Anon Putting age caps for DP levels

[Anonymous (b8dd)]

They could also just put a limitation on how large an age group can span. No one within 2 years of you, congrats you get to compete against yourself. I guess the gymnast gets all the medals for being the youngest. Any solution to this perceived slight will come with so many unintended consequences.

We have that in diving in the younger age groups particularly in regions where it isn’t popular or pool access is limited. Lots of kids “win their age group” as a sole entrant for years. Years! Particularly boys.

It’s not fun and not great for competition. My own kid is waiting on getting more serious about dive because competitions can feel pointless unless you’re near one of the few clubs with big groups of little kids.

 

[Anonymous (b8dd)]

That's gatekeeping, plain and simple. Every kid develops at their own pace and these arbitrary caps just push children out of the sport way too early.

A gym near us will absolutely have a HOPES or Jr Elite girl who started with level 3 at 8. Then score outs and level 6 at 9. Level 7 score out and 8 at 10. Meanwhile my kid started at 6 and is struggling to escape compulsories. You can’t guess any kid’s path unless you give them a chance.

 

[Anonymous (bc5b)]

Meh, I do prefer to have a group of younger similar kids.... but I have seen so many exceptions that I would never rule anyone out. Having overarching rigid rules will ultimately hurt kids and the sport.

For smaller gyms that are likely to have a wider age rage within a few gymnasts of similar level, being restrictive is potentially costly on a meet weekend. They can't just have all their similar ability athletes compete in the same level.

Equally you have the other end of the spectrum, young kids pushed into a level they can't do, lacking in skills, form and polish/presentation. Then parents justifying it because they are younger than everyone else - because the adults involved in the other cases waited until the kids could actually do the level.

Perhaps the gym that has the issue, can run their own meet and ensure the age groups are to their own satisfaction. I peraonally think it's good for kids to compete against different kids at each comp. It's just a gymnastics meet, they should be focused on skill development and personal performance- not cheap plastic medals and trophies.

 

[Anonymous (d391)]

Integrity? This same gyms owners/coaches constantly hype themselves up by posting scores of much older kids competing in bronze and silver. I’m assuming the integrity they bring up is sandbagging - keeping older kids in lower levels- which is crazy bc they have older kids competing in Low level Xcel to score high. It’s the same lack of integrity they are saying others are showing but bc it’s Xcel it’s acceptable? They also like to post how wonderful they are- and they are constantly posting a grown man with a very young girl training 1 on 1 while he just lifts her through high level skills. It’s pretty gross to me.

 

[Anonymous (0e64)]

I am still trying to get my head around the fact that there are Xcel only gyms in my state that had kids repeat silver this season after scoring 38s the last season. They scored 39s this year (and scored a 10 on something at state) and were back to back state AA champ - but how is this fun? I struggle more with this than kids who are a little older than average in dev levels.

I didn't realize having many high scoring silvers repeat (to win as a team maybe?) was a thing until I looked at the scores this year and was a bit shocked by the number of 10s and 9.9s scored. I try not to judge, but this one kind of boggles my mind.

 

[Anonymous (2fd6)]

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!

I think the gym owner has a good point with levels 1-3 being reserved for talented young kids to experience competitions. I really don't see why an older kid would ever need to compete those lower levels when they aren't even required.

I disagree with the idea of slating older kids for xcel based on age alone. But if they can't get level 4 skills and want to compete, xcel seems like a reasonable default to me.

 

[Anonymous (2fd6)]

I saw the post on instagram and the title is: It’s time for INTEGRITY in gymnastics.

It goes on to say: Every athlete deserves age-appropriate competition, respect, and the chance to thrive. We need to prioritize SPORT over business, and ensure programs like Xcel and Developmental are used as intended - to support our athletes, not confuse them.

So I actually thought that someone was going to speak up about my issue with gyms using Xcel in place of lower DP levels and practicing a lot more hours than a gym that uses Xcel as the lower hours program that it was intended to be.

