Coaches Competing level 3 states (mirrored from parents' section)

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I will start by saying I am not overly experienced with all of this. Having said that, I think that having L3 compete at state meets is silly.

The reason I think this is that its supposed to be a developmental level no? Sure, gain some experience with local meets but anything beyond that, is it really necessary?

I would like to hear others thoughts on this. The "group" J is in is L3 and the coach told me they likely will have L3 compete at the upcoming state meet. These aren't even older L3, they are 5 and 6 mostly, with some just turned 7 that will go to L4 after the state meet.

I'll be honest: I don't like to compete level 3 at all. I think a strong focus on competition at that level is counterproductive in and of itself; add to that the fact that the level 3 routines are terrible from a developmental perspective. I especially dislike the level 3 vault and bars.

 

[CoachGoofy]

I don't like competing levels 1-3 either.

I feel the kids at that level can better spend their time working on skills and drills and gymnastics movements, rather than compulsory routines. I feel that some of the skills make no sense developmentally (my pet hate is the roundoff run back. Don't do that. Rebound. Please.). And I feel that at that level & age competition is a lot of pressure that they don't need. Even compulsory meets can get intense, and the nitpicked-to-death feeling isn't something to rush into.

/2cents

 

[MissBear]

I completely agree that it is usually best not to compete before level 4. The exception could be made to older girls of a lower level who still wish to compete. However, in most cases the time could be better spent on conditioning, skills and preps for the later levels.
I feel the pressure and repititions that come with practising a routine to perfection are not benificial at that level.

In the UK it is not average to compete until the year you turn 8 - in fact BG has prohibited the naming of county or regional champions until that age. Some small meets may be competed at a younger age but these are usually floor and vault only and give ribbons for most artistic floor routine, best acrobatic elements, neatest routine, most dynamic vault etc.

In direct relation to the question - if the L3 group has a normal competitive season there seems to reason not to go to a state meet unless it would be expensive or far away.

/2 pence!

 

[nevertooold]

I guess I am in the minority... but I really like level 3.

I like the mill circle and I really don't understand why so many people do not like mill circle or think that it is not progressive. It leads to stalder work and helps with learning to shift hands without the belly on the bar which the back and front hip circles do not necessarily do. I have not had any trouble teaching this successfully to a dozen or more 6/7 yr olds each year. And then they have an easier jump to level 4.

I like the sole circle dismount, it leads to a squat on and a stuck dismount in level 4.

I will agree that I do not like the dive roll on vault and find a lot of girls have a difficult time switching back and forth between dive roll and flat back which we train simultaneously with our 3's.

It all depends on your goal. Our goal is not to rush our 9 yr olds to optionals only to burn them all out by 12. Our gym's mission is to provide a competitive experience to any girl who is willing to work hard on a consistent basis, and to prolong the competitive gymnastics experience of our gymnasts. So competing level 3, even through states fits with our goals.

 

[nevertooold]

I think that having L3 compete at state meets is silly.

Each parent needs to find a gym whose vision and mission match their own. I personally like level 3 and know that our gymnasts and their families enjoy the state meet experience even though it is more low key than the other compulsory levels.

As a coach I feel it prepares the girls for level 4 which is exceptionally competitive in our state as I know it is in many of yours. Having already competed in "states" may allow those gymnasts to be less nervous about "states" and really perform to the best of their abilities once they reach higher levels.

And it is a reward for all the hard work the kids put in. As others have pointed out before. There are no other sports that require multiple years of multiple hours per week of practice before getting the opportunity to compete. I feel we keep more kids in the sport by allowing them to compete earlier.

 

[cheshirekat]

I would be sad to see level 3 end up to be the highly intense level of competition that 4 has become, especially with how young they can be.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

colossal waste of time and resources. this includes the childs time. but hey, you can make tons of money hosting those meets.

now, if you think that somehow competing L3 will make you successful at the higher levels...i got some property and stock i want to sell you...


p.s. they need to be spending the time training, conditioning, and doing flexibility.

 

[CoachTodd]

I don't like competing levels 1-3 either.

I feel the kids at that level can better spend their time working on skills and drills and gymnastics movements, rather than compulsory routines. I feel that some of the skills make no sense developmentally (my pet hate is the roundoff run back. Don't do that. Rebound. Please.). And I feel that at that level & age competition is a lot of pressure that they don't need. Even compulsory meets can get intense, and the nitpicked-to-death feeling isn't something to rush into.

/2cents

I'm with the coaches that really don't like level 3. Here are my reasons:

1. Dive roll vault. It takes months if not years to get the kids to stop rolling after they learn this skill that doesn't seem to progress vault at all.

2. As mentioned by CoachGoofy, a round off that doesn't actually rebound into anything. This sometimes takes years to correct and from my stand point, the round off is one of the most important and most difficult skills to get correct.

3. A back hip circle that stops. I'm pretty sure a back hip circle is either used to build the hand rotation for clear hips and/or it is used to get a good under shoot. Practicing back hips that stop seems to be counter productive.

