Women Phasing out compulsories?

[Winterbuzz]

I was talking to a head coach recently about why her gym dropped developmental levels 1-5. She said the national trend is to focus on Xcel because there is less attrition in that program. Among many reasons, he said it's more like optionals because of the focus on individual strengths. She claimed that the national governing body is encouraging this shift because they see it as the inevitable future of gymnastics training. Do any other coaches out there know if this is accurate? Have you heard anything like this coming from USAG? Thanks

 

[Coach Kate]

I hope not. I still miss elite compulsories

 

[ORgymmom]

To me, it seems less like a strategic effort on a national level than a workaround by some gyms and coaches. The coaches I know at higher levels really believe in compulsory progressions and look down on gyms and coaches that are bypassing with xcel. It has been said in many places before, but I think the fact that many gyms are cheating the system, not doing 4 and 5 score outs, and bringing former under-12 xcel athletes into level 6 is going to eventually be a big, loud problem. The volume of gyms and coaches cheating this system is what will eventually force some kind of different process. Everyone knows it’s happening but few gyms or states have the resources to call it out or police it. I also think the gyms that are prepping athletes well for upper optionals with xcel instead of compulsories are rare; many are using it to rush young athletes into optionals and it comes back to bite them when they try to get past level 8 and they’ve sidestepped key progressions.

 

[3rd_time_around]

I was talking to a head coach recently about why her gym dropped developmental levels 1-5. She said the national trend is to focus on Xcel because there is less attrition in that program. Among many reasons, he said it's more like optionals because of the focus on individual strengths. She claimed that the national governing body is encouraging this shift because they see it as the inevitable future of gymnastics training. Do any other coaches out there know if this is accurate? Have you heard anything like this coming from USAG? Thanks

This is not true, she made this up. Compulsories are not being phased out, and they are actually attempting to get more participation in compulsories going forward, not less. The National Governing body did not create Xcel to replace compulsories, but to supplement all levels; to be used as a level for those not wanting to put in the hours or money, as an in-between level to compete (fall for compulsories and spring for Xcel), or for gymnasts not ready for the next DP level but may have some higher skills than the level just competed. THAT is what Xcel was created for.

It is the gyms that have started using it as a replacement for compulsories (in my opinion because its easier to coach than compulsories because they don't have to focus on minute details) and making the training for it as rigorous as DP. Gyms are also using Xcel to win titles by keeping girls on levels for 2-3 years each instead of moving them up, because they can compete higher skills in Xcel, making it easy to sell to parents and gymnasts that their girl should stay in an Xcel level for multiple years.

I'm not downing Xcel, I actually like it, but it has been used and abused in ways it was not meant to be by many gyms across the country, with owners like your gym's telling people that Xcel is replacing compulsories. I like compulsories--they make very strong gymnasts who learn to pay attention to detail and proper technique, and gain solid core skills. Often Xcel misses training needed core skills in order to train to a gymnast's strengths only so that they can score high in their level. (I'm seeing this in the gym, where we have several girls transferred from a very successful Xcel gym, where they did the same level for multiple years and averaging 38 AA every meet. They have weak core skills, cannot kip, cannot do free hips, cannot vault with good form --Xcel does not judge angle of repulsion, height, and has lower deductions for form).

 

[estamey21]

My understanding is that USAG has designed Xcel and DP to be standalone programs that serve different gymnastics goals. Gyms that use Xcel to skip some DP compulsory levels are not necessarily doing anything wrong (assuming they are following the rules). But the whole point of compulsories is to introduce kids to the highly precise nature of competitive gymnastics and to learn a baseline set of skills that can be built upon in optionals. The Xcel code of points does not enforce these standards.

In my opinion, gyms who use Xcel to skip compulsories should at least commit to the spirit of compulsories in their training programs. But often (as @3rd_time_around mentioned), you’ll see gyms developing their athletes around the flexibility of the Xcel code of points and then send them to optionals “half baked.”

With all that said, if USAG is actually committed to keeping these competitive tracks separate, its on them to enforce their mobility rules (and maybe make compulsories slightly more palatable.)

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I can see advantages both ways, but these days were it left to me I'd lean more towards compulsories at the low levels (at least, if the goal is to train upper-level athletes).

In the abstract, xcel gives coaches and athletes a lot more room to adapt to any particular athlete's strengths and weaknesses, and with a very disciplined approach it can be at least as effective as compulsories with a much wider range of athletes.

But developmentally, there are certain skills that are really really really beneficial to long-term development. The current compulsory routines do a pretty excellent job of covering these skills, and they provide freedom for variation in a way that they didn't in the past, with some events having multiple choices of skills and approaches.

If I'm doing compulsories, it's real easy to tell a kid or parent "she needs skill X because it's in the routine." But with xcel, often it's more along the lines of "she needs skill X to prepare her for three levels ahead, even though right now she's struggling and losing points and there's other girls at the same level beating her without even doing that skill." That's a much harder sell to athletes and parents.

 

[Dahlialover]

I doubt that USAG is promoting the Xcel-to-optionals approach but I’m sure that the for-profit gym industry loves the model.

