Japan won the Men’s Team Final in Rotterdam on 20 October 2026 with 251.928, ahead of Russia (250.329) and China (249.193). This review covers the 144 counting routines of the final and compares each of them with the same gymnast’s routine on the same apparatus in qualification (17 October).

1. How the title was won

The 2026 Gymnastics Worlds Teams Final stats show that Japan only took the lead in rotation 5 and won by 1.599, with less difficulty than Russia but far better execution

Rotation-by-Rotation Standings

After two rotations, Russia was only 7th, 3.066 points behind the leaders, yet finished second. Its first two apparatus, pommel horse and rings, were its two weakest of the day. Keep in mind that at any point during the competition, teams have not yet competed on the same apparatus. Mid-meet standings show how the competition unfolded, but not which team was stronger at that moment.

How the Gaps Were Built

Japan won with 0.8 less difficulty than Russia and made it up entirely on execution. Silver over bronze was the reverse, almost pure difficulty.

Team Totals: Difficulty, Execution, Bonus and Penalties

Totals are summed over each team’s 18 counting routines. Switzerland had the best execution of the final but ranked 7th in difficulty. Japan’s seven stuck landings were cancelled out exactly by 0.7 of penalties, mostly the two -0.3 on floor (Doi, Hashimoto).

Four teams include at least 1 gymnast who competed in all 6 events:
– Japan: Hashimoto Daiki
– Russia: Arsenii Dukhno
– China: Yang
– Colombia: Ángel Barajas and Camilo Vera

2. Strengths and weaknesses by apparatus

Apparatus Ranks by Team

Japan is the only team that never ranked below 4th on any apparatus and won only 1 apparatus. Their 4th place on FX came down to 0.001 behind Great Britain (41.299 vs 41.300).

China is the extreme profile: two apparatus wins (SR, PB) and two last places (FX, VT).

Great Britain had a better average rank than China (3.83 vs 4.83) yet finished 1.798 behind. China won by wide margins, while Britain lost steeply on PB and HB (3.367 and 3.832 behind the apparatus winners).

The six apparatus titles went to five different teams.

3. From Qualification to Final

All 144 Team Final routines have a qualification counterpart. Scores went up in 72 cases, down in 64, and stayed the same in 8. Difficulty stayed the same in 90 cases, went down in 32 and up in 22, for a net -3.0 points of D.

Team Totals and Ranks, Qualification vs. Final

Qualification totals keep the best 3 scores out of 4, while the final drops none, so the routine-by-routine comparison below is fairer. Great Britain lost 4.065 points, including 2.900 on parallel bars and 1.399 on high bar.

Score Change by Apparatus

Average change per routine: Parallel bars is the only apparatus with a clear drop: -8.600 points over the 24 routines, almost entirely in execution. High bar is where difficulty moved most, with a lower average D offset by better execution.

Score Change by Team

How to read this table. Each team’s 18 Team Final routines are compared with the same gymnast’s routine on the same apparatus in qualification. For example, Noe Seifert’s high bar in the final (14.000) is compared with his high bar in qualification (12.300). Every Team Final routine had a qualification counterpart, so each team has 18 pairs. All changes are calculated as final minus qualification.

Routines up is the number of pairs where the final score was higher than the qualification score. Routines with an identical score are not counted as up.
Total Δ D is the sum of the 18 changes in difficulty score. A positive value means the team performed harder routines overall in the final.
Average Δ E is the average change in execution score across the 18 pairs.
Total Δ D is the sum of the 18 changes in difficulty score. A positive value means the team performed harder routines overall in the final.

Why this differs from the change in team total. The team total in qualification keeps the best three of four scores on each apparatus, while the Team Final counts all three. Teams also changed some gymnasts between the two rounds. This table compares only routines that were performed twice, so it measures how the same gymnasts performed under final conditions, independent of lineup choices and dropped scores. For example, Japan’s team total fell by 2.601, but on the routines its gymnasts repeated the drop was only 0.967.

