MAG Age requirement changes?

[gracyomalley]

I hope they carefully look at the "in age" requirements....my kids aren't there anyway, and my younger is a July baby so it benefits him a bit (sort of - he'll actually compete with boys his age, but at level 6/7 and 11 years old it hardly matters....) All of our upper level boys will "lose" a year with the change, but one is going to be a senior and will be counted as 18 even though he'll be 17 all season - no real difference...and one is already Level 10, so although he'll be counted 17 at 16, no difference. Only for my oldest could it matter, and only if he stays in until he's a senior - and he's just going to be a sophomore, maybe L9...just a weird coincidence that they all have April/May birthdays...

However, we have a couple boys who were "in age" in the old system and could have stayed another year at their present level then move up in age, who now will HAVE to move to stay in age unless it changes...they are great gymnasts but young, and it will be unfortunate if they feel rushed...

I'm sure someone somewhere has a really good reason for doing it this way - I just don't understand the "in age" thing one bit, or why the boys system makes the age groups so complicated - instead of doing them like the girls...but not my circus, not my monkeys....

 

[Madden3]

I am curious- The date changed 4 years ago? And what was the date before it was September 1?

 

[skschlag]

no, the date did not change 4 years ago. What changed 4 years ago was that they "added" level 8 as a real level. It used to just be kind of a place holder, where older kiddos would land instead of compulsary.

Then they put on the age restrictions for 8-10 and they made in-age requirements for nationals (at level 8 only 11-12 yo, level 9 only 13-14yo, level 10 15-18)

 

[Mom2twingymnasts]

Age didn't change 4 years ago. My son has been doing gymnastics for almost 7 years now and it was September 1st that whole time. They significantly changed the scoring for levels compulsory levels (4-7) four years ago.

 

[ZJsMom]

My ds started in 2007 I think and it's been September 1st the whole time he's been doing it.

 

[Madden3]

Ok thanks, I thought I was losing my marbles, as I did not recall any age change. My oldest son was already on the team by then although only Level 4 to 5 so nationals and ages and level 8 or not did not in any way apply, which is probably why those changes came without me knowing a thing about it.

So do you mean that before that, as one example, if you were a level 9 and qualified, you could go to nationals no matter what your age?

I remember when we entered the sport, much was made of the fact that age was much less a factor than with girls. In other words it was a sport boys could enter later and move up more slowly and do ok. It was one of the things that attracted us to the sport, that there was room for boys to repeat levels etc.

I have to say when I learned about those "in age" restrictions just recently, I was surprised. They are way lower than I would have thought they would be based on the age range of the boys who compete at out gym and even who I see at meets in this area.

It seems to me then, that the general trend is to force more and more competitiveness onto lower ages? I fail to see how that serves a sport where athletes generally peak in their twenties, especially one that struggles with general popularity (to put it kindly.)

 

[Sasha]

It seems to me then, that the general trend is to force more and more competitiveness onto lower ages? I fail to see how that serves a sport where athletes generally peak in their twenties, especially one that struggles with general popularity (to put it kindly.)

Well said!! I think this baffles almost every parent, and at least many coaches!!

"Most" boys that we see competing in our quite competitive area are NOT 'in age' - or they struggle to be pushed 'in age' due to that structure, and their overall development (fundamentals and form) and competitiveness often suffer.

It seems it is primarily the 'superstars' who started very young who are 'in age', and even those superstars are pushed VERY hard to be making the top 5-15% in the rankings - think 30+ hours a week at 8 years old. Many an experienced coach I have encountered has berated this practice, but, yet, those are the 'winning' kids (and gyms reap the notoriety benefits), and this 'in age' structure sure seems to reward all this overtraining. I do wish the ages were treated more like the girls - perhaps only levels 9 and 10 go to Nationals, ANY age can compete at Nationals, but there are MORE "age group" awards to mitigate the "hold back and compete against younger kids in order to win" issue.

