Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) [631687]

Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM)
ISSN: 2251 -6204
www.mjltm.org

© 2017 The Authors. Publ ished by EBSCO.
Improving sports technique of stretched Gienger salto on uneven
bars based on biomechanical indicators
Vladimir Potopaa, Olivia Carmen Timneabb, Marius Stanescucc,*
a, bEcological University of Bucharest, 061341 , Romania
cCentral Military Hospital “Carol Davila”, Bucharest, 010825, Romania
Abstract
The main purpose of this paper is the improvement of sports technique key elements on the basis of the kinematic and dynamic
indicators of stretched Gienger salto on uneven bars in the basic specialization ph ase of training. The following methods have
been used in this research: theoretical and methodical analysis of the existing literature in artistic gymnastics; method of
evaluation of gymnastics routine sports technique by using the algorithmic structural -systemic analysis of movement; video –
computerized method, using ”Pinnacle Studio”, ”Kinovea” and ”Physics ToolKit” programs; method of movement postural
orientation and evaluation of sports technique key elements with complex coordination of movement struct ure; method of linear –
branched programming of learning and improving the gymnastics routines; statistical method, by means of ”KyPlot” program.
The results of the spatial – temporal characteristics of sports technique key elements of stretched Gienger salt o on uneven bars
reveal the phasic sequence of execution, namely the preparatory movement of launching from front giant, moment of bar release ,
multiplication of body posture and the concluding posture of re -grasping the bar in conformity with the technica l requirements of
FIG Code of Points. The use of the video -computerized method along with the movement postural orientation method and the
algorithmic analysis of sports technique used in the Gienger salto stretched on uneven bars led to an increasingly ef ficient
development of the contents of long -term learning programs, the improvement of technical execution and better performances in
competition.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by EBSCO .
Keywords: artistic gymnastics, kinematic and dynamic indicators, key elements, long term programs of learning, performance;
1. Introction
Artistic gymnastics has reached a very high level of development lately; its routines impress by the difficulty of
their elements and combinations and also by the virtuosity of execution and elegance of movements. (Vieru, 1997;
Smolevskij & Gaverdovskij, 1999; Grigore, 2001; Arcaev & Suchilin, 2004; Gaverdovskij, 2014).
Constant analysis of gymnastics trends is a necessary condition of developing and improving an effective system
for the pr eparation of top -class gymnasts and the technique of their ”production on the line”. To fully understand
where modern gymnastics is heading we must know the trends in world sport. The most important trends are the
following (Arkaev & Suchilin, 2004): rise in motivation and prestige of supreme sports achievements, growth in
sporting technical results and tougher competition for the top sports titles.
Although it has experienced a particularly rapid, profound and multilateral progress, partially renewing it s
contents and the Regulation provisions as well (reduction of technical requirements for difficulty score, FIG, 2017),
artistic gymnastics undergoes a permanent crisis, raising numerous question marks on its future evolution both
nationally and internati onally (Dobrescu & Bibire, 2008).

2 Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Vol. 7 , Issue. 8/1 , August (2017) 001–009
Thus, the technique is represented by a system of specific motor structures rationally and economically built, in
order to obtain maximum efficiency in competition. The analysis of technique highlights the following compo nents:
technical element, technical procedure, style and basic mechanism (Dragnea & Mate – Teodorescu, 2002). The
effective learning, in different stages of technical training, can be provided only if the learning stages and their
content are closely relat ed to efficiency criteria (Platonov, 2004). For the analysis of gymnastics routines technique,
in terms of bio -mechanical positions, the ”arithmetical” entry is used, involving operations of improvement of the
concrete issues (Smolevskij & Gaverdovskij,199 9).
At the present moment, the issue of technical execution correctness in gymnastics is the main criterion for
including the performances on a continuously ascending curve. The complexity of gymnastics current technique
implies the use of a new technology able to decipher the internal mechanisms of the movement in order to
understand and use them for increasing performances. Modern trends come from the field of biomechanics, as a
scientific branch, dedicated precisely to the discovery of these mechanisms ( Crețu, 2004).
