gymnasts (Mitrosz right now). So, as much as I am happy for Gabby, it would be more fair to have the best of best in the final, not some of the best and some who were there because of some strange, completely arbitrary rule…
04 Aug 2012 09:08 pm (@Twitter)
Logic
Consider this: 3 Jamaicans just swept the 200m podium.
Which means three from that country qualified for the final.
At the very least, the Olympics needs to make this standard across events.
Either they decide that they want to see more countries on the podium and go for a two-per-country rule, or they decide that a podium sweep should be made possible and allow three-per-country.
It seems unfair that three athletes can qualify for a final in one event but not another. It also seems rather arbitrary at that.
10 Aug 2012 02:08 pm (@Twitter)