de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                17                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
WOMEN’S ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS ROUTINE 
COMPOSITION AT RIO 2016 OLYMPIC GAMES: A 
TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF BALANCE BEAM AND FLOOR 
EXERCISE ROUTINES 
 
 
Mateus Henrique de Oliveira¹, Leticia Bartholomeu de Queiroz Lima² and 
Andrize Ramires Costa³  
 
¹ School of Physical Education, UNICAMP; Brasil 
² Univerity Center Hermínio Ometto – UNIARARAS; Brasil 
³ Federal University of Pelotas, UFPel, Brasil 
 
Original article                                                                              DOI:10.52165/sgj.14.1.17-28 
Abstract 
Artistic gymnastics is a sport comprising a variety of movements performed on apparatus, 
connected by the art of movement. The Code of Points is a document that brings together all 
the rules of this sport; it guides the work of coaches and gymnasts, helping to compose the 
routines presented in competitions. This study focuses on women's artistic gymnastics and the 
implementation of its rules, established by the Code of Points 2013-2016. It aims to analyze 
the elements that composed the gymnasts' routines during the last Olympic Games (Rio 2016) 
and identify the possible technical relations between the composition of the balance beam and 
the floor exercises in line with the current Code. For this purpose, we carried out a video 
analysis of 82 balance beam routines and 82 floor exercise routines, in total 164 routines 
performed by athletes competing in women's artistic gymnastics at the Rio 2016 Olympic 
Games qualifying competition. We observed that the Code of Points is still little explored, and 
gymnasts use only a few of the elements available. In this sense, the International Gymnastics 
Federation and, more specifically, the Code of Points, which regulates the sport, should 
devise strategies for better usage of the elements available within the stipulated rules. 
 
Keyswords: Routine composition, Code of Points, Olympic Games.
 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
Artistic gymnastics (AG) is a sport 
formed by a variety of movements 
performed on apparatus with different 
motor requirements, and according to 
Arkhaev & Suchlin (2004, p.11), 
"gymnastics is connected by the art of 
movement". In this modality, the judges' 
judgment is based on the perfect execution 
of the movements that require substantial 
daily training. Also, Nunomura et al. 
(2009) points out that, like other sports, 
AG is characterized by complex and daring  
 
 
 
