Extra Points for Extra Strength

A plea for a change in the Rules of Acrobatic Gymnastics

Author: Flosha
Apr 16, 2025

Acro is a strength sport.
Since it is very strength-focused and has even been called “Artistic Strength Sport” (“Kunstkraftsport” in Germany) in the past, the inevitable question arises, why there are no weight classes in Acro. Base partners are weightlifting humans. And in every other strength sport as well as in the martial arts there are weight classes in which athletes compete.

Please note: This is not to suggest introducing separate weight classes into acro; the suggestion is a different one, but the weight classes are important to mention in order to understand the reasoning behind the plea made thereafter.

To explain the reason behind these weight classes in short: There is absolute strength and there is relative strength. An athlete which weighs only 60kg but lifts 200kg is factually stronger in relative terms than an athlete which weighs 100kg and lifts e.g. 220kg. The latter is stronger in absolute terms, but weaker in the relation between his bodyweight and the external weight lifted.
In the same way, in acrobatics, a 80kg base may throw a 35kg top into a triple salto with beautiful height, amplitude and technique. There may be another 80kg base working with a 50kg top, throwing her in a triple salto too. How can these two elements be judged on the same basis, if one of the bases has to lift so much more (or is much lighter himself)?

By not accounting for this difference in any way, the Rules of Acrobatics are basically rewarding tops to be as skinny and light as humanly possible. We all know about the problem of eating disorders in the sport and should take it serious. But we can and should also not fall into the trap of critizising being light and skinny for no reason. The fact will always remain that being lighter will make things easier, make things possible and reduce the injury risk of tops. Being light is a part of the training and a reasonable requirement for athletes that have to perform high-level strength elements with their own bodyweight. In this regard tops in acro may be compared with ring gymnasts or calisthenics athletes. Every elite ring gymnast and calisthenics athlete is light in regard to their weight-to-muscle-mass ratio. They all have very little bodyfat and there is nothing problematic about it. What is problematic are the mental risks involved especially for children and teenagers, the pressure, the aesthetical ideals and associated shame. How the topic is addressed, communicated to the athlete and overall dealt with by coaches and parents is the essential factor. Not whether an athlete is very low in bodyfat or not, but under which mental and physical conditions they reach and maintain this weight. They can be mentally and physically healthy and strong while maintaining a low bodyfat percentage and this will keep being regarded the goal worth striving for in the sport.

As of now Acrobatic Gymnastics uses a deduction for too much height difference in order to make up for such advantages. But it is obviously a flawed solution. The height difference is not as important as the weight difference, which currently is not taken into account. While a bigger height difference is usually accompanied by a bigger weight difference, this is not necessarily the case; the weight difference between two partnerships could be the same when in one partnership the top is tall, but very light/slim and in the other the top is small, but very heavy. It cannot suffice to measure the height nor would it even be necessary if one would measure the weight.

It is argued that too much of a height difference is unfavourable from an aesthetical perspective. I find that very arbitrary. Height cannot be influenced, weight can. A very small top is punished for her height that she cannot change.

Instead of punishing a partnership with a big height difference, which is actually favourable from a purely technical perspective, we could as well reward partnerships which demonstrate more strength by less weight difference, regardless of their height.

It is important to point out that Acro and other Strength Sports have a very different goal: In pure strength sports it is the goal to become stronger and stronger, to move more and more weight. In Acrobatics it can and should never be the goal to lift heavier and heavier partners; if so it would lead us to a sport where partnerships with the most obese tops would win gold. That is not what we want.

In Acro it is the goal to work with a partner at their given weight (while it is fine that they attempt to optimise it in their favour) and to be strong enough to do so, in order to perform beautiful elements and routines. Thus, the weight is an important factor in Acro, but it is not the focus of the sport, it is just one factor we have to work with. It is a factor that should not decide about who will win; because not who can lift more is the better acrobat but the one who can perform higher difficulty beautifully is. In doing so the weight of the top shouldn’t be wished to be higher, it is simply something that can be an advantage or a disadvantage in competition. And the rules have to make up for it.

No matter the strength involved, a lighter person will always fly higher and be easier to catch, to hold and to balance than a heavier person, which also reduces the injury risk for all the partners involved. Exactly because it makes more things possible and makes all things safer to do, there is nothing wrong with height-, weight- and age differences in acrobatic partnerships.

