elite compulsaries

[momof5]

After seeing several posts about elite and elite compulsary routines I was curious about several things. What is the point of these routines? I looked them up on youtube and they look fairly easy compared to optional elite routines. Are they to look for good basics and or do they serve another purpose. Once you get the score you need do you have to do them again or do you use them to requalify elite every year until you are part of the national team? In an earlier post dunno purposed a scenerio where 3 hrs a week would need to be devoted to these compulsary routines. Why so much for these routines? How picky do they judge these routines?

 

[Deleted member D3987]

variety and good basics. once you achieve the score you're done. they are NOT easy and the deductions are huge for the smallest of execution errors. they look easy because those that you are watching are very good athletes and make it look that way. but don't let this diminish just how difficult they are.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

i thought i would clarify:

2 of the issues that makes elite so difficult is vault and bars. the vault must be at 125 [what coaches in the US call "5" on an AAI table] and only 2 spring configurations that can be used on the boards. the bars must also be at FIG. on AAI [what most of you see at most meets] the high bar is 1 click above the line. the low bar is 1 click above the line. therefore, both bars are the same. then, the front spreader must be all the way up. the spreader that you see most coaches move on the high bar upright must be 2 lines under 4. when you measure on an angle from the low bar to the high bar, the angular measure is no more than 181 cm.

take a look at most of your own kid's bar settings. i've discussed this before and even viewed some of your kid's videos that you sent me. they've got your kid's bars all the way out as far as they can spread. or they've done weird things with the high bar and low bar. the problem/issue is that once you get far removed from FIG it's even harder to go back close. this is why Casey Jo from Arkansas is having such a difficult time qualifying. in ncaa, they spread them out to an almost one size fits all. but the better bar workers have the bars closer to FIG. just watch youtube videos and you'll see what i mean. the blind change to front giant in the elite compulsory is daunting if the technique is not precise. they hit the low bar quite frequently when they are compelled to swing at FIG without enough time to adapt and adjust to the setting. it's hard.

having an FIG bar setting exacts a precise technique. the farther the bars spread the less precise technique becomes. not for all but most. one of the reasons coaches spread them all the way out is because it makes giants about as difficult as a flip flop. the fact is, put most of the kids on FIG and they wouldn't make their giants at all. some would balk/refuse attempting them at all.

and here they are. i put them in the other post also. the thing to look at is the deductions. they are mostly full, not partial deductions. in other words, 1 small mistake= huge epic failure.

http://www.usa-gymnastics.org/PDFs/Women/ElitePre-Elite/11elitecompulsory.pdf

 

[Aussie_coach]

I've always found that interesting, since tin the US Elite is the level above level 10, it would stand to reason that level 10 and the subsequent levels would be a preparation for Elite. It would seem logical to expect them to use FIG settings a little earlier. It seems JO is really more of a system in its self or a prep for college.

In Australia our Gymnasts MUST vault on 125 cm's from level 7-10. At level 6 they are allowed 120-125 and level 5 may be between 110-125. Yet, ours is a system in its self and not a preparation for elite.

 

[bogwoppit]

I've always found that interesting, since tin the US Elite is the level above level 10, it would stand to reason that level 10 and the subsequent levels would be a preparation for Elite. It would seem logical to expect them to use FIG settings a little earlier. It seems JO is really more of a system in its self or a prep for college.

In Australia our Gymnasts MUST vault on 125 cm's from level 7-10. At level 6 they are allowed 120-125 and level 5 may be between 110-125. Yet, ours is a system in its self and not a preparation for elite.

Same here Aussie Coach,our systemis all FIG from age 11yrs and even younger for national stream girls. Deviations from FIG have to be applied for and are often refused.

 

[bookworm]

Momof5 ..to reiterate what Dunno said, elite compulsories are not easy at all..when my daughter was doing elite there was a gymnast who could get her optional score (surprisingly) but could never get the required compulsory score because she was just too sloppy for what they required..she wasn't a bad gymnast but like Dunno said, they take deductions for everything...this girl went on to be a decent NCAA gymnast but never did qualify for elite because she never got her compulsory score...