 
exercises, and gymnasts constantly 
challenge laws of physics, trying to reach 
and exceed their bodies’ and apparatus’ 
limits while executing increasingly 
audacious and complex movements. 
AG requires that gymnasts 
demonstrate neuromuscular control, 
rhythmic sense, complete body balance 
control, and a technical posture for 
performing its elements. Besides, gymnasts 
have to demonstrate security and 
confidence through different exercises with 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                18                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
different degrees of difficulty that need to 
be executed in a harmonious and precise 
manner. Aesthetics and art, associated with 
performance, give AG its artistic quality, 
also found in other artistic manifestations 
(Sarsfield, 1959). In the last decade, we 
have seen a notable evolution and 
modification in AG's competitive methods.  
In AG, gymnast’s results are the sum 
of two scores, the difficulty and the 
execution score, awarded for each 
apparatus and in comparison with other 
competitors. The Code of Points (CoP) is a 
document that defines the AG rules. It is 
considered the single most important 
instrument that influences the development 
of AG. Pastor et al. (2003) refers to the 
CoP as the main regulator of coaches’, 
judges’, and gymnasts' work. 
Thus, the CoP defines the parameters 
and criteria to differentiate gymnasts’ 
executions, the scoring attributions and 
judging methods; as such, it functions as 
the parameter for score elaboration by 
judges (judgment), and routines 
composition and training guidance by 
coaches (Robin & Santos, 2014). These 
arguments are supported by the changes 
made to the CoP updated every four years. 
According to Arkaev & Suchilin (2004), 
the changes made to the CoP havr not 
always been the most adequate; 
nevertheless, most of them have been quite 
positive and beneficial for the development 
of the sport and at the same time have 
guided the development of the modality as 
we know today. 
In women's artistic gymnastics 
(WAG), four apparatus are officially 
recognized by the International 
Gymnastics Federation (FIG): the vault, 
the uneven bars, the balance beam and the 
floor exercise. However, gymnasts are 
expected to include acrobatic and dance 
elements in their routines only on the 
balance beam (BB) and the floor (FX) 
apparatus (FIG, 2017; Donti et al., 2014). 
These elements are combined to maximize 
their performance and increase the final 
score, as specific to each apparatus. 
On the balance beam, every routine 
begins with a mount (taken off from the 
board or the mat); during the routine 
gymnasts perform leaps, jumps and hops, 
turns, holds and acrobatic elements with or 
without flight phase and hand support. The 
evaluation of the routine begins with a 
mount and finishes with landing a 
dismount. After finishing the routine, 
whether with a dismount or with a fall that 
lasted more than 10 seconds, judges award 
two scores: difficulty value (DV) score and 
execution value (EV) score. The DV score 
is calculated as the sum of maximum 8 
highest difficulties including the dismount 
(maximum 5 acrobatic and minimum 3 
dance elements), the prescribed 
composition requirements (CR) (Table 1), 
and the values that gymnasts get for 
directly connecting acrobatic elements, 
turns and/or acrobatic-dance elements. The 
EV score is given for the quality of the 
skills performed and the gymnast’s artistic 
performance (FIG, 2013), and has an initial 
value of 10.00 points if the gymnast 
performs at least 7 elements. From the 
value of 10.00 points judges deduct errors 
that occur during the performance of a 
routine. The final score (FS) is calculated 
as the sum of DV and EV minus neutral 
deductions. 
Just as on the BB, the DV and EV 
scores for the floor exercise are calculated 
in the same way. On this apparatus, the 
gymnast performs leaps, jumps, hops, 
turns, hand support elements and saltos in 
different directions (forward, sideward and 
backward). The FX is the only WAG 
apparatus that has musical accompaniment, 
which is of major importance for the 
development of the routine. The gymnast 
will be evaluated from her first movement, 
which does not necessarily have to be at 
the beginning of the music but must end 
exactly at the end of the music. During this 
Olympiad,  the artistic aspects for this 
apparatus have been significantly changed, 
including providing a different 
understanding and bringing forward a great 
discussion about what should be evaluated 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                19                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
in terms of choreographic composition, 
expression, music and musicality (Donti et 
al., 2014; Kerr & Obel, 2015). 
Acrobatic and dance elements have 
different scores and possible combinations 
between them, and, together with the 
execution of each element, they make up 
the gymnast's final score at competitions. 
Therefore, the evaluation of competitive 
WAG is based on the quantitative and the 
qualitative index, with technical rigor in 
the execution of acrobatic and dance 
movements and valorization of 
expressiveness and creativity in the 
choreography (FIG, 2015; Donti et al., 
2014). Sterkowicz-Przybcién (2004, p. 49) 
presents a model for the composition and 
fundamental elements of BB and FX 
routines in accordance with the CoP 
definitions : 
The balance beam routine may not 
exceed 90 seconds and must include 
acrobatic (tumbles, balance holds, 
handsprings, saltos) and dance (steps, 
jumps, skip jumps, rotations, body waves, 
balance holds) elements. The balance beam 
is very characteristic of women’s 
gymnastics and the routines must 
emphasize femininity, grace, diversity of 
movements, harmony between acrobatic 
and dance elements, presentation and 
artistry. Balance beam requires accurate 
movements, intensive concentration and 
perfect balance. Any lack of these means a 
point deduction. A serious mistake is 
getting hold of the apparatus to avoid a 
fall. The floor exercise routine, like 
balance beam, may not exceed 90 seconds. 
This event is a combination of acrobatic 
and dance movements choreographed to 
music. The important elements are 
harmony of acrobatic and dance 
movements, integration between the 
movements and music, grace, rhythm, 
presentation and artistry. The gymnasts 
must make versatile use of the entire floor 
space, changing the pace and direction of 
performed elements. 
Another factor that should directly 
influence the routine composition and 
configuration is the setup of the routines 
according to each apparatus's specific 
requirements, called "Compositional 
Requirements" (Kalinski et al., 2011; 
Donti et al., 2014). Gymnasts who perform 
elements that meet these requirements are 
awarded a bonus of 0.5 points in their final 
difficulty score. This means that gymnasts 
tend to include some elements in their 
routines only to meet these requirements 
and not necessarily to count toward the 
eight elements that make up the calculation 
of the difficulty1 score, thus increasing the 
maximum possible score to be achieved 
(FIG, 2013). The Compositional 
Requirements stipulated by the CoP 2013-
2016 for both apparatus are shown in 
Table 1. 
Thus, in order to deepen the theme 
and assist coaches, judges, technical 
committees and subsequent scientific 
works, we analyzed the elements that made 
up the routines of WAG gymnasts as they 
were presented at the Olympic Games (Rio 
2016), and to identify possible technical 
relations between the composition of the 
BB and the FX routines, according to the 
CoP used during the 2013-2016 Olympiad  
(FIG, 2013). The purpose of this study is to 
identify possible patterns of routine 
composition to provide better guidance for 
the modality, both for the evolution of the 
CoP and better work of those involved 
with the practice (coaches, judges, athletes 
and sports managers). 
 
METHODS 
 
This study has a quantitative 
exploratory design developed through the 
videographic research technique (Penafria, 
2009). The videographic research was 
carried out between October and 
                                                 
