Talk:World Artistic Gymnastics Championships

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gymnastics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gymnastics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gymnastics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GymnasticsWikipedia:WikiProject GymnasticsTemplate:WikiProject GymnasticsGymnastics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Are there any athletes who medaled in all 6(m), 4(w) apparatae (allaround and team not included) and 6+allround/4+allround? 213.149.62.160 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is in serious need of a cleanup. There are many statistics that do not serve the main purpose of the article. I suggest creating a separate article to list all these statistics. -- ThiagoSimoes (talk) 01:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I edited out a note that explained a rationale for Alois Hudec not being listed in the Statistics - Men's Multiple Gold Medalists section. The rationale was stated that due to various authorities not recognizing the 1931 Worlds as a true World Championships, that Hudec's medals at those game shouldn't be counted. In the page for this article that existed right before I made that edit, footnote 11 was listed as showing that in the 125th anniversary publication of the FIG, that the 1931 Worlds were said not to be an official worlds. It IS true that in the medalists section that exists on pages 43-52 on that publication^[1], the 1931 Worlds were never listed, but this remains an omission that went unqualified in that publication. If there is no such official statement from the FIG that counteracts their specific claim that the 1931 Worlds were some sort of "World Championships"^[2], even if "Logically, the manifestations of the 50th anniversary of the FIG cannot be placed among the official competitions", Cite error: The <ref> tag has too many names (see the help page).^: 85 I see no reason to completely negate Alois Hudec from this article section without a fuller explanation that also includes his own medal record. QuakerIlK (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following is relevant to the edit that Hyperion82 made regarding this particular topic - an edit that reversed the edit that I made. As I explained on (Hyperion82's talk page), I am not going to get into an edit war about this, but I DO want to copy and paste what I wrote there to what I am writing here. Personally, I think that this is a discussion that should be had with the International Gymnastics Federation, themselves.

Hi there, Hyperion82. I would like to thank you for your interest in the interesting and problematic intersection of the abovenamed articles, issues, and person. I do not completely agree with your edits and your reversal of my edit, however there is a rationale for your having formed the edit the way that you did, and I am not going to get into an edit war with you about it.

I DO want you to consider, however, and this is something that I will add on the Talk page for the World Championships, that at these

Peter Sumi was 1922 and 1926

WAAC. That was a deeply competitive field, for a World Championships, or for even an Olympics, really.

I would also add that, coincidentally enough, while there were 11 different World and Olympic gymnastics competitions prior to World War I (5 Olympics (1896, 1900, 1904, 1908, and 1912) and 6 Worlds (1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, and 1913)), there were ALSO 11 different World and Olympic gymnastics competitions between World War I and World War II (5 Olympics (1920, 1924, 1928, 1932, and 1936) and 6 Worlds, if you count 1931 (1922, 1926, 1930, 1931, 1934, 1938)). It is therefore, as if by suggestion, that counting the 1931 Worlds, not only due to its deeply competitive field, but also due to what I just mentioned here in this paragraph, brings a meaningful symmetry to these two eras.QuakerIlK (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks you for well-thoughtful reply. Unfortunately, none of your two arguments really proves that the 1931 competition should be considered as official world championship. I completely agree that there was deeply competitive field with many strong participants. But how does this fit in with the official status of the competition? There can be deeply competitive field at other minor competitions (like World Cup or Grand Prix stages) as well. But it doesn't make them "official World Championships".

The second argument (about symmetry) seems much far-fetched to me (sorry for that). This seems more like a mere coincidence and a numbers game than anything serious. Of course, people in 1931 did not know about the upcoming World War II and could not organize this extraordinary championship simply "for symmetry".

Here are my arguments against non-recognition of 1931 event as official World Championships:

1) FIG (main international sporting body) clearly does not considered this competition as official World Championships. You can clearly see it by their official numeration of World Championships - 1931 events doesn't have an official number.

