WAG Long Term Athlete Development in Gymnastics

[JessSyd]

We have a scoring system that doesn't tell a gymnast or the coach the exact score the gymnasts received in compulsory levels. So for example if a gymnast scores 8.6, they show a score category "8.5-9".

So do we for levels three and four, although our lowest scoring band is below seven. The girls get a ribbon representing their scoring band for each apparatus. It completely changes the focus of comprtitions to personal development. And by the time the girls get to level five where the system changed to just placing out to sixth, they are old enough to understand that all but the very best girls will walk away from most competitions empty handed. But by then they have experience making competitions meaningful by building personal goals into them,

 

[ProvB]

@ProvB So "Aspire" is basically TOPS / HOPES in the US?

Kind of. It’s basically a national developmental program for kids who get to JO7 level by age 9-11 to identify 2024 hopefuls. There are camps they can qualify for by video submission. There are Aspire 1 and Aspire 2 categories at competitions, with different routine requirements than JO, although an athlete can compete JO and Aspire in the same season.

Here is a link from Gymnastics Canada: Link Removed

And attached is a flow chart from a local (BC) club with their target ages for each level. Clearly LTAD has not trickled down to the club level for the most part. But alas, said club has girls on the Canadian Senior National Team, so there are families lined up out the door.

 

[JBS]

Yes... looks like Aspire is very similar to TOPS / HOPES.

I don't at all disagree with the ages that line up an athlete for greatness in gymnastics... but clubs really have to be careful with their selection process for these programs. If you are running a child 30 hours per week... they are at high risk for burnout... injury... etc. For this reason... there is no point in running the average talented hot shot in these programs... they really need to have something special... and the club needs to know what they are doing. And the most important thing... do they need to make TOPS A Camp? Do they need to WIN at HOPES? Do they need to be a true contender as a 10 year old level 10? Not necessarily... being a 10 year old level 10 says a lot in itself.

HOPES for example is kind of a crap show... lots of little kids to very big skills very poorly. Why? There are good reasons why one would do TOPS / HOPES... there are also good reasons why one would not. Our club currently does both TOPS / HOPES. My wife is the state TOPS manager. TOPS / HOPES can be a good thing if presented correctly to the right athlete... it can also be way to intense if presented incorrectly.

I think everyone knows that there is at least one club in the US that does not do TOPS / HOPES and current has 3 athletes on the National Team. They use the same coaching approach with every gymnast in the club "no timelines... no deadlines".

Now does everything play out at every club exactly the way they state it? No... but the fact that a club has a plan (unless they are just straight out lying) typically means that they will get closer and closer to their "ideal" as time moves on.

 

[JBS]

If used incorrectly... all of these programs are "elimination" programs instead of "coach educational" programs or "selection" programs.

If you are the 13 year old winner of HOPES... what are you? Just that... the 12-13 year old winner of HOPES... not necessarily the next Olympian... maybe... maybe not. After all... by that age many of your competitors aren't competing HOPES... they are already Jr. Elite. Some of your competitors may be level 10's also.

Why do we use the TOPS / HOPES programs... because we need to learn... great networking... great educational opportunities.

 

[LJL07]

In other words, tops/hopes is not necessarily of benefit to the child, but of benefit to the gym. I can see that. I am seeing more of the “elimination” type programs where too many kids get thrown into the hotshot program and virtually none of them make it. I think it’s money making in the short term for the gym but ensures that many of these kids will burn out fast.

 

[JBS]

In other words, tops/hopes is not necessarily of benefit to the child, but of benefit to the gym.

Exactly!

 

[Deleted member 14190]

sounds like a solid plan JBS.

 

[JBS]

sounds like a solid plan JBS.

Like I said... great networking... I've seen @coachp at some of the HOPES competitions.

 

[caligymmom]

There was a lot of hype during the last Winter Olympics about how Norway doesn't allow scorekeeping in youth sports until age 13. I think there's something to that.

