WAG L4 mobility score

[justkeepswimming]

I can comment, now that my daughter competed her score out meet, yesterday. I understand why they raised it. Like others have mentioned, she is small and struggles with the vault (8.35 yesterday.) She still finished with a mid 36 all around, so I think 34 is attainable if the kids have the skills. Even going into the meet, her coach said she wasn’t worried with text errors and little details (after I read too much and asked!) because her routines were solid.

We know some girls who rushed to score out before the number was raised and they are now struggling. Some didn’t even have their kips. They are beautiful gymnasts, but weren’t ready to pass 4 (and some 5) to handle what they had to do in 6.

Edit to add- i think gyms that offer xcel give the girls a great opportunity to build on the foundational skills without doing the same thing over and over. That gives kids the option to have routines with the same required skills as 4 and 5 without the attention to the extra required dance and perfection that needs to happen for compulsory.

 

[Texasmomof3]

Why would any coach score someone out of L4 when she doesn’t have a kip? Talk about setting your gymnast up for struggles.

 

[justkeepswimming]

I agree texasmomof3!
I Think the coaches weren’t 100% sure of the compulsory routines (little details) and it was easier to score lower and then keep the kids xcel working the same foundational skills. They will still practice with their kips and getting their foundation stronger, without the required dance and text. That is all i can come up with. The ones who went to 6 had their kips, of course.

 

[mommyof1]

I can comment, now that my daughter competed her score out meet, yesterday. I understand why they raised it. Like others have mentioned, she is small and struggles with the vault (8.35 yesterday.) She still finished with a mid 36 all around, so I think 34 is attainable if the kids have the skills.

I think a 34 is attainable for a kid who has the skills, has naturally straight knees, and hits all 4 routines in the same meet. Having the skills isn't enough.

 

[tpMom]

It is crazy how many opinions there are about this mobility score! I can say, that for our region and my DD, I would not want her moving up if she couldn't pull off a 34 at level 4. Having seen a few level 5 meets now, it is so much harder than level 4, and almost all of the skills build directly on level 4 skills. We had 4 girls score out of 4 this year and 2 of them had a fall on one event, one on beam and one on bars, even without hitting all events they made the 34 with room to spare. We are not in a high scoring region either, my DD took first at her last meet with a 34.75 and she took it by more than half a point. Even girls that don't make their score during meet season should be able to uptrain in the summer and score out the next year at a mobility meet if they're ready for 5.

 

[suebee]

I agree that kids who struggle to get a 34 in L4 are probably going to struggle with L5. I worked a L5 session at dd’s gym’s meet. There were kids who were doing muscle up kips and casts well below horizontal. Those kids scored in the 6 range without any falls. I was curious and looked at their scores in L4 later on mymeetscores. Most of those kids did not get any scores above 34 in L4, and scored in the 7 range on bars as a L4. I think they would have benefited from doing L4 again and continuing to work on casts, kips.

 

[raenndrops]

I agree that kids who struggle to get a 34 in L4 are probably going to struggle with L5. I worked a L5 session at dd’s gym’s meet. There were kids who were doing muscle up kips and casts well below horizontal. Those kids scored in the 6 range without any falls. I was curious and looked at their scores in L4 later on mymeetscores. Most of those kids did not get any scores above 34 in L4, and scored in the 7 range on bars as a L4. I think they would have benefited from doing L4 again and continuing to work on casts, kips.

We have a L5 that as a L4 last season barely scored 32. This season, she has already scored 33.
We have 3 L4 repeaters and only 1 has scored 34 so far this season. Last year, they were all in the 32-33 range and could have moved up, but chose to repeat (not knowing about the mobility score change) because they didn't feel quite ready for L5 or the parents wanted higher placements so she would be "successful" (in 1 case).

 

[gymbeam]

Because I’m putting off cleaning, I decided to just look at some numbers. I went to our most recent Regional meet results for Level 7 in which there were 71 competitors.

