For Coaches What is the key to creating great gymnasts?

[Valentin]

Hi

Last week i attended the New Zealand National Champs, and i started thinking how come there is such a huge difference in performance at the compulsory levels even amongst the strongest regions?
What is the key to creating great gymnasts? Is it talent? coaching? the program that the kids go through? the club culture (winners bread winners mentality)?

What do you think? I would be really interested in hearing everyone's opinions

Please discuss in this forum or on TheGymPress facebook discussion board: What is the key to creating great gymnasts? | Facebook

(Note: I will be compiling all responses by people who share here and other forum on TheGymPress Facebook discussion board. However it be soooo much easier if everyone just joined the Discussion board and posted, plus it will go towards TheGymPress goal of creating a greater gymnastics coaching worldwide community)

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I think the absolute most crucial element of creating a great gymnast is how they are taught when they are just starting (ie the first time they walk in the door as a rec gymnast).

If they get a good coach right from the start who is completely obsessive about form and technique, they will come to think of form not as something to be added to a skill, but as part of the skill itself. They will be tight without even thinking about it.

I actually think talent plays a comparatively small role in producing an excellent athlete; a reasonably talented kid who works his/her butt off will blow right past an insanely talented kid with no work ethic.

 

[Valentin]

Hi

Interesting, from conversations with many other coaches this seems to be a common rationality. However, is that actually enough, or is it just an idealistic thought. Here is an example that actually got me thinking over the weekend. I saw this boy who had absolutely 100% flawless form (seriously, i would upload the video, but breach of privacy), his team mate also had really good form, but just didn't have what the first boy had. They are same age, same coach same everything, and yet boy 1 is better than boy 2. Now what is the difference that causes this? Is it mental attitude, discipline, is one boy given more attention than the other?

Here is another thought that questions the teach perfect form. In NZ the coaching mentality is very much the oldschool russian mentality. Get basics perfectly and than progress (in the 80's that worked wonders...does it still do?), this results in huge numbers of Level 4-5 gymnasts (USAG equivalent to Level 4-6). However when they hit Level 7+ they can't do anything but these semi basics which are seldomly achieved on the average gymnast training hours at these levels in NZ (9-14). At this point the kids are older heavier, and not easy to spot+ they are not quite scared, and you can't just throw them around like you could have. So the question arises, wouldn't it have been better to get them to learn more skill, and continue to work on perfecting the basics. This brings back to the rational behind the compulsories which really stressed to the gymnast that Basics are critical, however i didn't stop progress.

I think most would agree with

a reasonably talented kid who works his/her butt off will blow right past an insanely talented kid with no work ethic.

However how realistic is this? Einstein was asked once "would you rather have a lazy but super bright assistant, or an idiot but super hard worker" and Einstein said he would choose the lazy assistant, because even thought this assistant wouldn't do much, whenever he did work it would be productive, were are the idiot assistant would cause more problems than solve. Thus on the same rationality, does work ethic surpass talent that much? I have to say that talented kids at the early age are the ones that move on, very few non-super talented kids move onto amazing things. More food for thought... thanks for the reply

 

[emacmommy]

I believe the complete package needs to be there. Hard worker, determined and never give up mentality WITH talent (but maybe not necessarily insanely talent, well rounded talent), with quality coaching and supportive family situation. I feel that is why when you look at the number of gymnasts in the USA here there still is only a small, small percentage of gymnasts that actually make it to high level optionals, i.e. the pre-elite and elite system, despite that we have hundred of thousands of gymnasts enrolled in various competitive programs. It is so rare to be able to put together the complete package just anywhere, it seems.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Hi

Interesting, from conversations with many other coaches this seems to be a common rationality. However, is that actually enough, or is it just an idealistic thought. Here is an example that actually got me thinking over the weekend. I saw this boy who had absolutely 100% flawless form (seriously, i would upload the video, but breach of privacy), his team mate also had really good form, but just didn't have what the first boy had. They are same age, same coach same everything, and yet boy 1 is better than boy 2. Now what is the difference that causes this? Is it mental attitude, discipline, is one boy given more attention than the other?

