PhysicalPaper

Original and motor-skills assessment in artistic gymnastics DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/biolsport.2018.78059

Evaluating the physical and basic gymnastics skills assessment for

talent identification in men’s artistic gymnastics proposed by the
International Gymnastics Federation
AUTHORS: Bessem Mkaouer1, Sarra Hammoudi-Nassib1, Samiha Amara1, Helmi Chaabène2,3 Corresponding author:
Bessem Mkaouer
1 Department of Sports and
Higher Institute of Sport and Physical Education of Ksar Said, University of Manouba, Tunisia Physical Activities, Higher
2
Division of Training and Movement Sciences, Research Focus Cognition Sciences, University of Potsdam, Institute of Sport and Physical
Potsdam, Germany Education. Ksar Saïd, 2010
3 Manouba, Tunisia.
High Institute of Sports and Physical Education of Kef, Jendouba University, Tunisia +216 – 23 066716
E-mail: bessem_gym@yahoo.fr
ABSTRACT: This study aimed to determine the specific physical and basic gymnastics skills considered critical
in gymnastics talent identification and selection as well as in promoting men’s artistic gymnastics performances.
Fifty-one boys from a provincial gymnastics team (age 11.03 ± 0.95 years; height 1.33 ± 0.05 m; body mass
30.01 ± 5.53 kg; body mass index [BMI] 16.89 ± 3.93 kg/m²) regularly competing at national level voluntarily
participated in this study. Anthropometric measures as well as the men’s artistic gymnastics physical test battery
(i.e., International Gymnastics Federation [FIG] age group development programme) were used to assess the
somatic and physical fitness profile of participants, respectively. The physical characteristics assessed were:
muscle strength, flexibility, speed, endurance, and muscle power. Test outcomes were subjected to a principal
components analysis to identify the most representative factors. The main findings revealed that power speed,
isometric and explosive strength, strength endurance, and dynamic and static flexibility are the most determinant
physical fitness aspects of the talent selection process in young male artistic gymnasts. These findings are of
utmost importance for talent identification, selection, and development.

CITATION: Mkaouer B, Hammoudi-Nassib S, Amara S et al. Evaluating the physical and basic gymnastics skills Key words:
assessment for talent identification in men’s artistic gymnastics proposed by the International Young male gymnast
Fitness performance
Gymnastics Federation. Biol Sport. 2018;35(4):383–392. Assessment
Selection
Received: 2017-08-03; Reviewed: 2018-02-04; Re-submitted: 2018-04-06; Accepted: 2018-04-06; Published: 2018-08-31. Development

INTRODUCTION
Artistic gymnastics (AG) is a type of power speed activity that requires force) [14, 15] as well as the particular muscle groups (i.e., lower
high levels of both anaerobic and flexibility capacities for successful and upper limbs) [16, 17]. Accordingly, previous research [14, 17]
performance [1]. It promotes jumping, pushing, explosive strength, showed a higher rate of force development in young gymnasts com-
and pulling skills development together with balance and artistry on pared to their untrained peers.
the different apparatuses [2-5]. Artistic gymnastics performance Talent identification (i.e., the process of recognizing current par-
depends on the perfect trade-off between the physical fitness level ticipants with promising capacities to excel in a particular sport) is
and the complex technical skills required on each apparatus [6]. a fundamental process in the pursuit of sports performance excel-
Thus, a high fitness performance level is decisive in men’s artistic lence [18]. It is worth noting that in both team and individual sports,
gymnastics (MAG) to fulfil exercises’ technical requirements on dif- widely accepted talent identification models are still limited [19]. In
ferent apparatuses [7]. Specifically, the gymnast must achieve high artistic gymnastics, particularly, some models/programmes of talent
strength, flexibility, and coordination levels to effectively perform the identification are emerging in leading countries (e.g., International
wide range of complex acrobatic skills [8-12]. Bencke et al. [13] Gymnastics Federation [FIG] Age Group Development Programme,
indicated that gymnastic athletes develop better lower limb strength USA Gymnastics TOPs programme, Gymnastics Functional Measure-
indices at an early age compared with practitioners of other sports ment Tool [GFMT], and World Identification Systems for Gymnastics
(e.g., handball, tennis, swimming). The same authors were able to Talent [WISGT]). The most accepted programmes used by coaches
demonstrate that 11-year-old male gymnasts were stronger than and researchers are those of the International Gymnastics Federation
their untrained peers. It is noteworthy that long-term gymnastics and the USA Gymnastics [1, 5, 20-26].
training has various effects depending on the type of strength indices The training and talent identification programme of the Interna-
(i.e., rate of force development, maximal, relative and absolute tional Gymnastics Federation “FIG MAG Age Group Development

Biology of Sport, Vol. 35 No4, 2018 383

 Bessem Mkaouer et al.

