WAG L4 mobility score

[mommyof1]

Has the mobility score for L4 always been 34, or was it recently raised? And what is the rationale for having it so much higher than the L5 mobility score?

 

[Natasha]

It was raised this year to ensure gymnasts have a good foundation of basic skills before moving up in levels. I think it was for safety reasons. L5 was not raised, probably because so many teams score out of L5 and compete L6 in place of L5. And really, if a gymnast can't score a 34 at L4, they will really struggle at L5.

 

[amiandjim]

I thought level 5 was raised from 31 to 32?

 

[tpMom]

It was raised this year to ensure gymnasts have a good foundation of basic skills before moving up in levels. I think it was for safety reasons. L5 was not raised, probably because so many teams score out of L5 and compete L6 in place of L5. And really, if a gymnast can't score a 34 at L4, they will really struggle at L5.

I think level 5s score went up to 32, but i agree with you. I have a gymnast who scored out of 4 this year with a 36 (point something) and level 5 was still a big shock. A 34 should absolutely be manageable for a gymnast ready to score out. The only rough part is that it doesn't leave much room for a bad meet. One uncharacteristically rough event and the gymnast is stuck, unless their gym will give them another shot at it!

 

[mommyof1]

The reason I ask is that at my daughter's most recent meet, only about half of the kids (at the entire meet, not just on her team) achieved a 34. Granted, it's early in the season, but I hate to think of the pressure some of these girls are going to be under a few weeks from now when there aren't quite so many meets left.

 

[gymdog]

It's a 34 to states in our state now for level 4, so if they don't get a 34 and make it to states, repeating would probably be a likely option anyway even if the mobility score was still lower. That said as the meets go on I doubt many kids who can do all the skills will not achieve a 34 at some meets.

 

[duyetanh]

It was raised this year to ensure gymnasts have a good foundation of basic skills before moving up in levels. I think it was for safety reasons. L5 was not raised, probably because so many teams score out of L5 and compete L6 in place of L5. And really, if a gymnast can't score a 34 at L4, they will really struggle at L5.

Not always....but I am aware that my kid was one of the ones in the minority.
And yes....5 is a massive jump from 4. I do get why they made it harder to score out at 4....but I am glad the rule wasn't in place when my kid was that level.

 

[SurpriseGymMom]

I don’t think DD ever got a 34 in L4. We live in a really hard scoring area, and honestly DD is not a high scoring gymnast regardless. But, to put things in perspective, anything over 35AA is seriously outstanding here. She did a year of 4, a year of 5, 2yrs of L7 and is starting her first season of L8. I am not expecting her to place in Regionals or anything (I know my kid, she has lots of areas in need of improvement and she tends to mess up at meets...) but I hate to think what a tedious crawl her gymnastics journey would have been with strict move up scores.... I do believe in L4 being a fundamental base, but don’t believe a hard minimum score is necessary.

 

[Aussie_coach]

As this is the first year they have required the score, I am guessing it will be reviewed if it becomes too hard to achieve it.

 

[sce]

It's a 34 to states in our state now for level 4, so if they don't get a 34 and make it to states, repeating would probably be a likely option anyway even if the mobility score was still lower. That said as the meets go on I doubt many kids who can do all the skills will not achieve a 34 at some meets.

I think some states aligned the state qualifying score with the mobility score. To me that makes a lot of sense.

 

[3rd_time_around]

As this is the first year they have required the score, I am guessing it will be reviewed if it becomes too hard to achieve it.

It was also raised to slow down the rush from Xcel to level 6 or 7. It has been stressed repeatedly that Xcel is not a pathway to skip compulsories and jump to JO optionals, yet it continues to be used that way. I'm glad the score was raised. I always thought 31 was too low, as our state needed a 32.00 twice to qualify to the state meet. If you can't even score high enough to qualify to the state meet, you really shouldn't be able to score out and move up a level. But that's just me.

 

[mommyof1]

It's a 34 to states in our state now for level 4, so if they don't get a 34 and make it to states, repeating would probably be a likely option anyway even if the mobility score was still lower. That said as the meets go on I doubt many kids who can do all the skills will not achieve a 34 at some meets.

At my kid's gym there appears to be an unwritten requirement for multiple 36s or possibly even a 37 to move up in compulsories, but since this is not articulated to the girls my kid is obsessing about the state qualification and mobility score of 34. At her gym I don't think the new mobility score is going to prevent anyone from moving up who otherwise would have, but it is creating massive stress which for my child translates into suboptimal meet performance. She has all the skills (vault is not super but is passable) and could easily score above 34 if she actually hit 4 for 4, which she is not doing because she's worried about getting that darn 34 and is therefore making tons of nerve-induced errors even on her strongest events. If the requirement were 32 she'd be worry-free and relaxed at meets. Several of her teammates appear to be in the same boat. I just don't see how putting that kind of pressure on so many kids is going to be productive.

 

[profmom]

It's just kind of funny to me having one kid on each side. The boys don't have mobility scores, and yet coaches seem to be able to make rational decisions about moving them up or having them repeat a level.

