WAG Long Term Athlete Development in Gymnastics

[JBS]

EDIT: This is a conversation split out of another thread. You can view that thread at the following link to see how the conversation started...

https://www.chalkbucket.com/forums/threads/level-4-much-harder-than-3.63006/page-2#post-562017

The concept of this conversation is basically... "Can you use long term athlete development to get an athlete into upper level gymnastics?"

EDIT2: This is about WAG & MAG... athletes in general.

------------​

L4 is much harder than L3... L4 is really the first useful level in the JO system. L3 is just way to aggressive to be useful.

This is why we are no longer competing L2 or L3. All of our athletes will start with the Xcel program... as they move toward Gold... the ones that are committed and mentally / physically able will have the option to compete L4. This system will keep us from getting stuck in the win... win... win mentality of compulsory gymnastics too early.

We don't need to win at the low levels... we need to do very vague things like...

• Learn to learn
• Learn to train

Once we can do the above two... then we can get into other things like...

• Train to train
• Train to win

Aggressive L3 makes L4 much harder... athletes that train straight to L4 are better off in my opinion.

 

[amiandjim]

L4 is much harder than L3... L4 is really the first useful level in the JO system. L3 is just way to aggressive to be useful.

This is why we are no longer competing L2 or L3. All of our athletes will start with the Xcel program... as they move toward Gold... the ones that are committed and mentally / physically able will have the option to compete L4. This system will keep us from getting stuck in the win... win... win mentality of compulsory gymnastics too early.

We don't need to win at the low levels... we need to do very vague things like...

• Learn to learn
• Learn to train

Once we can do the above two... then we can get into other things like...

• Train to train
• Train to win

Aggressive L3 makes L4 much harder... athletes that train straight to L4 are better off in my opinion.

I’m curious what you mean by aggressive? Just the competitions and focus on winning? I do agree it’s becoming a little crazy with the focus on super high scores. We routinely see girls repeating level 3 when they scored 36-37.5 their first year! And yes, I realize some girls absolutely need to repeat level 3, but not to the extent we see in our area.

 

[SMH]

I’m curious what you mean by aggressive? Just the competitions and focus on winning? I do agree it’s becoming a little crazy with the focus on super high scores. We routinely see girls repeating level 3 when they scored 36-37.5 their first year! And yes, I realize some girls absolutely need to repeat level 3, but not to the extent we see in our area.

Also curious what you mean by aggressive- are you referring to the movements? Or the way it’s used? Level 3 is huge where we live.

 

[JBS]

I’m curious what you mean by aggressive? Just the competitions and focus on winning? I do agree it’s becoming a little crazy with the focus on super high scores. We routinely see girls repeating level 3 when they scored 36-37.5 their first year! And yes, I realize some girls absolutely need to repeat level 3, but not to the extent we see in our area.

Been trying to figure out how to describe this... so here goes...

There is a very aggressive drive to win at L3. Each year more and more clubs are pushing their scoring standards up at the lower levels. Winning is very mentally demanding for a young athlete. Winning at L3 is not required to be an upper level gymnast... L3 is not required to be an upper level gymnast.

We are developing our own system to use at our club... but it is very similar to the Canadian "Sport for Life" model...

Many people look at this model and say... "The ages don't work for gymnastics." I would say... "Are you sure the ages don't work... for the average athlete?" Check out the website... http://sportforlife.ca/qualitysport/long-term-athlete-development/

Now how about that crazy 9 year old that can rock toe blind to Jaeger on bars... are they really mentally beyond "yellow"... or are they just super physically talented? Just because they are a 10 year old L9 doesn't mean that they are mentally ready to handle the same demands as a 15 year old L9. Physically... maybe... mentally... be careful.

It works the other way too... what if you have a 15 year overclocked to L10 (meaning they really should be a L9)? Now you have them prepared to fail if you are telling them "purple". Now if it's a learning year and you are still telling them "light blue" or "green"... ok... that might work.

It does not mean that athletes can't win until "purple". Most athletes actually do much better when the focus in not just winning.

Much of this just depends on how you define each stage. The important part is the concept. Like I said... we are developing our own model. That is due to the fact that some of this model doesn't quite work for us... but it's very close.

Replace orange... yellow... green... and light blue with "Train to Win" and you can see how that would get exhausting. Some crazy parents/coaches even replace "red" with "Train to Win".

 

[amiandjim]

I totally get what you are saying! And I agree with you, it’s becoming insane.

 

[RTT2]

Been trying to figure out how to describe this... so here goes...

There is a very aggressive drive to win at L3. Each year more and more clubs are pushing their scoring standards up at the lower levels. Winning is very mentally demanding for a young athlete. Winning at L3 is not required to be an upper level gymnast... L3 is not required to be an upper level gymnast.