Program” [27, 28] presents the basic approach adopted to develop The FIG MAG Age Group Development Program [27] has been
young gymnasts’ physical fitness (i.e., strength, flexibility, power, and previously validated [5, 29]. It is considered a useful tool for gym-
endurance). This programme is currently adopted by FIG interna- nastics talent identification [5, 29]. In fact, high-level gymnastics
tional coaches for young (i.e., 6-11 years) and 18-year-old gym- performance requires long-term systematic physical fitness prepara-
nasts [16]. Accordingly, gymnasts must be prepared gradually over tion. Therefore, it is crucial to quantify the physical progress achieved
several years to sustain and develop their physical fitness performance and to distinguish, among the gymnasts already selected for na-
required to succeed in competition [27, 28]. The FIG is working tional competitions, those most likely to achieve good performance
vigorously on improving and updating the training and talent identi- at international competitive MAG events. Thus, it would be interest-
fication programme. Additionally, the education of coaches to improve ing to obtain ‘cross-cultural’ data about these variables from early
their knowledge and effectiveness in physical, technical, and psy- phases of training. In other words, a thoughtful assessment of young
chological preparation, without causing harm to gymnasts’ health, gymnasts’ physical abilities from an early age is critical for a future
is one of the main missions of FIG [27, 28]. successful career.

TABLE 1. Men’s artistic gymnastics physical profile assessment [27].

FIG Gymnasts,
Test (description) Diagrams Target Condition Z test d
values mean ± SD

20 m run (standing start) Power Speed Velocity (s) 4.00 3.66 ± 0.23 0.001 1.478

4 m rope climb (legs Strength /

Power Speed 5.60 14.62 ± 8.28 0.001 1.089
assisted) Coordination (s)

Strength /
Vertical jump (from a
Power Speed Coordination 40 40.97 ± 5.13 0.292 0.189
standing position)
(cm)

Velocity /
Broad jump (from a
Power Speed Coordination 200 179.68 ± 19.02 0.001 1.068
standing position)
(cm)

Flexion legs upon upper

Speed
body (from hang on wall Dynamic Strength 33 13.39 ± 4.59 0.001 4.272
(Reps∙30 s-1)
bar)

Extension legs upon upper Speed

Dynamic Strength 33 23.97 ± 3.39 0.001 2.663
body (from front support) (Reps∙30 s-1)

Pull up (on high bar: arms

fully extended; shoulder Dynamic Strength Endurance (Reps) 9 13.10 ± 6.13 0.001 0.668
level with bar)

Dips (on parallel bars:

body vertical, arms Dynamic Strength Endurance (Reps) 10 18.87 ± 8.10 0.001 1.095
stretched in support)

Straddle lift to handstand Strength

Endurance (Reps) 8 7.03 ± 3.07 0.079 0.315
(body bent, arms and legs) Coordination

Legend: (d) effect size; d < 0.2 (trivial); 0.2–0.6 (small); 0.6–1.2 (moderate); 1.2–2.0 (large); and > 2.0 (very large).

384
 Physical and motor-skills assessment in artistic gymnastics

In the literature, several studies [1, 5, 20-26] have investigated Sleeper et al. [5] studied different age group categories based on the
talent identification in women artistic gymnastics (WAG), including Men’s Gymnastics Functional Measurement Tool (MGFMT). The au-
a recently published study by Nassib et al. [20] on prediction of the thors used ten MGFMT battery tests on a large sample (i.e., 83 gym-
women artistic gymnastics (WAG) physical fitness profile through the nasts between 8.3 ± 1.3 and 16.2 ± 1.1 years, each age group
international evaluation programme “FIG Age Group Develop- containing 6 to 20 gymnasts) of different levels of practice. The
ment” [27]. The main findings of this study were that elite level female findings of the study [5] proved good reliability and construct valid-
gymnasts present greater muscular strength in its different forms ity of the MGFMT battery. In the same context, Leon-Prados et al. [29]
(i.e., isometric, explosive, and endurance), power, and flexibility studied the relationship between specific physical fitness tests and
compared to the FIG [27] standards. The same authors revealed that the gymnastics performance score (i.e., sum of the points of the six
these fitness qualities represent the main physical fitness factors apparatus) in high-level male gymnasts. The authors used six tests,
determining success in WAG. However, similar studies concerning including four tests of flexibility (i.e., static and dynamic). The main
men’s artistic gymnastics (MAG) are scarce [5, 29]. For instance, outcomes of this study showed significant relationships between the

TABLE 1. continued
FIG Gymnasts,
Test (description) Diagrams Target Condition Z test d
values mean ± SD
Double legs circle (on Coordination
Endurance 30 26.81 ± 6.55 0.283 0.484
mushroom) Endurance (Reps)

V lever (legs to or over Isometric

Static Strength 5 5.65 ± 2.70 0.608 0.240
vertical) Coordination (s)

Tucked top planche (body

Isometric
horizontal through Static Strength 10 18.76 ± 7.59 0.001 1.154
Coordination (s)
shoulder, arms stretched)
Back hang scale (body
Isometric
horizontal, legs and arms Static Strength 4 4.57 ± 3.23 0.541 0.176
Coordination (s)
stretched)

Side split sit Flexibility Static (°) 180 175.48 ± 17.14 0.142 0.263

Right split sit Flexibility Static (°) 180 172.26 ± 15.38 0.005 0.503

Left split sit Flexibility Static (°) 180 173.87 ± 13.15 0.009 0.466

Bridge (on hard mats) Flexibility Static (°) 90 82.42 ± 11.68 0.001 0.648

Body bent (on the bench) Flexibility Static (cm) 20 13.48 ± 3.41 0.001 1.969

Leg lift forwards (with the

Flexibility Dynamic (°) 120 99.35 ± 13.09 0.001 1.577
back on the wall)

Active shoulder flexibility Flexibility Dynamic (cm) 50 45.98 ± 12.52 0.075 0.321

Biology of Sport, Vol. 35 No4, 2018 385

 Bessem Mkaouer et al.

