Women Mobility scores raised for 2017

[amiandjim]

I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but it looks like they are raising mobility scores for next year.

Link Removed

 

[ladybird]

That mobility score from level 4 to 5 is interesting.

 

[raenndrops]

That mobility score from level 4 to 5 is interesting.

That is what I was thinking.

 

[wallinbl]

I'd be curious to see if there was much evidence that girls scoring below those numbers had success at higher levels. If there isn't much (and I'd suspect there isn't), then it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

 

[amiandjim]

That mobility score from level 4 to 5 is interesting.

That's exactly what I thought when I read it.

 

[mandkmom]

Why is there a mobility score for 6-7 if 6 isn't required?

 

[Gymmommy71]

I like these. A 31.0 to move between a lot of those levels is just too low. I agree that 4 to 5 should be the highest because those 4 skills are very fundamental.

I guess 8 to 9 and 9 to 10 remained the same? Aren't those both 34?

 

[ladybird]

I like these. A 31.0 to move between a lot of those levels is just too low. I agree that 4 to 5 should be the highest because those 4 skills are very fundamental.

I guess 8 to 9 and 9 to 10 remained the same? Aren't those both 34?

I was thinking the same, that the foundation laid in level 4 is pretty important.

 

[Gymmommy71]

Why is there a mobility score for 6-7 if 6 isn't required?

I wonder if it means that if you do compete 6, you need to get a 32 before being able to do 7? Not sure what they'd be trying to accomplish w/ that if that's what it means.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

You can still skip 6 but if you elect to do it then the mobility score is in place. Not that it matters guys .... the scores are extremely attainable.

 

[gymmom39]

This makes sense. Level 4 skills are so foundational and the 31 never made since to me. You should have at least an 8 on each event to move forward in those other levels. I'm curious if this means that 6 cannot be skipped anymore.

 

[Flyaway]

My gymmie is NOT an all-star by any means, she regularly scored in the 34-35 range at level 4, peaking around 36 towards the State meet. I know what her routines look like. I would not feel comfortable having her move up to 5 if she were scoring below that range. As it is I think she would benefit from an additional year at level 4. I think the increase to a 34 for a move from 4 to 5 is appropriate and indicates competency and strength required to compete at a higher level.

 

[Sasha]

Agree with Flyaway. Raising to 34 from 4-5 has my approval. Very reasonable and L4 is so fundamental.

 

[vbdb]

The higher score to move from 4 to 5 is a good one. A kid who's only score 32s in level 4 is not going to be more successful in level 5.

I find the mobility scores interesting in the US. In Canada we follow the JO system but don't have any score out or mandatory levels. We can have a kid go from level 3 to 8 without any competing of other levels in between.

 

[z2akids]

Very interesting. Do you all think that means that you cannot compete as a L5 in the 17/18 season without getting a 34 in L4? Or do you think it means that to compete L5 in 18/19 you have to jave gotten a 34 in 17/18 (or after)?

DD's gym lost a couple of girls this spring to other gyms. At DD's gym they would have had to repeat L4 (neither got above a 34 in the 16/17 season) and they are hoping new gym will score them out of L5 so they can compete L6 in 17/18.

 

[bookworm]

I'd be curious to see if there was much evidence that girls scoring below those numbers had success at higher levels. If there isn't much (and I'd suspect there isn't), then it doesn't seem to be a big deal.

My oldest never scored higher than a 32.4 in level 4-5 , albeit she was in a crappy gym...we moved her to a better one and she was fast tracked through to level 8 and had a great year at 8 ( she was 8 yo) , she did 9 the next year and level 10 the next .....I think a lot depends on the coaching to see if similar low scoring girls placed with better coaching actually scored better....she did, and the rest is history.

 

[John]

My DD have a move up meet on July 8. The new regulations start August 1. Her coaches are operating under the old scores. Hope this all works out.

 

[QueenBee]

@bookworm your gymnasts were going through level 4-5 at least a decade ago, yes? Because I've noticed average scores in compulsories rising in those levels from 10 years ago to now. I was looking at some current Level 10s and college gymnasts' scores on mymeetscores and I noticed that there are many who didn't have 'huge' compulsory scores who did very well in optionals.

But now, it is uncommon (from what I've been able to piece together looking at mymeetscores) to see gymnasts who scored in the low 30s in compulsories to score well in optionals as they move up. A 32 or 33 or 34 from a decade ago seems to indicate how harshly judges scored execution and skills, rather than if the gymnast had a good foundation to continue.

I think being able to get a 34 in Level 4 in the current scoring environment helps to ensure a reasonable base level of foundational skills.

 

[SMH]

My DD have a move up meet on July 8. The new regulations start August 1. Her coaches are operating under the old scores. Hope this all works out.

We have some kids trying to score out of 5 and go to 6- I think their mobility meet is in July also- I wonder if this will change any of their plans...

 

[Mrs. Puma]

The higher score to move from 4 to 5 is a good one. A kid who's only score 32s in level 4 is not going to be more successful in level 5.

Agreed. Puma Jr only got above 34 once in L4 and look what a struggle L5 was for her. It will be interesting to see how the rule will work for kids who have scored out under the existing rules but have injuries right now or go back to JO after Xcel (or IGC? lol) in a year or so.