Are "winning" gyms ok for the average gymnast?

[UnoMas]

Here is a hypothetical situation which I have been wondering about. Any perspectives...coaches, parents, gymnasts, etc., are welcome!

There is a gym which has a reputation for being a "winning" gym. Team awards, high scores, and first place AA's are highly valued, and often acheived! A lot of emphasis is placed on winning. And not just 3rd or 4th or 7th place or whatever. 1st place is the main goal!! When girls win and do well, they tend to be placed in training groups with the "better" coaches.

There is an "average" gymnast at this gym. She attends practice consistently (almost never ever misses a day!) and loves gymnastics. However, she is not a "winning" gymmie and is often times placed in training groups with the coaches who have less experience. Often, she has different coaches every day while the "winning" girls have the same consistent coach every day (or most days). For some reason, this gymmie does not seem to be progressing. She has had practically the same score at meets all season and is very much stuck on a couple of skills. I know some of this could be a "duh, the ones who are winning have more natural talent than the ones who are not winning, and that's why the average gymmie is not progressing like the winners are" kind of thing. However, I wonder if it is also because average gymmies are kind of overlooked (and maybe given up on?) at this gym.

I am wondering if a gym that was less competitive or "winning" would be a better fit for an average gymnast? Does this make any sense? Is it possible for a gym who produces less AA and team champions to help gymnasts who are struggling with something? Or would the results be the same, based on the gymnast's "average" ability?

Thoughts?

 

[marie83]

It's an interesting question.
Of course natural talent has quite a bit to do with it, but in my experience even the less experienced coach at 'power' gyms have more experience than coaches in other gyms (not always the case but quite often)
A true story example:
A gymnast at gym A is struggling to achieve her pull over and her roundoff bhs.
Her parents are unhappy that she is consistently coming in the bottom quarter in competitions.
They move her to a power gym where is is placed with a young, but qualified coach, herself an ex elite gymnast.
After one summer of training at the new gym, the gymnast is not only doing her pull over, but also her kip and her tuck back on floor and is competing a level higher than gym A would have had her in.
The gymnast is still not winning medals but now places in the top quarter regularly.

Now all of that could be for a number of reasons -

Club A's coaches just aren't as experienced/qualified
Club A's training hours are fewer
Club A's facility not as 'top notch' (not that this always matters!)

I guess it really depends on the individual situation - I firmly believe that consistent coaching makes a big difference!

 

[Muddlethru]

We do not belong to a "winning"gym. We have only 2 to 3 gymnasts that consistently place 1st AA. But I will tell you, this sort of "bias" happens in our gym as well. Our HC picked a handful of girls to train for TOPS. But it was obvious she was only focusing her attention on one girl. Sure enough, she was the only one that made it. She certainly is very talented. I think you have to qualify that it is not the "winnng" gym that is at issue here. It is the coaches. I am sure you can find many gyms that have coaches that care about all their gymnasts, not just the high scoring ones, even if management instructs them otherwise. If this scenario is real, I would take that little gymmie out and find another place that is willing to get her to where she want to be.

 

[flipper's fan]

There are many factors at work here- many of the "winning" gyms cherry pick their team, and if you are " average" or "too old" you are steered toward prep opt or the equivalent, or toward another gym. If the gym chooses to train an "average" gymnast, I'm sure they see some potential they can capitalize on.

 

[twoofthem]

We are a big gym and a winning gym and almost always are a first place team, lots of AA, lots of college scholarships, etc. Our gym does not cherry pick its girls and gives anyone a chance who wants one. We have gymnasts that do terrible, almost always last place. They are trained by the same coaches, they get the same time on every thing, coached the same etc. We have young gymnast and old gymnasts, tall, short, heavy, and thin. My daughter walked into this gym having only done rec gymnastics at a different gym for a few months, my husband asked if she could try level 4 and the coach said sure, having no real knowledge of my dd or her skill level.

On the other hand my dd is going to be a level 7 in June and they are staring floor routines. She has 17 girls on her level and the hc and compulsory coach pick the top 4 gymnasts to get their routines in May, the others will get them in June and Aug with the weakest gymnasts going toward the end.

My dd is one of the strongest on her team, she is one of the top 4 and consistently places in the top 3 at meets. She just made her kip cast handstand and got to compete with that in her routine this past weekend-there are lvl 10 at her gym that don't have this skill. If her gym hand picked from their own class kids or didn't take kids that were 'old' they would have missed her. She was 8 when she started gymnastics and showed zero interest or talent before she started.

I have a 5yo that has talent and would be snapped up by any 'big' gym. Who really knows which one of my dd has more natural talent but it would have been a shame to miss my 11yo because she didn't fit the 'mold' at the right time or at the right place unlike my youngest. I am very happy this gym has the policy of giving anyone who has a desrie a chance to try.

 

[coachmolly]

This happen to me as a gymnast and, as a result, is one that makes my blood boil. So I will remind myself to stay calm as I write this...
As others have said, it's not necessarily a matter of whether a gym has a big name or wins often, but had more to do with specific coaches, their philosophies, and what they are looking for in their gymnasts or their goals for their program. The gym where I found this problem to be most prevalent was not a winning gym, still is not, and but desperately wanted to make themselves a winning team no matter the costs. So they picked the most talented for the top group which received the most attention and grouped everyone else into a largely forgotten about group with large numbers, a wide skill level, and a coach with different priorities. In my case, I was placed in this group before HC even saw me perform 1 skill. Even after using these methods for many years, this gym has still not created a gymnast that has emerged as a big winner on the USAG scene- no elites, no college scholarships, no JO nationals qualifiers, I don't think they even participate in USAG anymore. Yet somehow kids keep flocking to this gym, I guess because the coaches can feed the parents a good line, who knows.
But there are also great, noteable gyms out there who have older girls in lower levels, girls who repeat levels, and girls who aren't superstars yet seem to enjoy the coaching they are receiving. After finally leaving the above program I went to a more recognizable gym where all gymnasts- level 5 through level 10- were treated largely the same. The hours you trained, meets you attended, coaches you worked with, conditioning that was worked on, etc. was the same for every girl in the level, regardless of age, potential, scoring ability, whatever. Some shifts were made so older girls weren't forced to workout with the itty bitty ones all the time, but it was a really balanced approach.
So basically, I think how well an "average" gymnast does at a gym depends more on the gym's philosophy rather than their success.