2) Starting from 1922 till 1978, World Championships were held every 4 years (with exception of 1942 and 1946 which were cancelled due to World War II). So, it quite logical that 9th World Championships was held in 1930 while 10th World Championships - in 1934 (not in 1931).

3) 1931 event was been held by different rules than previous and following World Championships. There were no team competition (which were held at all World Championships since 1903 till 1992). There were no awarded silver and bronze medals at apparatus (unlike all official World Championships).

4) Both FIG's official editions which were published in 1981 and 2006 (see your links below) clearly ignores 1931 results and don't put results of 1931 event in the sections "World Championships results". It was a special gala event dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the FIG, but definitely not a official World Championships.

Therefore I think my original solution was correct - I didn't add 1931 results into medal statistics but I wrote special note about controversial status of 1931 event. Hyperion82 (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion82, again, thank you for your thought on this. However, you make some errors.

1) Arguing over semantics and over the numbering of world championships can be, in essence, meaningless and superficial. What matters more is who showed up and how well they competed. Nevertheless, the FIG's official 100 Year 1981 publication DOES articulate a treatment of the 1931 World Championships on pages 84-85 of that publication, in the section of the publication devoted to World Championships, and even DOES call them a "World Championships". On page 84 of that publication, it was stated "Following "agreements, objections, and discussions" this manifestation was called "World Championships".

2) It is true that from 1922 to 1978, regularly, the worlds were held only on even-numbered Olympic years, but before WWI, it was on every odd-numbered year, and after 1978, again on every odd-numbered year, but only until 1991, after which it was also held on Olympic years (in 1992 and 1996), and in 1994, there were TWO World Championships. After 2000, they have been held on EVERY non-Olympic year. The bigger, overarching truth here is that of CHANGE. How is 1931 not part of that?

3) There was no separation of team competition and all-around back then - it was ALL ONE COMPETITION. They merely didn't award team medals in 1931. So what? You still had a deeply competitive field of individuals (and whereas Alois Hudec is concerned, we ARE talking about INDIVIDUAL medals, not team ones). Additionally, there were 44 male competitors in 1931, compared to 30 in 1922, 48 in 1926, and 45 in 1930, so it was as deep or deeper than other Worlds during this era. Also, we are talking about the best competing against the best. This 1931 Worlds field was actually more competitive, in terms of having the most of the strongest, than some of the other World Championships during this era.

4) Bottom line, it WAS called a "World Championships" and just because it was unnumbered doesn't mean that it was "unofficial". "Unnumbered" and "unofficial" are NOT the same thing.2601:6C1:681:7A60:100:5940:C85D:84CA (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2024 (UTC)QuakerIlK (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) Your position that status of competition is determined by number and level of competitors is completely wrong. For example, if you are sponsor with big money, you can organize big international competition with large prize fund and to invite best gymnasts from whole world to participate. However, it doesn't mean that your competition will be considered as World Championships - no matter how strong would be level of competitors and how you will name it. Once again - the status of competition is determined only by international sporting federation (in this case - by FIG). 1981's edition clearly states - "Logically, the manifestation of the 50th anniversary cannot be placed among the official competitions. Moreover, let us recall that the FIG still distinguished between affiliated and "recognized" federations which explains the presence of Switzerland" (Page 85 - https://www.fig-docs.com/website/highlights/100%20years%20of%20the%20FIG-e.pdf ). More recent 2006's edition also describe 1931 event as "unofficial World Championships" (Page 35 - https://www.fig-docs.com/website/highlights/The_story_goes_on_150dpi.pdf ) and does not include 1931 results in the "World Championships" section (Page 64 - https://www.fig-docs.com/website/highlights/The_story_goes_on_150dpi.pdf ).

2-3) These two arguments made by me don't prove anything by their own, but it only additions to main argument.

