WAG XCEL Gold Judges, Help

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

kimkuzma2

Proud Parent
Hi. I have been wondering this for a long time..... My daughter competes Xcel Gold this year, and as I watch gymnasts throw big skilled routines and earn 9.2s, I see them get beat by gymnasts doing the minimum, easiest skills allowed, earning 9.3 and winning. How is it that kids who compete big skill really well constantly get beat by kids who do easier skills just as well? I would think that kids who do big skills would get compensated in start value since it is definitely easier to stick an easy skill. It is like level 3 kids (in skill) are beating level 7 kids (in skill) by .1 or .2....... This doesn't make any sense. Can you please help?
 
Not a judge, but I see this all of the time in Xcel. Generally the minimum routines score better, b/c they are usually executed better. For example, a gymmie can do a ROBHSBT very well, but if her ROBHSBHS is perfect then it will still score slightly better. Xcel has a large range of skills that meet the requirements for each level. As long as they meet the requirement, they all have a 10.0 start value, regardless of whether they are doing back tucks or back handsprings on floor, cartwheel or back walkover on beam, kip or pullover on bars. It allows gymnasts to compete to their strengths and their is no "extra credit" for competing the tougher skills. All gyms use Xcel differently, at our gym, usually gymnasts compete what they are cleanest at, which is often more on the lower end of the skill range. However, they keep working the higher level skills in the gym to get them ready to compete at the next level. I hope that helps and makes sense!
 
Yup, I agree that it's not fare, but it is what it is. There is no "extra credit", just 10.0 start value, as long as all the requirements are met, and then the deductions go from there. Let's say one girl does ROBHS, and gets .2 deduction for her BHS. Another one does ROBHSBT and get .2 deduction on BHS and .2 deduction on BT. Let's say everything else is perfect. The first girls will get 9.8, the second 9.6, even though the second one competed a harder skill.
 
Wow.... I understand all that, but I don't agree with it at all, and I feel like it rewards staying in one's comfort zone and not hard work.

I coach diving. A front 1 1/2 pike is easy and will get less deductions by nature because it is a "pretty" dive. But it's "start value" is a 1.7. A good one scores 7s. A front double pike is more difficult and will never, ever be as clean or "pretty" as a front 1 1/2 pike, but is much harder to perform, so it's "start value" is higher- a 2.2. A good one gets 6 1/2s. The double wins in points scored because it was done pretty flawlessly even though it got slightly a lower score by nature. If both dives were worth the same start value, I'd never get kids to take the risk to learn and compete the bigger skill because there is no "pay off".

That's how I feel Xcel is. Kids do big routines for 9s get beat by kids who do little skilled routines for 9.1s. Where is the justice? Both did great routines, but one is much, much more difficult to execute at that high level (and it's being done). There is so much more room for error, and they've done near perfect against a kid whose little skills are hard to "mess up". So a high score is much more easily attained. Where is the justice for the kid who worked hard, stepped out of their comfort zone, and did awesome?
 
It's all in form. You may think that the kid doing the harder skill did "really well" compared to the kid doing the easier skill but the judge will see the form deductions that you may not be seeing.
But the kid doing the big skill who earned a 9.1 obviously did something right, and their form is near flawless. The kid who did the easy routine near flawlessly for a 9.2 obviously did a great job, too, but it is MUCH easier to do a near flawless routine all made of easy skills than it is to do a near flawless routine all made of hard skills.
 
Wow.... I understand all that, but I don't agree with it at all, and I feel like it rewards staying in one's comfort zone and not hard work.

I coach diving. A front 1 1/2 pike is easy and will get less deductions by nature because it is a "pretty" dive. But it's "start value" is a 1.7. A good one scores 7s. A front double pike is more difficult and will never, ever be as clean or "pretty" as a front 1 1/2 pike, but is much harder to perform, so it's "start value" is higher- a 2.2. A good one gets 6 1/2s. The double wins in points scored because it was done pretty flawlessly even though it got slightly a lower score by nature. If both dives were worth the same start value, I'd never get kids to take the risk to learn and compete the bigger skill because there is no "pay off".

