Parents Different gym philosophies/switching gyms?

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

M

mouey77

I had a great conversation earlier today with the gym owner of what is supposedly the most reputable gym in our area (Gym #2). DD was evaluated there last year. We could have switched, but she was very young at the time, and we decided to stay put for this year at Gym #1. As we are shelling out more money and feeling more and more frustrated at the lack of communication and very slow progress at our current gym, we are coming to the realization that we should have switched to the Gym #2.

It is pretty clear by now that gym #1's philosophy is to move the girls along very slowly and have them compete down a level so they will win the meets. They have a large group of lower level (levels 1-4) girls and no optional level girls (at best 1 or 2 if even). After talking to gym #2's owner, their philosophy is to have the child compete as close to her ability level as possible, even if it means not winning the meets or even not participating in the meets if the child isn't ready yet. (To illustrate what I mean, gym #2 placed DD on old level 3/new level 2 last year. The gym owner told me they will move young girls up even in the middle of meet season if they master the skills. When gym #1 had their try outs for new team members last spring, they placed all the new girls on the new level 1 team. They definitely will not move girls up in the middle of meet season if skills are mastered or not. I am talking about levels 1-4.)

So, my questions: what, if any, is the advantage to sticking with gym #1's philosophy of slow progression and winning meets? With the money and time we are investing, I am very inclined to switch to gym #2 in the future, but I feel like we should at least stick it out this season with gym #1, since DD is attached to her coach and we have already invested a lot of time there, plus she is super excited about her sparkly new team leotard. :)
 
You will hear a lot of different viewpoints on the issue of skills mastered vs skills competing here on CB. Certainly there are advantages to both approaches. I'm not sure that this would be a reason for me to pick one gym over another though. If I was at a gym where my DD was constantly learning, constantly challenged, working hard, and appreciated, the level she is competing doesn't matter as much, I don't think. Of course, there are some kids who are motivated by scores, and for those kids, gym #1's philosophy may be best, whereas other kids may be motivated by reaching for a bar that is set a little higher than they can comfortably reach, and they may do better with gym #2. But in general, I would be looking at other things. The fact that they move kids up slowly may be more an indication that they aren't really capable of training optionals. They may want to move kids slowly through the levels they are capable of training in order to keep them around longer. If you suspect your DD will want to be in this sport for a while, I would definitely look into switching her to a gym that can support her long term. But I would want to know about their optional results, coaches, philosophy, communication, atmosphere, size of training group, plus then the "nuts and bolts" stuff like cost, travel meets, booster club, parent requirements, hours of training, commuting distance, etc. before I'd worry about level.
 
When you are looking at the big picture and the long haul of gymnastics, why spend a ton of time at such low levels? Why spend a ton of time at compulsories in general? It really doesn't make sense to me. I think it can be a money maker for the gym to keep kids at the lower levels. I feel like it burns the parents out on it all and the gymnast hasn't even gotten very far!
 
You will hear a lot of different viewpoints on the issue of skills mastered vs skills competing here on CB. Certainly there are advantages to both approaches. I'm not sure that this would be a reason for me to pick one gym over another though. If I was at a gym where my DD was constantly learning, constantly challenged, working hard, and appreciated, the level she is competing doesn't matter as much, I don't think. Of course, there are some kids who are motivated by scores, and for those kids, gym #1's philosophy may be best, whereas other kids may be motivated by reaching for a bar that is set a little higher than they can comfortably reach, and they may do better with gym #2. But in general, I would be looking at other things. The fact that they move kids up slowly may be more an indication that they aren't really capable of training optionals. They may want to move kids slowly through the levels they are capable of training in order to keep them around longer. If you suspect your DD will want to be in this sport for a while, I would definitely look into switching her to a gym that can support her long term. But I would want to know about their optional results, coaches, philosophy, communication, atmosphere, size of training group, plus then the "nuts and bolts" stuff like cost, travel meets, booster club, parent requirements, hours of training, commuting distance, etc. before I'd worry about level.

I have kind of figured for a while now that if you want a future in the sport that gym #2 is "the" gym to go to around here. We were not ready for that last year, but, as the costs are creeping up and the amount of time invested, I feel more unsettled. Gym #2 did present the nuts and bolts stuff on the front end, whereas with our current gym, we were not really presented with any information, and we are still flying by the seat of our pants learning about cost, meets, parent club. Lucky for us, both gyms are about 5 minutes away from our house. These are all great questions that I wouldn't have had a clue to ask, so thanks for that!
 
Only you know which gym is right for you. You said in your first paragraph - we should have switched. September is not even over and you are already regretting your choice to stay.

At DD's gym they don't focus on competing at these lower levels. And I subscribe to that philosophy. They're little and learning. There is plenty of time for that later. DD would NOT be in gym still had she started at your gym. She would have died of boredom and begged me to pull her. Ages 5 and six were in pre competitive..... She was likely about L3 at the end of the second year. They didn't skip any of the basics and they had FUN.

Here's the thing. Until say last spring, she didn't realize that she lives for gym and understand the time and detail it takes to get things perfect, nor the need to do it. So to say, boy I competed that somersault better than anyone else? Ok, great. But she didn't want to do a somersault, she wanted to do a flip. So spending the year perfecting it would have been so boring. And the gym we are are got her flipping safely, and quite a bit faster than yours will.