final scores achieved for the pommel horse, parallel bars, and hori- testing sessions. This aimed to prevent the influence of residual fatigue
zontal bar with strength and flexibility performance. To the authors’ from interfering with the test performance. The experiment included
knowledge, only the study of Sleeper et al. [5] was conducted in a two phases. The first phase was a contact session, while the second
large sample of young male gymnasts (i.e., 73 young and 10 adult one corresponded to the experimental session.
gymnasts). In the study of Leon-Prados et al. [29], only 11 adult Contact Session. Participants’ personal information such as name,
male gymnasts were included. However, both studies [5, 29] focused age, and address was collected during this session. All of the gymnasts
on limited physical fitness tests (i.e., 6 to 10 tests). Additionally, the were made familiar with the procedures of testing. Prior to perform-
process of talent identification in the two above-mentioned studies ing the FIG test battery [27], gymnasts were given a standardized
[5, 29] was not sufficiently addressed. Therefore, the aim of this set of instructions explaining the different tests. Thereafter, they were
study was to determine the specific physical and basic gymnastics familiarized with the experimental apparatus. Gymnasts were asked
skills considered critical in the identification and selection of gym- to avoid high-intensity physical training for 48 h before the simu-
nastics’ talent and in optimizing men’s artistic gymnastics perfor- lated competition condition.
mances. An interview was conducted with coaches of regional men’s teams
to identify the strategies most often adopted to establish a profile of
MATERIALS AND METHODS the gymnast that respects elite performance needs. The interview
Participants highlighted that age group, specific skills (i.e., physical traits), and
The study was performed in accordance with the Declaration of psychological characteristics (e.g., personality traits) are the main
Helsinki for human experimentation and was approved by the local criteria that coaches worked with for men’s artistic gymnastics talent
ethical committee of the respective department before starting the selection. Additionally, coaches were asked whether they applied the
measurements. Fifty-one young male artistic gymnasts from a pro- international physical fitness testing battery in the teams they had
vincial team (age 11.03 ± 0.95 years; height 1.33 ± 0.05 m; body been working for. Only 4 out of 12 coaches responded that they were
mass 30.01 ± 5.53 kg; body mass index [BMI] 16.89 ± 3.93 kg/m²) considering the international physical fitness testing battery during
regularly competing at national level voluntarily participated in this their training programmes.
study. Their average training experience was 6 ± 1 years and the Experimental Sessions. During the experimental sessions, all par-
average duration of their weekly training was 20 ± 2 h (two sessions ticipants completed a standardized warm-up that included jogging
per day for 5 days per week). The peak height velocity (PHV) and for several laps (~5 min) around the floor space, different jumps
the maturity offset (MO) of participants were assessed using a previ- (~5 min) and stretching of the major lower (e.g., leg, thigh, gluteus
ously validated equation (MO = -7.999994 + (0.0036124 region) and upper (e.g., chest, shoulder, arm) limb muscles (~5 min).
× age × height); R² = 0.896 and SEE = 0.542) [30]. The results Then, they received specific instructions delivered according to the
showed that the maturation level of participants was prepubertal assigned condition and they were asked to achieve their highest
(MO = -2.27 ± 0.7 years; 95% CI: -1.23 to -3.22). The ages were performance in the different assessments undertaken.
stored according to the year of birth, as pre-determined by the official The methodological control of the protocol was assured by three
categories of FIG age group [27]. They were therefore given detailed steps. First, 48 h separated the experimental sessions to avoid any
instructions on how to perform the physical and technical exercise order or fatigue effect which could be experienced by the participants.
accurately and efficiently. Written informed parental consent and Second, none of them had consciously performed physical fitness
participant assent were obtained prior to the start of the study. All tests to improve performance before engaging in the protocol. This
youth athletes and their parents/legal representatives were informed was checked by an individual interview. Third, subjects had to wear
about the experimental protocol and its potential risks and benefits the same clothes during each session, to abstain from having hard
before the commencement of the research project. training sessions on the day before each testing session, and to
It is important to note that the first targeted sample size was maintain a consistent dietary intake on each testing day. The same
131 gymnasts. However, after applying strict inclusion criteria includ- testers (i.e., two highly qualified international gymnastics coaches)
ing regular participation in gymnastics national level competitions, conducted all the experimental sessions and provided consistent
ranking in the top scorers at the last provincial and national cham- recommendations and encouragement to the gymnasts. Each test
pionship, and being involved in the FIG MAG Age Group Development was performed twice, and the best performance was selected for
Program [27] during their regular training programme, 80 gymnasts further analyses. To account for diurnal variation, participants were
were excluded. assessed at the same time of day (between 9.00 AM and 11.30 AM).
Temperature and relative humidity were 22 ± 1°C and 43 ± 1%,
Procedures respectively. Subjects were healthy without any muscular, neuro-
Standardized instructions and verbal encouragements were provided logical or tendon injuries. No medical problem appeared during
to participants during all the experimental sessions. They were also the study.
asked to avoid high-intensity physical training for 48 h preceding the

386
 Physical and motor-skills assessment in artistic gymnastics

TABLE 2. Reliability analysis of MAG battery [27].

