Level 3 meets

[pinklemonadeliz]

Just curious - I see many posts here about meets at level 3.

Our gym doesn't start meets until 4 - if there are 3 meets out there is there a reason that a gym wouldn't start letting the girls compete at 3's. It just seems like the more meet experience they have under their belts, the better when it comes to being under pressure, etc.

Is waiting until 4 the standard, or do most begin at 3?

 

[emandelsmom]

I think each gym does it differently. In MS, our girls start competeting at level one. Other states start at level 4. I think one-three is not required to move to the next level. Four and up you must compete to move. HTH

 

[gymdog]

You can enter at level 5. Over the last ten years, doing level 4 has become much more common. In my state almost no one competes USAG sanctioned L3.

 

[gym law mom]

I think each gym does it differently. In MS, our girls start competeting at level one. Other states start at level 4. I think one-three is not required to move to the next level. Four and up you must compete to move. HTH

L4 is not a required level either. Many gyms just start their kids at L5. In my state, they don't compete L3 at all---no in state meets and certainly no state meet.

 

[Aussie_coach]

In Australia competition starts at level 1. Level 1-3 competition is very big and in most states you can compete up to the state level for level 1-3. Here it is a major disadvantage to wait until level 4 to compete because you are then competing against girls who have already had 3 years of competition experience.

But I see big advantages to the USA not competing until level 4. Kids can progress faster because they don't need to spend so much time learning and perfecting routines, instead they can focus on skill development. Competitions can slow down your progress. Also it means the kids can train less hours. its not uncommon to have l;evel 1's training 5 or 6 hours a week, level 2's are usually 6-9 hours a week and level 3's often 9-12 hours a week.

 

[Shelovesthebars]

My dd's gym competes level 3. However, it is only low key, recreational and fun. And it is optional. We also get to pick what meets we want to do. Some of our 6 year olds who are on tops this year didn't even do it last year so it is not necessary at our gym for even doing well at level 4 and beyond. My 4 year old is going to do it starting in April because she wants to get the leo and see how she likes competing. The girls that opt to do the level 3 competition team get 2 extra hours of practice time a week and are not charged for it. I am looking forward to it because I think my dd will really enjoy it. How is your dd doing with the addition of the USAG program along with the tops program?

 

[gymdog]

But I see big advantages to the USA not competing until level 4. Kids can progress faster because they don't need to spend so much time learning and perfecting routines, instead they can focus on skill development. Competitions can slow down your progress. Also it means the kids can train less hours. its not uncommon to have l;evel 1's training 5 or 6 hours a week, level 2's are usually 6-9 hours a week and level 3's often 9-12 hours a week.

This is one thing I've noticed where L3 competitions seem more common. I have seen videos of some awesome L3s. Kids that look to me like they could do L4 easily and are 8-9 years old. I understand that doing L3 might be "the norm" but as someone who started relatively late at competing (11) and was able to move quick through compulsories, it sort of makes me cringe. If the norm 10 years ago was to compete in level 2 and 3, then I wonder - in some gyms I might have wasted 3 years I didn't really have, and I doubt moving into optional skills when I would be what, 15, would have benefited me in the long run, although i might have made a better L4. I can understand if the kids are 6-7, OR if L3 skills are really their "max," but when I see 9-10 year olds doing L3 who look capable of learning the L4-5 skills (not saying all are but I find it hard to believe - L4 is pretty "easy" relatively), I kind of wonder.

edit: lest it seem like I'm a proponent of racing through the levels, I'm really not. I prefer kids to be 7-8 when they start competing, and hit L7 around 11 (I do not coach in an elite track and have no desire to). For a standard JO track I think you have to balance having enough time to really do the basics of optionals and build that base up, but also pacing to keep the motivated and give them something to work for to the later high school years. Realistically this is the track most gyms in the US are looking at - trying to get kids to L9/10 by about their sophomore year in high school as a "best result."

 

[pinklemonadeliz]

Thanks for asking! We were on our way to jo team at the end of Jan when the gym announced that they were merging the entire tops team in to the jo program (it happened two days after our decision) - which meant that the move wouldn't take place until March 1st. The girls have been assigned their levels (based upon the tops coach and team coaches observations - no testing ocurred) and out of the 9 girls, 2 of them (my dd and one other 8 y/o) were placed into level 2 and the remaining 7 were placed in level 1. Needless to say, none of the older girls are very happy about their placement - the 5 older girls (6-8y/o) all have their level 4 and some 5&6 skills but it was explained to us that they were not taught the skills with proper form (things like tuck jumps on beam were taught with arms straight out to the sides and now they need to change that to above their heads, slightly bent at elbows or changing head & arm position during back walkovers, etc) - not big changes to make, but definitely habits that they need to break & it will take time and practice to break the bad habits.