 

[3rd_time_around]

Could you just explain why the bars are so close together for Elite? Gymnasts are taller than they used to be, namely because of better nutrition/less eating disorders, and because the girls are older on the Sr. Level. So why put the bars so close together that the girls are afraid to use them? Or they have to pike so much in their giants to avoid hitting the low bar? My dd has long legs, and tried this year to do the Elite setting, but just about ripped her toe off hitting it on the low bar. Now she won't use the setting, so any Elite goals may have been derailed (I've left that up to her and don't talk about it much with her so as not to stress her out). It seems counter-productive, just my opinion.

 

[bogwoppit]

Gagymmom the question might be better the other way around. Why doesn't the USAG JO system use FIG settings like most of the world? I can see how going from "whatever works" settings to FIG would be very difficult, but perhaps it would be better if the JO system aligned itself more with the FIG system once optionals hits, that way girls with the potential for Elite wouldn't have to make that huge adjustment whilst learning new skills.

Dunno what is the inside scoop on JO and FIG?

 

[3rd_time_around]

Gagymmom the question might be better the other way around. Why doesn't the USAG JO system use FIG settings like most of the world? I can see how going from "whatever works" settings to FIG would be very difficult, but perhaps it would be better if the JO system aligned itself more with the FIG system once optionals hits, that way girls with the potential for Elite wouldn't have to make that huge adjustment whilst learning new skills.



Dunno what is the inside scoop on JO and FIG?

Just to play the devil's advocate, maybe our JO system is better or makes more sense? Maybe its safer or the expectations are more realistic or it allows more athletes to reach their goals or progress through the levels? Just thinking it through. Sometimes the FIG gets a little crazy, like wanting the girls to land their tumbling passes like the men without step-outs. And the new scoring system??? Hello? confusing anyone? Just saying.... My dd never talked about doing elite because of her elbow, but it came up in the fall and they were trying some of the routines as their warm-ups and to test. She did really well on most, but the bars being that close together is really hard for her longness. She started thinking she might actually be able to do Elite, then hasn't mentioned it since.

 

[bogwoppit]

You could be 100% correct GAgymmom. I don't think either system is bad, though some of our FIG stuff is hard for our little ones as that vault is very high and that board doesn't bounce too much! ITA agree on those stuck landings, just asking for injuries and so many of the requirements have taken away much of the beauty that used to be there. I am totally used to the scoring system now, but when they first introduced i here, even at our lower level meets, it was a steep learning curve and many parents and gymnasts were clueless. MY love of Elite gym gave me a heads up luckily.

But what I know for sure is FIG will not be going back to the 10 or changing equipment settings any time soon. SO I guess the best any child with elite hopes is that they have great coaches who can drill them repeatedly to adapt to the equipment changes, the good news is all US girls are in the same position, the bad news is it makes the transition just that much harder, when it is hard enough

I do like the USAG JO system and I think it is fabulous for progression and girls who want to get to NCAA.

 

[wandrewsjr]

I think it does make more sense to gear the JO system towards NCAA rather than elite. The reality is there are only a couple dozen spots on the national teams, while there are several hundred spots on college teams. While it might make our national teams a little weaker to not have every little gymnast in the US training on elite settings with elite the goal, the reality is that the vast majority will never reach this level. It makes more sense to just have those that show the most potential train for this through the TOPS and Hopes programs. For the vast majority of girls reaching level 9 or 10, or even reaching level 7, is their ultimate goal. And if a girl has a good work ethic, a decent level of physical talent and stays healthy, competing in college is a very realistic goal for most. Can you imagine how many girls would be pushed out of the sport if all level 7's and up had to compete on the elite bar setting?!

