WAG Mobility scores raised for 2017

[KSLaura]

Allowing kids to go between xcel and JO gives (via score outs), gives gyms and kids more flexibility. We have coaches leave frequently and have had our JO program disappear several times because of this. Kids get grouped together into Xcel and do score out meets so they can re-build the JO program later down the road. It also gives more flexibility for military families (we are 5 miles from an Army post) to transfer between the two programs, as they move at different times throughout the year. I think this new mobility score will keep a lot of newer programs from being able to successfully start up a JO program.

 

[raenndrops]

Interesting perspective about your DD and the motivation to avoid early burnout, thank you for sharing! You raise another interesting question about judging, too... No doubt some of these in-house score-out meets are 'generous' - I'm wondering, though, if that would impact a judge's reputation at all if done routinely? Scoring a kid at 34 who might get a 33 at most meets is one thing, but bumping a kid who should really get a 31-32 up to 34 could potentially start to look shady to other judges/coaches/gyms perhaps?

Just another aspect to this whole picture that I wonder about...

Some gyms get the meet sanction, but don't even run it like a meet. They run it like a practice. The judge may end up judging several routines on each event for a single girl… then they take the top scores on each event and add them together for the AA score. That way, each gymnast is putting her best foot forward and the judge is judging the individual routines honestly - it just isn't a meet setting.
No looking shady to anyone because they did actually score the routines they saw and gave them honest scores.

If you are doing a "shady" score out meet, the best thing to do is have the meet start on bars. The judge takes the minimum deduction possible (but honestly) when there is a range. They do this on each event, ending on vault. It is very possible for a gymnast to have an exceptional vault one time and it never happen again. I have seen it happen at YMCA Nationals where they are anything but generous and one of our girls scored a 9.5 on vault. Her previous best was only a 9.1.
In the shady meet, if the gymnast makes an atypical mistake, the judge allows them to restart the routine.

 

[KSLaura]

Raenndrops- Do you know if this will affect kids who have already 'scored out' of level 4 using the previous scores (31 and up) who are currently preparing for level 5? Or will they have a grace period and this will only affect kids who compete level 4 this coming season.

 

[raenndrops]

Raenndrops- Do you know if this will affect kids who have already 'scored out' of level 4 using the previous scores (31 and up) who are currently preparing for level 5? Or will they have a grace period and this will only affect kids who compete level 4 this coming season.

Since it does not go into affect until August 1, score outs before that date should be acceptable at the old mobility score.

 

[gymgal]

I think if a kid is trying to go from XCel and enter into JO at any of the optional levels, they really shouldn't have a problem getting a 34 in L4. I mean the bar routine is essentially 2 kips and a squat on? How can you possibly be ready for optionals if you can't do L4 skills good enough to get a 34 - a 34 isn't the same as a 36 - you can have a few technical issues and maybe even a fall on beam and still get that when you have all the skills.

And if you can't get a 34 w/ L4 skills, how are you gonna get the L5 score - L5 scoring is much harder and the skills are a direct progression on L4.

a 34 is an average of an 8.5 on each event. That is no small feat for many gymnasts. Particularly for xcel gymnasts who typically learn the routines in a very short period of time - precisely just to get the score-out. It is not the skills that they do not have, it is the precision of the routines - routines that compulsory gyms spend months working on. Girls transitioning from xcel to optionals are not looking for perfection. They just need the base score. Yes, gyms will now have to focus more on the dance/rhythm/form. Some people may say that form should be there regardless but not necessarily for certain skills that may literally be used in only 1 meet (to score out) and never be competed again. The cartwheel or holding a handstand to 1/4 turn dismount on beam comes to mind. as does the backward roll extension on floor or the front hip circle and half turn dismount on bars.

It is what it is and the gyms who use this path will adapt, no doubt, but I fear the gyms to be most harmed are the small rural gyms who build their teams will a lot less talent pool and whose focus is on keeping the girls in gymnastics as long as possible both for the gym's bottom line and for the girls themselves. These gyms often have girls competing with safe but not perfected routines, scoring in the 32-34 range. This may force many more of them to shift to xcel only platforms or a very small JO team with a much larger xcel team. Older girls will not stay in the sport if they are having to repeat every level 2+ years.

I admit this is my initial reaction as well. I am curious to hear from people who have gone through Xcel into Optionals path who may find it less reasonable, and the reasons why.

dd went the xcel to optional route and did a score-out meet for old 5/6. She spent about an hour each practice (3 days/week?) for a couple of weeks learning the routines for both levels (they were similar but not exactly the same) before testing out. No way was it enough time to "perfect" the routines. But she knew them enough to get through them. She had the skills but not the form and rhythm. I was not there for the meet and was never told her scores but the coach mentioned she scored well above the number needed. I am thinking in the high 33-34 range, given what I saw of her practice routines and the fact that she literally had just learned her FHS vt within the prior 2 months. She has gone on to have good optional years, and is going into her 3rd L10 year.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

a 34 is an average of an 8.5 on each event. That is no small feat for many gymnasts. Particularly for xcel gymnasts who typically learn the routines in a very short period of time - precisely just to get the score-out. It is not the skills that they do not have, it is the precision of the routines - routines that compulsory gyms spend months working on. Girls transitioning from xcel to optionals are not looking for perfection. They just need the base score. Yes, gyms will now have to focus more on the dance/rhythm/form. Some people may say that form should be there regardless but not necessarily for certain skills that may literally be used in only 1 meet (to score out) and never be competed again. The cartwheel or holding a handstand to 1/4 turn dismount on beam comes to mind. as does the backward roll extension on floor or the front hip circle and half turn dismount on bars.