1 According to CoP (2013-2016) for the 
composition of the difficulty value of Balance 
Beam and Floor Exercise routines, the eight most 
valuable elements performed by the gymnasts are 
counted, with a maximum of five acrobatic 
elements and a minimum of three dance elements 
(FIG, 2015). 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                20                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
November 2019, analyzing the images 
generated by the French broadcasting 
channel "FranceTV Sports®" through their 
official account on the online video 
platform YouTube®. 
We analyzed 164 routines, 82 on BB 
and 82 on FX, from WAG gymnasts 
competing at the Rio 2016 Olympic Games 
qualifying competition. We analyzed all 
female gymnasts from all countries who 
passed through on these two apparatus. 
Qualified and up-to-date national and 
international judges carried out the video 
analysis. 
The video analysis was performed in 
two steps: 
1. The videos were analyzed 
separately to identify each of the acrobatic 
and dance elements that composed the 
routines. After identification, the difficulty 
value for each element was checked in the 
Table of Elements of the CoP (2013-2016); 
2. Acrobatic, dance, and mixed 
connections2 were analyzed. Also, falls 
and neutral deductions3 were noted in each 
routine. The analyzed elements were 
quantified according to the gymnasts’ 
skills (acrobatic, dance, connection, etc.), 
as described in the CoP in force at the time 
of the competition (2013-2016).  
The data obtained through the 
videographic analysis were organized and 
accounted for according to the type of 
element (acrobatic or dance), connection 
(acrobatic, dance or mixed), neutral 
deductions and falls. In total, 1883 
                                                 
2 The connections, whether acrobatic (only with 
acrobatic elements), dance (only with dance 
elements), or mixed (with acrobatic and dance 
elements), are characterized by gymnastic elements 
that are directly or indirectly performed 
subsequently within the same sequence/passage and 
can be used either to fulfill the composition 
requirements of an apparatus or to gain a bonus in 
the difficulty score. 
 
3 These are deductions related to specific problems 
during the gymnast's performance, such as 
exceeding the time limit of the routines, stepping 
outside the defined areas of the apparatus, or not 
presenting properly to the judges' panel. 
 
gymnastic elements were analyzed 
(between acrobatic and dance) in 164 
routines, 82 on BB and 82 on FX. For the 
data analysis, we used the categorization 
methods for different types of elements 
according to the CoP division, in addition 
to descriptive statistics, using mean and 
mode values of the elements in the 
routines. 
For this research, we considered only 
the elements with some difficulty value, 
while other elements performed were 
considered choreographic elements. From 
this analysis, we compared the routines' 
elements on the same apparatus to the 
descriptions available in the CoP according 
to their group elements, and also a general 
analysis between the BB and the FX 
apparatus, comparing the total amount and 
type of movements per routine, and 
reflecting on the composition of the 
routines on each apparatus. 
In the analyses of the FX apparatus, 
the handspring forward, the round-off and 
the flic-flac elements were not considered 
since such movements were not included 
in the DV as they are preparatory elements 
for the acrobatic elements of higher value. 
On the BB, however, these elements in 
some cases were included in the DV and 
they feature in the movements for the CR 
(Table 1) complements and CV bonus. 
Elements performed more than once were 
counted in their entirety, although their 
second execution is not counted toward  
the DV.  
 
RESULTS  
 
The following results were divided 
into tables according to different forms of 
quantification and typification of the 
elements presented by the gymnasts. The 
total sum of  different types of elements 
(acrobatic and dance), connections of 
elements (acrobatic, dance and mixed), 
number of falls and neutral deductions, as 
well as the incidence of each of the 
elements, its respective group and its 
respective value are presented in the Table 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                21                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
of Elements. Finally, a list of how many 
elements from each of the groups were 
performed during the CI stage of the 
competition are presented in Table 5. 
 
 
 
Table 1  
Composition Requirements defined by FIG for Balance Beam and Floor Exercise. 
 
Balance Beam Floor exercise 
● One connection at least 2 different dance 
elements, 1 being a leap or a jump with 
180º split (cross or side), or straddle 
position; 
● Turn (May be from Group 3); 
● One acrobatic series, min. of 2 flight 
elements (with or without hand support), 1 
being a salto (elements may be the same); 
● Acrobatic elements in different directions 
(fwd/swd and bwd); 
● Acrobatic dismount with the minimum 
value of D. 
● A dance passage composed of two different 
leaps or hops, (from the Code) connected 
directly or indirectly (with running steps, 
small leaps, hops, chassé, chainé turns), one of 
them with 190º cross/side split or straddle 
position; 
● Salto with longitudinal axis turn (min. 360º); 
● Salto with double breadth axis; 
● Salto bwd and salto fwd in the same or 
different acrobatic line; 
● Acrobatic dismount with the minimum value 
of D 
 
 
 
 
Table 2 
Quantity and type of elements performed in the qualifiers of BB and FX at the 2016 Olympic 
Games. 
 
Qualification – Balance Beam Qualification – Floor Exercise 
Acrobatic elements 583 Acrobatic elements 391 
Dance elements 476 Dance elements 433 
Total elements (acrobatic + 
dance) 
1059 
Total elements (acrobatic + 
dance) 
824 
Acrobatic connections 147 Acrobatic connections 71 
Dance connections 102 Dance connections 112 
Mixed connections 90 Mixed connections 10 
Falls 12 Falls 12 
Neutral deductions for 
exceeding the routine’s time 
6 
Neutral deductions for going out 
of bounds 
17 
 
 
 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                22                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Table 3 
Incidence of elements in Balance Beam.  
 