 

[Mack_the_Ripper]

As a first-year level 7, age 16 and medium height, I would resent having to set my bars on FIG. I'm not crazy tall, and close bars might make for better technique, but obviously I'm never going to be an elite. Having open bars and vault settings make JO more accesible to gymnasts with diverse goals and bodies. For example, I have a (L9) friend who must be 5' 4" and 5' 5"...and she's only 13 years old. She's an amazing gymnast and has lots of talent, but FIG bars would be very discouraging to her.

Maybe a two-pronged solution would work for USAG. Allow the gymnasts to go on whatever bar/vault settings work for them, but issue guidelines for coaches that elite-tracked girls should work on the FIG setting as early as possible. My coaches do this anyway.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

wow! something is wrong, yes? i don't see anything.

and i can't post.


hey Bog, your post has disappeared from here.

 

[bogwoppit]

YEah I deleted it whilst trying a few things. I have tried to post your response so many ways and none work it is so odd.

Shame as your response is great.

 

[10.0]

Why do they even still have FIG bars settings? Gymnastics has evolved so much, as far as skills, types of skills performed (the bars being really close was the norm a couple decades ago) and gymnast body type, while it seems it was normal for little girls to be at the elite level not too long ago now it is more women as they Olympic age changed. So why not evolve along with it? That has always confused me. Also why not allow different vault settings and spring board set ups? Could you imagine the awesome new skills that might come about from that? Of all the sports out there gymnastics is one of the hardest but one with the least amount of change.

 

[gymnut1]

Most sports have an 'FIG' setting at world level. It is normal for a sport to develop a standard of equipment, rules, timings etc which is adhered to at high level. It enables sports achievements to be comparable around the world and for athletes to come together to compete at world events.

JO and college US gymnasts compete 'non FIG' gymnastics. Perhaps it would help to make that clearer sometimes. It is not comparable to gymnastics by FIG rules.

The rest of the world 'funnels' their domestic gymnastics system towards FIG. Mostly kids are competing full FIG by about 12. Everyone seems OK with that around the world. Everyone knows where they are heading. Kids know the value of moves and deductions from early on. Kids compete with FIG deductions right from the beginning. Requirements and settings are modified at the lower levels.

But I understand if JO changed to FIG deductions and settings then there might be a drop in participation because it is harder. No one wants that. It is great that so many girls are taking part in gymnastics in the US. I think it best to see FIG as the world system and JO and college as a US domestic stream.

 

[Muddlethru]

Do any JO or NCAA gymnasts use FIG setting? If so, do they get credit (higher difficulty score rating) when they do so?

 

[gymdog]

Do any JO or NCAA gymnasts use FIG setting? If so, do they get credit (higher difficulty score rating) when they do so?

No credit. NCAA...it would be very rare (if indeed there is any current competitor who is using it, last season there were a couple girls who were also pursuing elite so I'd assume they were using FIG). There is really no reason to use the FIG setting and in general you don't see it. In fact many will be at one of the widest setting, with the spreader down to the max on the high bar end (there is a little nail/dot thing that stops it...I think that is like 5 below F).

JO..depends. You'll see some "open" competitions with competitors also in the elite system. Or younger girls who are working towards elite. Otherwise, not really. Again, no benefit for an average sized teenage gymnast training for JO and NCAA. It would hold many back from learning skills they would otherwise be physically capable of for no credit or reason. Some of these girls may be "tall" by gymnastics standards. Obviously smaller girls will tend to go on a smaller setting, particularly as release moves come into play.

For international competition there is some benefit to it in that equipment has to be standard. Imagine finding that your bar setting was impossible on equipment in an international competition. And there are also the issues surrounding podium set ups and television and making sure things are set properly. For example AAI super wide is basically the most common in the US now...you can't change the length of the spreader between the bars, you just move it up and down to move the low bar or high bar closer or farther. But when people want to put them really close when they're anchored at the floor (like for a set up in an arena) they tend to lose stability if people want to put them as close as like, the small setting on old uneven bars. Most gyms have anchor...poles (i don't know what you call those things) that are different than how it is set up in a basketball arena or something. Also, anyone who has gone to a competition in 2011 to find out they do NOT have these AAI bars is always in for fun (I realize equipment is generally published with the meet info). I have no idea how to convert those settings to the old kind with the extender. Luckily I've never seen that with optional meets (well actually, seen it at like every high school meet ever...), just gyms that are hosting a compulsory only meet, so I can get close enough and the kids aren't doing release moves or anything.