There are numerous current concerns in the scientific research regarding biomechanics aspects in gymnastics;
they are applied for understanding and classification based on the clear establishment of movements study field. The
present orien tations in the biomechanical research specific to this sports branch and the interest shown refer to the
transfer of rotation movements, the mathematical modeling of biomechanical indicators, back giant, differences
between the dismounts off front giant an d back giant, dismounts off uneven bars (Cre țu, Simăn & Bărbulescu, 2004;
Hiley, & Yeadon, 2007; Potop, Grigore, Timnea & Ulareanu, 2014; Potop, Timnea, Mihaiu & Manole, 2014). Other
issues that raise the interest of the researchers worldwide are the following ones: similarities between the giant o n
high bar and the giant on uneven bars, elements with release and re -grasping of the bar etc (Potop, Timnea & Triboi,
2013; Potop, Grigore & Timnea, 2015).
Besides its specific procedures, the uneven bars – women’s artistic gymnastics event – enriched its contents with
new procedures whose names are not yet found in the specialized literature. The main directions of development of
routines on this apparatus are (Grosu, 2004): derivation, composition, concentration and loan (transfer).
In accordance wit h the requirements and the specific character of apparatus in women’s artistic gymnastics, the
elements on uneven bars are divided into several structural groups, defined not only by the way of execution but also
by their purpose, namely: straightening, la rge and small rotations, free passing over bars, saltos and re -graspings,
simple turns on longitudinal axis or turns during various basic movements, passing from a bar to another, mounting
and dismounting (Vieru, 1997, Grosu, 2004; Dobrescu & Bibire, 2008 ; Readhead, 2011); the piked or stretched
Gienger salto is included in group III of Giant circles elements with difficulty value D – 0.4 and E – 0.5 points.
The analysis of the specialized literature certifies the importance of research on sports technique of gymnastics
routines and their learning, taking into consideration the positions and postures of the body. In this connection, V.N.
Boloban and E.V. Biriuk (1979) propose the use of movement postural orientation method for the study of
gymnastics sports technique. In recent years, the scientific papers have improved the concept and methodology of
implementation of this method (Boloban, 1988 -2015; Sadovski, Nizhnikovski, Mastalezh, Vishiovski & Begajlo,
2003 -2013; Potop, 2012 -2015 etc.).
The main purpose of this paper is the improvement of sports technique key elements on the basis of the kinematic
and dynamic indicators of stretched Gienger salto on uneven bars during the stage of training basic specialization.
Hypothesis of the paper . We consider that th e biomechanical analysis of stretched Gienger salto on uneven bars
based on the achievement of the macro methods of learning in the case of young gymnasts aged 12 to 15 will
contribute to the development of sports technique key elements and to the improvem ent of movement dynamic and
kinematic characteristics.
2. Methods & materials
The research was conducted from 2012 to 2014, monitoring the performances of the gymnasts in three national
events on uneven bars. The subjects were 9 athletes of 12 -15 years old. All of them were components of junior
national team of Romania. To highlight the dynamics of biomechanical characteristics of Gienger salto we analyzed
several saltos in competition conditions: during the National Championships of Romania, Onești 2012 – 6 saltos,

Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251 -6204 3
during the National Championships of Romania, Bucharest 2013 – 12 saltos and at the National Championships of
Romania, Bucharest 2014 – 9 saltos.
The methodological character of this research consists of the generalization and systematization of a large
number of scientific data and the practical experience related to knowledge formation. Thus, the macro methods for
learning the gymnastics routines are presented as a modern dynamic system that includes and integrates the
technological, didactical, biomechanical and motor structures of the routines to be learnt. The objective practical –
scientific argumentation for elaborating the macro methods to learn gymnastic exercises with increased difficulty
was possible thanks to the use of modern theories (Po top, 2015).
