WAG Continuing... top 10 @ state to move up

[SignHere]

I definitely see a difference in my DD after a season of placing on the podium vs not placing at all. Last year, DDs scores were very low (33 s? ) and she only scored high enough to medal at 1 very small invitational. She was very defeated by the end of the season.

This year, after repeating the level, she is scoring higher, on the podium for the AA (not first, but on the podium) for every meet, and she is working harder and happier. She is more determined to try to improve her performance at every meet.

So I can see the thinking behind wanting the kids to be in top 10 before moving them up. She would have had another miserable season and probably quit. But her gym does lots of up training so as soon as she finishes her assignment for each rotation, she can work on her upgrades.

 

[CoachMeg]

Hmm.

Let me start off by saying THIS IS NOT MY POST. THIS IS NOT HOW MY GYM WORKS. Everyone was attacking and criticizing the HC of the original poster and I was simply trying to get inside the head of the coach and understand where he was coming from.

Does my gym base move-ups purely on scores? No. In fact, I think only basing it on the state meet is quite ridiculous because kids can have off meets where they wobble or fall and it could take them out of the top 10, where usually they might be in. That said, I DO think you need to consider scores when moving up kids and I STILL believe placing high at meets can have an extremely positive affect on a child's work ethic.

At our gym, we let every gymnast (that qualified to state- which is usually all) up-train in the next level group during the summer. After the entire summer of up-training new skills, we evaluate them on who has all the next level skills, and who can perform them with good execution. This plays the biggest role in our testing. HOWEVER, we also take into consideration their past season.

For example, we have a kid who is extremely talented and can throw just about any skill and make it look nice. The problem is, she cannot put the skills into a routine and make it look just as good. She was not a very good competitor last year and fell on beam at least once at EVERY meet...one meet she fell 3 times. Can she perform the skills? Absolutely. Can she perform the next level skills? Absolutely. However, we repeated her for half a year as a level 4 to make her become a better competitor. After proving to us that she could do it, we moved her to level 5 and I kid you not, she has won beam at the past 2 meets.

Another example would be if we had a kid who got all their next level skills during summer but was struggling with form and consistency on bars. She had the skills for every other event, but struggled with bars. Turns out she struggled with bars last season too-her highest score being an 8.1 and never once placed. So we might have her repeat the past level to gain more experience with those bar skills which will ultimately make her a stronger and better gymnast in the long run. Did she have all the next level skills during summer? Yes. But they were not strong enough or executed well enough to allow her to perform well at the meets, given that she struggled with bars at the last level.

If you do not care about scores whatsoever, then why compete? It is competitive gymnastics after all. If you preach to them that scores don't matter, then why put them in a sport where they are judged on how perfect they make a routine look? You can't tell me you've taken your child to a meet and they performed badly and you felt no difference as to if they would have scored 1st place. If they won, you probably would have felt happier because your child felt happier for winning! If you don't care about competing or scoring well, why not just have them practice gymnastics and not go to meets? Because obviously to you all, scores do not matter. (See....I'm making assumptions about you all because you said you didn't care about scores, just like you all assumed I was a terrible/unfair coach because I DO care about scores...."Gosh, I am glad or hope this is not the mentality of majority of the coaches"). Not that it matters, but last year alone I coached 5 state champions-3 of which were AA and 2 were individual events- just between the two compulsory levels that I coached. So to infer that I don't know what I'm doing is quite insulting. Just as I would never say "Wow, I hope all parents aren't like you".

Are scores/placement the ONLY thing to consider when moving up a child? No. But if you're going to have a SUCCESSFUL gymnast and be a competitive gym, they need to have some factor when moving kids up.

Scores can vary from meet to meet depending on what the judges like to see. Some judges take the full execution deduction, while others take the minimum. However, no matter the score, they always rank the girls in order. So a 9.5 might be the winning beam routine at one meet, and an 8.9 might win at another meet...so getting 8th with a 37AA is not necessarily as good as placing 1st with a 35 AA. As long as you were ranked 1st, no matter the score, you showed the best routine.

