Author(s): TAKAHASHI, Y., Institution: UNIVERSITY, Country: JAPAN, Abstract-ID: 1808

INTRODUCTION:
The Japanese national rhythmic gymnastics group team aimed to win a medal at the 2024 Paris Olympics but failed to qualify for the event. In rhythmic gymnastics, scores are published only as broad categories, making it difficult to discern specific details such as the validity of individual elements. To identify areas for improvement, it is essential for individuals with judging qualifications or deep knowledge of the Code of Points to visualize and evaluate the choreography.
METHODS:
Method and Content of Choreography Recording
The visualization and analysis methods used in this study were based on Takahashi (2024), which examined methods for visualizing choreography. The recording sheets used were the "Chronological Arrangement Record Sheet" and the "Apparatus Difficulty (DA) Composition Record Sheet" created by Takahashi and Maeda (2024). The visualization of the choreography was conducted by the author, who holds an International Judge Brevet sanctioned by the International Gymnastics Federation (FIG), while viewing video footage in September 2024. To grasp detailed elements of the choreography that are not recorded during competition judging, the footage was viewed multiple times for precise recording.
Analysis Items
To clarify the differences in Collaboration composition between Japan and the world's top team, four basic analysis items were established: number of Collaborations, duration, Compositional Value, and Additional Criteria. Furthermore, for CR Collaborations, the type of rotation, method of passing (over a person, under a person, over the apparatus, under the apparatus, through the apparatus, through a thrown apparatus), and the number of gymnasts involved in the Main Action were added to the analysis.


RESULTS:
Analysis results showed that Japan's compositional value for collaborations was 0.6 points lower than China's, and the total duration was 3 seconds longer. The percentage of "Main Actions" performed by multiple gymnasts (two or more) accounted for approximately 45.7% of all CR collaborations for Japan, whereas it was approximately 9.1% for China. Regarding passing methods, China exclusively utilized methods involving passing through thrown apparatus (valued at 0.3 points). In contrast, Japan also included passing methods valued at 0.1 point, resulting in a composition score for passing that was 0.9 points lower than China's.
CONCLUSION:
The 2024 comparison of collaborations between Japan and China suggested that Japan should reduce its required duration by 3 seconds, increase its compositional value by at least 0.6 points, adjust the number of gymnasts in main actions to lower the difficulty of obtaining bonus points, and change all passing methods to 0.3-point techniques. Furthermore, it was suggested that to remain among the world's top teams throughout the season, strategies are needed to increase compositional value by 2.0 points or more while limiting the increase in collaboration duration to within 2 seconds during the season.