Women Grouping by experience vs age at level 10... Just pondering

[gymgal]

One other advantage to doing another year at L9 at her age is that the age groupings at meets were a lot different in L9 than 10. My daughter was in the youngest age group in both but in 9 the age span was much smaller. In L10, she was usually grouped with girls who were up to 3 years older than her. Some, not all, had already competed L10 so they definitely had an advantage on her.

I pulled this from the "should she repeat 9 or go to 10" thread. I didn't want to pull that thread off topic but it got me thinking....

Why do the L10 groups go by age and not by the number of years competing L10. Currently, you can have a gymnast with 5 yrs of experience in L10 going against a 1st year. At that point, it really isn't about age, but experience. What would be the cons against grouping according to the amount of years at L10?. Of course, then you would have to divide by age as well for large meets, but at least the playing field would be more level. And I am not really talking about the "fairness" of it as much as the level of Competition. What satisfaction is there for a 4yr repeater L10 beating out 1St-2ND yr L10s

I suppose it could be done at 8, 9 as well but the big place I see it making a difference it's at level 10, where many girls hang out for several years.

So, other than logistical nightmare of reconfiguring the system, what are the other cons? Problems with an 11 yr old going against a16 yr old in terms of how they will be judged due to size difference? I suppose there then could be an influx of L9 repeaters but you could even go by the number of years training levels 7-10, to account for extra trading before L10.

would love to hear from everyone, but particularly those living this daily - coaches and parents of L10s, meet directors, usag reps, etc.

Again, just pondering, so be civil, please. Just thought it would be a nice discussion topic for the weekend.

 

[bookworm]

As a parent and former meet director, I can tell you to group any level by the number of years competing in the level would be a nightmare...it has always been by age , no matter what level my daughter was in. You see a wider age range at Level 10 because there aren't a ton of younger 10s so you can set your age groupings at (for example) 14 and under, 15-16, and 17 and up and usually have decent enough size groupings; but if you did the same age groupings for Level 5, virtually all the gymnasts would be in the same age group because most level 5s are under 14 yo...

If you got into "how many years at a level", then there would be those who were out for part of the year or whole year for injury , and do you count that as "at that level" if they didn't compete? And as to the "fairness" of the situation, if the gymnast is at Level 10, she should have a certain minimum level of skills to be there, and that's what levels the playing field...whether or not you're a first year 10 or a 5th yr 10, you're both level 10. If you want a meet to be easier for a first year 10, pick smaller meets where the competition isn't usually as tough. I can't imagine a situation where number of years competing at a level would be the divider for groupings....

 

[MeetDirector]

gymgal -
You're kidding, right? Grouping by number of years at a given level would be absolutely impossible. Where would I go for the base truth on how many years an athlete had been at a given level? Age is the only thing that gives ground truth and lets me group at whatever level. Level 10's are judged against level 10's; it is the skills that are judged, not the size or the age of the athlete. Granted, younger, smaller athletes might be able to do the skills better, but that is just the way the cookie crumbles.

Good Luck.

 

[gymgal]

gymgal -
You're kidding, right? Grouping by number of years at a given level would be absolutely impossible.

Now that I think about it, it doesn't really seem that much of a nightmare. Doesn't the usag track gymnasts by level? How difficult would it be for them to add a second factor to L10 beginner, intermediate, advanced). You divide the girls into these groups , then by age, if need be. You do that in all your meets now, with all the levels levels. It is just dividing 1 particular level further. it's simple. (lol, ok, I know that's not simple)

Like I said, the question just popped in my head based on another thread. Thought it would be nice to hear what others thought. Again, I'm not coming at this from a *fairness* issue, rather from creating groups that have better competition within. This happens naturally in the youngest groups, but not so much in the older ones. I guess, fairness might be read into that from one viewpoint but like I said, think of a multi year L10 beating 1st yrs. Wouldn't it be better for her to compete against others with similar years of training at 10 to show where she truly stands. From what I have seen at meets, there is a huge difference between a 1st year and a 4/5th yr. in terms of complexity of skills, connections, confidence, etc.

now, dd is only training 8 right now, so I am not in on all of this.... Perhaps it really isn't an issue because of the small number of girls that are affected.