In most areas, gyms can choose either to hold an in-house meet with cupcake scoring or attend a small local meet with cupcake scoring if they want to accomplish move up scores with athletes who are struggling. The choices they make about these things will be in line with their philosophies about moving kids along versus making sure they have strong and polished skills before advancing. I do think that the higher move up score for L4 makes it easier for gyms to justify not pushing girls up to L5 or L6, and I'd guess that the pressure to move up is pretty intense at some gyms that don't compete L5.

 

[RTT2]

At my kid's gym there appears to be an unwritten requirement for multiple 36s or possibly even a 37 to move up in compulsories, but since this is not articulated to the girls my kid is obsessing about the state qualification and mobility score of 34. At her gym I don't think the new mobility score is going to prevent anyone from moving up who otherwise would have, but it is creating massive stress which for my child translates into suboptimal meet performance. She has all the skills (vault is not super but is passable) and could easily score above 34 if she actually hit 4 for 4, which she is not doing because she's worried about getting that darn 34 and is therefore making tons of nerve-induced errors even on her strongest events. If the requirement were 32 she'd be worry-free and relaxed at meets. Several of her teammates appear to be in the same boat. I just don't see how putting that kind of pressure on so many kids is going to be productive.

My kid is similarly obsessed with the 34. Not fun.

 

[3rd_time_around]

At my kid's gym there appears to be an unwritten requirement for multiple 36s or possibly even a 37 to move up in compulsories, but since this is not articulated to the girls my kid is obsessing about the state qualification and mobility score of 34. At her gym I don't think the new mobility score is going to prevent anyone from moving up who otherwise would have, but it is creating massive stress which for my child translates into suboptimal meet performance. She has all the skills (vault is not super but is passable) and could easily score above 34 if she actually hit 4 for 4, which she is not doing because she's worried about getting that darn 34 and is therefore making tons of nerve-induced errors even on her strongest events. If the requirement were 32 she'd be worry-free and relaxed at meets. Several of her teammates appear to be in the same boat. I just don't see how putting that kind of pressure on so many kids is going to be productive.

There shouldn't be pressure on the girls. There coaches should not even mention it. If they have the skills, they will make the score. They had to raise the score as the level of gymnastics has improved greatly over the last 10 years. Also, as I mentioned, to prevent coaches skipping kids through compulsories who aren't prepared to compete in optionals. Seriously, a 31.00 AA is just too low to show proficiency for the next level. The foundation skills should be solid so that they have a successful optional career.

 

[SurpriseGymMom]

It was also raised to slow down the rush from Xcel to level 6 or 7. It has been stressed repeatedly that Xcel is not a pathway to skip compulsories and jump to JO optionals, yet it continues to be used that way. I'm glad the score was raised. I always thought 31 was too low, as our state needed a 32.00 twice to qualify to the state meet. If you can't even score high enough to qualify to the state meet, you really shouldn't be able to score out and move up a level. But that's just me.

We have a couple of gyms in our area who does this. I don’t care for it at all. At our gym, Xcel has the lowest training hours. We do allow movement from Xcel to JO, but likely they will go into L4, and with a slight disadvantage compared to the girls who did our L3 team... We have more movement the other way, girls from L5 or above who want less hours etc go to Xcel as a way to still do their sport, which is more in line with what the program was designed to be IMHO.
FWIW, my DD has always made it to States, so the proficiency is there. Just not the high scores (she tends to always mess up on at least one event for meets).

 

[mommyof1]

If they have the skills, they will make the score.

So if a 34 is the true sign of minimal proficiency, then half the kids in our state are not minimally proficient a third of the way into the season? That seems odd to me.

I have seen tons of sub-8 scores on vault this year, which means that it will be vault that's holding most kids back even though they have three more levels to master the FHS vault. That doesn't seem quite right. If the minimum is going to be 34, then they should be doing some sort of progression for the FHS vault at L4, like maybe a flatback vault over the table onto stacked mats. But I am just a mom, so what do I know...

 

[wandrewsjr]

So if a 34 is the true sign of minimal proficiency, then half the kids in our state are not minimally proficient a third of the way into the season? That seems odd to me.

I have seen tons of sub-8 scores on vault this year, which means that it will be vault that's holding most kids back even though they have three more levels to master the FHS vault. That doesn't seem quite right. If the minimum is going to be 34, then they should be doing some sort of progression for the FHS vault at L4, like maybe a flatback vault over the table onto stacked mats. But I am just a mom, so what do I know...

Do you not think any gymnasts should ever have to do a second year at a level? If a third aren’t getting score at first meet, should easily be down to 20-25% by end of season. 20% to a third of gymnasts doing second year of level 4 to build more sound basics sounds about right, in my experience.

 

[tpMom]

I guess my thinking about level 4 is a little different because we only ever looked at it as a score out meet. I have a really tough time imagining any gymnast who can't score a 34 on 4 being ready to skip it and compete level 5. Of course, reading this thread I've realized that the 34 score out applies to gymnasts who compete 4 all year as well. I can see that some kids might struggle in level 4 then have a great summer of training and be ready to smash level 5. This is the first year the new score has been put into place, it'll be interesting to see the effect it has on girls trying to move up in compulsories.

 

[amiandjim]

Just out of curiosity I just looked at the first meet our level 4s did this year (their first and only so far), which is known to be a bit low scoring in general. Only 40 girls out of over 140 didn’t score a 34, and that was with a few who scratched events. OP, do you generally live in a really low scoring area? Or maybe it’s just a low scoring meet?