Skipping Levels to barely qualify for States--Is it Worth it?

[MdGymMom01]

I am sure that this will be a good topic for discussion . What do you all think about skipping levels to "fast track", but the scores are barely hitting the State qualifying scores? Is this worth it for the gymnast? If they are barely hitting 8's on routines in one level, who is to say that they will do better in the next level up which is going to be harder? Wouldn't it be better to just have them progress through the levels naturally and have them gain confidence that comes with medaling and scoring higher??

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

 

[gymmomof1]

My first thought is that it depends on the gymnast and her skills. Some are not as successful in compulsory as they could be in optional so to score out with 8's in level 6 to get to level 7 may be the way to go. I think first they would have to demonstrate that they have the ability to get the level 7 skills and do them competently before skipping L6. I would also hope that the coach would know her gymnast's strengths and weaknesses to make that call. Just my humble opinion.

 

[gymch34]

I have fast tracked many gymnasts through compulsories and they all qualified to states easily. The compulsory skills are the BASICS of gymnastics-if they are not done EXTREMELY well, there will be no carrer in optionals at all.
If your daughter is not scoring well bc she is not doing the elements well, or has form or strength or flexibility issues, you need to meet w/ the coaches. Any gymnast who is talented enough to be fast tracked and is trained well should be easily scoring well in compulsories.

 

[CoachTodd]

I am sure that this will be a good topic for discussion . What do you all think about skipping levels to "fast track", but the scores are barely hitting the State qualifying scores? Is this worth it for the gymnast? If they are barely hitting 8's on routines in one level, who is to say that they will do better in the next level up which is going to be harder? Wouldn't it be better to just have them progress through the levels naturally and have them gain confidence that comes with medaling and scoring higher??

Just wondering what your thoughts are on this.

High scores at lower levels don't equal successful. I really don't like the scores being used as a gauge to determine if a gymnast is successful. If they are happy and getting new skills, they are successful.
I've seen many gymnasts who scored very high quit the sport the first rough season they had. If you don't focus on scores, you have a better chance of staying in the sport longer and being happier. The gymnasts I know that have come up through the systems having to score high to move on cry at every meet and from what I'm told cry during practice. I don't think this is a good way to run a team although many teams are run this way.

 

[gymch34]

I agree w/ coach todd that scores do not determine success.. however...I do feel like a fast tracked gymnast should be scoring quite well in compulsories based on their excellent basics.

 

[Gymdad2]

Just wondering whose idea it is to consider skipping. I think her coach's input would be most important in this decision. If the coach sees something in your dd's gymnastics that makes him/her think she should skip then it would be worth considering, but that's the only way I would suggest thinking about it.

 

[MdGymMom01]

Just wondering whose idea it is to consider skipping. I think her coach's input would be most important in this decision. If the coach sees something in your dd's gymnastics that makes him/her think she should skip then it would be worth considering, but that's the only way I would suggest thinking about it.

Just to clarify, I am just talking in generalities (some of the previous threads on skipping levels and fast tracking got me thinking) and NOT talking about my dd. In my dd's case she is progressing on track and there is no talk of her skipping at all, which I am totally fine with. I was just pondering this question in my head from reading the CB and all the info and posts from people.

I do see a lot of people posting about how their dd's "had bad meets" "or not so great meets" because of their scores. I do agree with the above posters that said that scores really shouldn't be a factor is skipping or success, but what concerns me are the parent's perspectives of equating scores with success.

What I don't understand about skipping levels (and maybe I am just naive ), is that each level has its elements and skills that are needed to get to the next level, and competition experience is sometimes just as important in learning the skills themselves. Why people would want to speed through this is sometimes more detrimental to the gymnasts career in the long run IMHO.

I kind of compare it to school. There are many gifted kids that skip grades in school, but they are at the top of the class with impeccable grades. I have never heard of a "C" student skipping the next grade because they made the bare minimum grade requirements for the previous grade. This may not be a good analogy but it is the first thing that came to mind.

 

[NotAMom]

MGM01, I think my thinking is inline with yours. I believe that the following are needed to keep a gymnast in the sport in a long run:

1. a gymnast must be performing reasonably well before advancing to the next level. (it is regardless of the fact that good performances at the optional level does not necessarily come from being a strong compulsory). For most kids, poor performances (due to form and/or execution) will just carry to the next level if it's not cleaned up while still at the lower level.

2. it's important that at least some level of success in terms of placement and score is attained at least some of the time. Very few kids would stick to gymnastics (or any sport) in a long run if they are just getting by all the time. Unless there is every sign of success, for most gymnasts, being on the fast track (or learning advanced skills before she is ready) for the most part is an ego trip. OTOH, staying on the "not-so-fast" track will likely allow them to enjoy the ride more.

