WAG gymnast star rating

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

ChalkBucket may earn a commission through product links on the site.

Flicfliclay

Proud Parent
What is the deal with the star ratings? I just notice some gymnast have rating and some don't. Some gymnast that are rated that have scored better than others are rated lower? Some gymnast went from 3 stars to 4 stars yet they had a better season last year than this year? Do college coaches really look at this? If so this can be bad for some girls? What are your thoughts?
 
They do this in almost every sport in High school. 5 star recruits are the best. Yes colleges look at this and as far as bad look for some girls. I believe all level 10 girls know where they stand with the rest in the country.
 
They do this in almost every sport in High school. 5 star recruits are the best. Yes colleges look at this and as far as bad look for some girls. I believe all level 10 girls know where they stand with the rest in the country.
I've just seen some chatter as to how they actually come up with the ratings etc. I mean how does one go from 3 to 4 stars from one year to the next when they had a lesser season than the last? That makes no sense at all. If college coaches do use it, i am assuming it is with question.
 
Now how they get the ratings is what I don’t understand. I seen a girl that won nationals a couple years ago with a four star rating. I think if a college wants you they want you. This rating sheet won’t stop them, but they do look at it
In my eyes Ella Kate, Zoey, and Simone Rose should all be 5 star and Hezly should be #1
 
Last edited:
I appreciate what they're trying to do, and I'm sure that no matter how they rated people there would be complaints, but I agree that a lot of the ratings don't make sense. I am aware of a gymnast who got a particularly low score on one of her best events, who got an offer from a top D1 program who say they want her for that event. Go figure. I agree with Ty's dad that if a college wants you they want you, but it's also frustrating that these ratings likely do have influence over something pretty important, yet are done in a way that seems irrational at times. It probably doesn't much matter for gymnasts at the top like those Ty's dad mentioned, but for those trying to stand out in a sea of talent, it can be kind of frustrating.
 
Objectively, someone can go from 3 to 4 or even 5 even though they had a poorer overall season than the previous because they improved on one event. The star rating is based upon a point total. Each event gets scored a number of points. They do not take away points from previous years since I believe its assumed if they scored that way once, they can score that way again. So if they improved their performance on one event, their points on that event go up and bumps them to a higher star rating.

Now do they matter? Based upon my experience, not really. Coaches have their own evaluation system. They are following these gymnasts long before any star rating comes out. They trust their evaluation process way before they will trust some third party giving stars out. Obviously there is some correlation to the stars and what the coaches evaluate (good is good) but they do not sway a coach's pursuit of a recruit. The stars are more for the fans/family/gymnasts as a discussion and accomplishment.
 
Just to follow-up. They are pretty open on the evaluation criteria, but it is still subjective. They admit that evaluating elites are difficult because they can only go on video review and not judged scores from L10 competition. Remember, they are evaluating stars based upon how a recruit would do college gymnastics. So looking at elites videos where they are doing generally much more difficult skills than they would ever do in college, and the scoring system is vastly different, they have to try and translate that to a college routine. I think the hardest is the execution element. Not all elites have good execution, which is so important in college. They can do the big skills, but with bent knees, flexed feet, bent arms etc.
 
Objectively, someone can go from 3 to 4 or even 5 even though they had a poorer overall season than the previous because they improved on one event. The star rating is based upon a point total. Each event gets scored a number of points. They do not take away points from previous years since I believe its assumed if they scored that way once, they can score that way again. So if they improved their performance on one event, their points on that event go up and bumps them to a higher star rating.

Now do they matter? Based upon my experience, not really. Coaches have their own evaluation system. They are following these gymnasts long before any star rating comes out. They trust their evaluation process way before they will trust some third party giving stars out. Obviously there is some correlation to the stars and what the coaches evaluate (good is good) but they do not sway a coach's pursuit of a recruit. The stars are more for the fans/family/gymnasts as a discussion and accomplishment.
Well I want to say that i correct in the case I looked at.. the girl that went from 3 to 4 stars absolutely scored better on all events last season. There was not one score better this season to promote her to higher star value. Example being that her bars were consistent last season and this season barely made 1/4 of her routines.. same on beam... so I guess I just don't get it. Just something to talk about, but makes no sense.
 
Well I want to say that i correct in the case I looked at.. the girl that went from 3 to 4 stars absolutely scored better on all events last season. There was not one score better this season to promote her to higher star value. Example being that her bars were consistent last season and this season barely made 1/4 of her routines.. same on beam... so I guess I just don't get it. Just something to talk about, but makes no sense.
"For level 10 gymnasts, event totals are composed of a possible 13 score points and 12 video review points. Score points are derived from data—specifically, the same analysis of gymnasts’ scores that we use for our Most Anticipated series. The key component of score points is an average of a gymnast’s scores on a certain event from the past two years, but career bests and consistency are also factored in.

The 12 video review points per event are allocated based on characteristics like amplitude, technique and landings. Multiple videos of each event are reviewed by three to five editors to produce the most balanced rating possible."

So, maybe her scores didn't improve for whatever reason, but her technique got better?
 
"For level 10 gymnasts, event totals are composed of a possible 13 score points and 12 video review points. Score points are derived from data—specifically, the same analysis of gymnasts’ scores that we use for our Most Anticipated series. The key component of score points is an average of a gymnast’s scores on a certain event from the past two years, but career bests and consistency are also factored in.