That's how I feel Xcel is. Kids do big routines for 9s get beat by kids who do little skilled routines for 9.1s. Where is the justice? Both did great routines, but one is much, much more difficult to execute at that high level (and it's being done). There is so much more room for error, and they've done near perfect against a kid whose little skills are hard to "mess up". So a high score is much more easily attained. Where is the justice for the kid who worked hard, stepped out of their comfort zone, and did awesome?

Well you don't really see rewards for difficulty/bonuses until much later on in the optional levels. Even early optionals are structured similar to Xcel with a wide range of what a gymnast can do. Some gymnasts might compete upgraded floor routines, but compete lower skills on the bars for example, it keeps them in the sport and keeps them progressing.

You might find compulsory levels 4 and 5 more "fair" since all of the kids compete the exact same skills and routines with no major variations. Would it be an option for her to compete compulsory instead of Xcel at your gym? However, you would find at Level 6/7 once you hit optionals there is a variation in skills there as well.

"Justice" won't always be seen in scores or placements, even if you are competing the exact same skills as everyone else. It's better for a gymnast to learn from an early that their goal should be personal improvement rather than being rewarded with placements and higher scores. With that being said though, chances are if your dd is competing the higher level skills now, she will probably be more successful at the higher level b/c she is confident in competing those skills. =)
 
As several people already said, this is because there is no "bonus" for difficulty (or even for creative composition) in the Xcel levels. A clean routine that meets the minimum requirements will score higher than a routine that has more difficult elements but more execution errors.

This is part of the philosophy of Xcel. A wide range of skills is permitted at each level since gymnasts may progress at different rates on different events. This is why, for example, a gold could compete a back tuck on floor, while not have to do a kip on bars. What one chooses to do within those requirements varies on coaches philosophies.

The motivation to learn higher skills is more to move up to the next level. Most Xcel gymnasts don't train many hours, either, so from a safety standpoint, USA Gymnastics doesn't want to encourage coaches/gymnasts to throw skills that aren't safe to get a higher "start value" or bonus.
 
Well you don't really see rewards for difficulty/bonuses until much later on in the optional levels. Even early optionals are structured similar to Xcel with a wide range of what a gymnast can do. Some gymnasts might compete upgraded floor routines, but compete lower skills on the bars for example, it keeps them in the sport and keeps them progressing.

You might find compulsory levels 4 and 5 more "fair" since all of the kids compete the exact same skills and routines with no major variations. Would it be an option for her to compete compulsory instead of Xcel at your gym? However, you would find at Level 6/7 once you hit optionals there is a variation in skills there as well.

"Justice" won't always be seen in scores or placements, even if you are competing the exact same skills as everyone else. It's better for a gymnast to learn from an early that their goal should be personal improvement rather than being rewarded with placements and higher scores. With that being said though, chances are if your dd is competing the higher level skills now, she will probably be more successful at the higher level b/c she is confident in competing those skills. =)
She is in Xcel because she skipped lvl 1, lvl 3, Xcel gold, and will go lvl 6 or 7 next year. She is only 7. The lower levels were boring for her, and she is capable of so much more. That is why she is in Xcel where I'm seeing huge discrepancies in the validity of this sport's scoring.

Justice is not always found in diving when 2 kids do the exact same dive and a judge scores one badly, but at least it was a level playing field to start.

I am whitnessing kids with minimal skill showcased beating kids with big skills showcased. And the kids with big skills are doing a heck of a job scoring those big skills. As a coach, I'd be embarrassed if my kid appeared to be better when I'm all reality, the other kid with big, clean skills deserved to win. I'd have a hard time accepting that discrepancy as I am now. This is all out unfair to kids who work hard and are good.
 
As several people already said, this is because there is no "bonus" for difficulty (or even for creative composition) in the Xcel levels. A clean routine that meets the minimum requirements will score higher than a routine that has more difficult elements but more execution errors.

This is part of the philosophy of Xcel. A wide range of skills is permitted at each level since gymnasts may progress at different rates on different events. This is why, for example, a gold could compete a back tuck on floor, while not have to do a kip on bars. What one chooses to do within those requirements varies on coaches philosophies.

The motivation to learn higher skills is more to move up to the next level. Most Xcel gymnasts don't train many hours, either, so from a safety standpoint, USA Gymnastics doesn't want to encourage coaches/gymnasts to throw skills that aren't safe to get a higher "start value" or bonus.
But wouldn't a poor score on those big skills be enough to let the coach know to try a smaller skill? That's how it goes in diving.....
 