I clicked on each of the bottom 20 AA scores as well as about 20 or so other random competitors at that meet and I did not find one single athlete who never scored above a 34 during their Level 4 season. Most never scored below 34 even at the beginning of the season.

I know people say there are girls they’ve seen become great Optionals who did not do so well in compulsories, but from this sample it would indicate to me that future success can indeed be predicted to some degree by compulsories scores. I’m sure there are exceptions but I didn’t see any in that particular sample.

Anyway, I would love to hear the reasons it was changed. Was it all safety? Or was it to discourage barely mastering it to score out and instead using Xcel to replace those levels? Or was it to try and slow down the fast tracking to spare the younger girls the intensity? Or could it even be intended to grow the Xcel program and make JO even more restrictive? Or was it none of those reasons? Or all?!?

 

[sce]

Why would any coach score someone out of L4 when she doesn’t have a kip? Talk about setting your gymnast up for struggles.

But because they were doing it, that is the reason for the higher required score.

 

[raenndrops]

Because I’m putting off cleaning, I decided to just look at some numbers. I went to our most recent Regional meet results for Level 7 in which there were 71 competitors.

I clicked on each of the bottom 20 AA scores as well as about 20 or so other random competitors at that meet and I did not find one single athlete who never scored above a 34 during their Level 4 season. Most never scored below 34 even at the beginning of the season.

I know people say there are girls they’ve seen become great Optionals who did not do so well in compulsories, but from this sample it would indicate to me that future success can indeed be predicted to some degree by compulsories scores. I’m sure there are exceptions but I didn’t see any in that particular sample.

Anyway, I would love to hear the reasons it was changed. Was it all safety? Or was it to discourage barely mastering it to score out and instead using Xcel to replace those levels? Or was it to try and slow down the fast tracking to spare the younger girls the intensity? Or could it even be intended to grow the Xcel program and make JO even more restrictive? Or was it none of those reasons? Or all?!?

Not sure of the exact reason... but could be a combination of your first 3 guesses.

I checked Level 9 Regionals in my area. All of the girls were in the "Old" levels back then, so I looked at L5. I looked at the lowest 13 girls that competed AA. I found at least 2 exceptions in the 13.
There was 1 girl that never scored over a 31.825 at that level AND MADE IT TO LEVEL 9 REGIONALS.
There was another that never scored over 33.9 at L5... and that was at her state meet
There was 1 that didnt reach 34 until States at L5.
2 more started the season at less than 34.
6 girls were never below 34.
1 didnt have any scores listed before L7.

 

[chalkbowl]

Quickly looking through the bottom JO Nationals Qualifiers in 2017 it looks the majority of them scored a 34.000 at least once in old level 5. Though several only competed as a prep-opt and then moved in to optionals....so hard to say what their mobility score out of compulsories was.

 

[wandrewsjr]

You can't exactly compare scoring between compulsory cycles, since the routines and some of the requirements are different.

 

[2G1B]

I think a 34 is attainable for a kid who has the skills, has naturally straight knees, and hits all 4 routines in the same meet. Having the skills isn't enough.

My DD was 0.05 from a 34 back when she competed L4. She had all of the *skills* (kips, beam cartwheel and handstand, fhs/fhs, ro/bhs/bhs, etc); but she had very, very knobby knees that never looked straight. She also, while safely able to do the vault, did not have a good vault. Only scored two 8s on it (and through that season a LOT of L4s in our area were not scoring 8s, especially on our team. We even had a girl repeat L4 who had scored 9s the season before; but dropped to low 8s... no clue what the deal was. I think some of it was their vault coach honestly. Anyway, since L4 she has never scored BELOW a 34 again. So... it is possible to have a kid who didn't score 34s in L4; but still goes on to do fine. That said, I'm not against them raising the score to a 34; but I kind of do think a 33 would be a little better, just for kids like my DD who have a bunch of natural deductions build in just because of their body types.