The 12 video review points per event are allocated based on characteristics like amplitude, technique and landings. Multiple videos of each event are reviewed by three to five editors to produce the most balanced rating possible."

So, maybe her scores didn't improve for whatever reason, but her technique got better?
( I am playing devils advocate ) What video's are they "reviewing" .. I mean.. most video's posted are only of the the very best moments and many times edited to only show the good... As I am only using one particular case.. this case is the technique did not get better as I mentioned the persons scores did not go up from last year they in fact went down. Even a person not knowing everything about judging ect can watch and evaluate scores and see that as a fact. I also know girls that were injured for over a season somehow get a rating over girls that were not and performed overall better. Again, I feel like there very well could be some bias in these ratings. Also, who allocated the evaluators?
 
I think the score part is pretty easy to understand. They look at two years worth of data. So let's say a gymnast was a three star last year, and that was based on scoring 36s in 2022 and 38s in 2023. Now let's imagine that in 2024 she did a partial season and scored 37s, so her new rating would be based on a full season of 38s (from 2023) and a partial season of 37s (from 2024). Her star rating could go up from last year, even though her more recent scores were lower.

I think the video review part is where it's more questionable and obviously subjective. They seem to have certain gymnasts who are favorites for whatever reason, but that's not unusual for any media outlet.

And if I want to be really picky, I will add that we all know that scoring is not equal around the country. They are using all of each gymnasts scores, which means that naturally those gymnasts who compete mostly in Texas and other high scoring states are going to get a higher score rating than those who compete more in states and regions that are known to give lower scores. Giving more weight to scores from Nationals (and even Regionals) would lend credibility to the formula, IMHO.
 
I think the score part is pretty easy to understand. They look at two years worth of data. So let's say a gymnast was a three star last year, and that was based on scoring 36s in 2022 and 38s in 2023. Now let's imagine that in 2024 she did a partial season and scored 37s, so her new rating would be based on a full season of 38s (from 2023) and a partial season of 37s (from 2024). Her star rating could go up from last year, even though her more recent scores were lower.

I think the video review part is where it's more questionable and obviously subjective. They seem to have certain gymnasts who are favorites for whatever reason, but that's not unusual for any media outlet.

And if I want to be really picky, I will add that we all know that scoring is not equal around the country. They are using all of each gymnasts scores, which means that naturally those gymnasts who compete mostly in Texas and other high scoring states are going to get a higher score rating than those who compete more in states and regions that are known to give lower scores. Giving more weight to scores from Nationals (and even Regionals) would lend credibility to the formula, IMHO.
That is a weird process... to think that a star rating would go up scoring lower a year later.. sorry makes zero sense. IMO.. which is nothing ha ha!
 
I maybe wrong but I thought they were watching videos of Nationals, Regionals, or if elite ( winter cups, Classics, and Championships) the scoring should be the same and it’s not favoritism its basically the top girls from those meets
 
I maybe wrong but I thought they were watching videos of Nationals, Regionals, or if elite ( winter cups, Classics, and Championships) the scoring should be the same and it’s not favoritism its basically the top girls from those meets
I don't think so.. I believe you can even submit your own videos. Also, where would they get video's from nationals and regionals I slighty doubt they are there recording every single girl? They just go to various instagram accounts and look at scores on meetscores.
 
I don't think so.. I believe you can even submit your own videos. Also, where would they get video's from nationals and regionals I slighty doubt they are there recording every single girl? They just go to various instagram accounts and look at scores on meetscores.
regionals and Nationals is on one of them streaming sites FlipNow, you tube, I forgot the last one but I know you can watch all the sessions or type in the girls name
 
I don't think so.. I believe you can even submit your own videos. Also, where would they get video's from nationals and regionals I slighty doubt they are there recording every single girl? They just go to various instagram accounts and look at scores on meetscores.
Ok I just checked not regionals, but Nationals is on FlipNow.
 
According to their methodology explained on the site, the score portion of the rating is based on all scores for a season (not just regionals, nationals, etc.) I have no idea which videos are reviewed but regardless, it’s the more subjective part of the evaluation.
 
All things considered, given the difference between elite and DP and the fact that college is based on the DP code, they. on balance, seem to do a pretty good job. They have the data to prove it. The top recruits that they have identified from the beginning have all performed well in college (which is their intention with the ranking system). They do go back and admit when they miss recruits which of course happens. They did evaluate over 400 gymnasts this year which is pretty impressive. I am willing to give them some slack and admit that while there is no perfect system, this is pretty transparent and pretty good for its intended purpose.
 
All things considered, given the difference between elite and DP and the fact that college is based on the DP code, they. on balance, seem to do a pretty good job. They have the data to prove it. The top recruits that they have identified from the beginning have all performed well in college (which is their intention with the ranking system). They do go back and admit when they miss recruits which of course happens. They did evaluate over 400 gymnasts this year which is pretty impressive. I am willing to give them some slack and admit that while there is no perfect system, this is pretty transparent and pretty good for its intended purpose.

I agree with this. My daughter was a 3 star recruit from them. I would have liked her to be a 4 star... however... when looking at the other recruits within the data the College Gym News had... they had it correct... most of the 4 and 5 star recruits were performing better than my daughter at that time as a whole.
 

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

Too piked still?

Back