WAG Mobility scores raised for 2017

[Deleted member 18037]

What is the end goal for these programs where kids go less than 10 hours a week - why not just stay in XCel if the mobility scores are an issue? If the rumor I heard, that they are adding an XCel level above Diamond where top level skills can be performed, why not shoot for that instead of scoring low in JO optionals?

I kind of wish the JO would come out w/ some weekly hours recommendations for the various levels and streams so people know where their gym stands.

Yep I don't take much personally but this nonsense I do.

You really don't want to go down that path. If a kid can achieve at whatever hours. Let them. If a kid can achieve no matter how old, tall or wide. Let them.

My girl has made it L6 on 9 hours a week during the school year. With scores of 35-38. And has podium finishes at states including some 1sts. None of those mobility scores would be a problem for nearly any kid at our lower hour gym where they max out at 12 hours a week.

We left a gym that wanted to track her to Xcel because she couldn't possibly be "a successful JO" competitor if she couldn't do the hours. I called bull then and still do.

They know the expectations. Does it really matter if a kid is willing to take longer to score out of 4 to get to 5???? Whose business is it except the kid, kids family and gym.

My kid has met the new mobility to get to 7, on 9 hours a week. Don't know if she will actually get there or spend a bit more time at 6. And why would anyone care that she is a turtle.
Our checks clear, she is happy and moving along. Her coaches are fine with it. Met the min. Its all good.

And oddly the parent with the low hour turtle says no problem with the new mobility scores.

 

[raenndrops]

What is the end goal for these programs where kids go less than 10 hours a week - why not just stay in XCel if the mobility scores are an issue? If the rumor I heard, that they are adding an XCel level above Diamond where top level skills can be performed, why not shoot for that instead of scoring low in JO optionals?

I kind of wish the JO would come out w/ some weekly hours recommendations for the various levels and streams so people know where their gym stands.

The end goal of our program is to develop well rounded girls. By keeping our hours low, our gymnasts can participate in other activities and be competitive in gymnastics. We have Level 3 through Level 8/9. We also have Xcel Gold and Platinum.
Some of our girls go on to compete for the junior high and/or high school team when the time comes.
Junior High team girls can also compete a full season for us because the seasons do not overlap. High School team girls can only compete part of the season with us (early in the season and again after their last high school season). Because of this, some choose to just compete for the high school team or our team.
Junior High team follows Xcel Platinum rules with high school bonus possibility (9.7 SV without bonuses...and SR are only worth 0.2 instead of 0.5). The girls who competed L5 in 6th grade compete L6 routines, modified for Platinum. The girls who are already L6+ compete routines that work (L6-L7). Those who have only competed L3 or L4 compete Xcel Gold or L6 routines. When our season starts, these girls usually decide to compete Xcel Gold unless they are ready for L5. They can compete a few meets at L5 and score out into L6 to finish the season.
High School team follows L8 rules with high school bonus. By the time they get to high school, they have a couple seasons of optionals under their belt - Xcel Gold or L6+.
Our gymnasts aren't in it to compete in college or go elite. They stay in shape, have fun, and can compete inin meets up to and including National competitions. If they compete throughout high school, they can even earn a scholarship from the Y.

 

[3rd_time_around]

As I said, we have vastly different ideas of what a good score is. I've never been part of a program that is happy to get a score that meets the minimum. I actually have never even looked at the previous minimums because it would not have ever been an issue. I've seen a few gyms in our area that are competing kids in that score range and after the parents sit through a season and see other gyms they typically leave those gyms.

So USAG is raising the standard. Someone must feel their is a benefit to doing compulsories and striving for more than a 31 AA. Programs that in the past are happy to have kids score a 32 in level 4 and move on will have to adjust their expectations. I'm failing to see how it's a bad thing. It seems to me they are saying loud and clear that level 4 is a fundamental level that they want gyms to spend more time on.

Our gym wouldn't even think of letting a girl score out if she wasn't scoring minimum 37 consistently. Even the 38 scorers have to have the skills for the next level before scoring out.

I think 34 is a good needed score to get out of level 4. It will keep gyms from rushing girls through just to get to optionals, and from rushing Xcel girls through just so they can skip compulsory levels just to get on the JO track. I think it was a long time coming, and it's a good standard.