4) Once again - see Page 35 (https://www.fig-docs.com/website/highlights/The_story_goes_on_150dpi.pdf ). Strictly speaking, there were no official world championships until 1931 (1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, 1913, 1922, 1926, 1930 events were originally called "International tournaments" and were often held in conjunction with national Federal Festivals). It's true that 1931 event was the first which had name "World Championships". But subsequently (postfactum) the FIG decided to assign the status of "World Championships" to the 9 events of 1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, 1913, 1922, 1926, 1930 (which were originally held as "International Tournaments") and to give unofficial status to 1931 event (which was originally held as "1st World Championships"). It was not something unsual in the history of world sport. For example, in 1924 there were held winter competitions within the "International Winter Sports Week" - and only next year it were retroactively designated by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) as "the first Olympic Winter Games" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1924_Winter_Olympics ). By contrast, 1906 event organized by Greek government as "Second International Olympic Games in Athens" were later not recognized by IOC (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1906_Intercalated_Games ). In rhythmic gymnastics, 1963 event was held under name of the "1st European Cup" and only next year FIG retroactively decided to assign the status of "1st World Rhythmic Gymnastics Championships" to this event. So, let's use present-day official FIG's terminology and numeration, not just original names of tournaments. Hyperion82 (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a source that says that it was an "unofficial" World Championships. Thank you. So, do with that what you want. Revert my most recent edit on the article page if you want (I accidentally edited without logging into my account). Nevertheless, the points that I make still stand: That it IS still called a "World Championships" even if "unofficial" and should have *some* sort of status, and it DID have a competitive field equal to other Worlds of the day. If its "unofficial status" means that its results aren't counted as official among the FIG and therefore Alois Hudec doesn't appear in such a top 10 listing as on the article main page, fine, however such a thing IS worthy of a footnote, which originally went up by somebody other than me and was re-added by somebody other than me. Fine. That just brings more attention to the fact that there WAS a competition in 1931 that HAS been referred to, on multiple occasions by the FIG, as some sort of "World Championships". There wasn't even an article for it or mention of it anywhere on Wikipedia until I created the article. It should be a matter of some sort of record. Thank you for the discussion on this, as it further honed my understanding of the issues.QuakerIlK (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Hyperion82, an even more recent source than the 2006 publication you cited, in other words what is currently on the FIG's website and was updated as recently as 2021 found on (https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/figbrief/history.php) states 1931 First Artistic Men's World Championships held in Paris. Since that is what is on their site right now and since that is more recent, and since it has been referred to repeatedly as both a "World Championships" and an "unofficial" Worlds, I think that strengthens my argument, on top of the numerous facts that I have already provided, that it actually is a World Championships. I think what would be better rather than simply calling it "unofficial" in an unqualified manner is to revert to calling it "unnumbered" and give an explanation below. I am working on this.QuakerIlK (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can only repeat - this event was called "First Artistic Men's World Championships" by organizers BACK THEN (in 1931), but not today. This source also states "1903 - Four countries participate in the International Tournament in Antwerp (BEL), the first step toward the formation of the World Championships. Today, this meet is recognised as the first Worlds". If you sure that the first World Championships was been held in 1931, it's mean that we should ignore 9 tournaments of 1903, 1905, 1907, 1909, 1911, 1913, 1922, 1926, 1930. Once again - you are confusing original names of tournaments (at the year of hosting) and their present-day official status. In present-day numeration, 1903 event (which was called the International Tournament back then) is considered as first World Championships while 1931 event (which was originally called "First Artistic Men's World Championships") is not. Hyperion82 (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperion82, my most recent edit to this talk page, which is only a medium-sized paragraph, explains that there has been inconsistency from the FIG as to the official status of these games. As it stands now, the most recent official mention of it from the FIG (2021) that I can find (https://www.gymnastics.sport/site/figbrief/history.php) states 1931 First Artistic Men's World Championships held in Paris. Therefore, the current official status of these games seems to be that of "official". I am not arguing about retroactive recognition for the games before 1931 or whether these were really the first. That is beside the point. On the article right now, I reverted it to "unnumbered" which neither respects nor disrespects any official or unofficial status, and I gave a "†" with a thorough explanation at the bottom of that section's chart as to the FIG's inconsistency.QuakerIlK (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]