Gymnastics 
leaps, jumps 
and hops 
Gymnastics turns Acrobatic flight elements Acrobatic Dismounts 
Switch leap 
with ½ turn 
(D) – 48 
2/1 turn on one leg with free 
leg optional below 
horizontal (D) – 13 
Salto bwd stretched step-out 
(C) – 41 
Salto bwd stretched with 
2/1 twists (C) – 2 
Switch ring 
leap (E) – 22 
2/1 turn in tuck stand on one 
leg (D) – 2 
Salto fwd tucked (D) – 33 Salto bwd stretched with 2 
½ twists (D) – 9 
Johnson leap 
(C) – 15 
2 ½  turn in tuck stand on 
one leg (E)  – 2 
Free aerial round-off tucked 
(E) – 1 
Double salto bwd piked 
(E) – 32 
Switch leap 
(C) – 62 
2/1 turn with heel of free leg 
fwd at horizontal throughout 
turn (E) – 1 
Salto bwd tucked (C) – 22 Double salto bwd tucked 
(D) – 11 
Straddle pike 
jump (A) – 9 
1/1 turn with heel of free leg 
fwd at horizontal throughout 
turn (C) – 14 
Salto bwd tucked with 1/1 
twist (F) – 7 
Arabian double salto fwd 
tucked (G) – 1 
Sheep Jump 
(D) – 25 
1/1 turn with free leg held 
upward in 180º Split 
position throughout turn (C) 
– 11 
Salto fwd piked (E) – 12 Salto bwd stretched with 1 
½ twists (C) – 1 
Split leap with 
1/1 turn (D) – 
3 
1/1 turn on one leg with free 
leg optional below 
horizontal (A) – 47 
Salto bwd piked (C) – 7 Salto fwd stretched with 
1/1 twist (B) – 1 
Split jump (A) 
– 68 
1/1 Illusion turn (D) – 2 Salto bwd stretched with legs 
together (E) – 28 
Gainer salto piked at the 
end of the beam (C) – 1 
Stretched 
jump/hop with 
1/1 turn (B) – 
1 
 
3/1 turn on one leg with free 
leg optional below 
horizontal (E) – 1 
Salto bwd stretched with 1/1 
twist (G) – 1 
Gainer salto stretched at 
the end of the beam (D) – 
10 
Wolf 
hop/jump (A) 
– 53 
 Free Aerial Cartwheel (D) – 
56 
Gainer salto stretched with 
1/1 twists at the end of the 
beam (E) – 5 
Wolf 
hop/jump with 
1/1 turn (C) – 
3 
 Free aerial walkover (D) – 60 Salto bwd stretched with 
3/1 twists (F) – 6 
Split leap fwd 
(A) – 41 
 Salto swd tucked to side stand 
(D) – 39 
Double salto bwd tucked 
with 1/1 twist (G) – 1 
Sissone (A) – 
8 
 Salto swd tucked with ½ turn 
to side stand (E) – 1 
 
  Flic-Flac with ½ turn (D) – 8  
  Flic-flac with 1/1 twist (D) – 3  
  Flic-flac with min. ¾ twist 
before hand support (D) – 2 
 
  Arabian salto tucked (F) – 2  
  Flic-flac (B) – 82  
  Flic-flac with high flight phase 
and swing down to cross 
straddle sit (B) – 1 
 
  Round-off (B) – 61  
Legend: fwd: forward; bwd: backward; swd: sideward. 
 
 
 
 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                23                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
 
Table 4 
Incidence of elements in Floor Exercise. 
 