Research methods used: m ethod of theoretical and methodological analysis of literature related to artistic
gymnastics; method of evaluation of gymnastics exercises sports technique by using the movement algorithmic
analysis (Gaverdovskij, 2014) ; video computerized method, by means of: ”Pinnacle Studio”, ”Kinovea” and
”Physics ToolKit” programs; method of movement postural orientation and evaluation of key elements of sports
technique with complex coordination of movement structure (Boloban, 2013 ); method of linear -branched
programming of gymnastics routines learning and improving (Potop, 2015); statistical method by means of
”KyPlot” program.
The biomechanical analysis was made with Physics ToolKit Version 6.0 program , monitoring the key element s
of sport technique of Gienger salto, divided into two parts: rotation motion with rotation axis on apparatus, in terms
of preparatory movement phase (PM): Sub -phase 1 (SPh1) spring under bar; Sub -phase 2 (SPh2 -LP) body launching
posture – moment of relea se of the bar; translation and rotation motion with GCG rotation axis regarding the basic
movement phase (BM) – multiplication of body position (MP) – salto backward with ½ turn (180°) piked or
stretched and concluding movement phase (CM) – concluding post ure (CP) of re -grasping the bar (fig. 1).
3. Results
Table 1 presents the anthropometric and biomechanical indicators required by the biomechanical analysis of
Gienger salto stretched on uneven bars, in terms of weight and height with arms up for calculating the inertia of
rotation (IR), the radius of body segments movement during rotation phase with and without support.
Table 1. Anthropometric and biomechanical indicators required by the biomechanical analysis of sports technique used in Gienger
salto stret ched on uneven bars (
x±SD)
Stages of
testing Weight
(kg) HwAU
(m)
(height
arms
up) Rotation movement with support Rotation movement without support
IR
(kg·m2) Radius movement (m) IR
(kg·m2) Radius movement (m)
toes CGG shoulder toes shoulder arms
2012
n=6 33.1 1.84 112.88 1.789 1.046 0.517 14.20 0.734 0.481 0.776
±3.27 ±0.09 ±21.89 ±0.09 ±0.08 ±0.05 ±2.82 ±0.07 ±0.04 ±0.06
2013
n=12 33.13 1.84 112.46 1.616 0.928 0.499 14.20 0.726 0.401 0.673
±2.87 ±0.07 ±18.31 ±0.05 ±0.05 ±0.03 ±2.25 ±0.05 ±0.05 ±0.05
2014
n=9 35.8 1.88 123.77 1.660 0.968 0.524 15.58 0.725 0.432 0.721
±3.73 ±0.06 ±20.13 ±0.10 ±0.07 ±0.04 ±2.49 ±0.06 ±0.06 ±0.07
Note: IR – inertia of rotation in phase of rotation movement without support = ½ m · ½ r2 (½ body weight х ½ body height arms up2)
Table 2 shows the comparative results of biomechanical analysis indicators that characterize the kinematic
structure of the key elements of Gienger salto sports technique according to joints angles data (using «Kinovea»
program). The saltos were made in competitive conditions during the Romanian National Championships of Artistic
Gymnastics, Bucharest 2014 and the Romanian National Championships of Artistic Gymnastics, Onesti 2012.

4 Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Vol. 7 , Issue. 8/1 , August (2017) 001–009

Fig. 1. Key elements of sports technique of s wing forward and salto backward with ½ turn (180°) piked or
stretched ( Gienger salto) – to hang on HB on uneven bars
Table 2. Comparative indicators of angular characteristics of body segments during execution of sports technique key elements of
stretched Gi enger salto on uneven bars (2012, n = 6; 2014, n = 9)
Stat.