 

[ZJsMom]

The thing is when a kid is doing one level 6 meet to score out, the coaches aren't going to spend a lot of time on the finer points of the routines. So yes the girl might score out with a 33 aa, but I don't think it necessarily means she's a barely competent level 6. It just means the focus hasn't been on making her a good level 6.

There are definitely cases where kids are moved too fast. I think to judge though you have to look at the skills as much as the scores. There are several little girls at my dd's gym who skipped level 5. I think they're fine and belong in level 7 becaue they all can do giants, bhs on beam, and have competent level 7 tumbling on floor. Some of them don't score great (I'd say they all score at leat 33-34), but it's because of lack of polish and consistency rather than that they can't do the skills. At a recent meet, though, I saw a girl about 8 years old doing level 7 who's skill level was more like level 5. No giant, casts nowhere near handstand, even fell on a kip. On floor, her layout attempt was really a whip and she attempted punch front, flyspring for her front pass. In that case, I was thinking "what's the rush?"

 

[gymjoy]

MdGymMom01 - I love the way you compared it to school. Your right, some of those girls moving up quickly are getting the equivalent of a C or low B at school. You wouldn't send a kid into a pre-algebra class who only ever got C's throughout previous grades.

I know this is a gross generalization. There are girls who are exceptions to the rules and do better moving up faster. I do understand that there are many variables in the equation of when to move girls forward or hold them back.

I do think coaches, parents and gymnast get wrapped up in the prestige and excitement of being able to skip a level. It can be, as notamom put it, an ego trip. (been there and done that)

Even girls who score well are not always good candidates for skipping levels. But, IMHO, the scores are an important measure of how the gymnast is preforming and if she will be able to preform/compete well at the next level. Is it a definitive measure? Not by a long shot.

If the gymnast is just passing the move-up score every time, then I would worry about the gyms philosophy as well as the coaches, gymnast, and parents ability to understand the sport and its demands because the gymnast probably does not have the solid basics needed for the higher levels.

 

[gymjoy]

The thing is when a kid is doing one level 6 meet to score out, the coaches aren't going to spend a lot of time on the finer points of the routines. So yes the girl might score out with a 33 aa, but I don't think it necessarily means she's a barely competent level 6. It just means the focus hasn't been on making her a good level 6.

This is true and I agree, but...

There are several little girls at my dd's gym who skipped level 5. I think they're fine and belong in level 7 because they all can do giants, bhs on beam, and have competent level 7 tumbling on floor. Some of them don't score great (I'd say they all score at least 33-34), but it's because of lack of polish and consistency rather than that they can't do the skills.

Just because I gymnast can do a skill does not mean she is ready to compete a skill!! Polish and consistency are extremely important to the competing of gymnastics, especially at the higher levels - if only to prevent injury!!

 

[ZJsMom]

I agree that gymnasts need to learn polish and consistency, but I think it will come with time. Most 8-year olds have room for improvement in these areas whatever level they're competing. In fact, learning to compete in and of itself is a skill that takes time to develop. If the kid has solid level 7 skills, I don't think it make a big difference whether she's learning these things by competing level 6 or level 7.

 

[Megley]

I don't think skipping levels is a good idea if you are struggling to make state qualifying scores at the lower level. It will all catch up to you eventually.

That said, a lot of gyms do skip through L6 with their gymnasts who do really well at L5. Our gym had two girls skip L5 last year (both of whom scored well above 36 AA at L5) and both are doing very well at L7 this year (their scores are in the 36s and 37s). Their scores are on a par with or better than girls who did a full year of L6. So skipping can work out for strong compulsories.

 

[gymnut1]

I agree with the above skipping through quickly can be fine for some girls. But only if they are going to score very well at optionals. I see no point in skipping quickly through levels (whether scoring highly in them or not) if you are going to scrape through level 7.

I can see some girls not scoring so well at level 6 if their gym is prepping them more for 7 and above. But if they aren't scoring well at 7 either why rush. Especially if they are 8 or 9.

 

[Aussie_coach]

It depends what your goals are in gymnastics. High scores aren't everything and they are certainly not the most important part of the sport. High scores usually reflect skills done to perfection with out any bent knee's, unpointed toes and so on. Some people are more interested in learning skills than perfecting them, not every type of tumbling requires such technical perfection. Perhaps the gymnast wants tumbling to use in other sports like cheerleading, dancing, martial arts or just to be able to do cool tricks. being able to perform a skill with no deductions (ie perfect body form) doesn't always mean the gymnast is more ready for the next set of skills than a gymnast who doesn't.

