Changes to the WAG program.

[OzZee]

Just looked up and read this http://www.chalkbucket.com/forums/threads/whats-the-difference.33122/ see dumnos description.
So it seems the baby giant is different (and harder) to the current long hang pullover and starts with a cast to handstand.

 

[COz]

Links to the new NDP material are from this page http://www.gymnsw.org.au/default.asp?Page=31976

 

[_coachbrooke_]

I highly doubt they would have a baby giant starting in handstand in the level 4 routine but who would know! Hopefully they videos will come out soon!

 

[OzZee]

_coachbrooke_ they have taken the baby giant and the single leg stuff out of the new level 4 routine. phew! See COz link above.

 

[ruby&jack]

Baby Giant is in level 4 bars.

 

[OzZee]

@ruby&jack see COz's link above. The final program has been released and it's been removed.

 

[_coachbrooke_]

Can't wait to see floor and beam routines! Hopefully the music is half decent! Although I'm sure by the end of next year we will be sick of it!

 

[ruby&jack]

Oh.. seriously l give up haha.
Anyone know what will happen to the current NDP girls and if their training hour will be shortened being they may be teamed up with current Prep/State girls who train at much less hours..???

 

[OzZee]

No, well it's up to individual clubs what hours they train. Same as there are now clubs training NDP2 at 4 hours and clubs training at 22 hours.
It's the current state stream girls who are training less hours that will be messed up.
They will be ok the first year if they don't quit because they will go in at a lower level where their skills match up but then next year they won't be able to move up/compete against the same girls who are training 2-3 times their hours.

 

[Faolmor]

If the choice to have a state stream is up to individual states (which it still is?), girls training in that program shouldn't be affected, should they? Not unless they're forced to move over to the NDP? Wouldn't they just keep doing what they're doing, and moving up through the state's own "SDP?" (For those states who have an SDP, anyway). Or am I reading it wrong?

Also - and I am probably, completely 100% wrong about - so please put it down to clueless newbie stupidity, if this doesn't come across the right way... But some of the lower level requirements seems very...well, not EASY, because I would probably kill myself if *I* tried to do any of them...but compared to say, what is expected of level ones in the USAG JO program, our Aussie girls seem to have less in the way of skills. Can someone who understands the reasoning please explain why this is? Is our emphasis more on form than skills? If so, I completely agree that it makes sense to put the focus on achieving great form early on...but then again, part of me wonders if maybe they've made it...well, not TOO easy...but not challenging enough? (Argh, sorry...I'm sounding like a crazy, but I hope you know what I mean!)

 

[Aussie_coach]

The "Baby giant" in level 4, is just the exact same long hang pullover which they do now. The new level 4 routine

Faolmor, you are correct in assuming that the idea behind our routines is more focus on form. If you watch our gymnasts at competitions compared to US gymnasts. The US gymnasts are generally doing harder skills, while ours of the same level are doing easier skills but so much more emphasis on perfection of form.

So which system is better? Personally I feel the US system is, it is ideal to teach more skills to kids at a younger age, Our kids are expected to reach near technical perfection and then learn the next skill. This slows the whole learning process down and can cause us to miss important development; windows for our gymnasts.

The changes to our system are going more along the lines of the US. Up until now bonus skills have been in from level 4, they will now not exist until level 9. Up until now everyone has had their own music and floor routine from level 4, this will now be pushed back several levels. Why do this? So that our kids move through the levels faster and reach higher levels at a younger age like they do in the US. Also the technical requirements have been eased. Up until now level 4's (equivalent to US level 3) have been expected to do 180 degree split leaps on floor and 135 degree split leaps on beam. These requirements are being eased.

 

[OzZee]

Faolmor, I don't believe we have much lower skills levels in the lower levels Link Removed
USAG level 2 looks pretty similar to our (current) level 2.
But we have had/have much higher technical requirements throughout the lower levels.
I do think the ndp (and idp) kids are taught differently than in the US. There is much higher emphasis on form from the beginning. 5/6 year olds aren't taught back handsprings because they are a cool skill. They don't then go and compete level 4. But from what I can see of the general public they end up in the same place at the same time (not talking those amazing phenoms).

At the end of the day, with a gymnastics population of such a teeny small percentage of the US I think Australia holds there own in WAG well on the international stage.
I do think the new programs hopes of making the move/identification to international stream easier a bonus for the country.

If it's too easy for a child then their club should be moving them forward. If they don't like perfecting skills then gymnastics isn't the sport for them, because if will have to be done at some point.