4. The toe-on bars dismount. OK. This is a fun skill for rec kids that will never compete. For those that will compete above level 3, let's spend the next few years teaching the squat on with the feet together while leaning over the bar more and teaching a toe on with the correct timing. When our gym did level 3, the one 6 year old girl we had that did the toe on dismount with the correct drop could do a toe-on front on pit bar before my level 9's. She couldn't stick the landing off of low bar so she was taught to do it wrong for a better level 3 score.

5. Mill-Circle. The only thing I can see a mill circle helping progressions with is spinning around the bar in a reverse grip since any other forward skill I can think of on bars will come from an entirely different angle.


I guess that's about it .

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

My thoughts on the roundoff runback are mixed.

If they're turning the roundoff over properly, they won't be able to do a controlled rebound and stick -- they should have too much power for this. So for a CORRECTLY EXECUTED roundoff, a run-back is preferable to a rebound and stick.

On the other hand, a run-back does nothing to reinforce the hollow position you want on the landing of the roundoff. So the roundoff run-back is very similar to some of the compulsory vaults I hate so much, in that it can be done with correct technique, but it does nothing to encourage correct technique.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

geoff and goofy. you both got it right.

 

[gymdog]

Apparently my state is having a L3 state meet. But I'm not sure which gyms are doing it.

I guess I'm not very opposed to it, but one of my big problems is that it's an even bigger push to get kids into competitive training younger. And I'm uncomfortable with kids who could technically be in preschool still doing some of this. It's just unreasonable to me. I personally can do with no kids under 7 competing, although I'm sure that's a relatively controversial statement.

I don't teach the level 3 routines, so I don't think about them very much. I also only teach vertical handstands on beam (I teach so much lower level beam, you don't want to know). I'm not opposed to the 3/4 HS being in there I guess, but I hate it. It's harder to come down out of a 3/4 HS. Then you have to teach them to kick correctly in L5. I teach split handstands for that reason and spot the kids up. They don't do it on beam until they can do it. And needle kick with straight legs past the 3/4. (another peeve of mine with lower level beam...throwing them up there is not necessarily efficient...I feel you can build better skills focusing less on beam routines at that level. Getting comfortable with balance, and many skills on floor for body awareness and tightness)

 

[BlairBob]

I would prefer to see a Cartwheel step-in run back that shows them over rotating. Many L3 cannot rebound well due to the fact they are not powerful enough or tight enough. If they could, they'd be in L4 or training for it.

Some literature out there states that young children should not be competing strenuously till the age of 7.

Some thoughts are out there that competing L1-3 is a matter of generating more revenue for gyms.

As well, competing lower levels 1-3 gets them competing so they don't just sign up for something like soccer or swim and compete in 6 weeks. Yes, there maybe the summer and winter shows but parents like to see their kids compete sometimes! Especially if they are putting the effort to putting their kid on team and doing all the Booster stuff.

 

[gymdog]

As well, competing lower levels 1-3 gets them competing so they don't just sign up for something like soccer or swim and compete in 6 weeks. Yes, there maybe the summer and winter shows but parents like to see their kids compete sometimes! Especially if they are putting the effort to putting their kid on team and doing all the Booster stuff.

I agree with this. Although I am not opposed to unsanctioned rec meets, and even think they are a good idea. Several gyms in the area I grew up in, get together to do this for their preteams, about twice a year. So there are different kids, and they are doing routines in front of "judges", but basically in the past the kids have not done the official L1-3 routines, instead the coaches have just had them do whatever they practice.

But again, the gym I went to as a kid, pretty strong USAG team, and they aim to have the kids in preteam at 6-7, not 4-5. Basically don't really have kids come out of preteam at 6 to compete L4, simply because the technical requirements of the owner who oversees it (was there the first time I stepped in a gym! and coached me in basics for years after) are so stringent. I started competing 4 very late because the branch of the gym I went to was rec and we lived very far from the team gym. We just never thought about it, I didn't know or understand what competitions were, so it didn't occur to me to want that. Eventually I outgrew the facility and had to move to the team program. In retrospect we would have made the move earlier. But even going 4 hours a week, with the majority of the other girls not working towards ever competing, when I started competing level 4, I could do 5 kips in a row on low bar under her guidance. With good form. I have full faith in her experience and think the preteam program she has designed is great and really maximizes the ability of the kids to progress and succeed once they are put in L4. Even the very talented ones find it to be a challenge until they are 7 or so and they learn very good basics without the full hours commitment of team, saving stress on the body at that age. I've heard of gyms with "preteams" for kids as young as 3. I could write an hour long rant on that, but I'm sure my opinion of it is already crystal clear.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

I really dislike levels 1-3. For many of the reasons stated in this thread.

Level one for example has nothing in it...a whole lot of nothing. I could spend hours teaching Five year olds to memorise a routine full of nothing, instead of teaching actual gymnastics skills/progressions. Level 2-3 are slightly better (have one or two skills) but so much time is still wasted on memorising routines.