Indic. PI (deg) SPh1 (deg) SF2- LP (deg) MP (deg) CP (deg)
toes-vert. thigh – torso 2.1
thigh -torso 2.2
torso -arms thigh -torso a
thigh -torso b
torso -arms
TI TF TI TF TI TF TI TF TI TF TI TF TI TF
x
16.83 9.56 143.17 139.22 147.67 146.78 148.5 138.33 164.83 158.11 136.5 160.56 156.5 129.56
S 4.62 11.19 18.36 13.59 8.33 6.68 3.62 6.06 7.08 4.62 28.53 23.71 31.64 15.48
Cv% 27.46 117.13 12.82 9.76 5.64 4.55 2.44 4.38 4.29 2.92 20.90 14.77 20.22 11.95
ti-f 1.495* 0.958 0.098 3.892 2.085 (signif.) -1.352 2.116*
р >0.05 >0.05 >0.05 <0.01 <0.05 >0.05 >0.05
Note: ti-f – Unpaired Comparison for Means; signif. – significant < 0.15, *р ˂ 0.05 (F – Fisher); SPh1 – sub-phase 1 – passing over
low bar; SPh 2 – L.P. – sub-phase 2 – body launching posture (release of bar); MP – FMH – multiplication of body posture – flight
maximum height; CP – concluding posture of re -grasping the bar; TI –initial testing, TF – final testing
Figure 2 shows the individual spati al-temporal characteristics of gymnast I.A, (14 years old) in terms of GCG
trajectory during Gienger salto execution on high bar on uneven bars in competitive conditions in the National
Championships of Romania during the period 2012 – 2014.
-1.5-1-0.500.511.5
0,00 s 0,3 s 0,6 s 0,8 s 1,067 smPI SPh1 SPh2 -LP MP CP CGG -2012 CGG -2013 CGG -2014

Fig. 2. Graphical representation of GCG trajectory during Gienger salto execution on high bar on uneven
bars, gymnast I.A (14 years old)
Figure 3 presents graphically the individual values of the angular speed of body segments during Gienger salto
execution on high bar on uneven bars by the athlete I.A. (14 years old), concerning the phase of preparatory

Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251 -6204 5
movement for rotation with support and the basic phase of rotation without support and conclusion.
024681012141618
PI SPh1 SPh2 -LPrad/sToes CGG Shoulders

-15-10-5051015202530
LP MP CPrad/sToes Shoulder Arms
a) Phase of preparatory movement of rotation with support b) Phase of basic movement of rotation w/o support and conclusion
Fig. 3. Graphic representation of angular speed of body segments during execution of Gienger salto on un even bars
Table 3 presents the correlation between the biomechanical indicators of the key elements of sports technique of
Gienger salto and the results achieved in the National Championships of Romania, Bucharest 2014.
Table 3. Results of correlative anal ysis of biomechanical indicators of stretched Gienger salto on uneven bars and results in competitions
held in 2014 (n = 9)
Note: table 1 and 2; r – Pearson’s correlation coefficient, р<0.05, r = 0.683; p<0.01, r = 0.833; IR – inertia of rotation, RM – radius of
movement of body segments; SPh2.1 – thigh -torso angle ; SPh2.2 –torso -arms angle; CPa- thigh -torso angle; CPb – torso -arms angle;
KE – key elements, AA – all-around, AF – apparat us finals
Discussions
The method of video -computerized biomechanical analysis of Gienger salto, consistent with the method of
movement postural orientation, allowed highlighting and identifying the key elements. Their assimilation deepens
the understandin g of sports technique used in gymnastics routines and makes possible the development of modern
programs for their learning.