 

[MILgymFAM]

It really sucks for girls like my DD. She will never ever see a 37 in her life at any level. If she had been at gyms that required that she would have been an absolute non-start. She has never performed a single skill that's unsafe (she's burdened with an overabundance of caution), but she's a solid 32-34 scorer. She's just not clean and likely never will be. Why couldn't she stay Xcel (where it's apparently more okay to be a low scorer)? Because she wanted all the hours. Ha.

 

[raenndrops]

Why couldn't she stay Xcel (where it's apparently more okay to be a low scorer)? Because she wanted all the hours. Ha.

Lol, I know what you mean.
The REALLY funny thing is that at YMCA Nationals, Xcel Divisions have the highest qualifying scores.
L3-4 need a 32.00. L5-8 need a 31.0 (or a 33 at the level below). Xcel Silver, Gold, Platinum, and Diamond all need a 33.0 to qualify... And no option to "compete up" no matter how they score.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

I don't think there should be hour minimums for JO, mostly b/c I know many gyms could be more efficient with their training and what gets done in 12 hours at one gym could be accomplished in 9 at another. Depends on gym culture, staffing, and equipment.

 

[raenndrops]

Our gym wouldn't even think of letting a girl score out if she wasn't scoring minimum 37 consistently. Even the 38 scorers have to have the skills for the next level before scoring out.

I think 34 is a good needed score to get out of level 4. It will keep gyms from rushing girls through just to get to optionals, and from rushing Xcel girls through just so they can skip compulsory levels just to get on the JO track. I think it was a long time coming, and it's a good standard.

Wouldn't just raising the minimum age to compete the levels work just as well?
They allow you to compete L3 at the age of 6. At 7, you can compete L4, L5, L6, and L7. The only way to compete L7 at the age of 7 would be to score out of L4 and L5.
By raising the minimum ages, gyms wouldn't be trying to fast track their little superstars and older girls wouldn't necessarily be so "behind" (I don't consider them behind, but a lot of gyms do for some strange reason - maybe it is the insanely low age at which you are allowed to compete L7).
Maybe it should look something like this:
L1 = 4 … L2 = 5 … L3 = 6 … L4 = 7 … L5/6 = 8 … L7 = 9 … L8 = 10 … L9 = 11 … L10 = 12

This might even help stem the early recruiting for college gymnastics.

If we look at the minimum ages for Xcel, we see:
Bronze = 5 (Roughly equivalent to L1/L2)
Silver = 6 (Roughly equivalent to L2/L3)… with some L4
Gold = 7 (Roughly equivalent to L3/L4)… with some L5/6
Platinum = 8 (Roughly equivalent to L5/L6)… with some L7
Diamond = 9 (Roughly equivalent to L7)… and above.

 

[Aero]

According to what I heard at congress, there are many reasons for this change, including many that have already been mentioned earlier in this thread. You guys are very astute!

The way I look at it, this change is only a good thing! We have incredible depth as a country, and this will only help us extract more of the top talent for our national team, which will help us on our international assignments. The JO program is still one of the main ways for girls to reach elite, in addition to the TOPs and HOPES programs too. By raising the qualifying "level up" score for Level 5 to 34, USAG is essentially broadcasting publicly that coaching has to become stronger around the nation. Yes, it also promotes more focus on important basics, which Level 4 is very full of, but this decision is largely based on bumping up the quality of the coaching at gyms around the country (which doesn't really have that much to do with the amount of training hours either). It also does a lot more for the safety of the athletes.

Yes, it is a higher standard, but guess what: this sport is entirely about high standards! This is gymnastics for crying out loud! USAG is increasing its standards, and there are very clear reasons why, so in my opinion people just need to deal with it. There are so many gyms out there, not to mention all the other programs, leagues and disciplines that there is essentially a catch-all for everyone. Even so, there is no way to please everybody. Please keep that in mind.

 

[3rd_time_around]

It really sucks for girls like my DD. She will never ever see a 37 in her life at any level. If she had been at gyms that required that she would have been an absolute non-start. She has never performed a single skill that's unsafe (she's burdened with an overabundance of caution), but she's a solid 32-34 scorer. She's just not clean and likely never will be. Why couldn't she stay Xcel (where it's apparently more okay to be a low scorer)? Because she wanted all the hours. Ha.

