MAG Compulsory divisions bonus questions

[Sasha]

I assume some of this is more aimed at the top boys - as the age changes were specifically to benefit them, not the average jO athelete

Interesting perspective that hadn't occurred to me. I was only thinking the age labels were re-worked because the winners were overwhelmingly older than the 'label' for their age category (e.g., age 12.5 winning age 11 category). But I have no insight on the real reasons. Curious, could you expand on your thinking on how the new age groups/cutoff ages benefit the top boys?

I wouldn't consider my boy a 'top' boy at this point, but he is young for level, so the new age rules actually slow him down in going up the levels. Probably a good thing not to rush up, so maybe a benefit in that way.

 

[skschlag]

There are 2 schools of thought on this. I was told the same one you were, that it was to ensure that the kids at nationals were competing the actual age they are.

Some people think that it was to allow some of the younger boys to move up faster so they could compete level 9 and 10 sooner. At the upper levels, it actually pushes kiddos to move up a level.

Not sure I believe that one, but it is plausible. The rest of the world, I believe, competes your year...so all kids born in 2005 compete against each other, so it could be a push to go that route. Time will tell. Maybe @krc or @dunno can elaborate on this for us.

 

[krc]

@skschlag It is definitely not to allow younger kids to move up. In fact just the opposite. Hence the 11yo JE restriction on L8, as well as the hard and fast "minimum" age levels. As you mention we are actually coming closer to the rest of the world with this change. USAG has always been about putting the reins on coaches "accelerating" kids rather than concentrating on the basics of their age bracket.

Re: DI/DII. @MetroStarsCoach has it correct. The original intent of the bonus system was "extra credit" Unfortunately that morphed (in many areas of the country) into the default "basic routine." The DI/DII seperation is a way to hopefully bring back a beginner vs advanced idea to the compulsory system, and more importantly (in Indy's view) bring new kids into the sport. Giving them a place to compete where they can hope to be somewhat successful.

KRC

 

[skschlag]

Thanks @krc. Those were the intentions I thought were in place, but I wasn't sure since I have heard others state the opposite. It does seem to slow boys down in the compulsary ages, but did move a lot up a level to stay in nationals age. I am excited to see how it all plays out this year. And since D is slated to start the year in JD and hopefully move to JO as his skills return after injury, we should get to see how both play out.

 

[Madden3]

I do think I understand the reasoning for a no bonus Division. What I am not quite getting is why there would be a no bonus and an ALL bonus division, rather than a no bonus and a some bonus division. Maybe I am missing something (entirely possible) but my kids have never competed compulsories with most or all of the bonuses, and that has been entirely fine at our gym, and they move up when they have the basic routines and maybe a few bonuses for the next level. I have actually never known my kids to have ONLY all the base routines and not a single bonus- usually they have some bonuses on some events while still working on getting the basic elements on other events. So, by the time they have all the basic routine elements for the level, they always have at least some bonuses on some events as well.

Anyway, what I am wondering, is the idea that to compete Div 1 the boys must compete with most or all bonuses a directive from USAG- a requirement of Div 1? Or a "common sense" consensus among coaches? Or just the choice of some coaches but not all, or something else?

 

[MrsAnderson]

I also don't understand the ALL or NOTHING approach to bonuses. :/
My kid really struggles on 1 event. He has most of his bonuses on the others. He can't COMPETE any if them however because of his one 'bad' event. It seems a shame to not let him compete the skills he has worked hard for. I also imagine by the time he gets up to speed on his struggle event, he'll be ready to move up on all other events to the next level.

 

[Sasha]

why there would be a no bonus and an ALL bonus division, rather than a no bonus and a some bonus division.

I also don't understand the ALL or NOTHING approach to bonuses. :/

May I ask where you are reading that a boy must have ALL bonuses to compete in Div I? I have not seen that, so my expectation has been than Div I is simply equivalent to what we have had up until now - the opportunity to do bonuses, but none are mandated. So a boy can compete some or all as he is prepared to do successfully.

Here is the text I am reading (bold added by me):

"Division I provides basic compulsory routines and includes in the routines the opportunity for the talented gymnast to challenge his development and mastery at each level with additional developmental skills (Specified Bonus) that are rewarded with bonus."

link: https://usagym.org/PDFs/Men/Rules/Rules and Policies/2017/iv_joprogram.pdf

@krc can you perhaps clarify the difference in understanding here? Must a boy compete ALL bonuses in Div I? Or may he compete some bonuses only? Thanks in advance!