And I supposed there would also be the argument that the Phenom beginning 10s what to see just how good they are compared to the multi years....

 

[Natasha]

In our state there are less than 20 L10's total, and most of them are at the other end of the state and concentrated in one gym. So, they pretty much learn to compete against themselves in that they are in it to just improve their own performance at each meet.

 

[Krystan]

I think age is the fairest way, though none is perfect. Some gyms rush through levels and you might get an 11 year old L10 who did 2 levels per year competing against a 15yo who, though a first year L10 too, has had 2 years each at L8 and L9, solidifying things. That "experience" will count for something when they get out there and compete. If you just go by years at L10, it's not necessarily telling. But anything more "accurate" would just get ridiculously confusing. I get where in the 17+ age group you're going to have some 1st years and some who have been at L10 since age 11, but it still makes the most sense.

 

[htimcj]

In our state there are less than 20 L10's total, and most of them are at the other end of the state and concentrated in one gym. So, they pretty much learn to compete against themselves in that they are in it to just improve their own performance at each meet.

Must be in the same state There are less than 20 L10 and last year we had 4 of them. That's one reason we travel so much.

 

[iwannacoach]

You should have seen it 25 years ago. Level 9 and 10 were created to replace the "class 1" level of those days. Consider what it would have been then to compete as a first year class 1 against a fifth or even sixth year class one. The only designations were age.... 9-11, 12-14 (I think) and 15 and over, so an average kid plugging along maybe makes it to C1 at age 15 , and ends up competing against everyone above the age of 14..... including the kids who were talented enough to make it to C1 somewhere between the age of 11 and 13 with up to 7 years of experience at C1.

The bottom line for this level amounts to this....... If you can't stand the intensity of this level you stay at L9 and count your blessing that USAG figured out that advanced age group gymnastics really did fall into two distinct groups.

 

[gymgal]

You should have seen it 25 years ago. Level 9 and 10 were created to replace the "class 1" level of those days. Consider what it would have been then to compete as a first year class 1 against a fifth or even sixth year class one. The only designations were age.... 9-11, 12-14 (I think) and 15 and over, so an average kid plugging along maybe makes it to C1 at age 15 , and ends up competing against everyone above the age of 14..... including the kids who were talented enough to make it to C1 somewhere between the age of 11 and 13 with up to 7 years of experience at C1.

The bottom line for this level amounts to this....... If you can't stand the intensity of this level you stay at L9 and count your blessing that USAG figured out that advanced age group gymnastics really did fall into two distinct groups.

You bring up a good point. You said that happened about 25 yrs ago. Is it time to look at it again? I don't know the range of difficulty currently seen at L10. It's there a big glaring difference in what the girls are doing their first yr vs 4th/5th in terms of complexity and skill difficulty? Are they"upping" their routines Or are they keeping their difficulty the same, and just working toward perfection?

 

[iwannacoach]

I like it the way it is. A new L10 has something to shoot for when they go out and compete with 3rd and 4th year L10's. If they can't move up to L10 with the attitude that challenges are part of the territory there's always L9. That's part of L9's function, to provide a challenge they can wrap themselves around and feel like they've "made it"..... because doing well at that level is something they can. and should, take pride in.

 

[profmom]

N of 1 here, so take with a grain of salt, but at my kids' gym, we had a girl who was "stuck" at L9 for 3-4 years because there was one set of skills on one event that was bedeviling her. She punched her ticket for L10 at L9 nationals last year (won an event) and, in her last JO year (2012-13), competed L10 for the first time. She ended up being an alternate for L10 nationals, so I guess it went OK.