I didn't mean that girls don't get to move up unless they score 37s consistently, I was referring to the score-out that allows a gymnasts to compete 1 meet at a level and then move on to the next level. Pretty much every girl that qualifies to the state meet--which is usually everybody--gets to move up unless there are serious issues or other circumstances.

 

[Aussie_coach]

According to what I heard at congress, there are many reasons for this change, including many that have already been mentioned earlier in this thread. You guys are very astute!

The way I look at it, this change is only a good thing! We have incredible depth as a country, and this will only help us extract more of the top talent for our national team, which will help us on our international assignments. The JO program is still one of the main ways for girls to reach elite, in addition to the TOPs and HOPES programs too. By raising the qualifying "level up" score for Level 5 to 34, USAG is essentially broadcasting publicly that coaching has to become stronger around the nation. Yes, it also promotes more focus on important basics, which Level 4 is very full of, but this decision is largely based on bumping up the quality of the coaching at gyms around the country (which doesn't really have that much to do with the amount of training hours either). It also does a lot more for the safety of the athletes.

Yes, it is a higher standard, but guess what: this sport is entirely about high standards! This is gymnastics for crying out loud! USAG is increasing its standards, and there are very clear reasons why, so in my opinion people just need to deal with it. There are so many gyms out there, not to mention all the other programs, leagues and disciplines that there is essentially a catch-all for everyone. Even so, there is no way to please everybody. Please keep that in mind.

I don't necessarily think raising the mobility score is going to raise standards.

Pushing kids out of JO is also not going to improve standards, if Clubs and coaches are discouraged from using the JO track if they don't feel they can meet the standards and are forced to send their athletes in a different direction it will significantly narrow the talent pool. Sometimes very talented kids get noticed out of not so amazing gyms.

One of the reasons the US is so successful in gymnastics is because it has such large pool of gymnasts developing. The more lower level kids who move through the system the more likely you are to find all the diamonds you need.

I am all for increasing safety, and making sure kids have their basics consolidated before going to far up the ladder. I think in many ways it will be a positive change, but I don't think UASG should expect it to raise standards. In school taking all the C,D & F students out of a class will make it look like the class is doing better but it doesn't mean the A and B students are doing any better.

 

[John]

I call shenanigans on the usag. If a 14 year old can video out to level 7 why should a younger child be forced to score out at all? Then you raise the score for no reason other than to hold children back. I am. Sure there are reason but I don't beleive those reason will ever be shared.

 

[3rd_time_around]

I call shenanigans on the usag. If a 14 year old can video out to level 7 why should a younger child be forced to score out at all? Then you raise the score for no reason other than to hold children back. I am. Sure there are reason but I don't beleive those reason will ever be shared.

For safety. To make sure the gymnast has the the ability to move up and isn't just being rushed through by a coach or gym who tells them that Xcel is the road to skip compulsory and go right to optionals. To make sure the gymnast can compete competently at a higher level and won't get discouraged and drop out when they score 30-33 every meet, and also so the parents aren't complaining that their child is scoring so low. Right now the required 31.00 is just a 7.8 average score on each event. I can't speak for every coach, parent, and gymnast, but for me personally and for my own gymnasts (and their coaches), this is not the kind of score we want to see. (And yes, scores aren't the only reason they train and compete, but seriously, who wants to spend all that time and money for consistently low scores? You can train without being on a competitive team if you don't truly don't care about scores. But let's be honest with ourselves--we all want our gymnasts to score well, and our gymnast wants to score well)

A 14 year old has to submit a video that shows that they can properly and safely execute skills at the optional level. They can't just say, for example, "I'm 14 and want to be level 7. I competed bronze and silver so I'm ready." They have to prove that they are ready and can do level 7 skills. Putting a child in an optional level who can't execute, say, a RO BHS safely and with some competence is a recipe for injury and very low scores. I have seen level 4 meets and level 5 meets with gymnasts who had no business competing at that level, who needed the coach to boost them up to both bars in the routine, who could barely do the RO BHS or needed a spot, who's beam routine was scary to watch, and who's vault was a backbend off the table. Yes, they can score the minimum 31.00 with routines like that, but why? Why would you want a gymnast on level 6 or 7 who is like that? With a 34 at level 4, they prove that they can competently compete the core skills, even if they have a lot of room for improvement and need to work harder. The 32 for level 5 is fair because the routines are longer and there are many more skills and therefore more deductions at that level, so a 32 is a fair score-out score.

