How long did it take you, your daughter, ir your gymnasts to learn a doubleback?

[lannamavity]

wow! let us have a bit more respect for the double back on floor. a sound and consistent double back will take upwards of 1 year of training. this is still considered the holy grail of floor ex. is still the most difficult to land properly and still causes the most injuries.

the double back is the equivalent force of standing on a 2 story building and jumping down to land. the forces can exceed upwards of 18x ones body mass. the sheer force under studies is quite remarkable. and when the tuning of the floors is considered, great patience and care must be given the double back.

only the triple back from boys high bar and the double layout on floor are greater. yur2 run a very close 2nd.

that 11 year olds can do doubles? what does that mean? and will they be around to do them when they are 16 is more impressive and indicative of how and when the double back was introduced to competition.

I started gymnastics at 10 and did a double back on floor at 12. That was back in the 80s when we just trained them on floor over and over.

Nowadays, I coach 11 year olds who do double backs all the time. The equipment used today easily allows smaller kids with less power to pull off a double on floor in 3 or 4 months after being able to flip a layout to their back onto a stack of 8" mats. A 70 lb 11 year old doesn't have the same force you described upon landing, as force upon landing is not simply a product of mass. There are way too many factors which allow an 11 year old to walk away from a crash on a double back in relation to an 18 year old who is seriously injured.

In order to be competitive as Level 9s, the girls need that double back on floor. We had 10 Level 9s this year and 7 of them (between the ages of 11 and 15) competed doubles. They all learned them in August and competed them in December. They all hit without any trouble. Our 10s are required to perform a double back on floor regardless of age.

I'm not sure about male athletes, but I have seen FAR more female athletes injured on floor doing multiple twisting/bounding combinations than double backs.

With new advances in coaching techniques/equipment and the demands of the JO/FIG codes, double backs are now the new full. That's how the sport works.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

I started gymnastics at 10 and did a double back on floor at 12. That was back in the 80s when we just trained them on floor over and over.

Nowadays, I coach 11 year olds who do double backs all the time. The equipment used today easily allows smaller kids with less power to pull off a double on floor in 3 or 4 months after being able to flip a layout to their back onto a stack of 8" mats. A 70 lb 11 year old doesn't have the same force you described upon landing, as force upon landing is not simply a product of mass. There are way too many factors which allow an 11 year old to walk away from a crash on a double back in relation to an 18 year old who is seriously injured.

In order to be competitive as Level 9s, the girls need that double back on floor. We had 10 Level 9s this year and 7 of them (between the ages of 11 and 15) competed doubles. They all learned them in August and competed them in December. They all hit without any trouble. Our 10s are required to perform a double back on floor regardless of age.

I'm not sure about male athletes, but I have seen FAR more female athletes injured on floor doing multiple twisting/bounding combinations than double backs.

With new advances in coaching techniques/equipment and the demands of the JO/FIG codes, double backs are now the new full. That's how the sport works.

anything i state now will sound arrogant. you don't know what you speak of. this further shows the lack of experience of coaches in general. please refer to my other thread.

now, you go back and read what i posted about the forces. to a 70 pounder it may only be 10 times her body mass. that is 700lbs of sheer force upon landing. and some 70 pounders could be older and stronger and be able to generate forces above 18 times their body mass. 70 lbs is 70lbs. how much force they generate are due to other physical variables. so...go back to school. i stand by what i posted. now go back and read what you stated "is not simply a product of mass."

huh? that's all we simply are, are a product of mass. mass is weight. you do a cartwheel and you 'weigh more' as you land and those forces are distributed thru your body and into the floor. and when tumbling they move back into the body again.


i stated that double backs on floor need to be respected. that's nice that you "see" them do all their nice double backs. BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE IS ALL THE MICROTRAUMA TAKING PLACE THAT IS CUMMULATIVE!

you know what? i can't respond any further cause you don't know what your talking about. i'll probably be admonished by the moderators, but i can't just leave your frivolous attitude and misinformation about double backs go unchecked.

and by the way, there were several girls that placed in the top 10 on floor at L9 & L10 nationals that did not have a double back on floor.

geesh.............................and....forget it.

 

[bogwoppit]

You know it's funny I felt that Dunno and Lannamativity might go head to head and guess what I was right. The only thing I can add is "lets play nice boys".

I know for a fact that Dunno knows his stuff and has a proven track record of producing Elites in the US, as to anyone elses credentials here who knows?

There is no admonishment, we continue to learn through the sharing of tips and technical info.

 

[lannamavity]

Jeesh...I'm just stating an opinion. What's up with all the personal attacks? Why so insecure? I've coached many kids who competed double backs on floor, and they've all remained relatively healthy and successful. I/they didn't defy the laws of gravity, we just dealt with it. You don't have to take it personally.