Gymnastics leaps, jumps 
and hops 
Gymnastics turns Saltos forward and 
sideward 
Saltos backward 
Switch leap with ½ turn 
(C) – 35 
2/1 turn in tuck stand on 
one leg (D) – 6 
Salto fwd stretched 
with 2/1 twists (D) – 4 
Salto bwd stretched with 2 
½ twists (D) – 37 
Switch ring leap with ½ 
turn (D) – 2 
2/1 turn with heel or free 
leg fwd at horizontal 
throughout turn (D) – 19 
Double salto fwd 
tucked (F) – 2 
Salto bwd stretched with 
2/1 twists (C) – 11 
Switch ring leap (C) – 35 2/1 turn with free leg 
held upward in 180º Split 
position throughout turn 
(D) – 24 
Arabian double salto 
fwd piked (F) – 3 
Double salto bwd piked 
(D) – 48 
Switch leap with 1/1 turn 
(D) – 30 
2/1 turn on one leg with 
free leg below horizontal 
(B) – 30 
Arabian double salto 
fwd tucked (E) – 8 
Double salto bwd tucked 
with 2/1 twists (H) – 10 
Johnson leap (B) – 6 1/1 turn in tuck stand on 
one leg (B) – 1 
Aerial Cartwheel (A) – 
15 
Double salto bwd stretched 
with legs together (F) – 23 
Johnson leap with ½ turn 
(C) – 14 
1/1 turn with heel or free 
leg fwd at horizontal 
throughout turn (B) – 4 
Salto fwd piked (A) - 3 Double salto bwd stretched 
with ½ turn (F) – 1 
Switch leap (B) – 15 1/1 turn with free leg 
held upward in 180º Split 
position throughout turn 
(B) – 10 
Salto fwd piked with ½ 
turn (B) – 3 
Double salto bwd tucked 
(D) – 53 
Split leap to ring position 
with 1/1 turn (D) – 7  
2/1 turn on one leg with 
free leg below horizontal 
– 20 
Salto fwd stretched 
with legs together (B) - 
6 
Whip back (A) – 12 
Split leap with 1/1 turn 
(C) – 43 
1/1 Illusion turn (B) – 4 Salto fwd stretched 
with ½ turn (B) – 3 
Salto bwd stretched with 
legs together (A) - 1 
Split leap with 1 ½ turn 
(D) – 26 
4/1 turn on one leg with 
free leg below horizontal 
(E) – 2 
Salto fwd tucked (A) – 
8 
Salto bwd tucked (A) – 1 
Split ring leap (C) – 13 2/1 turn in back attitude 
(D) – 2 
Salto swd tucked or 
piked (A) – 4 
Salto bwd stretched with 1 
½ twists (C) – 25 
Split leap fwd (A) – 15 3/1 turn on one leg with 
free leg below horizontal 
(C) – 14 
Salto fwd stretched 
with 1 ½ twists (C) – 3 
Salto bwd stretched with 
3/1 twists (E) – 17 
Split leap fwd with 1/1 
turn (C) – 16 
3/1 turn with free leg 
held upward in 180º Split 
position throughout turn 
(E) – 1 
Salto fwd tucked with 
1/1 twist (B) – 1 
Salto bwd stretched with 3 
½ twists (A) - 2 
Wolf jump (A) – 2  Salto fwd stretched 
with 1/1 twist (C) – 11 
Double salto bwd piked 
with 1/1 twist (E) – 7 
Wolf jump with 1/1 turn 
(B) – 1 
 Aerial walkover (A) – 
16 
Double salto bwd stretched 
with 1/1 twist (H) – 6 
Straddle pike jump with 
1/1 turn (C) – 26 
  Double salto bwd tucked 
with 1/1 twist (E) – 22 
Stag jump (A) – 10    
Legend: fwd: forward; bwd: backward; swd: sideward. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                24                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Table 5 
Quantification of the types of exercises present in the apparatus.  
 
Balance Beam Floor Exercise 
Type of 
exercise 
N˚ of 
exercises in 
the CoP 
N˚ of 
exercises 
performed 
Type of exercise 
N˚ of 
exercises in 
the CoP 
N˚ of 
exercises 
performed 
 
Gymnastics 
Turns  
 
22 9 (41%) 
Gymnastics 
Turns 
19 
13 
(68,5%) 
Gymnastics 
Leaps, 
Jumps and 
Hops 
 
35 13 (37%) 
Gymnastics 
Leaps, Jumps and Hops 
 
39 
17 
(43,5%) 
Acrobatic 
Flight 
 
36 21 (58%) 
Saltos Forward and 
Sideward 
 
16 
14 
(87,5%) 
Dismounts 29 12 (41%) Saltos Backward 19 15 (79%) 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 
 