 

[John]

My DD successfully tested out of level 4 and level 5 this Morning. 34.95 and 34.7 she learned and practiced the routines for three weeks.

Your points on safety are all valid and the head judge or commissioner of each state should hold the right to remove a unsafe athlete from competition.

Crazy parents what can you say we all want our children to be successful. Some. Just get lost in their own grown up wants.

Today's competition was fun for DD. My complaint it everyone should be able to Video out at any age. Add a fee to go along with each submission and have it evaluated by a judge. I guess My complaint is petty but 400 was a lot of Money.

Last thought is that some kids have week events or week skull, I. E. Front tumbling. They shouldn't be held back they should be allowed to reach their full Pontential even if it's just optional 6. For some that is all they want to be an optional gymnast.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[John]

Weak

 

[raenndrops]

My DD successfully tested out of level 4 and level 5 this Morning. 34.95 and 34.7 she learned and practiced the routines for three weeks.

Your points on safety are all valid and the head judge or commissioner of each state should hold the right to remove a unsafe athlete from competition.

Crazy parents what can you say we all want our children to be successful. Some. Just get lost in their own grown up wants.

Today's competition was fun for DD. My complaint it everyone should be able to Video out at any age. Add a fee to go along with each submission and have it evaluated by a judge. I guess My complaint is petty but 400 was a lot of Money.

Last thought is that some kids have week events or week skull, I. E. Front tumbling. They shouldn't be held back they should be allowed to reach their full Pontential even if it's just optional 6. For some that is all they want to be an optional gymnast.

Sorry for the rant.

I agree about video petitioning into L6 or L7.
Some kids just aren't going to do well in compulsories. At gyms that allow scoring out OR do Xcel in lieu of compulsories, being able to send in video evidence of the skills should be allowed at any age (as long as the gymnast is at least the minimum age for the level petitioning into... And as I said before, it would be better to just raise minimum ages for L5+).
If the gymnast has competed Xcel Platinum, competition routines SHOULD be good enough video evidence for L6 (or even L7, depending on the routines). Heck, in some gyms, Xcel Gold routines are L6 worthy.
Charge $50 - $100 for the review and move on.

 

[John]

We came from the IGC world. Her scores are out there to be seen and should be proof of her ability. They used the same Judges. Anyway she is off to optional JO. She chose an incredible gym with coaches who love gymnastics more than she does. I pray she makes her dreams come True.

 

[gymgal]

I have seen level 4 meets and level 5 meets with gymnasts who had no business competing at that level, who needed the coach to boost them up to both bars in the routine, who could barely do the RO BHS or needed a spot, who's beam routine was scary to watch, and who's vault was a backbend off the table.

Increasing the qualifying score into L5 is not going to stop this. It doesn't increase safety at all. All it means is the gymnasts will repeat L4. And obviously it doesn't increase the caliber of competition. Now, making gyms certify that their gymnasts are capable of achieving a 34+ prior to registering the gymnast for that level (or meet) would certainly help. But a lot of gyms don't operate that way. They are comfortable with having gymnasts learn their skills during the season and apparently USAG is ok with it, at least for now, since they are not requiring proficiency prior to the season start.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

I don't agree with the arguments that some kids aren't good at compulsories to the extent that a 34 min is not an attainable and reasonable expectation. There is a max .4 deduction per routine on text errors, otherwise at level 4 you are looking at basic skills that are going to show up again and again moving forward in JO.

 

[triplethreat+1]

I'm in Canada, where we don't have mobility scores. I don't have much experience (my gymmies just finished a season of lvl 2) but do the mobility scores really do anything? Are there more kids in Canada competing at a level they aren't prepared for, etc? Curious to hear from more experienced Canadians...

 

[John]

There is a girl in DD current gym that won nothing at level 5, she did well but couldn't win. Level 6 optionals she was all around stae champion.

Safety is important in a dangerous sport. With that said there has to be a better way of moving girls into optionals.