Anon If predicting a kids success at 6 is so tricky, why does Tops start so young?

[Anonymous (84a7)]

Hello,
I will preface this with knowing TOPS and D1 are not associated with each other.
I noticed the post about predicting D1 kids and was curious about this! Alot of the coaches were saying to just coach the kid in front of you and theres not much of a way to determine as things can drastically change...why even have a TOPS program to predict and train the kids that young towards an elite path?

 

[Anonymous (c477)]

Hello,
I will preface this with knowing TOPS and D1 are not associated with each other.
I noticed the post about predicting D1 kids and was curious about this! Alot of the coaches were saying to just coach the kid in front of you and theres not much of a way to determine as things can drastically change...why even have a TOPS program to predict and train the kids that young towards an elite path?

You can predict which 6-year-old has the *potential* to be a very good 9-year-old. And you can also predict that almost all of the girls, regardless of potential, will quit before high school. It’s a gamble and the returns are very low. That’s one reason most gyms, including some elite gyms, don’t have TOPs programs.

 

[Anonymous (f3d2)]

Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

Originally the intent was more around getting coaches of talented young athletes together to educate the coaches.

There is nothing magical about tops. It is simply another assessment of gymnasts using certain criteria. It can be used in a way motivate and push improvement in athletes. Some gyms appear to like the prestige.

It is/was an excellent experience for coaches which is why many seasoned coaches/programs don't participate in tops testing - but the fundamental skills and strength absolutely are worked within the gyms.

It's a good experience for the right kids, but it's not for everyone. With the right coaching talented kids don't need tops to succeed nor will tops make an average gymnast a star.

I'd say the program is most beneficial for gyms that have a few talented athletes who are outliers for age and ability to work and learn with their coaches alongside similar athletes.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Possibly unpopular take, but TOPS as it currently exists is a waste of time and effort.

Don't get me wrong, the TOPS skills and sequences are mostly excellent for technical development, but the age specifications undercut the stated goal of the program.

The science is pretty clear: study after study has found that kids are better off doing a large variety of sports at a young age, and waiting until much later to specialize and focus on excelling at any one particular sport. So with that in mind, a program explicitly aimed at high-intensity specialization at a young age kind of defeats its own purpose by design.

And I know that the underlying idea is that it's as much for the coaches as for the athletes, but education on classical mechanics, program design, and sports psychology would be far more helpful than evaluation of specific technical sequences.