It takes three things to make a great gymnast; coaching, talent, and work ethic. There are a number of other factors that can effect this, but in the end it boils down to these three. Any one of the three can make a kid stand out; the question really is order of importance. I would rank work ethic first, coaching second, and talent third. This is not to say that some level of talent isn't required; I've seen some kids who could probably spend their whole life working their butt off with the world's greatest coach and would probably never be able to do so much as a cartwheel, and I've seen kids who can learn all their level 4 and half their level 5 skills within an hour on their first day in the gym. But in the long run, assuming their talent level reaches a certain threshhold that allows them to progress, hard work will be the greatest deciding factor in my opinion.

Here is another thought that questions the teach perfect form. In NZ the coaching mentality is very much the oldschool russian mentality. Get basics perfectly and than progress (in the 80's that worked wonders...does it still do?), this results in huge numbers of Level 4-5 gymnasts (USAG equivalent to Level 4-6). However when they hit Level 7+ they can't do anything but these semi basics which are seldomly achieved on the average gymnast training hours at these levels in NZ (9-14). At this point the kids are older heavier, and not easy to spot+ they are not quite scared, and you can't just throw them around like you could have. So the question arises, wouldn't it have been better to get them to learn more skill, and continue to work on perfecting the basics. This brings back to the rational behind the compulsories which really stressed to the gymnast that Basics are critical, however i didn't stop progress.

My approach is sort of a blend of the two. I drill the hell out of basics when they are first starting (and I mean FIRST STARTING -- we're talking first time rec kids). Once they get the basic idea to the point where form comes naturally, then I essentially switch; I focus first on training the concepts and the spacial/kinesthetic awareness of the skills, and then gradually clean them up as they get comfortable with the skill. In short, I accept nothing less than flawless before moving ahead with a really basic beginner, but once they get past that first stage I will accept some lapses in technique provided they don't hinder further development. This allows me to still take advantage of them being light enough to spot the big skills.

However how realistic is this? Einstein was asked once "would you rather have a lazy but super bright assistant, or an idiot but super hard worker" and Einstein said he would choose the lazy assistant, because even thought this assistant wouldn't do much, whenever he did work it would be productive, were are the idiot assistant would cause more problems than solve. Thus on the same rationality, does work ethic surpass talent that much? I have to say that talented kids at the early age are the ones that move on, very few non-super talented kids move onto amazing things. More food for thought... thanks for the reply

I dissagree -- and this, by the way, is why I don't do any TOPS or Future Stars stuff. I don't believe in talent identification at an early age. I've seen tons of kids who looked extremely talented when they were young hit a certain point and simply stop progressing -- and I've seen gymnasts who seemed moderately talented go on to become spectacular gymnasts. I have been surprised so many times that I've long since given up trying to predict a kid's future abilities when they're young.

Part of this is work ethic; the kids who are extremely talented sometimes get too accustomed to having everything come easy -- and when they reach the level where they really have to work at it, it's something completely foreign to them. They get frustrated and quit. However, the tier just below that, the kids who have spent the years working their butts off to keep up with the talented ones, they keep right on going. Hard work is nothing new to them.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are elements of "talent" which simply don't have the opportunity to manifest themselves at the lower levels. I had one girl who was insanely strong and flexible and had flawless form when she was young. Could knock out a set of 10 press handstands from straddle support without breaking a sweat when she was 6. First on every event at almost every meet up through about level 5. Then she reached the level where she had to start flipping, and ran into an issue; she simply had no aerial awareness. None whatsoever. And no matter what we tried to teach her to spot the landings, she could never get any handle on where she was at in the air. After two frustrating (not to mention scary) seasons at the equivalent of level 6, she quit. She simply couldn't get past that point.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

I agree with Geoffrey that good training from the beginning makes a world of difference. A good club has great coaches at the bottom developing the kids through the levels ready for senior coaches. Not gymnastics but comment #7 has an interesting way of looking at talent/training.

In NZ the coaching mentality is very much the oldschool russian mentality. Get basics perfectly and than progress (in the 80's that worked wonders...does it still do?), this results in huge numbers of Level 4-5 gymnasts (USAG equivalent to Level 4-6). However when they hit Level 7+ they can't do anything but these semi basics which are seldomly achieved on the average gymnast training hours at these levels in NZ (9-14).

