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

[nevertooold]

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

No I have not.

 

[nevertooold]

Anyway, that said, I think the difference here is goals.

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.

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.

I agree the difference is goals.

It is not our goal to prepare girls to join a college team. It is our goal to allow interested girls who are willing to work hard on a consistent basis the opportunity to pursue this sport in a team context and to take it as far as they are able to take it.

There are certainly many clubs who are highly selective and choose from the very beginning only girls with the potential at a college scholarship.

And it is certainly reasonable to skip compulsory levels for certain kids, or to fast track those kids.

But there are many kids for whom level 3 is NOT a "colossal waste of time".

And it IS our goal (and we are not the only ones) to create state champions. If you are not creating state champions and you are not the only gym in town good luck holding onto talented kids or even average kids sometimes.

For gyms who do not compete level 3, you may think we spend a lot of time drilling the routines... but the level 3 routines are very simple and we actually spend most of our time training level 4 and 5 and only a small amount of time on routines. This is no different than "preteam" in my opinion except that the kids who compete level 3 get to compete earlier and with real judges.

We get kids from other gyms who have been "sold the dream" of a college scholarship or the chance to go elite. The same gyms who are burning out 90% of their kids before 12 yrs old in search of the ONE.

We all approach it differently and we can all learn from each other IF we remember the positive impact we can bring to children's lives and the many ways we can reach and serve children.

What matters in the long run is different and specific to individual children and families. For a child who is not headed toward college gymnastics, IT MATTERS IN THE LONG RUN that someone believed in them and gave them a chance to work at something they loved.

Many gyms do not have the time or resources to offer a competitive experience to kids who will not carry it through to a college scholorship, but for gyms who are able to do this, why not?

 

[gymcoach26]

Nevertoold.. you described my gym exactly. Different gyms have different goals and there is no right or wrong. We are very rec based with a competitive team also. No we do not have elites or level 10s but the kids do great, have fun, make friends, and still have lives. For some kids, competing up to level 6 or 7 is enough because they want to experience other things as well. Our gym allows them this opportunity, and level 3 is a good place for them to start. Other kids don't want to be on a team at all and our gym allows for this too.

Please remember that not every 4 or 5 year old that start gymnastics is starting to become an Olympian or elite gymnast. Coaching these kids is so rewarding and it aggravates me that there are coaches out there thinking if you don't coach elites you aren't good enough. Where do you think all your level 10's started? Probably with caring coaches like us.

 

[gymdog]

Admittedly I think the question some of us have when we watch some of these level 3s, is why are they in level 3 and not 4? Without the kip and FHS vault start value issue now, level 4 is really a pretty easy level for the kids to get the routines in. So sometimes I am a little confused, I see videos of level 3s that to me, physically, seem able to do at least the level 4...sometimes maybe even level 5.

But I think it's also a state difference. I am starting see after watching some youtube that some states apparently have very competitive L3 programs. This is definitely not the case in my area and I suppose "culturally" i have a hard time understanding it.

Trust me, I am definitely NOT working in an intense program now. But we really have not considered competing L3. Mostly because the current L4 is (to me, and I'm pretty sure the others I coach with would more or less agree about the introductory aspect of 4), about the difficulty of the old L3. When I was a kid, L3 had a standing back handspring. I'm actually, in some ways, kind of annoyed this is no longer true, because it means you have level 4s and even 5s (!!!!!) who can't do standing BHS. And I just have no idea what to do, because it really never used to be the case, and I'm almost at a loss of how to work with that (we do teach standing BHS. But get kids from other programs). I understand this was an issue with the difficulty, and the ages, but I don't know. After a cycle of it, I would say I am mourning the loss of the standing BHS and the handstand bridge forward stand up (level 4). Also have kids who can't do that in L4 and 5...no surprise can't do FHS well. Honestly when I was a kid doing L5, I don't remember kids just, not able to do FHS. To not even be able to just do a bad one landing on feet. But I have kids who come to me and I'm literally starting in square one with FHS...having the kid do bridge walk up and down the wall. We have these skills in L5, 6 and the progressions from 4 are way below them...HS bridge kickover. This is L2/3 to me. If they're going to have 4-5 year olds compete then I support the changes from that perspective, but on the other hand I say just raise the minimum age to something more reasonable.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

read further. i messed up.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

No I have not.