If your daughter needs a year a level, GYM 1 works, but mine didn't and most girls at our gym don't in the lower levels. So you are right, it's more money, more time, and if you think she is in for the long haul, she will be 9 turning 10 and you are looking for another gym anyways because they have no one over L4 where you are.

Good luck with your decision.
 
I really don't think it matters what level they compete. It matters how they are training. If those gyms that are competing "down a level" are still progressing the girls and moving them along skill-wise then (however unfair it may seem to other gyms) they are getting good coaching. That's part of why compulsory scores is not a good way to pick a gym (IMO). If a gym has a good, strong optional program, then you know they are capable of getting kids to that level in a reasonable amount of time, however it may seem to you.

What would really bother me about gym #1 is the fact that they don't have optionals. Like another poster said, maybe they are keeping them in lower levels because they are not capable of coaching them any higher than that. Compulsories should still be building the foundation for upper levels, doing drills for skills several levels up, etc. This is way more important than how much time they spend (or don't spend) in a compulsory level.
 
I really don't think it matters what level they compete. It matters how they are training. If those gyms that are competing "down a level" are still progressing the girls and moving them along skill-wise then (however unfair it may seem to other gyms) they are getting good coaching.

I agree with this. I don't mind if DD is competing "down" provided they are starting to at least introduce new skills. I am not always at practice, but for example, they will do the level 1 bar routine with the straddle thing a gazillion times, but I have never seen them even introduce what the level 2's are working on (mill circle??). It's just the routines over and over and some conditioning at the end.
 
So, my questions: what, if any, is the advantage to sticking with gym #1's philosophy of slow progression and winning meets?.......... :)

Well........ If your dd was ten years old I'd say she'd be able to lighten the burden when she gets to L6 and is old enough to drive herself to the gym, but that's probably not the "upside" you wanted to hear.

There's something to be said for the practice of requiring near perfection in each level's skills, as the lessons learned will help them learn future skills. I balk, however, at the notion every level 1, 2, or 3 gymnast needs an entire year to get things just right. Level 4 and 5 are a different story as there's quite a bit of gymnastics meat on the bone for the kids to chew through.

In the context that a child spends an entire year at L2, I'd hope she would have skills beyond L2 introduced and work on drills to support skills even further down the road. I don't know if this will take place (at gym #1) once the kids have competed a few meets, or if the kids will do the same thing every day until the season is over.

You mention that gym #1 has few if any optional gymnasts. That would make sense if they'd opened their doors 3 or 4 years ago and never enrolled a kid who'd already done a few years of developmental work. That's a real possibility, so I wouldn't consider the lack of optional kids unless you know they've had 5+ years to develop. On the other hand...... if they've been in business for 7 or more years they should have proof that their training model is a viable one by fielding a level 7 group.

Anyway, that's what I would hope to see.
 
Our current gym does have 9 optional gymnasts. Have no clue if that is a good number. Our current gym has been around at least 20 years, so it's not a new gym.
 
I had a great conversation earlier today with the gym owner of what is supposedly the most reputable gym in our area (Gym #2). DD was evaluated there last year. We could have switched, but she was very young at the time, and we decided to stay put for this year at Gym #1. As we are shelling out more money and feeling more and more frustrated at the lack of communication and very slow progress at our current gym, we are coming to the realization that we should have switched to the Gym #2.

It is pretty clear by now that gym #1's philosophy is to move the girls along very slowly and have them compete down a level so they will win the meets. They have a large group of lower level (levels 1-4) girls and no optional level girls (at best 1 or 2 if even). After talking to gym #2's owner, their philosophy is to have the child compete as close to her ability level as possible, even if it means not winning the meets or even not participating in the meets if the child isn't ready yet. (To illustrate what I mean, gym #2 placed DD on old level 3/new level 2 last year. The gym owner told me they will move young girls up even in the middle of meet season if they master the skills. When gym #1 had their try outs for new team members last spring, they placed all the new girls on the new level 1 team. They definitely will not move girls up in the middle of meet season if skills are mastered or not. I am talking about levels 1-4.)

So, my questions: what, if any, is the advantage to sticking with gym #1's philosophy of slow progression and winning meets? With the money and time we are investing, I am very inclined to switch to gym #2 in the future, but I feel like we should at least stick it out this season with gym #1, since DD is attached to her coach and we have already invested a lot of time there, plus she is super excited about her sparkly new team leotard. :)
==
Yes you need to stick it out till the end of season. On a more serious note, gym #2 should not take your DD until season is over. We will not even entertain tryouts until season is over.
 
==
We will not even entertain tryouts until season is over.

So if someone had to move to your state in the middle of the season because of a job change or something else non-gymnastics related, that person wouldn't need to bother even asking for a try out at your gym???? Seems like you would be passing up getting some decent talent with such a hard and fast rule. Surely there is some room for flexibility....especially in THIS sport!
 
Yes, planning to stick it out this year. As for not evaluating until end of season, the other gym does private evaluations year round for team. They may not compete them once meet season starts, but the new girls start working out with the team any time year round. I'm sure they must have a max number they can take for each compulsory level.
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

New Posts

Back