The hope is that the five older girls will progress quickly enough to make the L4 competitive team when the bring in the new girls in January '11 - we'll see how it goes. I'm keeping my hopes up & trying to help dd keep her spirits up considering the fact that she's kind of re-learning everything she spent the last year and a half learning.

 

[Aussie_coach]

This is one thing I've noticed where L3 competitions seem more common. I have seen videos of some awesome L3s. Kids that look to me like they could do L4 easily and are 8-9 years old. I understand that doing L3 might be "the norm" but as someone who started relatively late at competing (11) and was able to move quick through compulsories, it sort of makes me cringe. If the norm 10 years ago was to compete in level 2 and 3, then I wonder - in some gyms I might have wasted 3 years I didn't really have, and I doubt moving into optional skills when I would be what, 15, would have benefited me in the long run, although i might have made a better L4. I can understand if the kids are 6-7, OR if L3 skills are really their "max," but when I see 9-10 year olds doing L3 who look capable of learning the L4-5 skills (not saying all are but I find it hard to believe - L4 is pretty "easy" relatively), I kind of wonder.

edit: lest it seem like I'm a proponent of racing through the levels, I'm really not. I prefer kids to be 7-8 when they start competing, and hit L7 around 11 (I do not coach in an elite track and have no desire to). For a standard JO track I think you have to balance having enough time to really do the basics of optionals and build that base up, but also pacing to keep the motivated and give them something to work for to the later high school years. Realistically this is the track most gyms in the US are looking at - trying to get kids to L9/10 by about their sophomore year in high school as a "best result."

In Australia the average age of our level 3's is 8-9 years old. That is considered normal. There are no 5 year old level 3's. If a child has that kind of talent they are taken out of the levels system at 4-6 years of age and trained at a specialist gym to compete the International development program.

We have a different focus. Most gyms don't even teach level 7-10, most go no further than level 6 (with full bonus skills though level 6 can be as hard as level 8). So the need to speed up the gymnasts progress isn't there, in fact slowing it down is often more ideal. Those gyms that do go to 7-10 do not have 11 year old level 7's. The average age of a level 7 gymnast would be 13-15, to find one under 12 would be rare. Of course again these kids aren't headed for the olympics, you can't do this in Australia, you have to be on a separate training program from the beginning.

We also do not have college gymnastics or anything like that, so there is no reason to have kids reach a certain ability level by a certain age. And we don't have a thing where kids quit when they finish high school like they seem to have in the USA. Most high school graduates in Australia continue to live at home and study locally.

 

[gymnut1]

Thanks for asking! We were on our way to jo team at the end of Jan when the gym announced that they were merging the entire tops team in to the jo program (it happened two days after our decision) - which meant that the move wouldn't take place until March 1st. The girls have been assigned their levels (based upon the tops coach and team coaches observations - no testing ocurred) and out of the 9 girls, 2 of them (my dd and one other 8 y/o) were placed into level 2 and the remaining 7 were placed in level 1. Needless to say, none of the older girls are very happy about their placement - the 5 older girls (6-8y/o) all have their level 4 and some 5&6 skills but it was explained to us that they were not taught the skills with proper form (things like tuck jumps on beam were taught with arms straight out to the sides and now they need to change that to above their heads, slightly bent at elbows or changing head & arm position during back walkovers, etc) - not big changes to make, but definitely habits that they need to break & it will take time and practice to break the bad habits.

The hope is that the five older girls will progress quickly enough to make the L4 competitive team when the bring in the new girls in January '11 - we'll see how it goes. I'm keeping my hopes up & trying to help dd keep her spirits up considering the fact that she's kind of re-learning everything she spent the last year and a half learning.

I find it rather odd that coaches in the same gym have coached such different styles. Why did they do that. Why did they teach 'bad habits'? Sounds to me like they didn't think this one through at all and have messed up bigtime. I hope your dd can pick herself up and get onto that level 4 team soon. It must be demoralising for children picked out 18 months ago as special and fast track for tops to suddenly find they are back in level 1 or 2.
Hopefully she will find competing fun and that will boost her while she relearns the things she needs to move on. Good luck to her.

 

[gymdog]

In Australia the average age of our level 3's is 8-9 years old. That is considered normal. There are no 5 year old level 3's. If a child has that kind of talent they are taken out of the levels system at 4-6 years of age and trained at a specialist gym to compete the International development program.

We have a different focus. Most gyms don't even teach level 7-10, most go no further than level 6 (with full bonus skills though level 6 can be as hard as level 8). So the need to speed up the gymnasts progress isn't there, in fact slowing it down is often more ideal. Those gyms that do go to 7-10 do not have 11 year old level 7's. The average age of a level 7 gymnast would be 13-15, to find one under 12 would be rare. Of course again these kids aren't headed for the olympics, you can't do this in Australia, you have to be on a separate training program from the beginning.

We also do not have college gymnastics or anything like that, so there is no reason to have kids reach a certain ability level by a certain age. And we don't have a thing where kids quit when they finish high school like they seem to have in the USA. Most high school graduates in Australia continue to live at home and study locally.