 

[gracyomalley]

I should clarify - when I said I thought the age changes were for the "top" boys what I meant was that this brought JO into line with international elite competition age ranges - which in my line of thinking is only relavent for the "top" boys. Not arguing about it at all - but that's the line of thinking I understood - otherwise there are tons of other ways to do the ages and have the kids compete the age they are and not some arbitrary deadline - but to be in line with other countries/systems we must pick one...

Am I correct that its up to the coaches whether a kid competes some or all bonuses - Divison 2 simply no longer allows/gives credit for bonuses, Div 1 still does?

 

[Juniper311]

It is my understanding that Div1 boys don't HAVE to compete any bonuses, but they MAY compete whatever bonuses will help their routine. Div2 boys DO NOT compete bonuses. I'm not certain this is so, but I think that should a Div2 boy add in a bonus it would be a deduction. /me waits for backup from someone with way better credentials...

I think any all or nothing stance to Div1 bonuses in routines is purely a mindset of a particular coach/gym/program.

 

[MrsAnderson]

I certainly hadn't read the all or nothing idea, it's just what I had come to believe.
I'm happy to hear it may not be the case!

 

[krc]

Hello All,

As others have stated above, DII gymnasts cannot do any bonus (and if they do it will not be recognized). In DI a gymnast MAY, but is not REQUIRED to, do bonus skills. In theory, a gymnast could compete DI with no bonus skills. Now he wouldn't be very competitive in that group, but that is the big coaching question: At what # of bonus skills do you move your kids to DI? Some coaches may require all bonuses before moving. In my gym the number is 10 (15 for L7). With the understanding that other kids will have more and will probably outscore them in the AA. If you have all bonuses on one event- you may be competitive on that event but not in the AA, because the other kids have a 3-5 pt head start on you. Other coaches/gyms may have different rules for their own teams YMMV.

KRC

 

[Madden3]

Thanks again for all the replies. So, Sasha, I did not read somewhere that Div 1 had to have all or most bonuses. But based on what I heard through the parent grapevine at our gym, how our HC has placed boys in the divisions, and what I have read on here, that seemed the general direction Div 1 was going. So that is why I was asking IF a certain number of bonuses were required by USAG. And I guess I have received my answer, and the answer is no. But at least some gyms do appear to be requiring more bonuses for Div 1 than they required to compete the Level before?And if this is so, that brings me back to why.

Are coaches 'hearing' or suspecting or assuming that for division 1, most kids will have most or all bonuses, because if they do not, they will be competing Div 2? Or are they basing their criteria for Div 1 on what they required for competing the Level before this change, or on something else, or a combo? Are you thinking that kids who competed with, say, 5 bonuses last year would most likely place considerably lower than last year with the same amount of bonuses in the same Level, competing Div 1 this year?

krc, I guess I could ask the question of you this way- has your number for required bonuses changed? Did you require 10 bonuses (15 for 7) for a kid to compete at that Level before this? Did you previously caution kids with overall fewer bonuses that they would consequently place low in AA, or is that more of a concern this year?

Thanks so much.

 

[samsmama]

My guess is that the biggest difference will be for the kids in Div 2, who will now have a more level playing field than they did before. At least around here, it seems like Div 1 kids will be the same kids who have been competitive for medals in the past -- very few start the season with all bonuses, but add them in over time and generally have them all by States and Regionals. I expect DS's core competitor group in Div 1 will be much the same as it was last year.

I'm still curious how it will play out in practice -- I have yet to see a registration form around here that asks for division info.

 

[l.c.o]

I have no idea, but it seems like my DS has practiced routines both with NO bonuses, and also with those bonuses he has. I suspect he'll complete with no bonuses at least to start the season.

I really like the idea that bonuses are like extra credit. Being that my DS has an older competitive sister, I always felt like my DS was not "really" ready for level 4 because he didn't have all of the available skills (bonuses) on all events... For example, he could score a 9.7 on floor without bonuses, but had no competition ready bonuses on floor, so he didn't place a whole lot. In comparison, I'd have been THRILLED if my DD scored a 9.7 - the bonuses seemed to skew my perspective there. Anyway, this is a whole new delightful perspective for me. I'm happier about division 1 vs. division 2 now.

 

[profmom]

I think for a lot of teams, especially at L5 this will just formalize what they are already doing -- having them compete the first year with base routines while working on some bonuses in the gym, and then doing a second year of L5 competing the bonuses.