In many gyms the focus is not on competition. In some gyms competition is very serious and they spend 6 months of the year practicing and perfecting routines, compete every few weeks and never learn skills that aren't in their competition set. ANother gym may not be so focussed on routines, perhaps practice them for a few weeks before each competition and spend most of their time uptraining and learning more skills. The second type of gym will have more advanced gymnasts but it won't reflect in the scores.

For some gymnasts the optional levels are better and easier. Some gymnasts may for example lack flexibility but be powerful and strong. So in the lower levels they may struggle to complete the compulsory skills but in the higher levels they can tailor their routine to suit their own body needs. For example they may have poor back flexibility and struggle with walkovers and handsprings on beam but once they get to a higher level, their powerful back tuck can be used. Some gymnast lack the flexibility to score well with split leaps but find the extra power in switch split leaps gives them the lift they need to hit full split. So success at one level isn't always indicative of success at the next.

 

[Panda-girl's Mom]

I think every gym is different, but I think if the gymnast is really talented they are usually doing well in the level they are in then why not move them up. In daughters gym there a few girls who have skipped a level but it is the girls who are really talented and doing well. I think gyms like to push the girls to do the harder skills before they get older and fear sets in to. I think you really need to look at each child individually and scores are only a part of it, it also takes commitment and motivation. I have heard of elite gyms that do not let girls compete until they are older and they train them and test out until they are at a higher level, we do not go to an elite gym but I am not sure if this is true.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

The thing is when a kid is doing one level 6 meet to score out, the coaches aren't going to spend a lot of time on the finer points of the routines. So yes the girl might score out with a 33 aa, but I don't think it necessarily means she's a barely competent level 6. It just means the focus hasn't been on making her a good level 6.

This is where good basics and form will allow the gymnast to more than just scrape through the level. Look at in reverse, if you taught a current level seven the level six routine in the space of two weeks, you would expect them to pass it with some room to spare as they should have good form and basics to carry them through. They may have to be a level seven from another country or assume for some unknown reason this child never did level six.

 

[Bobby]

... What I don't understand about skipping levels (and maybe I am just naive ), is that each level has its elements and skills that are needed to get to the next level....
I kind of compare it to school. There are many gifted kids that skip grades in school, but they are at the top of the class with impeccable grades. I have never heard of a "C" student skipping the next grade because they made the bare minimum grade requirements for the previous grade....

What you're saying sounds like common sense in that it has a certain intuitive appeal ... BUT IMO there are plenty of exceptions to both your arguments.
Eg: Over the past few years I've been very involved with a student who was scoring very poorly (Cs or worse) - precisely because he was so extraordinarily gifted. The ordinary curriculum was pitched so far below his abilities, and was the equivalent of making a 10 year old practise saying the alphabet. He was skipped 2 grades, was suddenly presented with work that required being awake for more than two seconds pw, and is now doing exceptionally well (off-the-chart A+ in every subject). Students don't get skipped through grades because they're doing well - they get skipped to a level where they can do well (in fact doing well suggests they are already studying at the appropriate level). A gym equivalent might be a 10 y/o who can do perfect double backs on FX, and finds L6 routines so insultingly dull they can't or won't focus enough to score decently at that level.
I was a gymmie who skipped through many levels - in part to avoid skills - eg:
- for some reason I never learned back extensions;
- I forget why, but I suddenly refused to do BWO on beam - but was very happy to continue with my valdez-flip stepout-korbut series).
Due to the greater flexibility at higher levels I could also put together very competitive routines - especially on beam and bars - if I could select the elements. That way it didn't matter (for example) that I couldn't do the beam dismount the progressions were intended to build, because I had a harder mount and other elements than most others.
I didn't ever compete the lower levels, scored lowish in L5, worse in L6, was in the top pack in L7, and usually won beam and bars by L9. I spent my time perfecting the consistency of my cool tricks, not pointing my toes on the dull ones. If I'd been forced to compete lower levels until I did OK I just would have missed all the success I had in the upper levels.
I think what I'm saying is that there are very few skills at any level which are genuinely "needed" for the next. JMHO. And a coach might beg to differ.