okay. then i RESPECTFULLY submit to you that the program you work in will never have 10's and elites. reason? because you are following and proscribing to a sequential system that does not foster and nuture gymnastics.

high level gyms have their own compulsories within their usag program. we must ALL compete to get out of a level. or tops. or hopes. but we DO NOT spend our time with those ridiculous routines. they are truly "a colossal waste of time".

and the systematic approach that high level gyms use are directly responsible for producing high level gymnasts and those that go on to college. it is the process that produces what we do...not the goals...of winning state meets.

but i do agree that to each his/her own. this is america. but to us old timers that were raised in gymnastics and the eastern europeans that lived the same, this is all we know. and doing less with what we know how to do would be a colossal waste of OUR time. we were not put on earth to teach mill circles for the ages.

i regret that i can not sufficiently express to you why what it is we do is the epitome of gymnastics and the human excellence that flows from it. i am proud & privileged to do what we do for the kids involved in gymnastics. you too should be proud that you coach.

but your hard work will be for the gyms that train high level kids as some parents will always want more for their kids and when that time presents itself. and it will be us that they come to. and i repeat...i mean no disrespect.

 

[Aussie_coach]

I am in Australia and we compete level 1-3 and it is very big and very popular. Most gyms do it.

Our routines are a little different. Vault for level 3 is the handspring flat back on 2 crash mats so no dive roll. Bars also does not have a mill circle or a stop after the back hip circle. The level 3 bars is 1. glide swing, 2. pullover, 3. casts. 4. back hip circle. 5. toe shoot or under swing dismount. 6. three swings on the high bar.

Beam is the L handstand instead of 3/4 handstand. Floor is a rebound after the round off or no round off at all just a cartwheel snap up.

I feel there are a lot of benefits to competing level 3. The problem with gymnastics is that kids spend so much time training and so little time competing. Many prefer training but many want to compete. If you look at other sports like team sports kids often train once a week and compete every week. Many sports can offer competition straight away and gymnastics can lose kids to this sport when forced to wait several years before they can compete. Of course this is relative to age if we are talking about 5 year olds this isn't such a big deal but the average level 3 child in Australia is around 7-9 years old. As kids with elite potential are removed from the competition pool and compete in a separate stream training at a separate high performance program.

Also getting them in comps earlier builds their confidence and their ability to perform well in front of a judge. However, I can see this would be less of an issue in the US. It seems in the US most gyms don't start competing until level 4 and even level 5. But in Australia as most compete from level 1 you put your kids at a huge disadvantage if they don't compete from level 1. If you wait until level 4 they must compete their first season against kids who have been competing for several years.

I strongly disagree with having states for level 3, because it is a competition for which they must qualify. meaning some kids will and some kids won't. I just don't think they need that kind of pressure or to be comparing themselves to each other so early in their gymnastics training.

 

[nevertooold]

okay. then i RESPECTFULLY submit to you that the program you work in will never have 10's and elites.

• I can live with that.

reason? because you are following and proscribing to a sequential system that does not foster and nuture gymnastics.

• This is an elitist statement, that gymnastics is only gymnastics if you are a level 10 or an elite. Smaller, non-elite clubs nurture children through the vehicle of gymnastics. What you do is valuable b/c it produces gymnasts capable of representing us internationally. What the rest of us do is valuable b/c it helps children. It grows children into decent human beings that like a challenge, that do not fear failure, that know how to work hard toward their goals, and learn how to support others around them.

high level gyms have their own compulsories within their usag program. we must ALL compete to get out of a level. or tops. or hopes. but we DO NOT spend our time with those ridiculous routines. they are truly "a colossal waste of time".

