1912 Olympic Games Official Report Part 2

— the system employed — for the various systems stand entirely outsidethe scope of such a comparison and must be treated individually.Of such systems we saw “Ling’s System”, as it is called, in more orless pure forms; the German “Turn”, and a third, displayed by aRussian team, and the originator of which was an Russian officer.It is true that gymnastics displayed by a team, on the one hand, andan exhibition of purely individual skill, on the other, in accordancewith the same system, can be compared, although such an examinationwould be very defective, and altogether valueless. Competitionsor displays in gymnastics, per se, have often and very thoroughlybeen discussed, as far as regards the Swedish (Ling’s) system. Nowadays,it is pretty generally acknowledged that this form of gymnasticsis not suited for competitions, although many are of the opinion thatsuch competitions, if held, tend to development. Both forms, however,occurred at the Games. From a purely gymnastic point of view, thecompeting- and the display teams can be judged together, but, inother respects, the points of comparison are more numerous and notwithout interest.Finally, gymnastics for men and gymnastics for women must belooked at separately, not because there is any definite difference inthe system, but as, in many respects, the method of applying thesystem is, and must be, very different, a comparison is not unjustifiable.Gymnastics for women occurs only within the Ling-group, which, onthe other hand, did not send a single representative to the individualcompetition — a fact which, of itself, is most significantThe Swedish school was represented by the three northern countries,Denmark, Norway and Sweden. Although, of late years, Ling’steachings have begun to spread, and have won an increasing numberof adherents in many countries, such as Belgium, Great Britain, Holland,Russia and, in part, Germany, none of these nations had sentrepresentatives. This circumstance was greatly regretted, as, withoutdoubt, it would have been both instructive and interesting to observehow the great man’s principles had been transformed into practiceunder varying conditions. As the case was, the teams taking part inthe Games bore a great resemblance to each other. The task of thejudges, however, was certainly a far lighter one than it was in London.The reason of this was, that, in certain respects, the Swedishteam was considerably better, and the divisions from Denmark and,especially, Norway, not at all so good as those that took part inthe London competition, in 1908.As there can be no question of publishing here a personal viewof the results, the most natural way of making a comparisonbetween the competing teams is to give some extracts from theprotocols, or minutes, of the judges. But if the figures given areto be viewed in their true light, respect must be paid to thegroups of exercises which were to be judged; the marks given, andthe co-efficient. According to the protocol, Sweden gained 4,687.3points, Denmark 4,494.2 and Norway 4,286.o5. In the two mostimportant groups — archflexions (“span-bending”) movements and560