I once heard a Head Coach from another gym say, "A level 5 that places well and scores a 36-37 AA is a much better gymnast than a level 7 that doesn't place and only scores a 32-33 AA." Take this however you may, but I think it's relevant to the conversation.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I have no problem saying that scores do not matter to me at all. I don't have the competition gene. I competed a few sports through high school and believe I was probably a disservice to the teams- not because I showed poorly (I didn't) but because I just didn't care who won or lost, I just wanted to play.

When my DD comes in last place- and she has- I feel exactly the same about her as I do about my other DD when she comes in first- and she has. I ask both if they had fun, if they did their best, if they found things to both be proud of and improve. Why then, did I put my kids in competitive gym? I didn't. I put them in rec (at quite an advanced age too) and they CHOSE to compete. They love it, even when they do poorly. I would say (and have) that if you aren't going to give it your all you can do rec, but I would never even think to base a decision like that on scores or placements.

My DDs want the hours, the teammates, the chance to compete. They want the challenge. I don't know about other places but here rec girls don't learn much in terms of skills (and routines- my DDs love routines) and you can't even be rec at DDs gym between the ages of 13-16. Rec classes stop at 12 and adult classes start at 16.

Eta: one of my DDs is more competitive. She like to compete just to compete. When she does poorly it simply serves to push her to try and fix her mistakes. She could come in last place for every met from now till she graduates high school and not quit over it, though.

 

[CoachMeg]

My only response to that is that your kids are a rare case (there are exceptions to everything) because I don't know many kids that are truly okay with losing and feel no different if they win or lose. I'm not saying winning is everything, or even close to everything, but in my eyes placing and scoring high do matter to an extent.

Most kids feel better when they place high or score high, as it somehow justifies all the work and conditioning and repetitiveness that they put into their season. I don't know what gym you go to, but it's not all fun & games ALL of the time. Gymnastics is definitely for fun, but there is also hard work and conditioning and flexibility and bad days and fears that come in too. All I'm saying is that to a lot of kids and parents- gymnastics is hard. Not just physically, but mentally. And getting good scores and placing can definitely make it worth while. As you heard from another commenter above ^, she said her kid may have quit if she would have had another unsuccessful season. So while I applaud your kids for not caring about scores or places, you must understand that not all gymnasts, coaches, and parents share that mentality. Just as not all of them share mine.


Please note that I'm not saying that if your gymnast is not a high scorer or placer that they must not be having fun with the sport because competitive gymnastics is all about how well you do at the meets------because it's not. And that is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying for a child to train a set of routines for an entire year and for all the money parents put into the sport- including driving half way across the state to meets...it is nice to get good scores and to place. It's nice to know that all the work you're putting into something is paying off.

 

[sce]

I do see a benefit to having a score expectation and wanting kids doing well enough to place in meets in general. These results usually come form a proficiency at that level. BUT, top 5 or 10 at states is very narrow. As well, as others have stated each age group may look very different. If ds' coach had had that rule his teammate would not have moved up, even though he and ds had similar scores and skills. One was in an easier age group, the other a much tougher one.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Successful athletes don't compete to lose. When Derek Jeter, gets up to bat he plans to get on base every time, even though odds are it will be only about a third of the time.

But whether or not he made the team was not based on one at bat, or even one game.

And the Olympic team is chosen by committee, not based on one meets performance.

Making the team is about overall performance and even things like attitude (really many a fine player has been cut/traded because of a crappy attitude and work ethic).

Winning a medal or trophy is based on performance, on "any given Sunday".

They are 2 different things.

Dan Marino, is one of the best QBs ever and is in the Hall Of Fame, but he doesn't have a Super Bowl ring. But my guess is he played every game with intention to win one.

 

[MAcastsalot]

Just my very inexperienced two cents, but I wouldn't want to pay very good money for my kid to be stuck at a level competing the exact.same.routines for another year just so she could top the podium (unless there was a very good reason such as lacking skills), because my particular child, as well as a lot of other gymnasts I know, is motivated more by learning new skills and getting to compete them rather than placement. She does enjoy the medals and trophies, though. I didn't put her in gymnastics to win, she chose gymnastics and I complied because it is challenging and helps her stay active and healthy. I want her to have her fair share of defeat to learn perseverance, so repeating a level to win doesn't make sense to me from a parental perspective. Also, I let her join team to save my furniture

 

[gymcat]

In addition to what has already been stated, there is no guarantee that a gymnast forced to repeat is suddenly going to be at the top of the podium.