No. Indicators* Indicators
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 IR
(kg·m2) with S – .489 .724 .866 .435 .435 .472 -.628 -.003 .458 .242 -.482 -.059 -.235 .226 .047
w/o S .999 .484 .725 .875 .431 .432 .467 -.618 -.037 .460 .239 -.461 -.057 -.182 .252 .090
2 RM with
support
(m) toes – – .594 .484 .927 .886 .948 .229 .129 .943 .044 -.372 -.372 -.251 .216 .041
3 GCG – – – .779 .829 .852 .900 .020 .132 .901 .030 -437 -.283 -.154 .192 .074
4 shoulder – – – – .425 .484 .653 -.386 -.123 .639 .353 -.407 .056 .001 .221 .155
5 RM w/o
support,
(m) toes – – – – – .910 .823 .209 .134 .822 .059 -.414 -.421 -.242 .293 .086
6 shoulder – – – – – – .904 .314 .257 .859 .153 -.442 -.345 -.218 .172 .029
7 arms – – – – – – – .275 .144 .952 .129 -.379 -.237 -.228 .133 -.000
8
KE,
(degrees)
SPh1 – – – – – – – – .028 .195 -.195 .424 -.408 .275 .089 .231
9 SPh2.1 – – – – – – – – – .326 .009 -.651 .087 -.604 -.776 -.826
10 SPh2.2 – – – – – – – – – – .092 -.555 -.134 -.134 -.273 -.065
11 MP – – – – – – – – – – – -.225 -.060 -.100 .225 .108
12 CPa – – – – – – – – – – – – -.428 .503 .538 .663
13 CPb – – – – – – – – – – – – – .062 -.614 -.463
14 AA, AF
(points)
difficult – – – – – – – – – – – – – – .375 .732
15 execut. – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – .901
16 score – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

6 Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Vol. 7 , Issue. 8/1 , August (2017) 001–009
The macro methods of learning difficult acrobatic and gymnastics exercises of coordination, also the logical –
structural diagram for achievement in sports training are well presented by Prof. V. Boloban (1988). Structurally, the
macro methods introduce the functional assembly of long -term programs for learning the exercises of ”movement
school”, the basic level of specialization, of the arbitrary and final programs, also the development of physical
qualities consistent with the technical training based on the influence of key concrete goals of gymnasts’ sports
training (Boloban, 2013, Boloban & Potop, 2015).
The comparative analysis of the results of anthropometric and biomechanical indicators necessary for the
biomechanical analysis of Gienger salto (table 1) reveals the increase of body weight by an average of 33.1 kg in the
initial testing and by 35.8 kg in final testing, also an incr ease of the height with arms up – 1.88 m which influence
the change of the value of inertia of rotation (IR), (kg·m2) in the phase of rotation with support and in the phase of
rotation without support as well. Regarding the radius of segments movement duri ng the phase of rotation with
support in the preparatory movement, we observe the decrease of toes movement and GCG and their increase at
shoulders in the final testing, which led to the improvement of the preparatory movement in SPh1 and SPh2 -LP.
The anal ysis of kinematic structure indicators of the sports technique key elements of Gienger salto on uneven
bars according to segment angles data allowed the highlighting of joint angle mean and the significance of
differences between tests (table 2):
– in prep aratory movement phase, in the launching posture (LP) – handstand, there is an average of 16. 83
degrees of the angle between toes and the vertical in initial testing and a decrease by 7.27 degrees in final testing,
with significant differences at p<0.05 (Fisher). These differences are caused by the improvement of launching
posture (LP) – handstand, starting to make the vertical preparatory movement, although it originates from the
concluding posture of another difficult element. In SPh1, which is the mome nt before passing over the low bar, the
average angle between thigh -torso has a value of 143.17 degrees in initial testing and a decrease by 3.95 degrees in
final testing, with insignificant differences at p>0.05, which justifies the importance of avoiding the low bar without
disturbing the technical execution. In SPh2 -LP, the posture of release of high bar is characterized by the decrease of
the angle thigh – torso by 0.89 degrees and torso – arms by 10.17 degrees in final testing, with insignificant
diffe rences at p>0.05, which contributed to the improvement of the preparatory movement for beginning the salto.
– in the basic movement phase, the multiplication of body posture (MP) in the moment of GCG maximum height,
there is a decrease of the angle thigh -torso by 6 degrees in final testing, which allowed the increase of salto flight
phase amplitude.