I really have to disagree that the Eastern block coaches are responsible for this. I think the problems for NZ (WG side) is that children can go to nationals at level four. They can have 7.0+ difficulty scores at level four, instead of moving up a level they add a bonus skill because 6.0 DV at level four is not competitive at level five. Level five and six have bonus point for 'B' jumps. So a lot of time can be wasted learning a wolf 1/2 at level five instead of developing future skills.

The carrot is dangling to close. Instead of working hard to get to level seven and qualify for nationals, kids are quitting because they have already done well at nationals or it's just to hard to compete against some of the kids with high DV already. Add in the fact that most kids compete L4 the year they turn 9+ (imho due to national age restrictions and the vault requirement), we have kids hitting level seven at 13/14, the age that most females drop out of sports.

The level 4-6 program seems like modified FIG to me, rather than a program to develop gymnasts. I don't see much incentive to move up levels. Bar dismounts are key examples of this.

Are you aware of these changes? What do you think?
WG Level 4-6 & 7-10 programs 2009 - 2012

 

[ryantroop]

First, I know some coaches get to pick and choose which kids they coach and take with to meets.. Basically, the best represent the club.

Second, I see coaching a bit like I see education and success in "life." Privilege begets privilege. Parents who were successful athletes will help their children do the same. Coaches who coach properly, and who were coached properly, build in success to their programs.

I have had some kids who walk in with no talent, and natural fear and family traits that hinder success. Certainly, some will overcome difficulties, but even the best coaches cannot reach all athletes. Part of it is luck, part of it is know-how, and part of it is being able to connect with the right gymnasts who want to work with, and sometimes for, you.

 

[MissBear]

I am not sure of what I think. I know one particular gymnast who is 7. When she was 6 she had pretty incredible strength, amazing natural handstand control, very good form (she never ever had to be told to straighten her legs). Her awareness of her body and how to control it, and her awareness in the air is amazing. She could BWO on beam and kip with near-perfect form. Now, a year, she has hardly improved at all and is so used to being the best that she has major issues when she is not allowed to move on when others can.

I think my point is that natural gymnastic ability and very good coachability at a young age (what you could consider 'talent') may not be maintained and while it is a good start, does not nessecarily mean anything for the future.

 

[Linsul]

Well, the first thing I'm going to say is talent is NOT a universal factor in the best gymnasts I've seen. I can think of at least 6 competitive kids I know who are doing very well that could barely walk straight at one point, no lie. I'm just glad I'm not trying to run a psychic hotline rather than coaching! There are some kids who grow into a mindset and work ethic that totally overcomes previous physical limitations. When a coach sees that kind of effort from someone so young and determined I think it goes a long way in getting added attention which helps them further. Also, we all love a hard worker so chances are that interaction is going to be as positive as it gets despite a coaches mood or disapointment with a skill or group.

Having said that I think the kids with natural talent that convey the 'I'm going to go far' image are ones who: 1. ask questions 2. know when to be quiet 3. know when it's okay to mess around and 4. don't internalize frustration

I think other than the talent the other things are largely from gym atmosphere. No place any kid spends 10-?? hours a week at that's a negative environment will retain their members or get the best from them I don't think. On the other hand, I don't think sloppy workouts where mediocrity is encouraged or self sabotage is the norm is positive either. The dedicated will go elsewhere to escape that and grow further. I'd say gyms that have high technical standards to make the team, combined with an open door policy, accountability between athletes, coaches, parents, and owner, zero toleration for drama, and high praise for genuine effort and improvement bring out the best in everyone around them.

In truth, I think that gyms not being part of corporate slavery (my husband's words, he's envious of the non-corporate status my job has lol) coaches, team members and sometimes parents get caught up in emotion. Gymnastics is a small world, very caught up in it's 'ties'. Sometimes people from all the above categories stick around out of loyalty, or what they feel they owe someone else when a situation has gotten so bad that any logical person would have left. When that happens it does affect the mood and atmosphere of the gym. Makes good coaches burn out and walk out, or teams fall apart. When that happens everyone eats it up as 'drama' where if say, a lawyer went to another law firm it would be seen as a career move. Or a pro athlete moving to a better location or more money after contract expiration, all normal. In gymnastics there's a sense of betrayal or dissatisfaction over status quo things that I don't see anywhere else, but maybe I'm nuts. I do think it can impact the athletes and the coaching in a big way though.

