Starting a new thread to answer aerialriver
There are in many gyms quite a few girls who are cut from team gymnastics for not being "team material" who, if the gym was able or willing to tolerate a slower progression through the compulsory levels, would ultimately achieve more in gymnastics than the girls who are deemed team material but lack dedication.
Let's address the "why should such girls be entitled to compete," well, they need to be allowed to compete the levels that they have the skills for, cleaned to the standards of the particular team, because obviously they will not have a training option at most gyms that does not actually REQUIRE competition ... everyone knows this. And at most, probably nearly all, gyms you are not allowed to just say, "you know I think my daughter won't score well in her first year of L4, so let's just let her train and she can compete next year."
As for your judgment of the VALUE of pursuing activities that a child does not have a strong aptitude for, I really think that gets to the heart of it.
Why is it devalued for a child to train hard with joy for the blue mats for 10 years if she only gets to L7? Is that not a major achievement that will follow her for the rest of her life? Might she not ultimately contribute more to the sport in the 60 odd years she has left AFTER gymnastics, as a coach or gym owner, or patient educated gym mom, or judge? Is what she learns at every level not beautiful in and of itself?
Why is it devalued for a child who is passionate about singing, and whose family can afford to help her get better, to take lessons and practice -- even if she has to practice twice as hard to get half as far, in singing, as a "musical" child? The value is tremendous in just being able to enjoy singing, enjoy singing in church choir, enjoy singing your baby to sleep, in teaching your children childhood songs, in singing along to the radio with ones college friends without standing out -- this is the stuff of life. Not just a long shot at American Idol for the uber talented.
I just do not understand. Certainly everyone has to know that not all kids are cut out for all activities. There were a lot of activities my parents stopped me from doing after short periods of trial like playing the flute and singing I am not musical at all and after a while it becomes a waste of time and money.
I am not saying that if a kid really wants to do gym they should not have the chance to, but why is there this attitude that all of them should be entitled to compete? There is nothing wrong with doing something recreationally. Just because I like to shoot hoops with the neighbor does not entitle me to join the WNBA. Lots of sports have tryouts even kids school sports and some kids don't make the cut.
Everyone has talents and apparently for these girls it just isn't gymnastics. I would hope most parents would respect this and find it a good time to try other things.
There are in many gyms quite a few girls who are cut from team gymnastics for not being "team material" who, if the gym was able or willing to tolerate a slower progression through the compulsory levels, would ultimately achieve more in gymnastics than the girls who are deemed team material but lack dedication.
Let's address the "why should such girls be entitled to compete," well, they need to be allowed to compete the levels that they have the skills for, cleaned to the standards of the particular team, because obviously they will not have a training option at most gyms that does not actually REQUIRE competition ... everyone knows this. And at most, probably nearly all, gyms you are not allowed to just say, "you know I think my daughter won't score well in her first year of L4, so let's just let her train and she can compete next year."
As for your judgment of the VALUE of pursuing activities that a child does not have a strong aptitude for, I really think that gets to the heart of it.
Why is it devalued for a child to train hard with joy for the blue mats for 10 years if she only gets to L7? Is that not a major achievement that will follow her for the rest of her life? Might she not ultimately contribute more to the sport in the 60 odd years she has left AFTER gymnastics, as a coach or gym owner, or patient educated gym mom, or judge? Is what she learns at every level not beautiful in and of itself?
Why is it devalued for a child who is passionate about singing, and whose family can afford to help her get better, to take lessons and practice -- even if she has to practice twice as hard to get half as far, in singing, as a "musical" child? The value is tremendous in just being able to enjoy singing, enjoy singing in church choir, enjoy singing your baby to sleep, in teaching your children childhood songs, in singing along to the radio with ones college friends without standing out -- this is the stuff of life. Not just a long shot at American Idol for the uber talented.