Test vs. retest (mean
Test T-test P TEM TEM(%) ICC (95% CI) d
± SD)
3.66 ± 0.23 m·s-1
20 m run -0.918 0.366 0.001 0.084 0.996 (0.993-0.998) 0.014#
3.67 ± 0.22 m·s-1
14.76 ± 8.27 s
4 m rope climb -1.881 0.070 0.008 0.019 0.999 (0.997-0.999) 0.014#
14.74 ± 8.16 s
40.86 ± 5.07 cm
Vertical jump -1.603 0.120 0.001 0.005 0.999 (0.997-0.999) 0.001#
40.93 ± 5.12 cm
179.03 ± 18.93 cm
Broad jump 0.684 0.499 0.127 0.073 0.995 (0.990-0.998) 0.008#
178.81 ± 18.73 cm
Flexion legs upon upper 13.26 ± 4.58 Reps
1.880 0.070 0.052 0.394 0.994 (0.987-0.997) 0.049#
body 13.03 ± 4.44 Reps
Extension legs upon upper 23.65 ± 3.46 Reps
0.661 0.514 0.172 0.729 0.975 (0948-0988) 0.037#
body 23.52 ± 3.41 Reps
13.00 ± 6.06 Reps
Pull up -1.793 0.083 0.010 0.073 0.999 (0.997-0.999) 0.016#
13.10 ± 6.13 Reps
18.55 ± 7.91 Reps
Dips -0.387 0.702 0.078 0.0418 0.993 (0.986-0.997) 0.008#
18.61 ± 7.86 Reps
6.87± 3.00 Reps
Straddle lift to handstand -0.329 0.745 0.049 0.710 0.992 (0.983-0.996) 0.011#
6.90 ± 2.96 Reps
26.29 ± 16.17 Reps
Double legs circle -1.139 0.264 0.104 0.391 0.997 (0.993-0.998) 0.024#
26.68 ± 16.72 Reps
5.64 ± 2.72 s
V lever 1.956 0.060 0.001 0.010 0.999 (0.997-0.999) 0.001#
5.61 ± 2.69 s
18.71 ± 7.58 s
Tucked top planche 1.515 0.140 0.006 0.033 0.999 (0.997-0.999) 0.007#
18.66 ± 7.57 s
4.45 ± 5.22 s
Back hang scale 1.146 0.261 0.008 0.178 0.999 (0.998-0.999) 0.010#
4.49 ± 5.19 s
Side split sit 175.48 ± 17.14 °
1.793 0.083 0.095 0.054 0.998 (0.996-0.999) 0.028#
175.00 ± 17.13 °
Right split sit 171.77 ± 15.09 °
1.000 0.325 0.241 0.140 0.992 (0.983-0.996) 0.032#
171.29 ± 15.11 °
Left split sit 173.71 ± 13.10 °
1.793 0.083 0.368 0.212 0.985 (0.968-0.993) 0.074#
172.74 ± 12.44 °
81.94 ± 11.01 °
Bridge 1.000 0.325 0.330 0.404 0.985 (0.969-0.993) 0.044#
81.45 ± 11.27 °
13.29 ± 3.39 cm
Body bent 0.254 0.801 0.074 0.558 0.989 (0.978-0.995) 0.010#
13.26 ± 3.42 cm
98.26 ± 3.42 °
Leg lift forwards 0.421 0.677 0.764 0.776 0.968 (0.934-0.985) 0.028#
98.23 ± 12.62 °
45.58 ± 12.12 cm
Active shoulder flexibility 0.987 0.331 0.104 0.228 0.996 (0.991-0.998) 0.024#
45.29 ± 12.51 cm

Legend: (TEM) typical error of measurement; (ICC) intra-class correlation coefficient; (d) effect size; (#) trivial effect size.

Biology of Sport, Vol. 35 No4, 2018 387

 Bessem Mkaouer et al.

After the completion of all the testing sessions, all participants power activities should be organized in rotation per muscle group,
received feedback regarding their individual outcomes. always following the same application order: flexibility exercises,
speed and power exercises, strength and endurance exercises. A sum-
Research Design mary of the testing procedure is displayed in Table 1.
To evaluate and identify the physical profile of young men’s artistic
gymnasts, an international model which was developed by a number Statistical Analyses
of experts and scientists involved in the study and whose aim was Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) and confidence
to ensure a systematic approach for MAG development worldwide intervals at the 95% level (95% CI). The normality of distribution,
was used [27]. estimated by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, was acceptable for all
The FIG test battery was administered to evaluate gymnasts’ variables. The comparison of the averages calculated with theoretical
physical fitness performance. The physical characteristics assessed references (i.e., FIG’s values) was established by the z-test
were: strength, flexibility, speed, endurance, and power. All tests
were applied on the same day. To maintain gymnasts’ physical fitness
and to avoid any overloading risk, it is advisable that strength and

TABLE 3. Factor loadings (varimax) – analysis of main components.

Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor

Variables
1 2 3 4 5 6
20 m run -0.84 -0.17 -0.06 0.03 0.09 0.06
4 m rope climb -0.80 0.11 -0.14 -0.10 0.10 0.04
Vertical jump 0.80 -0.01 0.30 -0.29 0.22 0.01
Broad jump 0.70 -0.05 0.36 -0.46 0.01 -0.09

Extension legs upon upper body 0.64 -0.14 0.32 -0.23 0.03 0.40

Active shoulder flexibility 0.55 -0.49 0.11 -0.37 0.13 0.13

Right split sit -0.25 -0.79 0.09 0.27 0.34 0.06
Back hang scale 0.16 0.78 -0.08 0.33 -0.13 -0.18
V Lever -0.32 0.76 0.10 0.18 0.45 -0.10
Tucked top planche -0.31 0.75 0.20 0.21 0.39 -0.07
Dips 0.25 0.17 0.91 0.01 -0.03 0.01
Pull ups 0.09 -0.05 0.90 0.16 -0.01 0.14
Double legs circles 0.29 -0.08 0.79 -0.08 -0.02 -0.01
Straddle lift to handstand -0.19 0.17 -0.03 0.91 0.16 0.07
Flexion legs upon upper body -0.17 0.18 0.23 0.83 0.33 0.06
Leg lift forwards -0.11 0.17 0.07 -0.05 0.84 0.20
Body bent 0.06 -0.09 -0.07 0.32 0.70 0.11
Bridge 0.37 -0.24 -0.29 0.36 0.66 0.12
Side split sit 0.13 -0.21 0.09 0.03 0.13 0.86
Left split sit -0.13 -0.04 0.01 0.09 0.16 0.82
Eigenvalue 7.16 5.46 5.13 5.29 4.93 3.57
Cumulative percentage of total variation 19.39 34.04 48.15 60.78 72.68 81.43

Legend: (Factor 1) power speed; (Factor 2) isometric strength; (Factor 3) dynamic strength; (Factor 4) strength endurance; (Factor
5) dynamic flexibility; (Factor 6) static flexibility.

388
 Physical and motor-skills assessment in artistic gymnastics

Thereafter, the outcomes of the test battery were introduced in RESULTS

an analysis of principal components (PCA) with the purpose of iden- The main results of the MAG battery are presented in Table 1. The
tifying the most representative factors. The factorial analysis began sample of young gymnasts included in this study showed higher
by calculation of the correlation matrix between tests assessed with speed, strength endurance and static strength performance compared
the coefficient of determination (R²). This matrix was submitted for with FIG values (p < 0.01; d = 0.668 to 1.478). Endurance and
extraction of the main components, followed by varimax rotation [31]. power outcomes were comparable to the FIG values (i.e., double legs
The factors were retained only if they were composed of two or more circle and vertical jump). Static and dynamic flexibility remained
variables. Moreover, the first factor should be concentrated with the below the standard values (p < 0.01; d = 0.503 to 1.577). In ad-
greatest part of the tests with factorial weight above 0.70 (i.e., the dition, gymnasts showed higher technical scores according to the
cutting point adopted for the definition of the connection force between FIG rotation order as follow: 14.00 ± 2.51 points in the floor exer-
tests) [20, 31]. A stepwise regression was established between the cise, 13.58 ± 2.04 points in the pommel horse, 13.3 ± 3.04 points
total apparatus score and physical parameters. In addition, we used in the rings, 14.22 ± 2.15 points in the vault, 13.62 ± 2.01 points
the equation ƒ² = R² / (1 – R²) to calculate the multiple regression in the parallel bars, and 13.23 ± 2.29 points in the high bars.
effect size [32]. The following scale was used to interpret the effect Accordingly, the total apparatus score (i.e., floor exercises, pommel
size: ƒ² ≥ 0.02 small, ƒ² ≥ 0.15 medium and ƒ² ≥ 0.35 large. The horse, rings, vault, parallel bars and high bar) was 82.05 ± 12.88 points.
relative and absolute reliability of the MAG battery were examined The reliability of the MAG age group battery is displayed in Table 2.
using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) and the typical error The results showed good relative (ICC: 0.96 to 0.99) and absolute
of measurement (TEM) expressed as the coefficient of variation (CV), (TEM: 0.01% to 0.77%) reliability of the testing battery used.
respectively. A paired sample t test was computed to assess any The outcomes of the performed tests were subjected to PCA
learning effect or systematic bias between sample mean scores for (Table 3). Six factors were retained for interpretation of the ratios
test and retest sessions. Significance was set at 0.5% (p ≤ 0.05). between the battery tests applied (Eigen values > 1.0). Moreover,
Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics Version adopting 0.70 like a minimum correlation threshold, 17 physical
20 (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA). fitness tests were retained from the whole MAG battery.

TABLE 4. Summary of the stepwise multiple regression between total apparatus scores and physical test.*

Correlation
Regression R² B SE Beta t P Tolerance
Simple Partial
(Constant) -15.260 10.899 -1.400 0.178
V Lever 0.196 0.826 0.131 0.449 6.322 0.000 0.443 0.823 0.292
Broad jump 0.578 0.734 0.047 1.084 15.665 0.000 0.441 0.963 0.308
Dips 0.729 -0.252 0.101 -0.159 -2.485 0.022 0.060 -0.495 0.363
4m rope climb 0.798 0.460 0.082 0.296 5.628 0.000 0.139 0.791 0.534
Left split sit 0.850 -0.291 0.042 0-.297 -6.972 0.000 -0.370 -0.848 0.813
Bridge 0.882 0.255 0.068 0.231 3.770 0.001 0.144 0.654 0.394
Vertical jump 0.912 -0.807 0.178 -0.321 -4.533 0.000 0.154 -0.721 0.294
Body bent 0.929 -0.466 0.198 -0.123 -2.350 0.030 0.092 -0.475 0.535
Leg lift forward 0.947 0.288 0.060 0.292 4.835 0.000 0.412 0.743 0.404
Back hang scale 0.965 0.476 0.124 0.193 3.843 0.001 0.355 0.661 0.586
Double legs circles 0.972 -0.114 0.054 -0.147 -2.128 0.047 0.058 -0.439 0.310

Legend: * Dependent variable: Total apparatus score; p < 0.001; r = 0.986; R² = 0.972; estimated standard error (ESE) = 2.711;
effect size ƒ² = 34.641.