The first information from this data 
was the average of exercises performed by 
gymnasts on each apparatus (Table 2). The 
average was calculated by summing all 
performed elements on each apparatus 
(1059 elements on BB and 824 elements 
on FX), then dividing them by the number 
of routines performed on each apparatus in 
the competition analyzed individually (82 
on each). Thus, we have an average of 
12.91 elements per routine on BB and 
10.04 on FX. The average number of 
elements has been increasing over the 
years, despite the time limit for the 
routines, as shown in the study by Seeman-
Sinn et al. (2021), Kalinski et al. (2021) 
and Kezic et al. (2021); this has been 
directly influenced by the changes and 
adaptations of the CoP for each edition of 
the Games. 
Considering that both BB and FX 
have the same total execution time - 1 
minute and 30 seconds - we can infer that 
the FX, due to its lower average of 
elements compared to the BB, presents a 
greater concern in terms of the time 
devoted to the choreographic execution of 
the routine. This can probably be justified 
by the greater space to be covered and 
occupied on the FX platform (a 12 x 12-
meter square) compared to the BB (5 
meters long and only 10 centimeters wide), 
allowing greater freedom of movement in 
terms of dimension and a greater need for 
passages and choreographic elements in 
FX. 
Also, the FX musical accompaniment 
seems to influence the smaller number of 
elements compared to the BB, given that 
the gymnast’s movement needs to 
accompany the music throughout the 
performance. For such a difference 
between these apparatuses to be adequately 
evaluated, there are evaluation criteria such 
as Music and Musicality, for example, 
included in the FX execution score (Kezic 
et al., 2021). Gymnasts can be 
appropriately judged for their artistic 
presentation using those criteria, although 
some recent studies have pointed out the 
difficulty of understanding and applying 
the concept of the artistic component that 
some coaches and judges have (Pajek et 
al., 2013; 2014; Pajek, 2015). 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                25                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
In addition, a frequency analysis of 
acrobatic and dance elements in the 
routines was also carried out (Tables 3 and 
4). For this analysis, 82 routines on both 
apparatus were considered. According to 
the CoP Table of Elements (FIG, 2013) 
divisions, the elements were grouped into 
4 groups. Each element can be performed 
only once for the routine's difficulty count 
(Tables 2, 3 and 4), but elements can be 
performed more than once to create 
acrobatic, dance and mixed connections 
and the sum is added to the connection 
values, but not to the total element count. 
On BB (Table 3), the elements in each 
group that most frequently appeared were 
the "split jump" (gymnastics leap - present 
in 83% of all routines), "1/1 turn on one 
leg with free leg optional below horizontal 
" (gymnastics turn - present in 57% of all 
routines), "flic-flac" (acrobatic elements - 
present in 100% of the routines), and the 
"double salto bwd piked" (acrobatic 
dismount - present in 39% of the routines). 
On FX (Table 4), the elements in each 
group that most frequently appeared were 
the "split leap with 1/1 turn" (gymnastics 
leap - appears in 52.5% of all routines), 
"2/1 turn with free leg held upward in 180º 
split position throughout turn " 
(gymnastics turn - appears in 29% of all 
routines), "aerial walkover" (forward / side 
acrobatics - appears in 19.5% of all 
routines) and "double salto bwd tucked" 
(backward acrobatics - appears in 64.5% of 
all routines). 
There is a greater variability of 
different types of leaps, jumps, hops, turns, 
and acrobatic elements on the FX 
apparatus (Table 5). It demonstrates 
greater versatility not only in the 
composition of the routines but also in 
terms of teaching and learning new 
elements throughout the gymnast's lifespan 
in the sport, given its development phases 
and important physical and psychological 
variables that AG involves (Nunomura et 
al., 2010; Kalinski et al., 2011). 
Thus, it is clear that the composition 
of routines has a greater focus on 
competitive performance since the 
elements chosen and developed throughout 
gymnasts' sports career have a 
development line focused on the final 
difficulty and execution scores calculation 
(Cuk & Forbes, 2010), and the 
choreographic aspects take a secondary 
role. Erceg et al. (2014), Nunomura et al. 
(2019) and Atikovic & Kamenjasevic 
(2021) claim that practice time, experience 
in the sport and going through different 
configurations of structuring a routine 
according to the CoP in different 
Olympiads favor the development of 
complex variation of gymnastics skills in 
search of higher values and higher 
difficulty scores.  
According to a study conducted by 
Oliveira et al. (2017), in the view of the 
judges, gymnasts consequently present 
very similar routines, with little innovation 
and no evident or described appreciation of 
this aspect, and with low variation in the 
discounts. Pizzol et al., (2017) present data 
on the average artistic discount suffered by 
the gymnasts who competed in Rio 2016 
both on BB and on FX, demonstrating that 
there is in fact a low variation of these 
artistic discounts at all stages of the 
competition, supporting the hypothesis that 
the routines may be in line with the CoP 
concepts, or that the judges may not be 
evaluating them adequately. Such views 
agree with views related to the 
composition of the routines raised in our 
study, and in studies related to the artistic 
component carried out in other 
competitions, with different methods of 
analysis. (Pajek et al., 2014; Pajek, 2015. 
The next CoP (2017-2021) brought some 
interesting innovations in this sense, such 
as withdrawal of the requirement of 
minimum D value for dismounts which 
allows gymnasts to perform a higher range 
of elements at the end of their routines, 
even if this element does not necessarily 
count toward the eight elements of greatest 
difficulty in the score (FIG, 2017; Atikovic 
& Kamenjasevic, 2021; Kalinski et al., 
2021; Kezic et al., 2021). 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                26                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Kalinski et al. (2011), Kerr & Obel 
(2015), Grossfeld (2014), Cuk (2016), and 
Nunomura et al. (2019) highlight the 
importance of specific types of exercises 
for the composition of routines and, 
consequently, for the difficulty value of the 
routines presented by WAG athletes. 
Despite the constant changes in the CoP in 
order to attach more value to the 
movement executions and ensure greater 
safety of the gymnasts, better interpretation 
for the judges on the specificity of each of 
the movements performed, and also for 
better appreciation of the sport by the 
media (Oliveira & Bortoleto, 2009; 
Grossfeld, 2014; Nunomura et al., 2019), 
there is still an increased appetite for high 
difficulty scores. This leads us to think that 
performance in the sport is linked to this 
component. 
Since the change of the "closed" code 
(with a maximum score of 10 points), 
which occurred in 2005, to the "open" code 
with no maximum possible score for a 
gymnast (Oliveira & Bortoleto, 2009; Kerr 
& Obel, 2015; Grossfeld, 2014; Nunomura 
et al., 2019), the difficulty value has been 
given more attention in the CoP and can be 
calculated in different ways, with different 
numbers of elements and with different 
compositional requirements. Such changes 
have created an incessant search for an 
ideal method for this calculation that can 
value both the difficulty of the gymnasts' 
elements and how they are carried out in a 
balanced and coherent way. 
In addition, the CoP undergoes 
evaluations and modifications by the 
Technical Committee of the FIG 
throughout each Olympiad and tries to 
improve the organization and structure of 
AG worldwide and to make it safe and fair 
for its practitioners while also trying to 
keep up with the demands from the public 
and the media. As such, it serves as the 
foundation for training, judgment, and 
evolution of the sport (Oliveira & 
Bortoleto, 2009; Ferreirinha & Barata, 
2009). 
It is evident that the composition of 
routines by top gymnasts follow the 
changing trends of the CoP. Gymnasts 
adapt their training, learning and routines 
to the document, and follow the changing 
aspects of the elements that will be part of 
their routines  in terms of value, form of 
execution and compliance with 
requirements, for example. This makes 
their routines even more similar. 
Hence, the artistic component of AG 
is fundamental for competitions since it is 
the main component that clearly 
differentiates not only one routine from 
another but also the entire process that 
gymnasts undergo to arrive at a given 
competitive moment. It therefore also 
deserves special attention from coaches, 
technical committees, spectators, and the 
academic community. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
Our data analysis has verified that 
almost all the routines analyzed in the 
qualifying phase in WAG at the Rio 2016 
Olympic Games met the FIG standards as 
regulated by the CoP. It has shown that the 
CoP also has the purpose of influencing 
gymnasts' routines through the years 
between the Olympics, guiding the process 
and, training. 
We can also infer that there is an 
assembly line of routines repeated by 
several gymnasts of different nationalities, 
due to the CoP regulations. The most 
difficult acrobatics, dance elements, 
connections, and uses of different elements 
end up repeating themselves, even if 
involuntarily, probably due to the 
valorization or devaluation of a particular 
group of elements that occurs with each re-
edition of the CoP. In this sense, the FIG, 
responsible for directing the sport through 
the CoP, could devise strategies to better 
use the elements present within its 
stipulated rules. 
The updated values, forms of 
execution, and observations of the 
execution failures in exercises end up 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                27                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
guiding the composition of the routines 
and the execution of certain elements 
inserted in them. Therefore, both coaches 
and gymnasts must be aware of the CoP 
changes and thus be able to compose their 
routines in the best possible way, exploring 
the various possibilities within the sport's 
rules and prerequisites. 
Finally, we highlight the need for 
further research of the ways FIG 
regulations play a role in each Olympiad 
for gymnasts, coaches, judges, and others 
involved with the sport. We also highlight 
the existing gaps in the “rules” of the sport 
that deserve to be better analyzed and 
restructured for subsequent Olympiads. It 
has been observed that many routines 
follow the same pattern from the setup to 
the execution in order to meet the 
requirements of the CoP and get the least 
penalty. 
 