It is what it is and the gyms who use this path will adapt, no doubt, but I fear the gyms to be most harmed are the small rural gyms who build their teams will a lot less talent pool and whose focus is on keeping the girls in gymnastics as long as possible both for the gym's bottom line and for the girls themselves. These gyms often have girls competing with safe but not perfected routines, scoring in the 32-34 range. This may force many more of them to shift to xcel only platforms or a very small JO team with a much larger xcel team. Older girls will not stay in the sport if they are having to repeat every level 2+ years.


dd went the xcel to optional route and did a score-out meet for old 5/6. She spent about an hour each practice (3 days/week?) for a couple of weeks learning the routines for both levels (they were similar but not exactly the same) before testing out. No way was it enough time to "perfect" the routines. But she knew them enough to get through them. She had the skills but not the form and rhythm. I was not there for the meet and was never told her scores but the coach mentioned she scored well above the number needed. I am thinking in the high 33-34 range, given what I saw of her practice routines and the fact that she literally had just learned her FHS vt within the prior 2 months. She has gone on to have good optional years, and is going into her 3rd L10 year.

Congrats to your dd! That's a wonderful accomplishment. I'm glad to hear stories of girls who are taking a similar path to my dd. There is still a lot of negativity towards Xcel in general, let alone using it as an alternative for compulsories. You wouldn't believe how many times I've been chatting with someone in the gymnastics world I haven't met before (mostly other moms) and they say oh is she doing 6 again this year? Did she compete L5 too? and when I say no and explain the path she took I get the wrinkled up nose face with an "Oh, that's interesting." LOL! I mean is my dd ever going to be beating kids that were superstar compulsories that go on to just dominate optionals? Probably not. She just wants the chance to compete at the optional level, even if she's not the most naturally talented kid out there. Luckily though dd has never run into kind of negativity towards Xcel with other gymnasts, although I hear that happens too.

Another thing to consider is that Xcel gyms or even Xcel to optionals gyms often are lower hours. My dd went from working out 6 hours in Xcel silver (which is when she scored out of L4) to working out 12 hours for Level 6 (and for scoring out L5) and that was still pretty low compared to other gyms doing the same level. It can be a lot harder to perfect those compulsory routines on less hours.

 

[Gymmamabear]

Maybe they are doing this to STOP the Xcel thing! My DD had so suffer through compulsories, LOL, and a 34 was not hard for her. Maybe they are doing this to stop it so Xcel is used how it was intended and to quit have girls hopping around???? (No clue, just a theory b/c I feel like Xcel is losing it's purpose)

 

[Jard.the.gymnast]

Maybe they are doing this to STOP the Xcel thing! My DD had so suffer through compulsories, LOL, and a 34 was not hard for her. Maybe they are doing this to stop it so Xcel is used how it was intended and to quit have girls hopping around???? (No clue, just a theory b/c I feel like Xcel is losing it's purpose)

But in that case, wouldn't it be easier to just make a rule that doesn't allow mobility between the two? That you can compete JO and Xcel after, but have to compete at least a full season of 4 or 5 before entering optionals, if you already have competed in Xcel before? That would be more useful IMO

 

[Gymmamabear]

True!! Maybe they don't want to fully make a rule they just want to *discourage*??? No clue, I was just theorizing!! ;-)

 

[raenndrops]

But in that case, wouldn't it be easier to just make a rule that doesn't allow mobility between the two? That you can compete JO and Xcel after, but have to compete at least a full season of 4 or 5 before entering optionals, if you already have competed in Xcel before? That would be more useful IMO

But JO only gyms don't require a full season of 4 or 5 before entering optionals. This would be discriminating against gymnasts who spent time in Xcel.
At our gym, if a girl is older (7th grade or higher... and competed for the Jr. High team), she can score out of L5 twice - gym requirement, then move to L6. Some of these girls didn't compete a full season of L4 either.

 

[wallinbl]

It is very nerve-racking to watch girls compete skills in optionals that they are not ready for, or that they just should not be doing.

Yep, especially the meets early in the season. Having seen the scary stuff getting thrown at optional meets by girls that don't appear ready, it's not surprising to see qualifying scores increase a bit. While I'm sure it's frustrating to some paths, as they'll have to spend a bit more time on the choreography in order to score out, it may well be necessary to counter some of the coaches that seem too willing to let a girl chuck skills before she's ready.