On the other hand it doesn't seem insurmountable to me to have specifications that had a somewhat greater range and still standardize equipment. Personally to me it doesn't take away from anything at all to be able to change the equipment, like I wouldn't think less of the competition. I also imagine that if FIG standards were relaxed, quite a few gymnasts would take advantage of it and their bars performance would probably be better.

I don't see any reason for the JO/NCAA programs to move to the FIG settings and I don't see that happening. NCAA gymnastics is a VERY high level of gymnastics performance. These are NOT average gymnasts. I am quite certain you could pit top NCAA gymnasts on most events against national teams in other countries (particularly on beam, where I sometimes feel the top NCAA competitors are really awesome in some respects...maybe lacking some difficulty particularly dismount wise but the difficulty on some of the routines is pretty respectable with rock solid performances - like Grace Taylor - WOW). Whether it's "non FIG" or not, it's incredible to watch some of these meets and I think that's the real spirit of the sport. Most sports have some international variations, I would assume.

 

[Bella's Mom]

I think it does make more sense to gear the JO system towards NCAA rather than elite. The reality is there are only a couple dozen spots on the national teams, while there are several hundred spots on college teams. While it might make our national teams a little weaker to not have every little gymnast in the US training on elite settings with elite the goal, the reality is that the vast majority will never reach this level. It makes more sense to just have those that show the most potential train for this through the TOPS and Hopes programs. For the vast majority of girls reaching level 9 or 10, or even reaching level 7, is their ultimate goal.

Can you explain this train of thought more? What I'm reading is that JO isn't the best way to reach elite but rather girls should go through TOPS/HOPES. I thought that Hopes was for girls who were around L9 when they were 10 or so. How do you achieve L9 if you aren't in a JO program? I thought that JO would feed into Hopes for some girls....those who were high achieving by age 10 but this snippet seems to say I've got it wrong.

 

[gymdog]

Can you explain this train of thought more? What I'm reading is that JO isn't the best way to reach elite but rather girls should go through TOPS/HOPES. I thought that Hopes was for girls who were around L9 when they were 10 or so. How do you achieve L9 if you aren't in a JO program? I thought that JO would feed into Hopes for some girls....those who were high achieving by age 10 but this snippet seems to say I've got it wrong.

Future elites (well, for the most part...I can think of one exception in the past 10 years, but she still did JO, just didn't compete until a certain age and entered at a high level) go through the JO level system in the US. TOPs/Hopes are supplemental programs to facilitate elite development. TOPs obviously has much greater participation due to the involvement of younger/lower level gymnasts, many of whom will not end up in the elite system.

Of course there are big name gyms that don't participate in TOPs but use their own elite development program (while competing the JO levels). To name a few - WOGA and GAGE. Technically, the program was intended more as a way for coaches who didn't have current national team connections to connect to resources and get their gymnasts "on the map," but no one is barred from participating, really. But that is one reason why some of the biggest gyms do not, because they don't really need to. And some "unknown" gyms have gotten gymnasts to the National Team without TOPs - Shawn Johnson being one example. Most gymnasts testing TOPs is competing in the JO system, from 7 year old level 5 and up to 10 year olds who might be closer to level 9/10 skills in some cases. TOPs testing isn't really a true gymnastics competition.

Hopes is a little different, sort of a competition stream for elite hopefuls who are pretty advanced at that point, incorporating the elite compulsories and modified optional routines, so it's sort of the entry level to the elite stream. I imagine many are competing concurrently in the JO as well.