REFERENCES 
 
Arkaev, L., & Suchilin, N. G. (2004). 
Gymnastics: how to create champions. 
Meyer & Meyer Verlag.  
Atiković, A., & Kamenjašević, E. 
(2021). The prediction of All-Around 
event final score based on D and E score 
factors in Women’s Artistic Gymnastics. 
Science of Gymnastics Journal, 13(1), 47-
146. 
Bortoleto, M. A. C. (2018). Advanced 
Applied Example of Motor Control 3: The 
Impact of Elastic Technologies on Artistic 
Gymnastics - A Special Case Study From 
Brazil. In: Jemni, M. (Ed.). (2017). The 
science of gymnastics: advanced concepts. 
Routledge, 266-277.  
Čuk, I. (2016). Do Code of Points in 
men artistic gymnastics and women artistic 
gymnastics favor asymmetric elements? 
Brazilian Journal of Physical Education 
and Sports, 30(1), 9-18.  
Cuk, I., & Forbes, W. (2010). How 
apparatus difficulty scores affect all around 
results in men’s artistic gymnastics. 
Science of Gymnastics Journal, 3(2), 53–
67. 
Donti, O., Donti, A., & Theodorakou, 
K. (2014). A review on the changes of the 
evaluation system affecting artistic 
gymnasts’ basic preparation: The aspect of 
choreography preparation. Science of 
Gymnastics Journal, 6(2), 63-72. 
Erceg, T., Delaš Kalinski, S., & Milić, 
M. (2014). The score differences between 
elite europen junior and senior women 
gymnasts. Kinesiology, 46(Supplement 1), 
88-94. 
Federation Internationale de 
Gymnastique. (2013). 2013-2016 Code of 
Points. Updated June 2015. 
Federation Internationale de 
Gymnastique. (2017). 2017-2020 Code of 
Points. Updated March 2017. 
Ferreirinha, J., & Barata, P. (2009) 
Mudanças necessárias na prática das 
modalidades de Ginástica de Competição. 
Revista ENGym, (2),4-5; Available in 
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jose-
Ferreirinha/publication/259183948_Mudan
cas_necessarias_na_pratica_das_modalida
des_de_Ginastica_de_Competicao/links/02
e7e52a370a0b223c000000/Mudancas-
necessarias-na-pratica-das-modalidades-
de-Ginastica-de-Competicao.pdf> 
Grossfeld, A. (2014). Changes during 
the 110 years of the World Artistic 
Gymnastics Championships. Science of 
Gymnastics Journal, 6(2), 5-27.  
Kalinski, S. D., Božanić, A., & 
Atiković, A. (2011). Influence of dance 
elements on balance beam results. Science 
of Gymnastics Journal, 3(2),39-45. 
Kalinski, S. D., Kezić, A., & Penjak, 
A. (2021). Trends in Beam Exercise 
Structures of Artistic Gymnastics through 
five Olympic Cycles.  In 9th International 
Scientific Conference of Kinesiology (p. 
748). 
Kerr, R., & Obel, C. (2015). The 
disappearance of the perfect 10: Evaluating 
rule changes in women's artistic 
gymnastics. The International Journal of 
the History of Sport, 32(2), 318-331. DOI: 
10.1080/09523367.2014.974031 
Kezić, A., Kalinski, S. D., & Penjak, 
A. Top level floor routines structure at the 
de Oliveira M.H., de Queiroz Lima L.B., Costa A.R.: WOMEN ARTISTIC GYMNASTICS…           Vol. 14 Issue 1: 17 - 28 
 