My Dd is a gold and she had to downgrade her routines on beam and bars because she got 9.5 start values on both. The judges were arguing with coaches that her routines were wrong, so, coaches downgraded them so she wouldn't get "punished" at the next meet.
 
Then just hang tight for another year or so! Where your DD is heading will be more in line with your expectations from the sport. What you are really questioning is the philosophy not just of Xcel from USAG's perspective but also how gyms choose to have their athletes compete. Some gyms prioritize winning meets and have their athletes at a certain level of readiness so that those high score come more easily (and yes, this may mean doing the minimum). Other gyms give their Xcel kids the flexibility to choose what they want to compete even if it may not be a 1st place routine. And other gyms use it as a replacement for compulsories. It is what it is. It's a little unfair to say that those kids who do the easier routines and score well are not working hard and are not as good as those throwing harder skills.
 
I understand having a "cap" on skills in each level, but if different "degree of difficulty" is allowed in each level, to "encourage" furthering skills in the level, there should be something in the scoring that encourages this- like differing start values. Because if not, it's like everyone being "encouraged" to work hard in life, but everyone getting paid the same wage. Makes no sense. No one would step out of their comfort zone for no compensation. I feel like that is what is the moral of this lesson. Keep it easy... Don't step out of your comfort zone and take a risk. It doesn't pay off. Perfect the easy skills, because those are the only skills that will win a competition.
 
It's a game, and there are different ways to play the game.
It's a terrible game. It's disappointing to hard working kids who are really good to get beat by kids with half their skill set and skill level. I couldn't support that as a coach. It's hard to watch as a parent. Reward comfort and punish good skills.
 
Then just hang tight for another year or so! Where your DD is heading will be more in line with your expectations from the sport. What you are really questioning is the philosophy not just of Xcel from USAG's perspective but also how gyms choose to have their athletes compete. Some gyms prioritize winning meets and have their athletes at a certain level of readiness so that those high score come more easily (and yes, this may mean doing the minimum). Other gyms give their Xcel kids the flexibility to choose what they want to compete even if it may not be a 1st place routine. And other gyms use it as a replacement for compulsories. It is what it is. It's a little unfair to say that those kids who do the easier routines and score well are not working hard and are not as good as those throwing harder skills.
True- unfair to say they don't work hard, because I'm sure they work their butts off, too. I agree. I'm questioning the integrity of the coaches who only have their kids compete easier routines just to win. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I'd be embarrassed if that was my philosophy.
 
True- unfair to say they don't work hard, because I'm sure they work their butts off, too. I agree. I'm questioning the integrity of the coaches who only have their kids compete easier routines just to win. "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". I'd be embarrassed if that was my philosophy.

But that's only part of it...there may be a mismatch of skills across events. No kip but can do a BHS on beam. Or the kid can kip but is terrified of BWO on beam. There's a lot of flexibility. More so than in JO. It's another alternative for girls to be involved in the sport who may not have otherwise had that opportunity. My DD competed Xcel for a year. I guess she was like the kids you are complaining about now. Very conservative routines but high scoring. I'll admit it was very awkward when scores would flash and DD's beam routine w/o a cartwheel scored higher than a teammate's routine who stuck a BWO. But her routine overall was cleaner. Her routines weren't designed to win or place though. She had the skills she had because that was where she was at developmentally and mentally with the sport.
 
No, it is not a terrible game because a gym meet is NOT a game. Gymnasts do not compete to to try to get a higher score than someone else. They do it because they love to flip and dance and fly and to show us the remarkable physical skills they have learned. To do this they have worked many many hours and in the meets they are showing us that they have become physically fit, they have learned poise and self-confidence and perseverance. This is what we go to the meets to see, not to see Suzie beat Janey. If you worry about scoring you miss the beauty and thrill of this sport.
 
I guess I don't really see it the way you do. The meet is only a point in time and gymnastics has by far one of the longest journeys in terms of development, advancement, and complexity. I feel like a kid who has those bigger skills down solid, should compete them even if the harder skills have a bigger chance for deduction. In just prepares them for the next season and their ongoing development.
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

New Posts

Back