Honestly, this trend toward the extreme when it comes to kids and sports (no scores or everyone gets a trophy), or even school (programs that don't do tests, homework, or grades) is really frustrating. It is a part of LIFE to win, lose, succeed, fail, have people be better than you, be in the middle of the pack, or be the best for a time. I don't believe sheltering kids from these realities helps them. If parents do their jobs and teach their children healthy responses to these realities of life, there shouldn't be a problem and we should end up with reasonably resilient, mature young adults/adults. Just because a coach puts a ton of emphasis on results doesn't mean you and your kid have to, and if it's too challenging to be the "louder voice" for your child, then a different program may be in order... just my 2 cents.

 

[Aussie_coach]

In many ways competing at the lower levels can slow down a gymnast, rather than accelerate her ahead. We see this a lot in Australia, where so many clubs compete a year at level 1, a year at level 2, a year at level 3 etc. Our level 4 is similar to your level 3 in the USA and our level 5 is similar to your level 4. So picture all your level 4’s being in their 5th year of competing!

The key window for learning higher skills is young, if you waste 5 years competing level 1-4, you can miss the window altogether very frequently.

Young kids are also not training high hours, those hours are being spent perfecting the nuances of a routine to try and get a deductionless level 3 performance, than they are on developing strength and skills.

The competition season also disrupts the learning process with youngsters. Non competing kids can skill develop 52 weeks a year. Competing kids must stop for several months and focus on routine performance, to fix a lot of the finer details that maturity will naturally fix anyway.

To top it off these levels are easy and can be competed on low hours, so there are lots and lots and lots of kids at each level. I don’t know about the Us, but where we live lower level comps could have 80-150 kids in a division, and 6 place awards given at the most. So kids often don’t get the best experience of competition anyway, driving them to perhaps think they aren’t great gymnasts and drive them from the sport. But in my experience the kids who win at level 3 are not usually the most talented gymnasts, so the system may be driving talented kids away.

The only issue is, if you hold kids back from competing until the levels/skills get “real”. They are brand new to competition at a level, where everyone else has been competing for years. They have learned how to do things like hold their nerves etc.

 

[FlippinLilysMom]

In many ways competing at the lower levels can slow down a gymnast, rather than accelerate her ahead. We see this a lot in Australia, where so many clubs compete a year at level 1, a year at level 2, a year at level 3 etc. Our level 4 is similar to your level 3 in the USA and our level 5 is similar to your level 4. So picture all your level 4’s being in their 5th year of competing!

The key window for learning higher skills is young, if you waste 5 years competing level 1-4, you can miss the window altogether very frequently.

Young kids are also not training high hours, those hours are being spent perfecting the nuances of a routine to try and get a deductionless level 3 performance, than they are on developing strength and skills.

The competition season also disrupts the learning process with youngsters. Non competing kids can skill develop 52 weeks a year. Competing kids must stop for several months and focus on routine performance, to fix a lot of the finer details that maturity will naturally fix anyway.

To top it off these levels are easy and can be competed on low hours, so there are lots and lots and lots of kids at each level. I don’t know about the Us, but where we live lower level comps could have 80-150 kids in a division, and 6 place awards given at the most. So kids often don’t get the best experience of competition anyway, driving them to perhaps think they aren’t great gymnasts and drive them from the sport. But in my experience the kids who win at level 3 are not usually the most talented gymnasts, so the system may be driving talented kids away.

The only issue is, if you hold kids back from competing until the levels/skills get “real”. They are brand new to competition at a level, where everyone else has been competing for years. They have learned how to do things like hold their nerves etc.

At my daughter's gym they don't begin competing until level 4, they do have a level 3 team but the girls are just learning the foundational skills and working on getting stronger. Most of the level 4 girls compete level 4 for one year, they do a score out meet for level 5 and move to level 6. They have been using this format for a few years now and it seems to be working quite well. And the upper level girls (including the level 10s and elite) don't train more than 25 hours per week during the school year.