Biology of Sport, Vol. 35 No4, 2018 389

 Bessem Mkaouer et al.

The summary of the outcomes of the stepwise multiple regressions manner in a short-duration routine (5 seconds/70 seconds) [12]. In
among the total apparatus scores and the physical tests are shown this context, Bencke et al. [13] indicated that gymnasts presented
in Table 4. greater lower limb muscle power performance compared with tennis
The equation generated by the regression model to predict the players, handball players, and swimmers. Jumping abilities have
total score was calculated as follows (equation 1). been shown to be the most important skill for MAG perfor-
mance [13, 34]. This observation was highlighted by the superior
EQUATION 1. Calculation of the total apparatus score from the jumping performance in elite compared with intermediate level gym-
physical fitness test battery for men’s artistic gymnastics. nasts [14, 34]. In our study, gymnasts showed comparable vertical
Total Apparatus Score = jumping performance to FIG values. However, horizontal jumping
= – 15.26 + 0.826 × (V Lever) + 0.734 × (Broad Jump) performance of young male gymnasts was lower than that of FIG [27].
– 0.252 × (Dips) + 0.460 × (4 m Rope Climb) – 0.291 Marina and Jemni [34] reported that a gymnast’s jumping ability
× (Left Split Sit) + 0.255 × (Bridge) – 0.807 × (Vertical Jump) was associated with successful performance and can be considered
– 0.466 × (Body Bent) + 0.288 × (Leg Lift Forward) as an overall indicator of gymnastics ability [35]. Furthermore,
+ 0.476 × (Back Hang Scale) – 0.114 × (Double Legs Circles) Brehmer and Naundorf [36] revealed that the run-up velocity is es-
sential to enhance performance in artistic gymnastics, particularly
DISCUSSION in the vault event. In addition, previous evidence suggested that elite
The current study is among the few that have studied MAG talent level male gymnasts are characterized by excellent lower and upper
identification [5, 29]. To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first body muscular power [12, 37]. In this regard, strength and power
study that has examined the specific physical and basic gymnastics are imperative in identification of MAG talents.
skills of young men’s artistic gymnasts through evaluation of an in- Measurement of gymnastics specific performance is important to
ternational programme (i.e., MAG FIG’s age group evaluation pro- determine progress and potential for gymnastics skills. In the rings,
gramme) for talent identification purposes. The main findings of this most skills are relatively slow moving or held (i.e., isometric). There-
study were that young male gymnasts achieved better scores in the fore, the isometric component of strength is important for gym-
speed, strength endurance and static strength tests than those indi- nasts [38]. Bernasconi et al. [39] showed that all top-level gymnasts
cated by the FIG [27] while power speed and endurance scores are perform the support scale at rings height. In addition, Bodray
comparable to those presented by the FIG [27]. In terms of static et al. [40, 41] suggested that the circle performed on the pommel
and dynamic flexibility, the present study’s outcomes are still under horse is a sequence of complex movements in which the amplitude,
the standard values of the FIG [27]. governed by a high isometric strength level, is the key component of
We note that the results of active shoulder flexibility and vertical the performance.
jump are comparable to those presented by Sleeper et al. [5] and Another quality that emerged from the results of the physical fit-
those of straddle lift to handstand are similar to the values reported ness profile is flexibility. This fitness quality was identified as one of
by Leon-Prados et al. [29]. the determinants of gymnastics performance. For instance, Sands
In this study, results of the principal component analysis (PCA) et al. [42] reported that the flexibility level can be considered as one
retained six principal factors that explained 81.43% of the total of the pillars of fitness characteristics in AG.
variance of all selected variables. These components are the power On the whole, developing various fitness traits (i.e., speed, pow-
speed (19.39%), the isometric (14.65%) and the explosive (14.11%) er, strength endurance, and flexibility) seems to be very important
strength, the strength endurance (12.63%), and the dynamic for building elite men’s gymnastics profile. For that reason, an objec-
(11.90%) and the static flexibility (8.66%). Moreover, by adopting tive assessment of young gymnasts (i.e., a valid test battery for each
0.70 like a minimum correlation threshold [31, 33], seventeen vari- age group) is certainly required to identify potential future champions.
ables were retained from the FIG test battery. These variables are However, longitudinal studies are still needed to determine whether
introduced in a stepwise multiple regression which identified eleven the great disparity of physical fitness tests undertaken in this study
tests determinant of MAG performance: V lever, broad jump, dips, would be effective in predicting future successful gymnasts.
4 m rope climb, left split sit, bridge, vertical jump, body bent, leg Of note, the FIG battery lacks coordination tests. Therefore, it may
lift forward, back hang scale, and double legs circle. be useful to include the battery Körperkoordinations Test für Kinder
This study conducted with young elite male gymnasts demon- (KTK) adopted by Vandrope et al. [25] to discriminate female gym-
strated that muscle power is paramount in identifying MAG talents. nasts by competitive level.
In this regards, Jemni et al. [12] showed that the strength and peak
power are the main determinants of MAG gymnast’s physiologic CONCLUSIONS
profile. In fact, the contribution of strength and power to men’s The present findings outline the specific physical fitness performance
gymnastics performance has increased during the last decades [12], factors considered critical in the detection, identification, develop-
given that most movements need to be performed with an explosive ment, and selection of gymnastics talent. These factors are strength,