Xcel, with its lower hours and less stringent requirements, is a parent-pleaser, a money-maker, and a great program for kids. The only problem for gym owners is that most of their customers want to believe that their kid has a shot at making a college team and possibly getting a college scholarship. If you have a DP and an Xcel track, the Xcel parents will figure out that their kid is on the less competitive track. But, if you eliminate DP and tell parents that your gym uses Xcel to prepare athletes for optionals, you can nurture NCAA dreams in all your customers. It doesn’t matter if the gym’s Xcel program isn’t designed to prepare athletes to be successful in optionals, because they will be happy paying customers for 5+ years before they figure that out! The gym can also run a selective fast-track daytime program for the gymnasts they are actually training for optionals and that way they can still have a successful optionals team for their regular Xcel parents to aspire to.

So the Xcel-to-optionals model is great for business and it’s not bad for the majority of kids who are not destined to compete high level gymnastics and don’t need to be training insane DP hours. I’ll bet a lot of gyms take that approach. As long they don’t ruin Xcel in the process, I think it’s fine.

 

[Splat]

This is sadly becoming true for our area. It started with lack of interest with level 4 and 5 and doing gold instead no alot of our competing gyms have switch to just xcel and every year we have more gyms switch over in attempt to have more people to compete against since so few do compulsory now. I don't know about this in the global idea but my small district that doesn't raise many elite or college gymnast definitely looks to be phasing out of compulsory in favor as xcel.

 

[Sebastian12]

wow i am honestly surprised by the tone of these comments here…no wonder many kids see xcel as “less than” and would rather end their gymnastics journey when DP doesnt work for them.

It is like damn it if you do, and damn it if you don’t. Xcel programs get criticized for training DP standards, and apparently also get criticized for creating “half baked” gymnasts.

Regardless of the gym’s motive, a big impact of xcel is promoting longevity of the sport and preventing burnout at an early age, which creates mentally healthier optional athletes. It also lowers the chances of gyms sifting out “optional quality” gymnasts by recruiting large compulsory teams, instead of putting the hard work of training kids to become optional gymnasts.

There is nothing wrong with xcel gymnasts to transition into DP due to the current college recruitment channels and the immaturity of upper xcel levels. But to answer the question, no, I don’t believe it is a trend, because with sapphire being built up now, xcel will eventually pave its own college bound path which is suitable for a portion of the gymnasts.

 

[Oneforall]

I am puzzled by some of the comments and am genuinely curious on what Xcel might be lacking compared to compulsory in terms of preparing for optional training.

Is the concern mostly about less focus in Xcel on form? Or about Xcel gymnast being able to avoid/skip certain skills while moving up? Or less hours in Xcel to build up strength/flexibility before moving to optional?

If the concerns is about forms, I have read here that early compulsory success in general does not predict later optional success. I have interpretted it as perfect form at lower level does not predict the ability to make higher level skills, if so then I guess Xcel isn't that bad if their forms are not as good at low levels?

If it's about skipping certain skills, what skills are we thinking about here?

 

[3rd_time_around]

I am puzzled by some of the comments and am genuinely curious on what Xcel might be lacking compared to compulsory in terms of preparing for optional training.

Is the concern mostly about less focus in Xcel on form? Or about Xcel gymnast being able to avoid/skip certain skills while moving up? Or less hours in Xcel to build up strength/flexibility before moving to optional?

If the concerns is about forms, I have read here that early compulsory success in general does not predict later optional success. I have interpretted it as perfect form at lower level does not predict the ability to make higher level skills, if so then I guess Xcel isn't that bad if their forms are not as good at low levels?

If it's about skipping certain skills, what skills are we thinking about here?

I've been around since Xcel was called Prep-Op and was "judged from the heart" to where it became more respected and a code of points was developed. To answer your questions in order:
1. Xcel is designed to have less stringent requirements than DP and therefore is designed for gymnasts to earn higher scores than they would doing the same routines in a comparative DP level.

2. There is less emphasis on form in Xcel, and the code is even written to allow less deductions for form errors. As people have stated, Xcel is designed to allow the gymnasts to compete their stronger skills rather than a prescribed set of skills. The DP compulsory required skills are core skills that are the building blocks of higher, harder skills and may not be trained properly or at all if an Xcel gymnast struggles with it. For example, the back extension roll to handstand is the same movement as a clear hip on bars. They start doing the BER to handstand with the first level that requires a BER to push-up position. Every level builds on that BER until culminating in a BER to handstand. A clear hip is competed in level 5, and now they have had 2-3 years learning and perfecting the movement and muscles needed for the clear hip by doing the BER on floor. If an Xcel kid can't do the BER to push-up or handstand, they don't, rather they focus on another skill that's easier for them to do. Does that make sense?

3. It was designed to be less hours and less costly, so yes, if they follow that model they do not have as much time to condition and build muscle, work on form, etc.