In many ways, I wish we did have a track like this (although as someone who started late and did progress through the JO levels - I wouldn't want it to be binding ). My state has started a prep optional program which has been very successful so far. It is a nice option to have but still a bit new. I am glad for it though. Unfortunately in the US it is even harder to retain girls at a certain point if they have not reached L8 or so because there are so many younger girls at the lower levels. I felt very self conscious as a 12 year old not already being L7/8...if I'd been just a year or two older at each level it might have been too much.

 

[pinklemonadeliz]

I find it rather odd that coaches in the same gym have coached such different styles. Why did they do that. Why did they teach 'bad habits'? Sounds to me like they didn't think this one through at all and have messed up bigtime. I hope your dd can pick herself up and get onto that level 4 team soon. It must be demoralising for children picked out 18 months ago as special and fast track for tops to suddenly find they are back in level 1 or 2.
Hopefully she will find competing fun and that will boost her while she relearns the things she needs to move on. Good luck to her.

Yes, I find it odd too - we parents who were in the program from the beginning are definitely just a bit frustrated (after all, when we were asked to come into the program none of us had any idea what tops was & were told by the coach that if they participated in this program they would "be able to skip jo levels and go straight to national competitions".... hmmmm - 'ya think?)

The four oldest girls who have been in the program since it's inception (at our gym) are definitely taken aback by their "demotions" - but at this point I guess it's a case of "shoulda, coulda, woulda" and we can't change the past. As a parent, I thought I was making the right decision for her, but I was wrong - and that is what bothers me the most, that I, in essence, wasted her time.

I'm just glad that the girls are now on the right track and hopefully they'll be able to break their bad habits rather quickly.

 

[Midget's Dad]

At our gym the girls in Level 2 compete but it is really just a series of fun meets. They are not sanctioned and it is done in a very fun manner but it lets the girls get a taste for being out there amidst all the distractions.

This year was the first time we took level 3s to USAG meets. The original plan was to have them do the same fun meets as the L2 girls. But our girls did so well that the HC decided to take them to some other meets, including States.

From my perspective I would say there is no right or wrong way. Competing L2 last year and 3 this year have really made some positive impacts on Bella. That said I do think had they spent last year just on skills she would have been L4 this year. But as is said so often this is a marathon not a sprint. I dont see it being a detriment.

 

[hannahsmom]

My dd's gym does not start competing until L4 and even then, they are just "fun" meets, so I have no personal experience with L3, but my niece competes L3 in a different state. My personal opinion (please understand that this is just my impression of what seems to be happening at her gym) is that her gym at least, focuses on getting the girls to L3 as quickly as possible so they can compete, with less focus on basics and form. My niece just started gymnastics last fall and they hurried her so fast into L3 so she can compete (whether that was the gym's idea or my sister-in-law, I don't know....whole other subject!) but her scores have been really, really low....understandably considering she hasn't been in gymnastics very long. But, for her, I sort of wish they didn't start competing until L4 so she would have had a full year to just get the basics before competing. I just think it's a lot of pressure to put on a little girl that early and I hope she gets a good foundation and doesn't get frustrated and/or hurt.

 

[kasmom]

Our gym starts competing at Level 2. We get to choose the meets that we want to go to. He suggests that we try to do 5 but it's not required. They are all in state meets. We have a pre-team class, a level 2 class, and a level 4-7 class. We are a small gym. We do not do level 3. I think our level 2 is more like a pre-team class that gets to attend some meets. I like that my daughter gets to get some experience competing at level 2.

 

[emorymom]

Just curious - I see many posts here about meets at level 3.

Our gym doesn't start meets until 4 - if there are 3 meets out there is there a reason that a gym wouldn't start letting the girls compete at 3's. It just seems like the more meet experience they have under their belts, the better when it comes to being under pressure, etc.

Is waiting until 4 the standard, or do most begin at 3?

My personal opinion is that if you want longevity your best bet is to wait as long as you can for real competition. Some kids who compete these lower levels and do well without too much work, will find they have to work harder to do as well later on. This may be discouraging for them. Also it's quite expensive to go to the meets. And here I will say, I generally find the meets pleasant but it makes for a very long day, disrupts normal routines, and some people strongly dislike crowds, sometimes inadequate seating, and long waits.

DD is competing level 2 because overall, it's the best program for her to be in for her and the family interests combined and that's what they do. I imagine she will compete level 3 next year.

 

[gymnastmom38]

I think all gyms are different. At ours in Nebraska, the competition starts at level 2. But to compete in USAG meets, they have to be level 4. HTH

 

[bluesocks]

We start competing at level 4. My daughter will have 2 full years of pretty intensive (in my view) practice before she ever begins to compete--and that is if she continues to show the progress she is making. Otherwise, it could be 3 full years.

blue