 

[ascarter1]

This isn't the only thing that is changing come August 1st. Lv 9 and lv 10 requirements are getting tougher which will probably cause lower SV for the next year. This kind of stuff trickles down. Personally, I don't feel like these mobility scores are out of line. Compulsory levels build upon one another, so if you can't score 32/34 in your level then you are most likely going to struggle in the next level. Call me crazy, but I see this as a good thing!

 

[cadybearsmommy]

This isn't the only thing that is changing come August 1st. Lv 9 and lv 10 requirements are getting tougher which will probably cause lower SV for the next year. This kind of stuff trickles down. Personally, I don't feel like these mobility scores are out of line. Compulsory levels build upon one another, so if you can't score 32/34 in your level then you are most likely going to struggle in the next level. Call me crazy, but I see this as a good thing!

Oh geez...isn't Level 9 and 10 tough enough already? LOL. That worries me a bit b/c the jump from 8 to 9 is already a huge jump, this will make it that much harder. Or maybe coaches will just opt to have them compete with lower start values?

 

[ascarter1]

Oh geez...isn't Level 9 and 10 tough enough already? LOL. That worries me a bit b/c the jump from 8 to 9 is already a huge jump, this will make it that much harder. Or maybe coaches will just opt to have them compete with lower start values?

Right?! When my dd (who is training 9) was reading them, she looked at me and said "I think I'm going to bed now"
It's definitely going to be an interesting year!

 

[bookworm]

Maybe they are doing this to STOP the Xcel thing! My DD had so suffer through compulsories, LOL, and a 34 was not hard for her. Maybe they are doing this to stop it so Xcel is used how it was intended and to quit have girls hopping around???? (No clue, just a theory b/c I feel like Xcel is losing it's purpose)

Xcel's purpose was to keep kids who would otherwise leave the sport, in the sport....and it is a HUGE moneymaker for USAG because of the kids that have remained in gymnastics on Xcel teams. If these new mobility rules start impacting the numbers of kids in the Xcel program by them leaving the sport, and not going to JO teams, don't worry , the rules will change again!

 

[Gymmommy71]

Oh geez...isn't Level 9 and 10 tough enough already? LOL. That worries me a bit b/c the jump from 8 to 9 is already a huge jump, this will make it that much harder. Or maybe coaches will just opt to have them compete with lower start values?

Hmmm...them making 9/10 harder is interesting. I also heard they are considering adding an XCel level above Diamond (which is like 7-9 skills now, but most do L8-ish skills) - maybe they are doing that to make a place for all those kids that just don't want the committment of L9/L10 and/or don't want to be stuck in L8 forever.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Xcel's purpose was to keep kids who would otherwise leave the sport, in the sport....and it is a HUGE moneymaker for USAG because of the kids that have remained in gymnastics on Xcel teams. If these new mobility rules start impacting the numbers of kids in the Xcel program by them leaving the sport, and not going to JO teams, don't worry , the rules will change again!

Yes this.....

 

[Deleted member 18037]

A 32 is in an average of 8 on all 4 events. A 34 and average of 8.5. An average.

These do not seem unreasonable to me. Nor do they seem unreasonable for kids wanting and able to move up (or in) as the case maybe. For kids on the cusp, it may take a bit longer but that seems to be a good thing from my point of view, it means their skills are better (more solid).

Just thinking about our gym and state. These are pretty much the scores to qualify for states. All our girls, qualify at the first or second meet of the season. In 5 years at our gym, I have only seen one gymmie not qualify for states. That was this year. And the kid had a lot going on personally and missed a bunch of gym. And she missed qualifying by less than 0.5.

 

[Natasha]

This isn't the only thing that is changing come August 1st. Lv 9 and lv 10 requirements are getting tougher which will probably cause lower SV for the next year. This kind of stuff trickles down. Personally, I don't feel like these mobility scores are out of line. Compulsory levels build upon one another, so if you can't score 32/34 in your level then you are most likely going to struggle in the next level. Call me crazy, but I see this as a good thing!

Just to be clear, the L9 and L10 'up to level' deductions that you are talking about are separate from start values. The start values have not changed. Also the 'up to level' deduction is not new, it is just spelled out now to help with a consistent deduction. The deduction was always there, it just was never specified what constituted 'up to level' so there was variance from meet to meet and region to region on taking these deductions. But you are right in that the 'up to level' that they have spelled out has some high expectations and there will probably be .1-.2 taken off routines that previously were not.

 

[Natasha]

I like the 34 requirement. Ever since the invention of L6, there are more girls rushing through compulsories to get to L6 because it is so flexible in skills. I think the L4 34 requirement will help ensure that L6 girls are prepared for those skills. Also, it is nice that they made L4 the stricter score and not L5 as many gyms are simply scoring out of L5 and competing L6 in place of L5. A 34 is not unreasonable at L4. For girls that are just doing a score out meet, many judges are just looking to make sure they have solid skills and not being picky about text.