390
 Physical and motor-skills assessment in artistic gymnastics

power, speed, and endurance. Furthermore, the results of the prin- to monitor and enhance their physical fitness performance. Overall,
cipal component analysis retained six principal components. These the MAG battery can be considered an effective tool to identify future
components are the power speed, isometric and explosive strength, talents in men’s artistic gymnastics.
strength endurance, and dynamic and static flexibility. These results
seem to be tremendously important, because they support the increase
in focus on power and difficulty in high-level gymnastics practice. Acknowledgments
In this view, it is interesting to note that the rapid increase in the We would like to thank all the regional team gymnasts as well as the
difficulty content of MAG performances has also been the result of regional coaches for their valuable help and invaluable common sense
the improved physical profile as well as of ever-increasing volume while dealing with this study.
and intensity of training at ever-younger ages. Accordingly, proper
talent identification should be intended to safely and systematically
prepare young gymnasts for high performance below the junior level. Conflict of interest
Taken together, coaches and strength and conditioning profession- There is no conflict of interest including any financial, personal or
als should consider integrating the current physical fitness test battery other relationships with other people or organizations that have in-
in their development programmes with elite male young gymnastics fluenced the performance of this work.

REFERENCES
1. Albuquerque PAD, Farinatti PDTV. pre-pubeiscent male gymnasts. J Hum and glenohumeral flexion/extension.
Development and validation of a new Movement Stud. 2002; J Sports Med Phys Fitness. 2017;58(7-
system for talent selection in female 42(3):213–227. 8):966-973.
artistic gymnastics: the PDGO Battery. 9. Chu DA. Strength Exercises Specific to 16. Halin R, Germain P, Buttelli O,
Rev Bras Med Esporte. 2007; Gymnastics: A Case Study. J Strength Kapitaniak B. Differences in strength
13(3):157–164. Cond Res. 1994;8(2):95–102. and surface electromyogram
2. Bradshaw E, Hume P, Calton M, 10. French DN, Gómez AL, Volek JS, characteristics between pre-pubertal
Aisbett B. Reliability and variability of Rubin MR, Ratamess NA, Sharman MJ gymnasts and untrained boys during
day-to-day vault training measures in et al. Longitudinal tracking of muscular brief and maintained maximal isometric
artistic gymnastics. Sport Biomech. power changes of NCAA Division I voluntary contractions. Eur J Appl
2010;9(2):79–97. collegiate women gymnasts. J Strength Physiol. 2002;87(4-5):409–415.
3. Bressel E, Yonker JC, Kras J, Cond Res. 2004;18(1):101–107. 17. Dotan R, Mitchell CJ, Cohen R,
Heath EM. Comparison of static and 11. Jemni M, Friemel F, Lechevalier JM, Gabriel D, Klentrou P, Falk B.
dynamic balance in female collegiate Origas M. Heart rate and blood lactate Explosive sport training and torque
soccer, basketball, and gymnastics concentration analysis during a kinetics in children. Appl Physiol
athletes. J Athl Train. 2007; high-level men’s gymnastics Nutr Metab. 2013;
42(1):42–46. competition. J Strength Cond Res. 38(7):740–745.
4. Gautier G, Thouvarecq R, Larue J. 2000;14(4):389–394. 18. Williams AM, Reilly T. Talent
Influence of experience on postural 12. Jemni M, Sands WA, Friemel F, identification and development in
control: Effect of expertise in Stone MH, Cooke CB. Any effect of soccer. J Sport Sci. 2000;
gymnastics. J Mot Behav. 2008; gymnastics training on upper-body and 18(9):657–67.
40(5):400–408. lower-body aerobic and power 19. Reilly T, Williams AM, Nevill A,
5. Sleeper MD, Kenyon LK, Elliott JM, components in national and Franks A. A multidisciplinary approach
Cheng MS. Measuring sport-specific international male gymnasts? to talent identification in soccer. J Sport
physical abilities in male gymnasts: J Strength Cond Res. 2006; Sci. 2000;18(9):695–702.
the men’s gymnastics functional 20(4):899–907. 20. Nassib SH, Mkaouer B, Riahi SH,
measurement tool. Int J Sports Phys 13. Bencke J, Damsgaard R, Saekmose A, Wali SM, Nassib S. Prediction of
Ther. 2016;11(7):1082–1100. Jørgensen P, Jørgensen K, Klausen K. gymnastics physical profile through an
6. Minganti C, Capranica L, Meeusen R, Anaerobic power and muscle strength international program evaluation in
Amici S, Piacentini MF. The validity of characteristics of 11 years old elite women artistic gymnastics. J Strength
sessionrating of perceived exertion and non – elite boys and girls from Cond Res. Post Acceptance:
method for quantifying training load in gymnastics, team handball, tennis and March 13, 2017.
teamgym. J Strength Cond Res. 2010; swimming. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 21. Pion J, Lenoir M, Vandorpe B, Segers V.
24(11):3063–3068. 2002;12(3):171–178. Talent in female gymnastics: a survival
7. Mellos V, Dallas G, Kirialanis P, 14. Mitchell C, Cohen R, Dotan R, analysis based upon performance
Fiorilli G, Di Cagno A. Comparison Gabriel D, Klentrou P, Falk B. Rate of characteristics. Int J Sports Med.
between physical conditioning status muscle activation in power-and 2015;94(11):935–940.
and improvement in artistic gymnasts endurance-trained boys. Int J Sports 22. Russel, K. Gymnastic talent from
and non-athletes peers. Sci Gymnastics Physiol Perform. 2011; 6(1):94–105. detection to perfection. In: Petiot B,
J. 2014;6(1):33–43. 15. Kochanowicz A, Niespodziński B, Salmela JH, Hoshizaki TB, editors.
8. Bassa H, Michailidis H, Mieszkowski J, Kochanowicz K, World Identification Systems for
Kotzamanidis C, Siatras T, Sawczyn S. The effect of gymnastic Gymnastic Talent. Montreal, Canada:
Chatzikotoulas K. Concentric and training on muscle strength and Sport Psyche Editions; 1987.
eccentric isokinetic knee torque in co-activation during isometric elbow pp. 4–13.