 

[sce]

And here is the model that Canada built specific for gymnastics...

Link Removed

Interesting... I have never seen this before.

Terminology wise and practically for gymnastics that Canadian gymnastics chart makes a lot of sense.

 

[bogwoppit]

Terminology wise and practically for gymnastics that Canadian gymnastics chart makes a lot of sense.

Canada does have a path for girls not headed to elite, but the elite path is very good and has the girls competing around L7 skills at age 8. But in a totally different stream than regional and provincial girls.

Girls can also move in and out of the streams too, which allows for girls to catch up, or step back, as they feel fit.

It can mean girls need to make choices about gyms earlier though, many coaches are not qualified to coach the elite levels, unlike the USA our coaching requirements are pretty considerable.

 

[raenndrops]

In many ways competing at the lower levels can slow down a gymnast, rather than accelerate her ahead. We see this a lot in Australia, where so many clubs compete a year at level 1, a year at level 2, a year at level 3 etc. Our level 4 is similar to your level 3 in the USA and our level 5 is similar to your level 4. So picture all your level 4’s being in their 5th year of competing!

The key window for learning higher skills is young, if you waste 5 years competing level 1-4, you can miss the window altogether very frequently.

Young kids are also not training high hours, those hours are being spent perfecting the nuances of a routine to try and get a deductionless level 3 performance, than they are on developing strength and skills.

The competition season also disrupts the learning process with youngsters. Non competing kids can skill develop 52 weeks a year. Competing kids must stop for several months and focus on routine performance, to fix a lot of the finer details that maturity will naturally fix anyway.

To top it off these levels are easy and can be competed on low hours, so there are lots and lots and lots of kids at each level. I don’t know about the Us, but where we live lower level comps could have 80-150 kids in a division, and 6 place awards given at the most. So kids often don’t get the best experience of competition anyway, driving them to perhaps think they aren’t great gymnasts and drive them from the sport. But in my experience the kids who win at level 3 are not usually the most talented gymnasts, so the system may be driving talented kids away.

The only issue is, if you hold kids back from competing until the levels/skills get “real”. They are brand new to competition at a level, where everyone else has been competing for years. They have learned how to do things like hold their nerves etc.

We start competing at JO L3. Most of the girls will either move up to L4 the next season or repeat if needed.
We rarely do more than 1 level per season ... it is usually held for older girls who compete for the Junior High team in September - October. They do optional routines in Junior High (Xcel Platinum / L6 are ideal), so if they are going into JO L5 for us, they will have the opportunity to score out 2x and then move on to L6. If they were not on the Jr. High team, then they will compete a full season of L5.

This season, we have 2 girls that MAY do both L4 and L5 this season, but it is doubtful. They both had a great L3 season (they both placed in the top 6 AA at YMCA Nationals out of 30 in each of their age groups). They are training in a L4/L5 group most of the time, but we will have to see how they progress this fall and how they score in the first couple meets of the season.

 

[Aussie_coach]

At my daughter's gym they don't begin competing until level 4, they do have a level 3 team but the girls are just learning the foundational skills and working on getting stronger. Most of the level 4 girls compete level 4 for one year, they do a score out meet for level 5 and move to level 6. They have been using this format for a few years now and it seems to be working quite well. And the upper level girls (including the level 10s and elite) don't train more than 25 hours per week during the school year.

It sounds like you attend a gym that develops the kids intelligently, and Lily is showing the results! When kids are in the gym excessive hours, a lot of time can be wasted. Better to get in there, focus on what is needed and provide some sense of balance.

Doing the same skills over, and over again often in one session often produces bad habits. The kids hit a point when their technique will be declining, not increasing. At this point the gymnast will begin practising bad habits.

