While I refer to myself as a gymnastics coach, I really think that all of us are in the business of teaching movement - particularly complex movement(s), but movement nonetheless.
There are two dominating schools of thought relative to how we learn movement (motor learning). One school of thought is termed the schema theory while the other dominant belief is the dynamical systems approach. The schema theory essentially suggests that we develop motor programs that are tweaked throughout life depending upon the movement demands. The dynamical systems theory suggests that we continuously adapt to the demands of the environment and that's how we learn to move.
Personally, I believe that there's an interaction between the two. I believe that we build motor programs and that part of the "tweaking" of these programs relates to the demands of the movement relative to the environment. I don't think that one really dominates over the other.
With all of this said, I think that it's crucial to teach strong technique at the early stages of gymnastics development. If you do that through the compulsory system - great. If you opt to skip the compulsory system and run your own type of developmental system - great. The bottom line is that the end result should be teaching superb technique so as to develop athletes that have highly efficient biomechanics.
Here lies the problem. Some coaches are hellbent for great compulsories and truthfully most of the time their kids don't have superb technique. They often have good form, but the mechanics of many skills aren't very good at all. Unfortunately, judging is based pretty much on aesthetics with a limited amount of real biomechanics. As a result, a kid who's pretty tight and can keep their arms and legs straight can usually do well in compulsories even if they have mediocre mechanics.
On the other end of the spectrum, there's the coach who's focused on rushing kids through because they believe that it's important to get kids to big skills right away. And, while the talented kids will survive usually, it's the others who fall by the wayside. But, eventually, talent will only take you so far in this sport and then reality sets in. So, the latter half of the gymnast's career is spent on trying to work around technical deficiencies or their skill development somewhat plateaus depending upon the degree of their natural talent. The level of the pleateau is all relative and may be meaningless for a kid with the talent of say a Shawn Johnson. But, Shawn Johnson is one in a million. For most other "normal" gymnasts, even those who are talented, this is problematic for future skill development.
Whether you skip compulsories or work through them, the bottom line is that technique is imperative. Good skill development and training the correct motor patterns so that the right muscles turn off and on is what should be strived for.
Unfortunately, from my experience and observation, those who rush kids through often neglect this and although their kids can "chuck" some skills, their technique is atrocious and hell to try and fix.
I really believe that the key to successful gymnastics is patience. Think about it - in baseball, essentially you have to bat, field, run, and throw. Granted, each of these movements requires a great deal more fine detail, but those are the gross patterns. If only gymnastics were confined to 3 or 4 gross movements. Imagine how much time professional baseball players devote to just these 3 or 4 primary movements. So, just imagine how much time gymnasts need to devote to each basic movement. It all takes time.
Coaches need to think about long-term versus the immediate gratifications of chucking a new skill. In the long run, it will be far more effective for the gymnast.