Biology of Sport, Vol. 35 No4, 2018 391

 Bessem Mkaouer et al.

23. Sands WA. Talent Opportunity Program. 29. León-Prados JA, Gómez-Píriz PT, 37. Salonia MA, Chu DA, Cheifetz PM,
Indianapolis: United States Gymnastics González-Badillo JJ. Relationships Freidhoff GC. Upper-body power as
Federation; 1993. pp. 10–16. between specific physical test and measured by medicine-ball throw
24. Sleeper MD, Kenyon LK, Casey E. competitive performance in high-level distance and its relationship to class
Measuring fitness in female gymnasts: gymnasts. Rev Int Cienc Deporte. level among 10-and 11-year-old female
the gymnastics functional measurement 2011;7(22):58–71. participants in club gymnastics.
tool. Int J Sports Phys Ther. 2012; 30. Moore SA, McKay HA, Macdonald H, J Strength Cond Res. 2004;
7(2):124–138. Nettlefold, L, Baxter-Jones AD, 18(4):695–702.
25. Vandorpe B, Vandendriessche J, Cameron N, Brasher PM. (2015). 38. Dunlavy JK, Sands WA, McNea JR,
Vaeyens R, Pion J, Lefevre J, Enhancing a somatic maturity Stone MH, Smith SL, Jemni M
Philippaerts RM et al. Factors prediction model. Med Sci Sports Exerc, et al. Strength performance assessment
discriminating gymnasts by competitive 2015;47(8):1755–64. in a simulated men’s gymnastics still
level. Int J sports Med. 2011; 31. Osborne JW, Costello AB. Best practices rings cross. J Sports Sci Med. 2007;
32(8):591–597. in exploratory factor analysis: Four 6(1):93–97.
26. Vandorpe B, Vandendriessche JB, recommendations for getting the most 39. Bernasconi SM, Tordi NR, Parratte BM,
Vaeyens R, Pion J, Lefevre J, from your analysis. Pan Pac Manag Rev. Rouillon JDR. Can shoulder muscle
Philippaerts RM et al. The value of a 2009;12(2):131–146. coordination during the support scale
non-sport-specific motor test battery in 32. Selya AS, Rose JS, Dierker LC, at ring height be replicated during
predicting performance in young female Hedeker D, Mermelstein RJ. A practical training exercises in gymnastics?
gymnasts. J Sports Sci. 2012; guide to calculating Cohen’s f², a J Strength Cond Res. 2009;
30(5):497–505. measure of local effect size, from PROC 23(8):2381–2388.
27. Stan A, Fetzer J, Fink H, Solar N, Fie J, MIXED. Front Psychol. 2012;3:111. 40. Baudry L, Leroy D, Chollet D.
Bohner W et al. Age group technical 33. Ihalainen S, Kuitunen S, Mononen K, Spatio-temporal variables of the circle
program. In: Fédération Internationale Linnamo V. Determinants of elite – level on a pommel horse according to the
de Gymnastique. FIG Age group air rifle shooting performance. Scand J level of expertise of the gymnast. J Hum
development program. Lausanne, Med Sci Sports. 2016;26(3):266–274. Movement Stud. 2003;
Switzerland: FIG; 2003. pp. 68–72. 34. Marina M, Jemni M. Plyometric training 44(3):195–208.
28. Fink H, Hofmann D. Age group performance in elite-oriented 41. Baudry L, Sforza C, Leroy D,
development and competition program prepubertal female gymnasts. Lovecchio N, Gautier G, Thouvarecq R.
for men’s artistic gymnastics. J Strength Cond Res. 2014; Amplitude variables of circle on the
Fédération Internationale de 28(4):1015–1025. pedagogic pommel horse in gymnastics.
Gymnastique. Lausanne, Switzerland: 35. Louer LE, Elferink-Gemser MT, J Strength Cond Res. 2009;
FIG; 2015. pp. 113–150. Visscher C. The perfect elite gymnast, 23(3):705–711.
Available does he exist? A systematic review. Ann 42. Sands WA, McNeal JR, Stone MH,
at: http://www.fig-docs.com/website/ Res Sport Phys Act. 2012;3:39–61. Russell, E. M., & Jemni, M. Flexibility
agegroup/manuals/Agegroup-mag- 36. Brehmer S, Naundorf F. Age-related enhancement with vibration: Acute and
manual-e.pdf. Accessed on development of run-up velocity on vault. long-term. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2006;
July 02, 2016. Sci Gymnastics J. 2011;3(3):19–27. 38(4):720–725.

392