-in the concluding phase, re -grasping of the bar in hanging position, we notice an increase of the angle thigh –
torso, removing the legs from the bar; instea d of it, the angle torso -arms decreased, thus the bar re -grasping with
stretched arms (technical mistake) was more difficult.
The results of the correlative analysis highlight the following matters (table 3): strong connections between
indicators at р<0. 01 inertia of rotation (IR) during rotation phase with support and IR in the phase of rotation
without support and the radius of movement (RM) of shoulder joint during the phase of rotation with support on
apparatus; IR in the phase of rotation without su pport with RM of shoulder joints; RM of leg joint in the phase of
rotation with support with the RM without support of the joints of legs, shoulders and arms, SPh2.2 – angle between
torso -arms in the phase of rotation with support; the RM of rotation with support of GCG with the RM of the
rotation without support of shoulders and arms joints, SPh2.2; RM of rotation without support of the leg with
shoulder joints; RM of the rotation without support of shoulders joint with arms and SPh2.2; RM of rotation wit hout
support of the arms with SPh2.2. The connections at р<0.05 have correlations between the inertia of rotation (IR)
with support and without support with the RM of rotation with support of body GCG; RM of rotation with support
with the RM of GCG and shoulder in the phase of rotation without support; RM witho ut support of the leg with the
arms and SPh2.2; SPh2.1 with execution and final score; difficulty with final score (result).
Conclusions
The results of the spatial – temporal characteristics of sports technique key elements of stretched Gienger salto
on un even bars highlights the phasic sequence of execution, namely the preparatory movement of launching from

Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Modern Journal of Language Teaching Methods (MJLTM) ISSN: 2251 -6204 7
backward giant circle, moment of bar release, multiplication of body posture and the concluding posture of re –
grasping the bar in accordance with the t echnical requirements of FIG Code of Points.
The correlative analysis between the biomechanical indicators of Gienger salto stretched and the performances
achieved in competition on uneven bars by the gymnasts aged 12 to 15 years reveal strong and moderat e
connections between the kinematic characteristics of sports technique key elements and the scores obtained in
competition. As for the weak connections, they require a special attention on improving the phasic structure of body
posture.
The use of video -computerized method in accordance with the method of movement postural orientation and
algorithmic analysis of sports technique of stretched Gienger salto on uneven bars contributed to the more effective
development of the contents of long -term learning p rograms, the improvement of technical execution and the
achievement of better performances in competition.
The biomechanical analysis of Gienger salto on high bar on uneven bars based on the achievement of the macro
methods of learning in the case of young gymnasts aged 12 to 15 years contributed to the development of sports
technique key elements and to the improvement of movement biomechanical characteristics, which confirms the
hypothesis of this paper.
Acknowledgements
This case study is an advanced sta ge of the pedagogical experiment of the post -doctoral thesis; it is included in
the research plan in the field of National University of Physical Education and Sport of Ukraine, with the subject
matters: 2.11 (Dynamic static stability as a basis for techni cal training of those involved in sports gymnastics views),
2.32 (Technical training of qualified athlete based on competitive exercises technique rationalization) and in the plan
of research for 2016 -2017 of the Faculty of Physical Education and Sport, E cological University of Bucharest. We
express our gratitude to the Romanian Gymnastics Federation and especially to Missis Anca Grigoras Mihailescu –
federal coach and to the coaches of the Olympic Team of Izvorani who helped us to conduct this research .
4. References
Arkaev, L.J., Suchilin, N.G. (2004). Kak gotovit' chempionov. Teorija i tehnologija podgotovki gimnastov vyshej kvalifikacii . Moscow:
Fizkul'tura i sport, 22 -29, 286 -288.
Boloban, V. Regulation of body posture athlete. Monography. Kiev: Olympic L iterature, 2013, pp . 118-190.