I'm curious what happens if the gymnast isn't scoring top 10 (or 36+) or whatever the criteria is in their second year - are they forced to do a third? Where does it end? When the child finally gives up and quits?

 

[Deleted member 18037]

As they go up it gets harder. That is why Level 3 an 4 teams usually have more kids then Level 9 teams. And there is a minimum level to even qualify for States. And that changes as you go up Levels.

So of course scores matter, at some point if a gymnast doesn't score high enough they are not even going to States or moving up. But they have multiple opportunities in a season to do that. They have multiple chances to meet those minimums.

Sure scores should be taken into account, its a unit of measure about performance. Clearly if you have crappy skills, you will have crappy scores.

And as a parent who is writing the checks, I decide for and with my child, how far she wants to go based on our internal family measures. Things like do you enjoy it. Are you learning new things, improving personally.

I also understand gyms have standards as to moving. My gym doesn't move midseason, is that was a concern for us we would find a gym that did.
We understand the expectations to be on team regarding attendance, days offered. We changed gyms because her old team required Saturday practice, that did not work for us), so we moved to a gym that doesn't. If their were minimum scores to move up so be it, we would respect and understand that. And not cry foul if things didn'a happen just because we wanted them too. Things like a average score of XYZ, A minimus score of XYZ on each event. Minimum skills achieved. All reasonable.

The point and concern here is a decision is allegedly being made on placement on specific meet and that is in my opinion unreasonable. For me personally I would voice that concern with the check I write and I wouldn't be writing it there.​

 

[ZJsMom]

I think it's completely wrong-headed to focus on placements. If his intent is to require proficiency at the level before moving up, it could be based on score. To me though, it shouldn't be based on one meet. Something like score 36 twice during the season would make sense. But focusing on one meet is too much pressure. What if the kid is sick that day and has a terrible meet?

I hate focusing on placements because it introduces a lot the kid can't control, like how many other kids are in the age group and how they perform. If a team shows up with a bunch of third year in the level athletes who can all score 38s, what does that have to do with whether another kid should move up? She can't control what others are doing.

As for the debate on whether kids should learn how to win, I actually think kids need to learn how to win AND how to lose. My perspective after having kids in competitive gym for the last 10 years is that there will be good seasons and bad. Sometimes kids will struggle, sometimes it all comes together. Sometimes the competition is brutal, sometimes it's not. I've seen kids who win everything in compulsories go on the level 8 or 9 when things get hard and quit because they're used to it being easy and used to being on the top of the podium.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

My only response to that is that your kids are a rare case (there are exceptions to everything) because I don't know many kids that are truly okay with losing and feel no different if they win or lose. I'm not saying winning is everything, or even close to everything, but in my eyes placing and scoring high do matter to an extent.

Actually I asked a group of 12 kids what their preference was (in case I was on the fence for their level placement). Only 3 out of the 12 said they preferred to be in level where they are likely to be successful over a level where they are doing their hardest stuff. We are always working new skills in training, so it's not like they ever miss out on this if they compete down. Many of those who preferred to compete their harder skills did show some disappointment after competitions at times last year, but they all recovered quickly and they do work hard to perfect routines, they just want to perfect the next step.

 

[GYM0M]

Hey this could backfire for said HC! What if one of the L3's, who has struggled for the entire season, hits ALL of her routines and actually applied the corrections given by the coach and she ends up in 5th place, Sr. C with a 36.5, BUT her kip is U-G-L-Y! Then what?!?!
@ CoachMeg, Yessss, it's competitive gymnastics! BUT the ONLY person she competed against while she was a compulsory gymnast was herself. Sure she had friends that were in the same age division, but as long as she felt she did her best, she could have cared less about medals and placements. In fact, she came home with a Gold on beam with a fall.....that medal didn't get taken to school the following week as she didn't feel like she earned it! That being said, notice how I added compulsory?? DD struggled in L7 this year as she competed 'harder' routines and got more deductions. In her 8 yr old mind (at the time), harder skills = better performance & better performance = 1st place......She lost a little bit of faith in gymnastics this year. When we as parents say scores don't matter, we don't mean that scores are just a negligible part or an unnecessary evil; instead, I (we) mean that scores are relative only to that meet on that day during that session, & imo, L3 scores are NOT a good indicator of a gymnast's L4 readiness level, & MOST certainly, neither do L3 placements. You don't sound like a coach that would base marketing strategies around the success of a Compulsory team, but it happens! Your methods sound reasonable and fair. If we are talking about going from L4-5, maybe a slightly different answer, but not L3-4.......