 

[Ginger]

I think a 34 is attainable for a kid who has the skills, has naturally straight knees, and hits all 4 routines in the same meet. Having the skills isn't enough.

My DD has naturally BENT knees. She is tall, lanky gymnast with skinny legs and big knees. Her weakest event is floor.
Yet when she repeated level 4, she hit 34 every single time, still with bent knees. And if she hit all 4 routines, she got high-35 a few times.
Her first season of L4, her scores were around 31-32.
When I compare her 1st and 2nd season, the main difference was bars (she had all the skills the 1st season, but not the fluidity and connections) and beam (higher jumps, not so many bobbles). And vault, of course.
But her knees stayed bent, and they still are. Or, they still look bent

 

[raenndrops]

You can't exactly compare scoring between compulsory cycles, since the routines and some of the requirements are different.

I know it isnt a direct comparison... but Old L5 used to have a 31 mobility score and L4 used to have a 31 mobility score that was raised to 34 and the main skills are the same.

 

[wandrewsjr]

I know it isnt a direct comparison... but Old L5 used to have a 31 mobility score and L4 used to have a 31 mobility score that was raised to 34 and the main skills are the same.

The elimination of the front hip circle on ub and the dive roll on fx, and change of expectation for swing angles for taps have caused scores to rise, not 3 points, but somewhat. The average kid getting around 33 under last compulsory cycle rules would get around 34 under this one.

 

[CuriousCate]

Wow--where we are, vault seems to be the killer at L4. I have seen a lot of kids get over the table and land on their feet and only score 7.5.

You know, I went back and looked and you are right that vault was the primary score killer. I didn't see a lot of scores below 8 this season, many were mid-8's with a few 9s. But now that I'm looking back, the bar scores were mostly high 8's to low9's. I guess I'm more remembering the fear factor associated with bars seemed higher.

 

[gymdog]

You can't exactly compare scoring between compulsory cycles, since the routines and some of the requirements are different.

To be specific, new level 5 as compared to old level 6. I have probably coached some kids that might have been at a 33 in old level 6 but were able to move on. It was a much lower scoring level. Bars required high casts, clear hips, and tap swings compared to today. They also had to do the forward handstand into their side handstand dismount on beam which was killer. All of my level 5s hit a 34 at their first meet and some of them were questionable on a skill or two.

Level 3 is a bit easier as well compared to old 4. In old 4 they did two one foot turns on beam (a snap turn and a half turn in addition to their pivots) and had to take several steps into their leap which is surprisingly hard for them. Floor the leap pass was harder too in my opinion.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Everyone talks about the UB differences, but that old level 6 beam dismount was a killer. I think I could probably count on one hand the number of gymnasts I saw perform it exactly correctly as described.

 

[duyetanh]

Because I’m putting off cleaning, I decided to just look at some numbers. I went to our most recent Regional meet results for Level 7 in which there were 71 competitors.

I clicked on each of the bottom 20 AA scores as well as about 20 or so other random competitors at that meet and I did not find one single athlete who never scored above a 34 during their Level 4 season. Most never scored below 34 even at the beginning of the season.

I know people say there are girls they’ve seen become great Optionals who did not do so well in compulsories, but from this sample it would indicate to me that future success can indeed be predicted to some degree by compulsories scores. I’m sure there are exceptions but I didn’t see any in that particular sample.

Anyway, I would love to hear the reasons it was changed. Was it all safety? Or was it to discourage barely mastering it to score out and instead using Xcel to replace those levels? Or was it to try and slow down the fast tracking to spare the younger girls the intensity? Or could it even be intended to grow the Xcel program and make JO even more restrictive? Or was it none of those reasons? Or all?!?

It is probably 'some' of 'all' the reasons, if that makes any sense.
And my kid was and is one of those weird ones. I do realize she is an exception to the rule. But Good Lord, the child stunk at compulsories. I don't get why optionals are her thing and where she shines. I am grateful she got those basics. I am sure they have helped and still help. But ooh boy.....there is no comparison in the scores.