We are developing our own system to use at our club... but it is very similar to the Canadian "Sport for Life" model...

View attachment 7282

Many people look at this model and say... "The ages don't work for gymnastics." I would say... "Are you sure the ages don't work... for the average athlete?" Check out the website... http://sportforlife.ca/qualitysport/long-term-athlete-development/

Now how about that crazy 9 year old that can rock toe blind to Jaeger on bars... are they really mentally beyond "yellow"... or are they just super physically talented? Just because they are a 10 year old L9 doesn't mean that they are mentally ready to handle the same demands as a 15 year old L9. Physically... maybe... mentally... be careful.

It works the other way too... what if you have a 15 year overclocked to L10 (meaning they really should be a L9)? Now you have them prepared to fail if you are telling them "purple". Now if it's a learning year and you are still telling them "light blue" or "green"... ok... that might work.

It does not mean that athletes can't win until "purple". Most athletes actually do much better when the focus in not just winning.

Much of this just depends on how you define each stage. The important part is the concept. Like I said... we are developing our own model. That is due to the fact that some of this model doesn't quite work for us... but it's very close.

Replace orange... yellow... green... and light blue with "Train to Win" and you can see how that would get exhausting. Some crazy parents/coaches even replace "red" with "Train to Win".

Interesting. Some of this is what I was getting at in the "Recreating WAG" thread I started a while back. The current model in the US works well for a small few, but could it be reimagined to work better for developing athletes? Thanks for sharing this!

 

[LJL07]

Now how about that crazy 9 year old that can rock toe blind to Jaeger on bars... are they really mentally beyond "yellow"... or are they just super physically talented? Just because they are a 10 year old L9 doesn't mean that they are mentally ready to handle the same demands as a 15 year old L9. Physically... maybe... mentally... be careful.

This x1000 @JBS . And when will parents and coaches alike get this?! Parents think because they have a 38 scoring level 2 or 3 that their kid is going to be a phenomenal level 10. I don't believe you can tell from level 3 or even 4 or 5 if ANY child will make it to level 10. Many children can be successful at the compulsory levels with tons of repetition and good coaching but aren't necessarily going to be great at the optional levels. And on the flip side, I have seen first hand some physically talented children who were "pushed up" to level 8 or so at 8 or 9 years old and they were definitely not mentally ready to handle the demands, and that is why they have all quit. Had they progressed at a more reasonable pace, I wonder if they would still be doing the sport.

 

[JBS]

Sorry to totally derail this thread... but here it is...

http://www.gymcan.org/uploads/gcg_ltad_en.pdf

 

[JBS]

And here is the model that Canada built specific for gymnastics...

https://www.gymbc.org/long-term-athlete-development

Interesting... I have never seen this before.

 

[ProvB]

And here is the model that Canada built specific for gymnastics...

https://www.gymbc.org/long-term-athlete-development

Interesting... I have never seen this before.

We are in BC and although I love the concept, I think it’s still more of an ideal than a reality. For sure there are some clubs who adopt this approach, but there are just as many who have 7-9 year olds training 18-22 hours a week.

As long as the aspire program is in place in a Canada, there is going to be a focus on getting girls to level 7-9 skills by age 9. Aspire is know as “the path” to elite in Canada, and most 9 year olds in Aspire 1 are training upwards of 20 hours a week.

So we have a bit of a divide amongst coaches/philosophies. The reality is, those gyms that train girls for aspire/high performance are doing high hours and aiming for competing at Gymnix by age 11. Those gyms that take the Long term athlete development approach are lower hours and have 10-12 year olds in JO3. 99% of clubs in BC compete full seasons starting at JO1.

 

[JBS]

We are in BC and although I love the concept, I think it’s still more of an ideal than a reality. For sure there are some clubs who adopt this approach, but there are just as many who have 7-9 year olds training 18-22 hours a week.

Yes... for sure... I have a 9 year old training 23 hours per week... but that doesn't mean that a coach can't keep the concepts of the long term athlete development close at hand.

 

[JBS]

As long as the aspire program is in place in a Canada, there is going to be a focus on getting girls to level 7-9 skills by age 9. Aspire is know as “the path” to elite in Canada, and most 9 year olds in Aspire 1 are training upwards of 20 hours a week.

@ProvB So "Aspire" is basically TOPS / HOPES in the US?

 

[skschlag]

I know this is in WAG, but this fits with some conversations I overheard at MAG nationals. College coaches discussing how the young athletes are doing harder and harder skills, pushing their bodies so hard so early, to the point that when they get to college, they are already beaten down, injured etc. One mentioned that they spend more time rehabbing than ever before. Their question was whether or not the boys needed to be doing this skills and training so hard so early, if it shortened their careers. It was definitely enlightening to hear!