We don't train anyone to do double backs repeatedly on floor...I trained it that way, but times, technique and equipment have changed. Micro trauma can be greatly reduced by using tumbletracks, airfloors and resi landings when doing high numbers. This way doubles on floor are less dangerous and high impact landings on floor are not even required most of the year.

I simply don't subscribe to the idea that simple physics directly apply to the human body...there are way too many variables envolved and as many ways to "do it right" or "do it wrong" as there are athletes and coaches. I've made the mistake of coaching based on statistics and science only to find out that these are only guides when making coaching decisions. That doesn't negate anyone else's views, techniques or ideas. I've seen way too many different ways to achieve the same successful outcome to say I do it "the only right way". Over the years, I have grown more comfortable teaching younger athletes how to compete more complicated skills, as this has become necessary to be successful and competitive in the sport today. I've also been pleasantly surprised to find that most suffer the same typical injuries (ankles, wrists, knees) that most gymnasts experience. In fact...in my experience...double backs require fewer numbers on the actual floor, whereby fewer injuries tend to occur in relation to other tumbling elements/combinations.

No biggie.

 

[tkatchevwiz]

Yeah I started seriously learning the skill when I was 9yrs and got it without a spot when I was almost 11yrs. It was a very hard skill for me and my teammates who generally followed the same timeline as I did. Double pike.... that's another story

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

anything i state now will sound arrogant.

Not anything you state -- just things you state in an overly aggressive manner. Let's break this down, shall we?

you don't know what you speak of. this further shows the lack of experience of coaches in general. please refer to my other thread.

Unnecessary, arrogant, obnoxious, and tempban-worthy if it continues.

now, you go back and read what i posted about the forces. to a 70 pounder it may only be 10 times her body mass. that is 700lbs of sheer force upon landing. and some 70 pounders could be older and stronger and be able to generate forces above 18 times their body mass. 70 lbs is 70lbs. how much force they generate are due to other physical variables. so...go back to school. i stand by what i posted. now go back and read what you stated "is not simply a product of mass."

huh? that's all we simply are, are a product of mass. mass is weight. you do a cartwheel and you 'weigh more' as you land and those forces are distributed thru your body and into the floor. and when tumbling they move back into the body again.

i stated that double backs on floor need to be respected. that's nice that you "see" them do all their nice double backs. BUT WHAT YOU CAN'T SEE IS ALL THE MICROTRAUMA TAKING PLACE THAT IS CUMMULATIVE!

Completely acceptable statement of dissagreement. No objections here. Carry on.

you know what? i can't respond any further cause you don't know what your talking about. i'll probably be admonished by the moderators, but i can't just leave your frivolous attitude and misinformation about double backs go unchecked.

Unnecessary, arrogant, obnoxious, and tempban-worthy if it continues.

and by the way, there were several girls that placed in the top 10 on floor at L9 & L10 nationals that did not have a double back on floor.

Completely acceptable statement of dissagreement. No objections here. Carry on.

geesh.............................and....forget it.

Unnecessary, arrogant, obnoxious, and tempban-worthy if it continues.


Look, you do seem to know your stuff. I have no objections to you sharing your knowledge. I have no objections to you dissagreeing with other members. But quit being a jerk about it.

 

[Reecee]

It took me one week and I was 11 to get it on tramp. Floor still need a spot.

 

[toriluvsgym0618]

It dosnt take very long. At my old gym I was about 9 or 10 when I learned it. I never did on floor though. Just off the tumble track. It onley took me 1 or 2 trys. But every1 is and different. At my new gym girls onley do them on 9 and 10. Or if they are on tops. If she is ready she should go for it.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

the road less traveled is the smoothest. i'll make a genuine effort in the future to not be as condescending. and if you are who i think you are, i enjoyed watching your training. i'll be back at home sunday morning.

 

[MissBear]

At my gym, the elite path girls aged just 11 are learning them off bars and floor, and one (of 2) has got them on ski run to 8 inch on pit. Theres also a great tumbler who is learning them on ski run and a late discovered gymnast who has the potential to go far. They are both 10 -11 and are learning them on ski run to pit.

As far as injury goes, we don't really train them much on floor. We are lucky to have a tumble track and a ski run, which is only slightly more bouncy than floor. So you can put a high mat in the pit and work off ski run - still training well but reducing the risk of injury. I think they will only really train them on floor when it comes to competition time.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

the road less traveled is the smoothest. i'll make a genuine effort in the future to not be as condescending. and if you are who i think you are, i enjoyed watching your training. i'll be back at home sunday morning.

Excellent.

And thank you! We probably should have organized things a bit more so we could introduce ourselves -- we should do that if our paths cross again.