Boloban, V., & Potop, V. (2015). Bases of macromethods of sports exercise training (as exemplified in woman’s all -around gymnastics). Nauka v
olimpiyskom sporte , 4, 55 -66.
Code of Points 2017 -2020, Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique (FIG), Women’s Artistic Gymnastics, Part III, Apparatus, Section 11 –
Uneven Bars; Part IV Tables of elements, 43 -45, 86.
Cretu, M. (2004). Improvement of the technique of back giant and back somersault dismount off uneven bars. Pitești: Unive rsity of Pitești.
Cretu, M., Simăn, I., & Bărbulescu, M. (2004). Biomechanics of back giant on uneven bars. Pitesti: Publishing House of Pitesti University.
Dragnea, A., & Mate S. (2002). Theory of Sport . Bucharest: FEST Publishing House, 281 -300.
Dobres cu, T., & Bibire, M. (2008). Uneven bars – concept and modern methodologies . Iași: PIM Publishing House, 148 -150.
Gaverdovskij, J.K. (2014). Teorija i metodika sportivnoj gimnastiki . Uchebnik vol. 1. Moscow: Sovetskij sport, 183 -214.
Grigore, V. (2001). Artistic gymnastics: theoretical fundamentals of sports training . Bucharest: “Semne” Publishing House, 81.
Grosu, E.F. (2004). Uneven bars of women’s artistic gymnastics. Gymnastics. Cluj-Napoca: GMI Publishing House, 1, 19 -21, 175 -176.
Hiley, M.J., & Yeado n. M.R. (2007). Optimization of Backward Giant Circle Technique on the Asymmetric Bars. Journal of Applied
Biomechanics, 23, 300 -308.
Platonov, V. N. (2004). Sistema podgotovki sportsmenov v olimpijskom sporte: obwaja teorija i ee prakticheskie prilozhenij aju. Kiev:
Olimptjskaja literatura, 441 -450.
Potop, V., Grigore, V., Timnea, O.C., & Ulareanu, M.V. (2014). Biomechanical characteristics of transfer in the rotation move ments on uneven
bars. Applied Mechanics and Materials , 650 -660.
Potop, V., Timnea, O.C ., Mihaiu, C., & Manole, C. (2014). Biomechanical characteristics of back double salto dismount off uneven bars. Journal
of Physical Education and Sport , 2, 248 -253.
Potop, V., Grigore, V., & Timnea, O. (2015). Biomechanical characteristics of key element s of Gienger salto technique on uneven bars. Procedia
– Social and Behavioral Science , 191, 372 -377.
Potop, V., Timnea, O., & Triboi, V. (2013). Biomechanical characteristics of key elements of Jaeger salto technique on uneven bars. Proceedings
Of The 6th Annual International Conference: Physical Education Sport and Health , University of Pitesti, 17/1, 257 -261.
Potop, V. (2015). Bases of Macro methods for Sports Exercises Learning (material from women’s artistic gymnastics). Monograph, Kiev: Center
Education Literature.

8 Vladimir Potopa, Olivia Carmen Timneab, Marius Stanescuc / Vol. 7 , Issue. 8/1 , August (2017) 001–009
Readhead, L. (2011). Gymnastics. Skills. Techniques. Training . Crowood sports guides. The Crowood Press Ltd, 45 -46.
Sadovski E., Boloban, V., Nizhnikovski, T., & Mastalezh A. (2009). P oznye orientiry dvizhenij kak uzlovye jelementy sportivn oj tehniki
akrobaticheskih upazhnenij. Teorija i praktika fizicheskoj kul'tury. 12, 42 -47.
Smolevskij, V.M., & Gaverdovskij, J.K. (1999). Sportivnaja gimnastika . Kiev: Olimpijskaja literature, 112 -121.
Vieru, N. (1997). Manual of sports gymnastics . Bucha rest: Driada Publishing House, 184 -187.