I'm surely missing something in the equation, as I know there are many considerations and smart people with more experience than me are making these decisions, but from my parent-chair, these are my concerns and impressions.

 

[samsmama]

I have to say when I learned about those "in age" restrictions just recently, I was surprised. They are way lower than I would have thought they would be based on the age range of the boys who compete at out gym and even who I see at meets in this area.

It seems to me then, that the general trend is to force more and more competitiveness onto lower ages? I fail to see how that serves a sport where athletes generally peak in their twenties, especially one that struggles with general popularity (to put it kindly.)

Totally agree! I keep hearing that these changes (past and those coming) are intended to keep more boys in the sport, but the current "in age" restrictions seem to do the opposite. Those combined with the new age determination date mean that a kid like my DS, who started fairly young (7) and as a L5 this season was often in the youngest age group at meets, will only make L8 by age 11 if he skips a level, and getting there by 12 means doing a level per year, which I understand is not that common. So only if you start at 6 do you have a reasonable shot at getting to Nationals as a L8?

Now, obviously, I know there's more to the sport than making Nationals! That's just one gauge of "success," and my DS and others in the same boat will have several shots at getting there eventually, but the in-age rules do send a signal that the kids who are most promising/successful/valued in the sport are those getting to optionals at 11-12 and to me, that runs counter to the goal of keeping more boys engaged.

 

[krc]

The problem was and is the wide skill range in the 11-13yo group. Which is why the current system overlaps primary age groups in L7 and L8. Some kids are ready for optionals at 11 while others have to wait till 13. It is also why the req for 8 and 9 are virtually identical. Our system has always been that if you are a late starter you have two choices; work out with the much younger compulsory guys, or suck it up and play catch-up with the older guys. The age restrictions are only that "out-of-age" kids don't go to nationals. That is more of a logistical decision than anything else. Most 13+ 8's or 15+ 9's usually spend one year "out" before they move into "in-age" status. Other than that, the age groups just do that, they group kids. One group will be primary (with the most kids) the others will be secondary or tertiary.

USAG has been trying to "put the brakes" on some of these, lets say, over-enthusiastic coaches. In the last quad, USAG eliminated age bumping. You had to be a minimum age for each level. The new compulsories will include bonus and non-bonus divisions in an effort to provide better peer-to-peer competition. So hopefully your twice a week beginner will not have to go head to head with the 20hr a week wunderkind. There will be some new restrictions placed on L8's that will also slow things down and make L7 a more attractive alternative. Unfortunately, some coaches will always push the envelope, and these kids usually don't last. That hotshot team of 8 L6's may be down to 3 by the time they reach optionals.

The bottom line is that our training, our coaches and our kids are getting better. It is getting increasingly hard to be competitive when you are a late starter. It's no different in other youth sports. No-one plays seasonal sports anymore. There's spring training, summer games, fall-ball, tourney league, speed camp, agility camp, etc., etc. That being said, while early training in gymnastics is definitely a plus, our older kids can and do catch up, because at a certain point in the career the brain becomes way more important to your success than the body.

BTW I love teaching older kids with a passion to improve. Much more rewarding than fighting with an 8yo to do 20 more presses.

KRC

 

[rosiekat]

The difficult part is for the kid who does show future promise - pretty much everyone will want him to (be able to) have as many years at National as possible, so there will be that push to bump up a level every year. DS is L4/comp age 6 this year, will be L5/comp age 8 next year under the new rules. (And although the current age rules work greatly in his favor, the new ones will honestly be more fair so I won't gripe too much, lol.) He is a kid with a lot of potential (blah blah disclaimers), but then ideally he has to stay on track as L6/9, L7/10, L8/11, and that's definitely a push. He may well be able to do it, but he generally picks up skills pretty darn fast, has a sharp memory, and lives for the gym. There's no room for puberty and snags in progress, or just a little more of an off season, or an injury - it's like everything, every year has to be perfect. Now, obviously, Nationals is ideally the very best kids, but this kind of track doesn't seem like it can be realistic for many kids at all. Our gym has 4 going to Nationals this year, and none of them has been able to be on that trajectory continuously - our L9JE has been fairly close, but even he has had snags. It seems like this new timeline will leave even more boys out of contention, when just an extra year may make them even better than ever.