 

[Outsider]

Where I’m from (unfortunately not a country that brings home many Olympic medals, but anyway), children only start competing in the year they turn 9. They might do local competitions or smaller competitions organized between different clubs, but no regionals/nationals or whatsoever. Routines are not full routines yet for those levels, but vault timers or basics on bars. Even at 9, kids do not do full routines; on bars they do a routine using straps the first year, all the focus is on basics. Must say that, even though we do not perform too good internationally at the moment, they do seem to have the right skills by the time they are 15. Considered the fact we do not have home school programs and children under the age of 12 do usually only have 1 (four hour) practice a day, I don’t think it is a bad thing. In the last years more and more attention goes to the emotional wellbeing of the child in the first place, since to many gymnast ended up with mental health issues. I think it is a good thing; younger children have a normal school day and there is not a whole lot of pressure on the very young ones when it comes to competing.

Also; I agree that by the time they are 7/8, not getting a medal should not lead to tears, cries and broken egos. Also, I think al the individual apparatus medals are too much. Kids under the age of 7 should just have a great day and maybe get a diploma. Or, as my old gym used to do; hand out medals based on scores. So everyone deserved one, but for examp scores of 32 and below were bronze, 32-36 silver and 36 and up is gold. Of course, we all wanted a gold, which made us work really hard. But all to become better, not necessarily ‘the best.’

 

[sce]

Where I’m from (unfortunately not a country that brings home many Olympic medals, but anyway), children only start competing in the year they turn 9. They might do local competitions or smaller competitions organized between different clubs, but no regionals/nationals or whatsoever. Routines are not full routines yet for those levels, but vault timers or basics on bars. Even at 9, kids do not do full routines; on bars they do a routine using straps the first year, all the focus is on basics. Must say that, even though we do not perform too good internationally at the moment, they do seem to have the right skills by the time they are 15. Considered the fact we do not have home school programs and children under the age of 12 do usually only have 1 (four hour) practice a day, I don’t think it is a bad thing. In the last years more and more attention goes to the emotional wellbeing of the child in the first place, since to many gymnast ended up with mental health issues. I think it is a good thing; younger children have a normal school day and there is not a whole lot of pressure on the very young ones when it comes to competing.

Also; I agree that by the time they are 7/8, not getting a medal should not lead to tears, cries and broken egos. Also, I think al the individual apparatus medals are too much. Kids under the age of 7 should just have a great day and maybe get a diploma. Or, as my old gym used to do; hand out medals based on scores. So everyone deserved one, but for examp scores of 32 and below were bronze, 32-36 silver and 36 and up is gold. Of course, we all wanted a gold, which made us work really hard. But all to become better, not necessarily ‘the best.’

This is where a discrepancy in definitions comes in. Most kids here that compete, we are not talking big regional or national meets. Just lots of local competitions. Some do get to higher levels very young where there are regionals. But anything in the national scale is usually not until 9 or 10 and that is rare. Most at those levels are much older.

 

[Outsider]

This is where a discrepancy in definitions comes in. Most kids here that compete, we are not talking big regional or national meets. Just lots of local competitions. Some do get to higher levels very young where there are regionals. But anything in the national scale is usually not until 9 or 10 and that is rare. Most at those levels are much older.

Discrepancy in definitions; yes. But even then there is abig difference. Meets organized by clubs here are completely different, since there is not thing as entrance fees or fancy flags. Clubs are absolutely no further than an hour apart. There is hardly any audience, usually just the parent that drove. aTo be honest, as a parent you are happy if you can actually have seat, most parents will either stand or maybe sit on a stack of mats or unused beam. Most girls won’t wear long-sleeves, no marching up, judges are usually club volenteers. Making it to nationals at the age of 9 means (worse case scenario) driving 3 hours and having one day of competition. Only clubs that have the early meet and do need to drive for over an hour stay in hotels. The difference in pressure for the girls is huge. Skipping an afternoon of school is already a big deal for a 10 year old!

 

[JBS]

Looks like Canada has updated their LTAD plan to define sports as "early specialization" or "late specialization"... good update...

Link Removed

 

[JBS]

Feel free to post on this one too.