WAG level 4 to 7 gym policy

[gasrgoose]

It is possible to be very successful in compulsories and not have gymnast repeating AND still have a successful optional program. At our gym you only repeat a level if you weren't successful and don't have the skills for the next level. But our teams do very well in state competitions. Example: Level 5 2011 (fall season) our team (all first year level 5's) was 3rd at state behind a couple of teams with repeaters. The same girls scored out of 6 in fall 2012 and then all competed 7 spring of 2013. They were team state champions at level 7. As a side note, the teams with the repeaters at level 5 were not in the picture for the level 7 team competition. The entire team will compete level 8 next year minus 2 girls (one who has reached her physical limit at level 7 and another who switched gyms)

They move the girls at whatever pace they are learning. My daughter will compete 8 next year and it will be her 3rd complete year of competing. So far she has competed 1 meet at level 4, a level 5 season, 3 meets at level 6 and a level 7 season.

 

[gymmomtotwo]

At our gym, you move when you have the skills. In my experience, most kids seem to want to keep up with their peers and move up a level if they can rather than repeat a level and win. The goal at our gym is fall new level 4, next fall level 5 and level 6 or 7 in the spring. To me a level 5 who gets 20th at state should be considered a more advanced gymnast than the winning level 4. (I'm not talking future potential, but instead skill level right now). Someone with a level 7 skill level has no business competing against level 5s. I understand that you will improve and gains skills over the meet season, but you should start the season at the right skill level.

 

[profmom]

I think this discussion is a direct product of the flaws in a (USAG) system that attempts to offer a competitive experience to the majority of kids that walk through the door, stick around for a few years, and then start competing at L3 or L4. The problem is that the system makes no distiction or provision for programs that are more recreational, and programs that wish to make L10 a possibility for any child who can summon up the requisite collective ability, discipline, determination, and sacrifice.

. . .

I get the whole "it's not fair" sentiment, but the USAG program isn't based on fairness, it's based on inclusion, participation, and competition. There really is nobody you can fairly place blame on when you consider the vastly diverse and numerous perspectives. Possibly there will come a day that splits the program into two camps..... one that, in a sense, excludes "optional or die" programs, and another that bears the warning "enter at your own risk."

If I understand it right, this is sort of what the new JO boys' program is attempting to do with its JO and JE tracks, though it's certainly not two separate programs. But at least the way it's working out with my son's team, the gym has, in effect, two sets of optionals: one hard-core, Future Stars, hell-bent on competing strongly at L10 and another set of somewhat older boys who are doing fine at L8 and are enjoying the heck out of their gymnastics but would not have been competitive in the younger group of hotshots. In my son's program, older gymnasts are pushed into optionals the minute the coaches can construct routines that meet the minimum requirements.

Do you think that a similar model could work for girls? Or is that pretty much where you think the JO versus prep op/Xcel is already at?

(As for the girls' side, the philosophy seems to be move 'em up when they can do the skills in a basically competent way and try to have them spend more of their gymnastics lives as optionals than as compulsories. I wouldn't say there's a big rush to get girls to L10, but the gym is not one that will hold girls back in compulsories until they are scoring above 36 AA routinely. For the last couple of years as L6s and L7s, for instance, the girls have only worked on front handspring vaults a week or so before each meet -- for all the rest of the time they've been preparing for Yurchenkos, even though some of them could have improved their AA scores by putting more work into developing excellent FHS vaults.)

 

[gymmomtotwo]

I thought the xcel program was put in place for inclusion, participation, and to let competition be more recreation based. That is definitely the way it is looked at and treated at our gym. The kids with all of the pieces in place to become optional gymnasts (talent, work ethic, parental support, etc)are put in the JO program. The goal is to get the kids thru compulsories in two years. We have a big team of Xcel kids who have different goals. I know in some states Xcel is treated differently, but here it is a more inclusive program and I think it is intended to be.

 

[raenndrops]

If you mean they will do 2 years of 4 then score out of 5, yes, that fairly common and really they wouldn't be doing 3 levels in 1yr. They will be scoring out of L5, but that extra yr of 4 is really their training year for 5+skills. Their skills will be in place, They just won't have the competition experience from that level. And the new 6 is a transitional level. I am guessing there will be a lot of girls skipping it, or scoring out of 5 to do 6. Either way, most gyms will spend only 1 yr doing 5/6, not 2yrs. And in regions that have a fall compuls and winter optional season, many higher end gyms will likely have girls compete 5 in fall then 7 in the spring, skipping over 6.

Now, if you mean they are only competing 2 *meets* of L4, then scoring out of 5 and moving to 6/7 all in one season, then that would be highly unusual, especially for an entire team. Maybe 1 really talented gymnast but not am entire team.

I think the poster meant 2 meets at 4 ... because she talked about going from 4-7 in 1 year.

I know a girl who competed a season at old 3, a season at level 5... competed a score out meet in April, and will be in 7 this season.