 

[JBS]

@skschlag This really should not just be a WAG conversation... thank you for responding with some input from the MAG side.

 

[fuzi]

Okay...this is a little bit of a derail too, but I've been looking through the Gym Canada guidelines and there's a lot I love about them, but I'm puzzled by one thing:

Why are "jumping jacks" a bad activity for the Active Start and FUNdamentals phases? Does jumping jack mean something different in Canada?

And if jumping jack is what I am picture (see the attached gif), what's so bad about it? I want to educate our coaches.

 

[JBS]

Why are "jumping jacks" a bad activity for the Active Start and FUNdamentals phases?

Jumping jacks can be hard on knees. That's the only thing I can think of.

 

[raenndrops]

Jumping jacks can be hard on knees. That's the only thing I can think of.

lol, but so can gymnastics.
Maybe it's because it requires too much coordination??? "X - I - X - I" was the only way to teach some of the little ones when I taught preschool.

 

[mommyof1]

Aggressive L3 makes L4 much harder... athletes that train straight to L4 are better off in my opinion.

As a parent, I could not agree more. I love so many things about my daughter's gym, but its approach to L3 is not one of them. There is an expectation that virtually every girl will repeat L3. First-year L3s train limited hours with almost no uptraining. Second-years train what I would consider an appropriate number of hours with some uptraining for L4, but no uptraining on vault. L3 competes more frequently than any other level. The primary L3 coach is highly focused on scores and placements. Girls who score well are picked out as favorites to receive special attention. Girls who do not live up to the coach's expectations (such as my daughter, whom the coach expected to be one of the higher scorers during the first L3 year but who ended up falling short of those expectations) feel like second-class citizens. Each year, I have observed that one girl scoring in the high 36s who quickly picks up the kip when summer uptraining begins is held back. I suspect that this is done with the expectation that the chosen one will win AA at states. This suspicion was strengthened when the coach flew off the handle over the chosen one's score on one event at states one year. Instead of congratulating the girl on winning an event championship or acknowledging the medals other girls had won (including another event championship), the coach spent the second half of the session and the awards ceremony talking about contesting the score that she apparently believed had cost the chosen one the AA championship. This was not useful in teaching the girls sportsmanship.

This "aggressive" approach to competition at L3 was counterproductive for my daughter in many ways. Despite big improvements in her performance and scores over the first half of her first L3 season, the constant direct comparison to others under the extremely nit-picky rubric of compulsory gymnastics was just too much for her at 8 years old. When she realized that she was not the absolute best or most talented gymnast out there halfway through the season, she shut down. Her tumbling and vaulting deteriorated and she started falling off the beam. Her first L3 state meet was such a disastrous experience that I still regret that I didn't listen to my gut and demand that she be scratched. For eight or nine months, she cried after every practice and made zero forward progress even during "fun" summer training. It wasn't until she got her kip while attending open gym at a friend's gym that she began to believe that she had the potential to learn new skills and have success. She ended up having a solid second season at L3 and medaling at states, but the damage to her self-confidence was so deep that it took her amazing L4 coach most of the next season to recalibrate her attitude and rebuild her self-image.

The lack of uptraining in L3 was also problematic for my daughter in terms of skills. The girls did not begin working progressions for the FHS vault until they moved up to L4 after L3 states, and did not actually start going over the table to land on their feet until a couple of weeks before they started competing. This did not give my daughter, whose weakest event is vault, enough time to feel confident with the FHS vault before she had to compete it. In reality her vault started out perfectly fine given her level of preparation and should have improved more over the course of the season, but she felt hesitant and that translated into tentative, sloppy vaulting.

Bottom line: I wish my daughter had spent one year training towards L4 without competing instead of two years competing L3 with an emphasis on winning. If this had been the approach, I believe she would be competing L5 or L6 this year instead of competing a second year of L4 while training with the L5 group.

 

[mommyof1]

There was a lot of hype during the last Winter Olympics about how Norway doesn't allow scorekeeping in youth sports until age 13. I think there's something to that.

 

[gymisforeveryone]

We have a scoring system that doesn't tell a gymnast or the coach the exact score the gymnasts received in compulsory levels. So for example if a gymnast scores 8.6, they show a score category "8.5-9". If a gymnast scores 5.8, they show a category "below 6". And the all around scores work the same way. The lowest category the gymnast can get is I (below 28) and the highest is VII (above 36). This helps gymnasts and coaches not to focus on the scores too much. The gymnast see improvements when they go up in the categories.

Also, kids are not allowed to compete until the September of the year when they turn 7.