Anon Putting age caps for DP levels

[Anonymous (4210)]

There has been an interesting discussion that one of region 6 gyms is advocating for putting age caps on DP levels and xcel is for older girls. “Older” means 8 is too old for level 2, 10 is too old for level 4, with “low or no potential”to “make it”. DP is only for elite or NCAA kids.

As a parent with a kiddo starting in xcel bronze at 6, who is now doing well as an optional gymnast and who didn’t even know what “college”’really means at age 6, I want to hear what your take on this.

Background info:
Region 6 has scarce and unevenly distributed gymnastics resources where most families have limited access or knowledge to “good gyms”. There is no elite gym in many of the region 6 states.

Post Covid we didn’t have the choice of going one or another. My kid had some natural talent but retrospectively thinking lacked maturity for repetitions and couldn’t get the darn front hip circle, she would’ve quit. And no, she still doesn’t have Olympic dreams and is only mentioning NCAA casually.

I am glad that she started off in xcel. She also had teammates who started at 9+ in rec and soared through to optionals within 3 years - who would’ve been deemed “no potential” according to this gym. I personally feel that age shouldn’t be the only consideration for triaging kids early on.

the gym is calling for “integrity” from USAG member gyms - meaning putting older kids in DP is deemed integral.

Of course there were comments on their Instagram but the gym blocks any opposing thoughts. So I Want to hear your thoughts on this!

 

[Anonymous (7131)]

Sounds absurd and totally unnecessary to me! Being in Region 6, now I'm dying to know which gym this is!

 

[Anonymous (b8dd)]

I don’t think this is exclusive to Region 6 or one gym. It’s a very common practice at many gyms. Sometimes they say it out loud and sometimes it’s an unspoken policy. When you go to a DP meet, it’s very clear what each gym’s age/level expectations are. Some gyms will have many athletes in the very oldest groups, some are spread evenly, and often the highest-scoring gyms have most of their athletes in the youngest groups.

When we moved and my daughter had to switch gyms, she went from constantly being on the cusp of “too old” and knowing that if she didn’t move up she’d be forced to switch to xcel to a gym where she’s considered quite young. Old gym has a lot of elites and 4-5 D1s every year. New gym has a D1 recruit every other year at most.

 

[Anonymous (4210)]

I have no problem with individual gym doing it - it would be a parent’s choice to embrace or not embrace the practice. But calling for a collective action and saying not following as such is lack of integrity seems to me to be on a different level.

 

[Anonymous (b8dd)]

I have no problem with individual gym doing it - it would be a parent’s choice to embrace or not embrace the practice. But calling for a collective action and saying not following as such is lack of integrity seems to me to be on a different level.

Agree that it’s strange. I’m re-reading the first post and if I’m reading it right they’re saying that a gym thinks there should be rules to keep older girls should out of DP? It doesn’t really make sense because DP usually has plenty of age groups with narrow spreads. If anything it can get tricky to be have a very young girl in xcel in regions where it’s not as popular- we see girls across 2 birth years in the youngest Bronze and Silver group so you might see 6 year olds with 8 year olds.

DP doesn’t seem to have spreads like that near us except for the very oldest level 2 and 3 groups. At that point who’s going to be mad about 11 year old and 14 year old level 2s competing against each other? It’s not like they’re fighting each other to be NCAA recruits.

 

[Anonymous (d56d)]

I don't like it. We've had it in my country and sometimes you get the girls in a no-go point.

I saw some complaint in ig recently by kratos (I think that's the gym's name) about their 6 years old competing against 12 years olds in level 2.

 

[Anonymous (0e64)]

I completely disagree with this proposal and with imposing this philosophy on all gyms and gymnasts. I am particularly offended by the assertion that gyms that have older kids in lower levels somehow lack "integrity." We have somewhat older kids in level 5 (think 6-8th graders) right now, who are at this level at their age for a variety of reasons, none of which includes a "lack of integrity" on anyone's part. They have goals that they want to achieve and have worked hard to get where they are now. They are in the older age groups where they compete against similarly situated gymnasts.

I feel like this is really a complete overreach and would invade the ability of a club to determine its own path in the sport, what works for them and their gymnasts.

 

[Anonymous (b8dd)]

I don't like it. We've had it in my country and sometimes you get the girls in a no-go point.

I saw some complaint in ig recently by kratos (I think that's the gym's name) about their 6 years old competing against 12 years olds in level 2.

That could happen in an area where level 2 is rare but it would be such an isolated situation that I have a hard time taking the gym’s complaint seriously. There must have been other meets that weekend that gobbled up all the other teams with compulsory girls and they must have been the only two teams there. Even then, we’ve had 16 kid sessions split into two to manage this kind of situation.

It sounds like the host gym didn’t know what to do and the attending gym didn’t do their research about who usually attends the meet.