 

[iwannacoach]

Gym has no lv5. Lv6 and up I guess are ok. I have not heard of them really winning big meets, but locally they are ok.

This helps......

My main concern for your dd was that she was in a gym that had few if any kids doing well past levels 4 through 6, and the top 10 rule was put in
place to slow kid's movement through levels. Heaven forbid a child should move one level per year and not be ready for L7 orL8.

So I guess the policy helps because the kids at L7 and beyond are doing ok. Had you written that the optional program was not doing well then I would continue to say the policy is in place to hide their weakness rather than to remedy the same.

With respect to placing high to groom yourself for the next level. I was a high school gymnast way back when gymnastics clubs were a novelty. We had no levels to pass through to soften the first few years of competition so I had no podium experience my first year, maybe low podium (6th?) my second year, but won the whole enchilada my third year. Possibly because I couldn't have wanted to win any more than I did.... so I worked like crazy to make it happen.

Sometimes it's helpful to think you really suck at something.

 

[mobeans]

I do see a benefit to having a score expectation and wanting kids doing well enough to place in meets in general. These results usually come form a proficiency at that level. BUT, top 5 or 10 at states is very narrow. As well, as others have stated each age group may look very different. If ds' coach had had that rule his teammate would not have moved up, even though he and ds had similar scores and skills. One was in an easier age group, the other a much tougher one.

Exactly. I think the issue a lot of people have is that the expectation is from ONE meet. Not "place top 10" at A meet during the season. My DD is usually a podium gymnast but fell off the beam once this season during a meet. Had that been states she would have repeated according to this coach. Fair for one mistake? Absolutely not. The whole season prior would not have mattered then.

 

[kayjaybe]

Our gym moves up based on skills. Do you have the skills to do the next level? Yes - You move up. I like that. And I say that as the mom of a kid that repeated a level because she did NOT have the skills.

That is something completely within the child's control. It ONLY looks at her performance, not anyone else's or how a judge might be scoring one day or whatever.

They also don't look at having the skills on a specific day. There is no "move up day" to show your skills, because just like a meet, what if you are having a bad day? Our gym looks at consistency over a period of time to see if you have the skills to compete - not just could you chuck the skill that one day or not.

 

[gracyomalley]

My DD was a place once and a while and be in top 50% at state kind of compulsory gymnast. She moved up to L7 faster than I expected and became a "winning", frequently on the podium gymnast. She DID NOT work harder at L7, she simply was/is a better optional than compulsory (and finally got tall enough for bars and vault to work better for her).

She lost all her confidence when changing gyms and despite being the ONLY optional from her team (that closed) to meet the move up standards at the new gym (at least 2 36s the past level and 75% of next level skills by august), she fell apart over a couple of falls on a pirouette, a bully at the gym pushing her off beam and a coach (now gone) deconstructing her giants (which needed to happen but that coach also told her she didn't have "decent L7 bars" despite her placing in top 5 on bars at L7 at state 2 years in a row... which didn't need to happen....)...

She now is contemplating L8 next year - but she says she "liked winning and isn't sure she wants to compete again if she isn't going to score 36+ again..." She says it thoughtfully and honestly. I don't think coaches who teach kids that winning is what they should shoot for are thinking about how hard most of these kids already are on themselves...the ones that are successful at optionals really don't need someone ELSE telling them they need high scores....they beat themselves up plenty as it is...yes its also true that the friend of hers who never scored higher than a 33 at L7 really wasn't ready for L8 - and truely isn't as "good a gymnast" as the L5s scoring 36s...but each girl/kid needs to be seen as an individual, not a number or placement. The kids present gym does sometimes keep kids at a level for 3 years - and several of those kids came out of the third year as very successful L8s, etc...but its really tough to do the same stuff that long, and that's why DD didn't want to compete this year (in fact she quit for over 2 months). She's not a "sore loser" about not moving up - she knows she was the one who held her back, not her coach....but I know she would have had a 34-35 year as a L8....its all a learning experience...