Science of Gymnastics Journal                                28                           Science of Gymnastics Journal 
 
Olympic Games: The impact of acrobatic 
and dance elements. In 9th International 
Scientific Conference of Kinesiology (p. 
771). 
Nunomura, M., Carrara, P. D. S., & 
Tsukamoto, M. H. C. (2010). Ginástica 
artística e especialização precoce: cedo 
demais para especializar, tarde demais para 
ser campeão! Brazilian Journal of Physical 
Education and Sports, 24(3), 305-314.  
Nunomura, M., Kerr, R., Cervin, G., 
Schubring, A., & Barker-Ruchti, N. 
(2019). The Code of Points and the career 
development in Women’s Artistic 
Gymnastics. Science of Gymnastics 
Journal, 11(1), 5-14. 
Oliveira, M. S., & Bortoleto, M. A. C. 
(2009). O código de pontuação da 
ginástica artística masculina ao longo dos 
tempos. Journal of Physical Education, 
20(1), 97-107.  
Oliveira, M. S., Pires, F. R., Roble, 
O., Molinari, C. I. & Nunomura, M. 
(2017). A compreensão e a avaliação do 
componente artístico da ginástica artística. 
Brazilian Journal of Physical Education 
and Sport, 31(10), 41-50. 
Pastor, F. S., Ares, M. X., & García, J. 
C. (2003). Gimnasia artística: los 
fundamentos de la técnica. Biblioteca 
Nueva.  
Pajek, M. B., Čuk, I., Pajek, J., Kovač, 
M., & Leskošek, B. (2013). Is the quality 
of judging in women artistic gymnastics 
equivalent at major competitions of 
different levels?. Journal of human 
kinetics, 37, 173-181. 
Pajek, M. B., Kovač, M., Pajek, J., & 
Leskošek, B. (2014). The Judging of 
artistry components in female gymnastics: 
a cause for concern. Science of gymnastics 
journal, 6(3), 5-12. 
Pajek, M. B. (2015). Judging Artistry 
on Balance Beam. In 2nd International 
Scientific Slovenian Gymnastics 
Federation (p. 87). 
Penafria, M. (2009, April). Análise de 
Filmes-conceitos e metodologia (s). In VI 
Congresso Sopcom (Vol. 6, pp. 6-7). 
Available in 
http://www.bocc.ubi.pt/pag/bocc-penafria-
analise.pdf. Acess in: 30 abr. 2020.  
Pizzol, V., Oliveira, M. H. & Toledo, 
E. (2017). On stage the artistic component 
of athletes from Women's Artistic 
Gymnastics at the Rio 2016 Olympic 
Games. Brazilian Journal of Physical 
Education and Sport, 31(10), 90. 
Robin, J. F. & Santos, S. B. (2014) 
Ginástica: um jogo de regras. In. 
Schiavon, L. M., Heinen, T., Bortoleto, M. 
A. C., Nunomura, M., & De Toledo, E. 
(Eds.). (2014). High performance 
gymnastics. Arete-Verlag.  
Sarsfield, R. (1959). Physical and 
Artistic Expression in Gymnastics. 
Physical Educator, 16(1), 1-14.  
Seemann-Sinn, A., Brehmer, S., 
Naundorf, F., & Wolfarth, B. (2021). 
Development of the routine duration in 
artistic gymnastics from 1997 to 
2019. International Journal of 
Performance Analysis in Sport, 21(2), 250-
262. 
Sterkowicz-Przybycien, K. (2004).  A 
comparative analysis of the results 
obtained at the Olympic Games in 
Women’s Artistic Gymnastics, 1988–2000. 
Human, 48. 
 
Corresponding author: 
Mateus Henrique de Oliveira  
School of Physical Education, UNICAMP  
701, Érico Veríssimo avenue,  
Cidade Universitária, Zeferino Vaz, Barão 
Geraldo, Campinas,  
São Paulo/Brazil  
E-mail: matthenri0@gmail.com  
Tel and fax num: +55 (11) 991970931 
 
Article received: 22.4.2021 
Article accepted: 19.10.2021