 

[JudyS125]

My daughter used to go to a gym that had that philosophy. She started taking classes at age 6, and by the spring was moved to preteam and then by summer to team. As a 7 year old she started to compete in the Mason Dixon League as a level A and by January was invited to the USAG team. She worked on the Level 5 routine and started testing at home meets until she tested out and then did the same for level 6. We went to no level 5 or 6 meets except the home meets for the purposes of testing. Meanwhile, she was getting competition experience through Mason Dixon. As soon as she tested out of 6 (which happened by that December), she immediately started to compete as a seven--literally like 3 weeks later. But all along, the focus had been the level 7 skills, so she was ready and had a fairly successful level 7 season. She was moved up to 8 the next year. She had all her skills, but had never mastered some of the straight knees, etc. and had only a moderately successful level 8 year--rarely medalling. Still the thought was to move her up again with the plan being to start working on pre-elite testing. What I was told the "rush" was, was to teach her the difficult scary skills before puberty--when both fear issues and body changing issues makes everything harder. I guess I will never know for sure how the plan would have worked out.

My husband ended up losing his job and we had to move to another state and hence another (very small) gym. This gym has neither the knowledge nor the desire to train for the elite level. She has repeated level 8 and worked on "perfecting" some of her skills. Her current coach says she has gaps from how quickly she went through the levels. For example--she releases too early on her flyaway--which doesn't cause any problem on her flyaway but made learning a double back really hard. She still struggles with bent knees. However, she has learned a lot of really difficult skills without fear.

I do think she has talent, but rushing through the compulsories was the philosophy of her old gym for any talented gymnast and she wasn't the only one who went through quickly. One of the fast tracked girls was very successful--making it to level 10 nationals by age 11. Another was level 9 by age 10, but warned by a coach from another gym that she didn't really have the arm strength for working front giants and would hurt her arms. This year she has sat out with arm injuries. Connected--I don't know?

I will always wonder if our path would have better or worse if she hadn't been rushed through. My daughter is a 10 year old level 8 that may or may not be good enough to qualify for regionals this weekend. She is slated to move up to level 9--she has all her skills, but I suspect those bent knees will dog her entire career. However, if she hadn't been fasttracked, she might still be a level 5 or 6, still struggling with bent knees and discouraged due to lack of success at those levels when everything has to be perfect, and wanting to give up on gymnastics.

I guess we never get to know the path not taken.

 

[MdGymMom01]

My daughter used to go to a gym that had that philosophy. She started taking classes at age 6, and by the spring was moved to preteam and then by summer to team. As a 7 year old she started to compete in the Mason Dixon League as a level A and by January was invited to the USAG team. She worked on the Level 5 routine and started testing at home meets until she tested out and then did the same for level 6. We went to no level 5 or 6 meets except the home meets for the purposes of testing. Meanwhile, she was getting competition experience through Mason Dixon. As soon as she tested out of 6 (which happened by that December), she immediately started to compete as a seven--literally like 3 weeks later. But all along, the focus had been the level 7 skills, so she was ready and had a fairly successful level 7 season. She was moved up to 8 the next year. She had all her skills, but had never mastered some of the straight knees, etc. and had only a moderately successful level 8 year--rarely medalling. Still the thought was to move her up again with the plan being to start working on pre-elite testing. What I was told the "rush" was, was to teach her the difficult scary skills before puberty--when both fear issues and body changing issues makes everything harder. I guess I will never know for sure how the plan would have worked out.

My husband ended up losing his job and we had to move to another state and hence another (very small) gym. This gym has neither the knowledge nor the desire to train for the elite level. She has repeated level 8 and worked on "perfecting" some of her skills. Her current coach says she has gaps from how quickly she went through the levels. For example--she releases too early on her flyaway--which doesn't cause any problem on her flyaway but made learning a double back really hard. She still struggles with bent knees. However, she has learned a lot of really difficult skills without fear.

I do think she has talent, but rushing through the compulsories was the philosophy of her old gym for any talented gymnast and she wasn't the only one who went through quickly. One of the fast tracked girls was very successful--making it to level 10 nationals by age 11. Another was level 9 by age 10, but warned by a coach from another gym that she didn't really have the arm strength for working front giants and would hurt her arms. This year she has sat out with arm injuries. Connected--I don't know?

I will always wonder if our path would have better or worse if she hadn't been rushed through. My daughter is a 10 year old level 8 that may or may not be good enough to qualify for regionals this weekend. She is slated to move up to level 9--she has all her skills, but I suspect those bent knees will dog her entire career. However, if she hadn't been fasttracked, she might still be a level 5 or 6, still struggling with bent knees and discouraged due to lack of success at those levels when everything has to be perfect, and wanting to give up on gymnastics.

I guess we never get to know the path not taken.

Thanks JudyS--your post gives a lot of insight. I am curious...did your dd do the Mason Dixon League as well as USAG at the same time? You mentioned that she didn't really compete at the USAG Level (only to test out) and she got most of her meet experience from Mason Dixon. How many hours a week was she training when she competing Mason Dixon?

You are right in that we never know the path not taken. But being a Level 8 at age 10 is quite an achievement!! Congrats to your dd!!