I think the argument about competitive experience is also bogus, level 4-7 are the levels for gaining experience. Unless being the level four state Champion is the dream goal, I don't think competitive experience is necessary at this age/level.

I do work with level 1-3 though because that seems to be what is the norm here (grrrr). Plus what others have mentioned about losing kids to other sports is a factor. I wish the competitions were more of a skill test than a memory test.

I see many great 6-9 year olds written off for competition because they are not a desirable age for level 1. I also see many level three's who are at their peak because they were chosen for competition at a young age when no skill was required of them and they showed talent for that. This is my main problem with the Australian system. Not everyone is great at five. Not all clubs work this way but it seems to be the norm. We certainly will never have a Ludivine Furnon or Krista Jasta in Australia.

 

[nevertooold]

colossal waste of time and resources. this includes the childs time. but hey, you can make tons of money hosting those meets.

now, if you think that somehow competing L3 will make you successful at the higher levels...i got some property and stock i want to sell you...


p.s. they need to be spending the time training, conditioning, and doing flexibility.

Please enlighten me how this is a waste of the child's time? If we are spending time doing something the child loves to do in a manner which provides a level of satisfaction to child, parent, coach and owner, then um... huh????

And we do not host any meets. So it is not a money making venture for us.

Why would you assume that our level 3's are not spending time training, conditioning and doing flexibility??

Level 3 for any club that i know is the same as anyone else's "preteam" or developmental except that they go to meets judged by real judges and not coaches or parents from that gym which is who many "rec" meets are judged by. I am committed to my kids that if anyone sits judgement on them, they will know the rules and be a certified judge.

2 of my 3's who moved to 4 this year, scored 9.4 on their bar routines at their first meet. Awesome for them, now we can work on getting arms straight on kips and not worrying about learning how to do the "dreaded mill circle" that THEY mastered in level 3.

You would have a hard argument to make with their parents that level 3 was a waste of THEIR time.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

before i can respond, can you tell me if you have ever brought a child from scratch up to level 10 or elite?

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

before i can respond, can you tell me if you have ever brought a child from scratch up to level 10 or elite?

More extensive credentials do not automatically make somebody right, nor does a lack thereof automatically make them wrong. Not sure if that's where you were going with this, but if so I'd like to point this out from the start.

Anyway, that said, I think the difference here is goals. Yes, kids who train level 3 are likely (but not certain) to do better at level 4. If your goal is to produce level 4 state champions, then level 3 is a great stepping stone on the way to that goal.

But if your goal is to really train kids up towards the top levels of the sport, level 3 is, in my opinion, a waste of time. Rather than spending time memorizing routines and practicing the specific choreography, that time can be MUCH better spent working the crucial skills themselves.

My goal as a coach is to prepare my girls to someday join a college team. Scoring well at level 3 and 4 (and for that matter, levels 5, 6, and 7) does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to advance them towards this goal.

Now there are some skills in these routines which are important for the kids to learn and learn cleanly. A roundoff backhandspring on floor, for example, is important to learn well. A kip is important to learn well. But learning exactly where her arms are supposed to be at exactly what point in the compulsory routines (and incurring massive deductions if she gets it wrong)? Useless. Utterly useless. And while spending time teaching this choreography is crucial to their scores at the compulsory levels, it is completely inconsequential with regards to how they will do at the upper levels.

So nevertoold, you are exactly right when you say that level 3 will help kids score better at level 4. My disagreement with you is on whether that actually matters at all in the long run. In my opinion, it doesn't.

 

[CoachTodd]

I have to agree with GT's last post on this one. Having said that, the one advantage to having all of the compulsory levels is that the preteam coaches know exactly what to teach. So if you don't have regular coaches' meetings to keep everyone on the same page, these lower level compulsories will do that for you.

 

[CoachGoofy]

If your goal is winning at compulsories, I guess lots of compulsories feed that goal.

THat's...not our goal. I always tell my girls who find the routines cheesy (let's face it, they are) that they're a vehicle for showing judges that you can do the major skills and learn a routine at the same time. But winning compulsory state, totally not our goal.

 

[gymmomntc2e6]

As the parent of a gymmie who competed L3, I must say that for MY child it was very beneficial. That does not mean it would be for everyone. Yes, I guess she could have spent that time working on L4 skills instead, but she had them all - they just needed prettying up.

L3 competitions allowed my DD to adjust from doing skills & routines in the gym to doing them in front of spectators. It also transformed her from a painfully shy child with little self confidence into an insanely outgoing 'ham' with a lot of self confidence. Would she have gotten the same result waiting a year to compete L4 ? Maybe, but i am glad I did not have to wait that long.

I do see some benefit in them learning routines early - maybe not L1, or even L2, not sure where to draw the line. But, again for my DD, getting to put the skills together into a routine helped her understand some of the progressions and things she had been working on.

I guess I don't see anything wrong with competing L3 or choosing not to compete L3. For my particular Gymmie it was the right thing.