 

[ACoach78]

It takes being able to be in the small percentage (5% or less) of coaches who aren't complete idiots (the other 95%). If you are the 95% group, which most coaches would fall into that category in my opinion, then you are pretty much screwed.

Of course, you could be in the 95% group and get lucky if a super bionic kid walks through your door. At that point, even your mailman could probably train the kid to be a superstar with highly technical cues such as "flip faster" or "go higher."

 

[Valentin]

HAHAHAHAHA....you had on the floor... Nice one ACoach78. I love it when i hear "flip faster" or go higher haha. Ohh brilliant response.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

At that point, even your mailman could probably train the kid to be a superstar with highly technical cues such as "flip faster" or "go higher."

HAHAHA! This made me laugh pretty hard.

 

[CoachTodd]

HAHAHA! This made me laugh pretty hard.

The sad thing is I've heard these corrections and the ever useful, "That was wrong, do it again"
If it was wrong, why the heck would I want them to do it again.


As far as the original question in this post:
I've seen programs do things in various ways.
I know of a program that hand picks very specific gymnasts with a very specific size, shape and look. They then coach very specific skills and routines to this small group of gymnasts who either score well or cry because they didn't.
I think in the cloud of trying to make the perfect gymnasts, many programs lose site of the fact that they are working with children. If you are a parent, what would you rather your child learn?
A. I'm winning so I'm good
or
B. I'm improving and learning new skills

The programs I've seen that practice point A seem to have a large number of kids that quit once they don't perform well. The ones I've seen with point B have a larger number of kids or seem to stay around longer and learn to work harder to get goals. I've also seen quite a few parents of kids in group B take their kids to gym A and watched the kid quit within the next 2 years.

I guess I like to stick with the philosophy that I can help someone be a better gymnast but I refuse to force them to be better.

All that aside, I agree that a good coaching base at the class and preteam levels are most important. If they learn the basics well, the newer skills are easier to learn without the weird, hard-to-fix form issues.

 

[gymnut1]

It takes three things to make a great gymnast; coaching, talent, and work ethic. There are a number of other factors that can effect this, but in the end it boils down to these three. Any one of the three can make a kid stand out; the question really is order of importance. I would rank work ethic first, coaching second, and talent third. This is not to say that some level of talent isn't required; I've seen some kids who could probably spend their whole life working their butt off with the world's greatest coach and would probably never be able to do so much as a cartwheel, and I've seen kids who can learn all their level 4 and half their level 5 skills within an hour on their first day in the gym. But in the long run, assuming their talent level reaches a certain threshhold that allows them to progress, hard work will be the greatest deciding factor in my opinion.

I am just starting coaching really but I have already seen a 4th factor which has stopped more kids in my gym than anything else - fear (especially tumbling backwards on floor and beam) I have seen 2 insanely talented kids stop who have coaching, talent and work ethic but cant get past the fear of back tumbling. It seems not to kick in until BHSBT on floor and BWO on beam. I can make a kid stronger, I can make a kid faster, I can make a kid more flexible, I can even make them work harder but how do I make them braver?

My approach is sort of a blend of the two. I drill the hell out of basics when they are first starting (and I mean FIRST STARTING -- we're talking first time rec kids). Once they get the basic idea to the point where form comes naturally, then I essentially switch; I focus first on training the concepts and the spacial/kinesthetic awareness of the skills, and then gradually clean them up as they get comfortable with the skill. In short, I accept nothing less than flawless before moving ahead with a really basic beginner, but once they get past that first stage I will accept some lapses in technique provided they don't hinder further development. This allows me to still take advantage of them being light enough to spot the big skills.

I like your reasoning here.