On the acceleration, it's mostly just that for this year, the age change creates some tension pushing toward acceleration instead of against it for many guys. I know it will all even out over the long term, but this year will definitely involve some adjustment. I expect that my son won't be the only one starting out at a new optional level minus some skills that would have been expected there for kids starting at that level last year. I will definitely be holding my breath on some dismounts.

 

[Sasha]

For example, he could score a 9.7 on floor without bonuses, but had no competition ready bonuses on floor, so he didn't place a whole lot. In comparison, I'd have been THRILLED if my DD scored a 9.7 - the bonuses seemed to skew my perspective there.

This quote, for me, sums up the entire spirit of adding Div II to the game. A 9.7 on a base routine is amazing! Yet, athletes and parents internalize that performance as "ho hum" under the old system, which doesn't help keep boys in the sport. And coaches knew that amazingly clean base routine wouldn't stand up to less-clean routines with a couple bonuses thrown in, so they might be tempted to push kids to do bonuses before they were really ready, often at the expense of clean base routines. The alternative is aggressively holding kids back in the prior level multiple years to be competitive (which many gyms do), but kids get bored, parents get ticked as they feel their kid isn't progressing, and kids quit or switch gyms.

So I really hope Div II really does create this more level playing field for kids still working on most of the bonuses (where that 9.7 will stand on top of the podium), and less pressure for coaches to compete bonuses that aren't clean enough yet. My biggest concern is just sheer numbers. So many boys programs are small, and breaking up a level (say, level 6) into Div I and Div II will often yield fewer than 3 kids in a division, so team awards are shot, and it's not as fun to compete with one other dude and not your whole team...

I do think most coaches will have some kind of strategy similar to KRC's gym where they will put kids in Div II until they get a certain threshold of bonuses. I doubt it will be "ALL" bonuses required in most gyms, but perhaps some will take that strategy. I'm going to guess around 50-75% is going to start giving kids a chance to be competitive in the AA, and/or have a chance to place on their better events. So to @Madden3 's question, yes, I do think a boy competing, say, 50% of bonuses will place overall lower in the rankings this year in Div I, as the boys who have few or no bonus skills won't be in the mix - many more of them will be in Div II. So Div I will be smaller, and more highly competitive. I will also venture to guess that gyms will set up a framework where 1st year in the early levels competes Div II (excepting the superstars), and 2nd year is expected to go Div I, with some minimum threshold of bonuses required by start of season.

Here's my stab "playing coach" at what paths might look like if I was to spell it out for athletes/parents. Of course, each path is unique, and boys start older than this and have years of faster or slower progress, but this "average" helps me look ahead and see how the early levels might lead into the later.

Average Path (early starter):
Age 6: L4, Div I/II
Age 7: L4 Div I
Age 8: L5 Div II
Age 9: L5 Div I
Age 10: L6 Div II
Age 11: L6 Div I
Age 12: L7 Div I/II or JD
Age 13-14: L7 Div I, L8 or JD (L9 possibly for talented guys)
Age 15-18: JD / L9 / L10 as ready


In-age for Nationals Path:
Age 6 - L4, Div I/II
Age 7 - L4 Div I or L5 Div I/II
Age 8 - L5 Div I or L6 Div I/II
Age 9 L6, Div I
Age 10 L7 Div I/II
Age 11 L7 Div I or L8 JE (superstar)
Age 12 L8 JE/JO
Age 13-14 L9 JE/JO
Age 15 - 18: L10 JE/JO

 

[JLev]

Well, interesting thread. We were told by our coaches that it was All or Nothing but that this wasn't their rule. Any chance that the different Regions are imposing their own rules? We're Region 7.

 

[Juniper311]

Well, interesting thread. We were told by our coaches that it was All or Nothing but that this wasn't their rule. Any chance that the different Regions are imposing their own rules? We're Region 7.

I'm also region 7. Our region is not requiring any certain number of bonuses. I would believe that in this matter, the regions couldn't have a codified requirement that is different than what is outlined in the FIG documentation.

I have yet to see a registration form around here that asks for division info.

There is a meet in Maryland that specifically asked for the division information on the registration form.

 

[profmom]

Well, it is all or nothing in that kids are either D1 or D2 for a meet -- they can't compete one division for some events and another division for the others.

The West Point Open is asking for division info. So is BlackJack.

 

[sce]

Well, it is all or nothing in that kids are either D1 or D2 for a meet -- they can't compete one division for some events and another division for the others.

The West Point Open is asking for division info. So is BlackJack.

But they don't have to have all the bonuses to compete in Div 1. It's just in Div. 2 no bonuses are counted.