And while Nationals is not the be all and end all, of course there will still be a natural push on the boys who have potential to get there. So the kid who may be a super contender but would benefit from an extra year at, say, L6 will not have that "luxury." And feeling the need to push a kid at age 10 because of age seems silly in a sport that doesn't allow peaking until at least about 8 years after that.

So there's my soapbox.

 

[skschlag]

TRue, but nationals is not always a guarantee either. Two of the top level 9s in our region did not make it this year, one due to injury, and one had a really bad meet at regionals. It happens. D has never made nationals yet. That puberty bug hit hard last year, and he grew 5 inches and 30 lbs. THis year, it was the injury bug. I do think he would have been close this year without that. But he does not worry. At. All. He spent 1 year out of age at level 7 (11 yo) and it was great for him.

The key is, not that your child hit the "age groups" every single year, but that your child keep progressing at a rate that allows them to continue in gym and love the sport. The amount of attrition that occurs at the upper levels is astounding, so keeping the healthy and happy is key. I think that is what worries me when I see such high hours at such young ages. Those gyms, at least around here, burn through the most gymnast. At level 5-6, one gym here had about 25 boys. Now, at level 9, they have 10. To compare, at level 6, D's group had 4. At level 9, they had 3.

So, try not to worry too much about in-age, out-of-age, nationals, etc. It is hard, especially at the lower levels, to let that go. I know...I was there I remember thinking we had to push D to get there. But so many of his fellow gymnasts who were pushed are no longer doing gym, and he still loves every minute of it. So we have done something right for him. And if he gets to nationals, great. If not, great. He has learned a lot of great life skills along the way. He has a goal, and he has to work for it now. (Nationals, college). It is all in his court....

 

[2G1B]

OK, I'm taking something else from kRC's post. Hopefully it is OK since it falls under the "new rules".... For compulsories they are now going to have kids competing in different groups if they have bonuses or not??? How will this work. For my son, he has always been one to have some bonuses; but not all and sometimes more bonuses on some events than others..

And how will this work for States and regionals???

 

[skschlag]

I think there are lots of questions with that and we won't know the answers until then...like:

Can you move back and forth?
What is considered having bonuses? 1, 2 all on an event?
What if you have bonuses on one but not another event?

 

[profmom]

And the coaches who have kids competing at nationals will get to know the answers to these questions at least a month before everyone else.

 

[2G1B]

And the coaches who have kids competing at nationals will get to know the answers to these questions at least a month before everyone else.

I'm sure that they will share them with others. I assume that after nationals we should have a lot of answers getting "leaked".

 

[skschlag]

And the coaches who have kids competing at nationals will get to know the answers to these questions at least a month before everyone else.

which really stinks for those of us without a coach

 

[2G1B]

which really stinks for those of us without a coach

I'll let you know what I find out. ;-)

 

[rosiekat]

Oh, trust me, I know Nationals isn't a guarantee, even if you're on top of your game and awesome. But the reality is that if there's a kid with a good shot but who has to push to be eligible age-wise, there's a good chance of pushing that kid maybe faster than they should be pushed to stay happy and healthy and all the important things.

The fact is that there is nothing I personally can do about any of this, like it or not. I think those with older kids deserve to know how it all shakes out ASAP, and I think that part is kind of crummy. (Or anyone who's affected by the change concretely, for reasons I may not be aware of.)

 

[AnotherTexasGymMom]

Has anyone heard anything more on the age requirement changes? I think I heard there would be news about this at Nationals...

 

[skschlag]

Age requirements are a done deal. You will compete the age you WILL BE as of May 31 2017.