I dissagree -- and this, by the way, is why I don't do any TOPS or Future Stars stuff. I don't believe in talent identification at an early age. I've seen tons of kids who looked extremely talented when they were young hit a certain point and simply stop progressing -- and I've seen gymnasts who seemed moderately talented go on to become spectacular gymnasts. I have been surprised so many times that I've long since given up trying to predict a kid's future abilities when they're young.

Amen to that.

Part of this is work ethic; the kids who are extremely talented sometimes get too accustomed to having everything come easy -- and when they reach the level where they really have to work at it, it's something completely foreign to them. They get frustrated and quit. However, the tier just below that, the kids who have spent the years working their butts off to keep up with the talented ones, they keep right on going. Hard work is nothing new to them.

I so agree. Unfortunately I also see those 'easy come' kids get better more focused coaching and a lot (and I mean a huge lot more) attention and individual coaching.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there are elements of "talent" which simply don't have the opportunity to manifest themselves at the lower levels. I had one girl who was insanely strong and flexible and had flawless form when she was young. Could knock out a set of 10 press handstands from straddle support without breaking a sweat when she was 6. First on every event at almost every meet up through about level 5. Then she reached the level where she had to start flipping, and ran into an issue; she simply had no aerial awareness. None whatsoever. And no matter what we tried to teach her to spot the landings, she could never get any handle on where she was at in the air. After two frustrating (not to mention scary) seasons at the equivalent of level 6, she quit. She simply couldn't get past that point.

You really do talk alot of sense I shall have to pay more attention to your posts in future.

 

[Valentin]

how do I make them braver?

You don't...how you can teach them skills to help work around the fear. The biggest problem with fear is the only way to actually get passed it is to actually get out and do it.
I have used various methods to try and snap kids out of fear.
1- Opposing fear (not recommended, extreme case, didn't even work, but i know it does for others)
2- Cue words, visualisation, and positive self-talk (the best method if you ask me, and most of research out there)... Just recently there we have had a kid in the club who has got many of the personal attributes of a good gymnast, but for 2 years has refused to do RO-BHS... i have only worked with her 4 times (i can actually count them) on the RO-BHS...her coach for back tumbling has done and tried everything imaginable, except for using visualisation, self-talk and cue words. In 1 training got her do a RO-BHS of Double mini tramp, and the next session she did it on the floor. The kid herself was amazed at how effective it was for her.

So what i am trying to say... what i am getting at is that bravery is something you have to want to get past, there is no cure for it. A Bill Cosby once said "if you want something more than you fear it, you can achieve it" (or something like that).

It is a shame that it is hard to incorporate metal training in a program, and it most certainly required practice.

 

[gymnut1]

Thanks for that - the fear block happens when they leave me and move up to harder skills but I worry as I am now spotting those I think it will happen to and wonder if I can help to prevent it. My head coach has a similar phrase to the one you quoted. He says they have to want it more than they are afraid of it. Without that nothing you do will work. I will look into some visualisation information.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

in the final analysis: biology trumps all. and a little heart gets the biology to get to where it needs to be.

 

[Valentin]

in the final analysis: biology trumps all. and a little heart gets the biology to get to where it needs to be.

I wish it was that simple. I have been thinking really hard about the responses, and conversations i have had with people on the topic, and the picture is so damn complicated. I reallyyyy have to try and get my act together and piece it together. Another project for the future.. However a better understand of what the factors are is critical for designing good programs i believe.

Keep them responses coming...because really the more the better.

 

[coachinkal]

I agree with most comments.

I find it amazing that you can have two identical children. Both might have good physical body structure for gymnastics, both might show great potential when they enter the class for the first time, and be the same age.

The child who works hard, is confident, focuses (especially with boys), listens, follows instructions well and has a certain amount of perfectionalism will far surpass the child who is lazy, doesn't pay attention, doesnt listen, doesnt follow instructions properly and is not interested in perfecting what they are being taught. In this situation I have seen one child move through levels 1 to 3 in 9 months and win medals at comp and the other child not be able to pass level 1 in the first year.

I find this is particularly with young boys in the 6 to 10 age group. I find as children get older and into levels 5, 6 & 7 fear can also be a big problem.