As for your question re state streams.
Gymnastics Australia is recommending no state stream. Yes a state can create whatever they want. But previously (at least in nsw) state stream has been based on ndp. They would have to rewrite the programme. Maybe they will, probably they won't. But there are a lot of kids doing state stream who do not want to commit to ndp/alp - same as the US has xcel etc, some kids love gymnastics but also love other things/don't want to live in the gym, those kids will end up losing out.
Gym Aus are saying that there will be the flexibility in the higher levels for event specialists etc. Maybe that will happen/maybe not. It would, IMO, be hard to implement competitions to sustain that.

I do think the lack of bonuses is a good thing, as aussiecoach said there are so many kids holding back to be able to compete all .4 bonuses to be able to place. But alternatives are a good thing to cater to individual strengths, and whilst there are some there could be more.

 

[Aussie_coach]

If it's too easy for a child then their club should be moving them forward. If they don't like perfecting skills then gymnastics isn't the sport for them, because if will have to be done at some point.

I disagree with this notion and I think it causes us to lose many talented kids from the sport. Yes, it is important to perfect for, as a gymnast, but we must realise that this also comes with a level of maturity. Young kids in the sport at 6, 7, 8 years old are interested in learning cool skills not spending hours and hours on perfect form.

Prior to puberty is the best time to teach as many of the more advanced skills as possible kids are more flexible and learn these skills easier and faster, it is easier for coaches to spot. If a child spends a year on each level doing basic skills like straight jumps, then by the time they reach the level where they will be learning the harder skills, then they will be past the opportune developmental time.

You will lose the best kids from the sport because they are spending all their hours learning to do perfect walking in releve, straight jumps and kicks and must wait 5 years to learn that elusive back handspring.

Young kids need to fall in love with the sport and learn as much as they can. As kids get older the strength of their goals change and they are better able to focus on areas like perfecting form.

I am not saying that kids should be allowed to do messy skills and develop bad habits from an early age. But we need to be aware that there is a reason why such a higher percentage of US gymnasts reach the optional levels than Australian gymnasts.

The best kids for gymnastics are not the ones, who at 6, are prepared to spend hours learning to point their toes. The best kids for gymnastics are the ones who desperately want to learn to fly.

 

[OzZee]

Yes 4 to 6 years to make it through to level 4 is disheartening and boring. But making sure the kids have the fundamentals correct and not just skipping levels with poor form so they reach a point where they can't continue is also not conducive to longevity.
If a kid can't do a decent cartwheel on the floor they aren't going to be able to do it on beam. Being able to chuck a bad back handspring (which seems to be the focus for young kids - the cool floor skills being thrown) may make the kids (and their parents!) think that their kid is progressing quickly but in the long run they will have to go back and fix all the bad habits.

 

[ruby&jack]

l totally agree. My 7 year is desperate to learn harder skills. She is currently in NDP2 so l am a little concerned with either of the paths she may go to.. either going to the new level 3, which will mean repeating the same skills ir goi g to the new level 4 and being judged individually.

 

[_coachbrooke_]

I am not sure, but is every level now individually judged/scored, just with everyone in level 1&2 getting ribbons?

 

[Aussie_coach]

Coachbrooke, this is up to the individual competitions. All of these are just guidelines. Clubs will still be able to hold competitive meets for level 1 and 2 if they wish but gymnastics Australia are recommending against it.

They recommend that individual judging and
Lacing is used for levels 3-10, but again that is up to the club holding the competition, they could choose to do the ribbons system if they wanted.

But competitions,one regionals and states will certainly be judged.

 

[Aussie_coach]

Ozzee, I am not saying they should be chucking bad back handsprings. More concern about certain requirements, like the fact that our kids are required to have a 180 degree split leap on floor before they have a back handsprings.

 

[Faolmor]

I agree with both points of view. My DD, at 5 and just starting in her development program, keeps asking me when she's going to start "learning gymnastics." I tell her she IS learning gymnastics - that it is important to build up her strength and flexibility so she can learn to do the skills she desperately wants to learn to do. But to a child who just wants to do those skills, it can be very frustrating, and it seems like the only way for these kids is IDP...IF your state is lucky enough to have it (ours isn't) and IF your child is lucky enough to be selected into the program.

I guess I need to learn to be as patient as my child must be. But given how the new NDP program is still behind the IDP levels, in terms of the skills being taught, I do wonder how they're going to make it easier to cross over (particularly if your state doesn't even offer IDP...) I understand why the skills in IDP are taught early on...but surely the same reasoning can work for NDP girls? Is there really any reason why an NDP level 3 girl couldn't do a front salto vault - when they do it in level 2 in IDP???

 

[OzZee]

Ozzee, I am not saying they should be chucking bad back handsprings. More concern about certain requirements, like the fact that our kids are required to have a 180 degree split leap on floor before they have a back handsprings.

LOL well yes I can't disagree with that. Nor can my child who certainly had a back handspring before a 180 degree split leap. She will probably never get that 180 degrees.