It would be very detrimental and extremely limiting to the technical height of the sport and the performed difficulty at competitons if bases would be forced to work with tops of e.g. a minimum weight and would not be allowed to work with lighter tops. But it would not be wrong, but rather mandatory, that those who work with heavier tops, be it because they want to or because they have to, are either not being judged on the same basis, or simply have to be given extra points for extra strength - and this is the solution that I am suggesting.

The Technical Committee may fear to cause more problems with eating disorders when athletes have to be weighted. But on one hand, we have to admit, that most coaches and athletes will keep tracking their weight anyway by one method or another, simply because it is reasonable to do so. And on the other hand: If a higher weight does not simply mean a disadvantage for the base, but a chance to stand against more advantaged opponents by receiving extra points for extra weight, the weighing can become a procedure that one can feel rather relaxed and neutral about, just as in other strength sports too.
There is a balance then that coaches and athletes can work with: Being lighter enables higher difficulty, being heavier enables more display of strength.

As for the question of how abuse should be prevented (e.g. drinking a lot to weigh more) - such abuse can easily be prevented if weighing happens immediately before the start of the routine.

There are privacy concerns too: But no one has to be told or shown the actual weight of the partners; it suffices to show the difference in weight in percentages (e.g. “the top weighs 50% of the base”). It also doesn’t necessarily have to be shown at all and can just be something that is added by the Difficulty Judge, but if just the relation is shown and if athletes regard the system as fair and aren’t ashamed for their weight ratio, since everyone is respecting them for what they do and since there are rules in place that reflect e.g. their lower weight difference and reward them, then I do not see why one would want to hide the difference.

It is this relation, not any actual weight, which would define the different “weight classes” in Acro, with the difference that these different weight classes can still compete with each other. The higher this value is, the closer the top is to the weight of the base, the more extra points will be given to the base for every balance and dynamic element due to the extra strength involved and needed for it. In consequence there will be pairs in acrobatics which are more “strength”-focused and in which the strength required and displayed in the performance of the elements is the exciting part to watch, while there will be other partnerships which are more skill/difficulty focused, where the strength is not playing that much of a role and the virtuosity of the acrobatics, the amplitude, height and flight will be the most exciting part.

No matter the strength, the fact remains that a higher weight difference is favourable for skill execution and safety. We surely are able to find a percentage which is considered as the standard and the ideal and can be used as a guidance for the formation of partnerships. This could for example be a weight difference of about ~50%. At this point you would neither get extra points nor deductions.

It could roughly work as follows, for instance, in form of penalties or bonus points to the difficulty depending on how much (in %) the top weighs in relation to the base; if the top e.g. only weighs a fourth of the base, there will be a higher deduction than when she weighs a third of the base, and if she weighs two thirds of the base there will be bonus points as compared to weighing only half as much:

Obviously, the given deductions and bonus points are just examplatory and a first suggestion. We also could choose steps of 0.1. The actual points would have to be carefully considered and evaluated.

As far as Trios are concerned, the same principles may apply, whereas theoretically the deductions or bonus points can be imagined to be given both of the bases, divided by two, whereas e.g. the average weight of both bases is taken for the measurement.

In Men’s Fours it can be done in the same way. The average weight of all three bases is taken and measured against the weight of the top.

This way, all the different partnerships with their diverse weight differences could compete with each other; very large weight differences receive a deduction and smaller weight differences receive extra points. The deduction for height may or may not be removed. If this will lead to more partnerships competing with partners of a similar weight, it will only serve the sport, as it will allow more adults (with more regular adult-like proportions) to participate.

If this should lead to a situation where only or mostly those win with much less difficult elements, just due to their extra points for weight, it means that we would have to reduce these extra points slightly or that the difficulty of elements in general should be rewarded more, to find the correct balance over time, that is fair to all varieties of partnerships.

The goal should be to create a situation in which we see all kinds of partnerships but where those at or around 50% are favoured for safety and the display of higher diffculty elements. By not giving extra value above 80% (or a bit more or less), we discourage from going for too heavy partnerships to reduce injury risk.

– Flosha, Apr 16, 2025

Note: I would be happy to hear your thoughts about this idea and, if you support it, please tell me so, since when some leading coaches and athletes support the suggestion, we could add their names under the text and turn it into a sort of petition.

back to the top