Xcel is a great program, but if you've ever watched a platinum or diamond meet, you would see that bar routines that score well in those levels would not score well in levels 7 or 8. You would also see floor and beam routines with lower requirements for split angles and handstand holds/position, and tumbling passes or series on beam that don't meet level 7 or 8 requirements. I enjoy Xcel and the gymnasts are great, but the truth is the same routines would not be useable in comparative DP levels.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Here's a concrete example: a backhandspring on floor. For some kids they come easy, for some they are a source of frustration and mental blocks.

You are EXTREMELY unlikely to make level 10, or college, or elite without a strong backhandspring. But you can still have a blast learning to flip and twist and tumble without one.

you cannot make it through compulsories without a decent BHS, but you can make it to any level of xcel without one.

If you're a coach aiming to get an a group of athletes to a high level, a compulsory coach can easily tell an athlete or parent "your kid cannot move up until she has a strong BHS, because it's in the level 3, 4, and 5 routines." But as an xcel coach, you have the much harder task of explaining why they need a strong BHS even though they can score higher without it. If you're a strong communicator and a disciplined coach, you can probably convince most of the parents most of the time, but without those hard compulsory requirements, it's a much harder sell.

Xcel is GREAT for kids who are are uninterested in or unlikely to reach those upper-levels, because they don't face these skill bottlenecks; there are always workarounds. And there is nothing whatsoever wrong with doing gymnastics without the expectation of reaching those high levels. It's still provides a huge number of benefits, not the least of which is that it's a ton of fun!

But if the goal is to reach the upper-levels, the narrow path provided by compulsories is the most reliable way to get there.

 

[RTT2]

I haven’t seen anyone in this thread knocking the Xcel program, just explaining that the purpose isn’t to get to upper level optionals. As a parent my observation is that the compulsory levels are key to developing a strong upper level gymnast.

 

[BusyMomof2]

We were part of an unfortunate gym implosion last year, and as the coaches who remained started working on a rebuild plan they did a fair amount of research on what would be ideal for the current gymnasts and pipeline. They decided to move to Xcel in place of compulsories until L6, and then gymnasts would either continue in Xcel or move to optionals. They never said compulsories were being "phased out", only that many gyms in our region are finding this strategy to be preferable for many reasons.

That said, these are strong coaches and likely do coach lower Xcel levels as if they are coaching compulsory. Strong focus on form, drills, strength, etc.

It disheartens me that so many people, not necessarily on this thread but in a Facebook group I am a part of and in real life, get so upset about this (a realistic path from Xcel to upper optionals). I actually think USAG has made it easy to mobilize from Xcel to DP. Yes, learning the L4 routines is somewhat of a pain but it's not really that difficult to get the scores needed - I have yet to see a single girl not successfully score out of L4 after competing Xcel gold.

For us, the Xcel to optionals path has been great. My daughter is training L8/competing L7 and is picking up new skills more quickly than ever which leads me to believe that she's had proper coaching no matter the program.

 

[GymDadWA]

It's really hard for smaller gyms to have both Xcel and Compulsories, just not enough coaches and not enough space, so I can see why a gym would choose/say that the trend is to do one or the other. Our gym is trying to train them together, like you do the same training but compete either silver or DP3 and it is really confusing and frustrating for the gymnasts and parents having the same training and different requirements and different scores for seemingly similar routines.

What seems antiquated to me is the scoring out of 4 & 5, while I agree on the safety of requiring proficiency in baseline skills before moving to DP6+ doing it in the style of compulsory routines isn't ideal.

 

[Oneforall]

Thanks a lot for all who explained what their concerns are regarding Xcel vs. Compulsory in preparation for optional.

How hard do you think it might be to "correct/salvage" the less-than-ideal form/skill etc. once a Xcel gymnast move to DP? Do you think there might be a "point", such as level 4/5/6/7 etc. that ideally they should move by?

I know it's really case by case but just curious on people's thoughts.

My DD is a low level Xcel who is unlikely to make optional regardless of which track she starts with. But there is this girl at her gym who seems to have a lot more raw talent, get skills very easily. But even with my untrained eyes I can see her forms are not great which I think is partly due to coaching. I always think this girl has the potential to get to optional, and now wonder if there is a point she should move by (just out of curiosity and certainly I won't talk to her mom about it )

 

[Oneforall]

As to the question on whether Xcel or compulsory is better for the sport of gymnastics as a whole (when having both at a gym is not feasible).

If there is decent chance to "salvage" a Xcel gymnast who is lacking compared to compulsury on certain things once she moves to optional, I guess my vote will be on Xcel.

As I understand Xcel may be able to reach a broader base (lower hours/costs), probably less likely to burnout a kid at low levels, and with more flexibility kids stay longer.For the sport as a whole there will maybe a bigger pool to "select" talented kids, besides more participants in the sport which seem overall better than compulsory.

I guess the potential "harm/loss" here would be the parents who pay for their kids Xcel not because of the benefits their kids are getting at the moment , but thinking they will have a shot at college scholarship or NCAA team etc. But that's probably also true for some compulsory parents. So the parents need to be educated; unfortunately the coaches/gyms are not doing much and it's this board that is doing that kind of education