MAG Ages & levels

[rosiekat]

These are simple questions, but I can't seem to find the conclusive answers anywhere.

My understanding is that you have to be (competition age) 10 to compete USAG L7.
You have to be 11 to compete L8 JE.
You have to be 12 to compete L8 JO.
At age 12, you *have to* compete L8 or go to JD.

Is this right? Or please tell me where I'm wrong. Thanks!

 

[3crazymonkeys]

I know the first 3 are correct. I'm not sure about the age 12 level 8 or JD. We have a boy on team who will be 12 years old and is competing level 6.

 

[skschlag]

At 12 you can still compete L7.

L7 has 10-11, 12 and up
L8 has 11 (JE) and 12, 13-14
L9 is 13-14, 15-16
L10 is 15-18

 

[skschlag]

ACtually, you can compete 4-7 until you are 18 if you so desire!

 

[Jard.the.gymnast]

A bit off topic but not really: what do you think on the age limits? Why are they there?

 

[skschlag]

the limits on when you can compete is to keep boys from being pushed so quickly into skills that their bodies are not ready for. Many skills for the boys cannot be done until they get their "man muscles".

 

[rosiekat]

OK, so then the maximum age would just be a factor if, say, you were 15 and wanting to do L8, right?

We're (parents) just trying to figure out the likely paths for our L6 kids. We know that if everyone continues at the same level of growth and no injuries, etc., all but one would likely repeat 6. We were trying to figure out what the options and/or likely paths were after that. Thanks for continuing to help me look like the magic keeper of all knowledge with my friends!

 

[profmom]

As far as I know, USAG has not put any age limits on compulsories. The new system does push guys toward JD if they are not ready to do in age optionals. I think a 15 year old who wants to have tailored routines but does not have L10 skills would probably be best off in JD.

 

[Madden3]

I think I made a mistake in my numbers so I am deleting until I can confirm

 

[Madden3]

the limits on when you can compete is to keep boys from being pushed so quickly into skills that their bodies are not ready for. Many skills for the boys cannot be done until they get their "man muscles".

yes lower limits make sense. Not a fan of the upper limits.

 

[Madden3]

Ok, I did have it wrong. Any age 6-18 can compete in compulsories. I do not know the under age limits for each level but there are no upper age limits. Here is the deal with optionals:

JO Level 8- Only 12 year olds (and some 11s? not sure on that) may qualify to nationals. The other age group for this level is 13-14. So, you can compete as 8 if you are 13-14, but not if you are 15. And you can qualify for nationals if you are 12 (or 11, I think? That one confuses me.)

JO Level 9- for ages 13-16, but only 13-14 year olds may qualify to nationals.

JO Level 10 - There are two age divisions - 15-18 (or 19 if still in HS) Both can qualify to the Nationals.

So, yes, if you are a 15 year old, and out of compulsories, you need to compete 9 or 10, or JD. You are aged out of 8. But since JD also does not go to Nationals, a 13 or 14 year old could compete 8 if they prefer that to JD with no difference as far as how 'far' they might go.

 

[Jard.the.gymnast]

Ok, I did have it wrong. Any age 6-18 can compete in compulsories. I do not know the under age limits for each level but there are no upper age limits. Here is the deal with optionals:

JO Level 8- Only 12 year olds (and some 11s? not sure on that) may qualify to nationals. The other age group for this level is 13-14. So, you can compete as 8 if you are 13-14, but not if you are 15. And you can qualify for nationals if you are 12 (or 11, I think? That one confuses me.)

JO Level 9- for ages 13-16, but only 13-14 year olds may qualify to nationals.

JO Level 10 - There are two age divisions - 15-18 (or 19 if still in HS) Both can qualify to the Nationals.

So, yes, if you are a 15 year old, and out of compulsories, you need to compete 9 or 10, or JD. You are aged out of 8. But since JD also does not go to Nationals, a 13 or 14 year old could compete 8 if they prefer that to JD with no difference as far as how 'far' they might go.

I believe you can compete L8 as an 11 year old if you do JE instead of JO

 

[skschlag]

yes lower limits make sense. Not a fan of the upper limits.

No one is.....

 

[2G1B]

No one is.....

Has there ever been an explanation for why they did the upper age limits? The only thing that I can think of is "sandbagging"; but not allowing them to go to Nationals certainly curbs that. I still think this upper age limit is absolutely stupid.

 

[acam1103]

I really hate the upper age limits too. My kid started gym at the ripe old age of 8, moved to a team at 9. He's a decent gymnast but not a one year per level kid. He's competitive age 11 this year in level 5 and it feels like doors are already closing. Our gym doesn't have JD at this point. Just seems harsh especially since they did it at the same time many boys were "losing" a year because of the birthdate change.