• They are a colossal waste of time for you perhaps, but that really is a statement that has no meaning outside of your own context. Anything can be considered a waste of time. Doing idle recreational pursuits like gymnastics is a waste of time. I'm wasting my time on the computer right now. My point is that you, from your vantage point, cannot determine what is a waste of time for another person. I understand your point, but your way of expressing it takes away from the validity of the point itself.

and the systematic approach that high level gyms use are directly responsible for producing high level gymnasts and those that go on to college.

• Not entirely. Plenty of college gymnasts come out of smaller gyms and gyms with large compulsory programs.

but i do agree that to each his/her own. this is america. but to us old timers that were raised in gymnastics and the eastern europeans that lived the same, this is all we know. and doing less with what we know how to do would be a colossal waste of OUR time. we were not put on earth to teach mill circles for the ages.

• This really is your best point. It is a waste of YOUR time. Doesn't mean it is a waste of every 7 yr old in the nations time.

but your hard work will be for the gyms that train high level kids

• My hard work is for the kids.

as some parents will always want more for their kids and when that time presents itself. and it will be us that they come to. and i repeat...i mean no disrespect.

• I can live with that. I am not in this gratify my own ego. When we have kids who are better served in a different type of program we recommend another one to them, but the vast majority of kids are well served (meaning they find what they are looking for) in small to medium sized gyms that do not train elites.

Comments inserted into quote above.

 

[nevertooold]

Admittedly I think the question some of us have when we watch some of these level 3s, is why are they in level 3 and not 4? Without the kip and FHS vault start value issue now, level 4 is really a pretty easy level for the kids to get the routines in. So sometimes I am a little confused, I see videos of level 3s that to me, physically, seem able to do at least the level 4...sometimes maybe even level 5.

But I think it's also a state difference. I am starting see after watching some youtube that some states apparently have very competitive L3 programs. This is definitely not the case in my area and I suppose "culturally" i have a hard time understanding it.

Agreed.

And the situation across the states and regions is really varied. But if you live somewhere where you see kids casting to hs before their bhc in level 4 you have to ask yourself if it is fair to put girls who can barely make a fhc up against them in competition.

 

[CoachGoofy]

Agreed.

And the situation across the states and regions is really varied. But if you live somewhere where you see kids casting to hs before their bhc in level 4 you have to ask yourself if it is fair to put girls who can barely make a fhc up against them in competition.

When I see THAT, I recall fondly my USTA days and the mandate rules.

I'd rather my Level 3 equivalents (who are mostly older) had an option for a robust prep op program, where they could do routines that are progressive and show off what they're good at, than have to make it to 4 or the push for USAG 3.

I see a lot about the little kids in this thread, and they are important (and I love my littles to bits). We've got a bunch of olders who won't ever compete because USAG 1-3 are currently more marketed than prep opt, there's no way we're competing those levels for a number of reasons, they're not gymnastically appropriate for my 5'5" 12 year old "level 3" who quite rightly feels compulsories completely disregard gymnasts who aren't about half her size.I've got a whole group of girls like her who are all over the skill map, who can DO gymnastics, not quite level 4 because of one event or another, who are just as shut out of competition by level 3 as they are by a front hip circle.

I like prep opt for the kids who for whatever reason can't or won't do USAG 4-6. I really do. You can use progressions you like. You can cater things to the weirdnesses of your gymnasts. And they can compete, which is apparently what this whole level 3 thing is about.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I think there's one other important point here that has not yet been addressed with regards to younger gymnasts: their own motivation.

I, as a coach, don't want my kids working for scores or for medals. I want them working for the pride of knowing they're getting better, for the thrill of getting that new skill. This is a much more powerful incentive and a much more desirable one for the kids to focus on.

Having kids compete as young as 5 and 6 years old and as low as level 3, in my opinion, poses a strong risk of distracting the kids from the REAL reason they should be training: because it's fun.

EDIT: to clarify: the kids have to compete eventually, and there genuinely are benefits to competition. However, I do not feel any need to rush kids to this point.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

right! i agree 100%.