Switzerland had the best execution of the final but ranked 7th in difficulty. and improved the most, in both difficulty and execution.
Japan lowered its difficulty by 1.6 points and still won.

Gymnasts Biggest Improvements

Gymnasts Biggest Drops

Leykin (USA) and Mejia (COL) appear in both tables: their day swung from one apparatus to the next.

Biggest Changes in Difficulty

Line-up Changes

China and the Netherlands fielded exactly their 3 best qualifiers on every apparatus. Switzerland made the most changes, on four apparatus, and was the team that improved the most.

4. Stuck Landings

31 stuck landings out of 120 eligible routines in the final (26%), against 42 out of 158 in qualification (27%). Eligible apparatus are FX, SR, VT, PB and HB; pommel horse has no stuck landing bonus.

Stuck Landings by Team: Final vs. Qualification

Switzerland is the only team that stuck more landings in the final than in qualification.

Stuck Landings by Gymnast in the Team Final

Oka Shinnosuke (JPN) was the stuck-landing star of the final, the only gymnast to stick every eligible landing he attempted: floor, rings and parallel bars, 3 out of 3. Harry Hepworth (GBR) came close with 2 out of 3, sticking both his floor and rings dismounts.

Japan‘s seven stuck landings, the most of any team, came from just three gymnasts: Oka, Shohei Kawakami (rings, parallel bars) and Hashimoto Daiki (floor, high bar). Switzerland showed the same depth. Matteo Giubellini, Mattia Piffaretti and Noe Seifert each stuck two landings, accounting for all six Swiss bonuses.

Some of the best scores of the final came with a stuck landing. Zou Jingyuan (CHN) stuck his parallel bars dismount on his way to 15.366, the highest score of the day. On rings, the two best scores of the final, Lan Xingyu‘s 14.733 and Harry Hepworth‘s 14.666, both ended with a stick. Hashimoto Daiki (JPN) did the same on high bar, where his stuck dismount helped him to 14.866.

Consistency deserves a mention too. Sixteen stuck landings from qualification were repeated in the final on the same apparatus. The Japanese trio led the way: Hashimoto Daiki (floor, high bar), Kawakami Shohei (rings, parallel bars) and Oka Shinnosuke (rings, parallel bars) each stuck the same two landings in both rounds.

5. The Best Possible Team of the Final

Combining the best performances of the day, the ceiling of this final was well above Japan’s winning total.

Best Team Score on Each Apparatus

Japan’s winning total was 4.066 below this composite score.

Best 5 Gymnasts Across All Nations

A team including Hashimoto Daiki (JPN), Arsenii Dukhno (RUS), Zou Jingyuan (CHN), Harry Hepworth (GBR) and Angel Barajas (COL) would score 257.862, 5.934 more than Japan and 1.868 more than the composite team. The five come from five different nations.

No Caption

Arsenii Dukhno (RUS)

Zhou Jingyuan (CHN)

Harry Hepworth (GBR)

Angel Barajas (COL)

• How the best team was chosen: the team needs three scores on each of the six apparatus, a gymnast’s value depends on what he adds to the team as a whole, and every possible combination of five gymnasts was tested.
• Why Harry Hepworth rather than Jake Jarman? the worked example. Jake gains 0.466 on floor and vault, but losing Harrys 14.666 on rings costs 1.566, so the “team” drops to 256.762.
• All-arounders versus specialists: why Hashimoto and Barajas weigh so heavily, and how a specialist like Zou still earns his place with the best score of the final.

Hashimoto Daiki (JPN) is the backbone with five counting scores, every apparatus except floor. Arsenii Dukhno (RUS) adds four.

Angel Barajas (COL) makes the team even though Colombia finished last: his 14.900 on HB is the best high bar score of the final.

Zou Jingyuan (CHN) and Harry Hepworth (GBR) earn their place with three routines each, including the best PB score of the final (15.366).

Closest Alternatives

Closest Alternatives – without Hashimoto Daiki