 

[2G1B]

I really hate the upper age limits too. My kid started gym at the ripe old age of 8, moved to a team at 9. He's a decent gymnast but not a one year per level kid. He's competitive age 11 this year in level 5 and it feels like doors are already closing. Our gym doesn't have JD at this point. Just seems harsh especially since they did it at the same time many boys were "losing" a year because of the birthdate change.

I agree. I really wish that I could look the people who made this decision in the eye and say, "REALLY?! So, you are going to make 3/4 of the boys "older" than what their current competitive age is, even making some of them older than they really are, and at the same time you are going to say that if they are too old they can't compete some of the upper levels? Why, why does this sound like a good idea to you? Have you noticed that there is no similar upper age limit for the girls? Why are we doing this to the boys, especially when we are trying to get more boys into the sport?"

 

[rosiekat]

Yes, the upper age really seems dumb. We have two kids on our L6 team who have birthdays something like a week before the age cutoff. So they will compete this year as 11, even though they won't turn 11 until after the season is over. One of them placed super high in his age category at state, but didn't get to go to the special training because he was over the hill, so to speak. Never mind this kid is great, and his scores blew away some of the younger kids, and he even seems to have a body type that will work long term...he was one week too old, so they don't want him. On the one hand I get the whole age cutoff - but it would be nice if there was a common sense provision or something. We just had another kid quit in part because he was injured over the summer (not at the gym, of course - I swear only 5% of injuries are actually from gym) and he's kind of running behind for the season. Since he was already at the older end of what they like, the idea that he would have to repeat this year again was just kind of depressing - he'd be too old to qualify for Nationals ever, etc. So he opted to quit altogether.

And yeah, when they changed the age cutoffs, it affected a lot of kids. My son competed L4 as a 6 y.o., but when he went to L5 the next year, he was considered 8. He's still on track to potentially compete L8 at age 11, but not if he gets any setback whatsoever. But there's no way he could have started any earlier - so the mere tightness of that schedule is rough, and I know a gazillion other boys are probably affected in the same way. I don't like him having no wiggle room whatsoever. (And of course, I know it's not the end of the world not to compete 8 at 11 y.o., that's just what he wants to work for.)

 

[skschlag]

I hope that they figure it out. I do think JD is a good thing, and will help in the long run, but gyms need to not treat it as a "less than" track. The new age cutoffs were tough, but there are always kiddos that are not the age they are competing. I am not sure what they can do about that, but really, it is waht it is. I know when D was younger, the kiddos that won every year were actually older than the age they were competing (so winning JO nationals for 13 yo when they had been 14 the entire season. It is always going to be tough.. (there are rumors about going to birth years soon.....)

As for the upper age limits, I am not sure what the thought process was/is. Maybe they thought JD would pick up that slack, but with it being treated as a less than track, kids do not want to do it. That is really sad. I truly see some of our L6 D2 kiddos moving to JD soon, and it is perfect for them.

Going to a system more like the girls is an option, I guess, but that has its own issues.

 

[2G1B]

I understand the issues with the previous age cutoff, that you have boys competing a year younger than they were the entire season; but I don't know that going to haveing some boys compete a year older than they are the entire season was the answer (those are only the May birthday boys though). I mean, even if a boy had an early May birthday they might be past their birthday at Nationals; but the rest of the season they would have been competing their age. But ultimately, that shouldn't be a huge deal either way. The reason it became a big deal is because of the upper age limits. They bumped a lot of boys to being older than they had previously been considered by USAG (those who had competed as their actual age and those that had fall birthdays, so had been competing as a year younger than they actually were). And then they put an age limit and said that certain ages were too old to compete L8, L9, and L10. I had never been concerned about if my son would be too old to get to go to Nationals at certain levels, that was an "it is what it is" thing. But to suddenly have him told, "hey, you are a year older now and BTW, you have to be L8 next year or you can never compete L8, you will instead have to swap to JD until you are ready for L9 (if you get ready before you are too old for THAT) or you will have to manage to be ready for L9 the next season" just seems crazy. And really, it is USAG who put JD out as "less than". They put it out last year as available for late starters or kids who were basically too old to be doing compulsory levels with the younger boys; but who don't have the skills yet for L8+. And really, a kid who IS 14 years old (the entire season, just has a May birthday, so is considered 15) is not too old to be doing L8. Honestly, a 16 year old isn't too old to do L8. My daughter can compete L8 as an 18 year old if she/her coaches wanted.

 

[skschlag]

Oh I agree. I guess our gym just uses D different (since D did it last year to start the year).

I am not sure why the upper age limits. I am sure they had a reason, but none of us have a clue what it is....it stinks I know several owners/coaches who keep voting to have it changed, to no avail