I think he has a good point about the unfairness of using xcel for talented girls that will knowingly be placed in levels 7-10 in the future.

 

[Anonymous (5140)]

I really don't see why an older kid would ever need to compete those lower levels when they aren't even required.

Not all kids ever advance past those levels, level 4 has a pretty high barrier to entry with a kip. Why prevent kids from enjoying the sport at the level they are at?

 

[Anonymous (5140)]

I think he has a good point about the unfairness of using xcel for talented girls that will knowingly be placed in levels 7-10 in the future.

A lot of people agree with this take, this is completely separate from the topic here of age restrictions per level.

 

[Anonymous (4210)]

I think the gym owner has a good point with levels 1-3 being reserved for talented young kids to experience competitions. I really don't see why an older kid would ever need to compete those lower levels when they aren't even required.

I disagree with the idea of slating older kids for xcel based on age alone. But if they can't get level 4 skills and want to compete, xcel seems like a reasonable default to me.

The age he suggested was extremely young - most kids barely start rec at age 4 not to mention being on a team/pre team. These are minimum age requirements for each level. Most Kids that young don’t have to mental maturity to endure the training and constant corrections and repetitions. Even with only 4-5 hrs a week and individual fun routines, almost all the 4-5 yos who started bronze with my daughter quit in a year or two. Most of The kids who started later, age 7-9 are progressing nicely to higher levels (xcel or DP) and still show commitment.

 

[Dahlialover]

Not all kids ever advance past those levels, level 4 has a pretty high barrier to entry with a kip. Why prevent kids from enjoying the sport at the level they are at?

The lowest competition level when I was a gymnast was level 5 (equivalent to current level 4). The requirements for joining team were a kip, BHS-BHS on floor, a cartwheel on beam, and a FHS on the old scary vault. Gymnasts with lower skill levels still enjoyed the sport in rec and pre-team programs. Gyms hosted in-house meets and exhibitions for these gymnasts to show off their skills. (Anyone else remember doing group floor routines in the 80s?) It was fun and it was much more affordable for families. I think that offering competition at novice levels (1-3 and bronze, silver) is a total money grab for gyms. Rec and pre-team kids come and go but gyms can lock in reliable cash-flow by getting families to sign team contracts. Additionally, gyms can exploit the crazy competitive American parenting culture to generate more investment from parents. Dangle a $3 medal in front of their child’s nose and the parents will open up their wallets and give gyms all their money.

I actually think very low level competition is bad for development because the kids spend tons of time preparing for and attending competitions, when they could instead be learning to do gymnastics. I also think it’s developmentally inappropriate for children younger than age 7 or 8 to participate in competitions at all. It’s too stressful and it starts kids on an unhealthy path of comparing themselves to others and looking for external validation for their accomplishments.

As far as I’m concerned, level 1, 2, and bronze shouldn’t exist as competitive levels. I’ve sort of come around on level 3 because the expectations for level 4 are quite high with everyone skipping level 5 and on Silver because gyms do need to make money the level is flexible enough to accommodate a wider variety of gymnasts who want the team experience.

 

[Anonymous (2fd6)]

Not all kids ever advance past those levels, level 4 has a pretty high barrier to entry with a kip. Why prevent kids from enjoying the sport at the level they are at?

If they are not really going to progress in the sport then why compete those early levels? Why not showcase their strengths in xcel?

 

[Anonymous (381a)]

I think the gym owner has a good point with levels 1-3 being reserved for talented young kids to experience competitions. I really don't see why an older kid would ever need to compete those lower levels when they aren't even required.

I disagree with the idea of slating older kids for xcel based on age alone. But if they can't get level 4 skills and want to compete, xcel seems like a reasonable default to me.

An older gymnast starting "late" may not have the skills for level 4. They might not even have a back handspring for level 3. They shouldn't be locked out of DP because of that.
A lot of gyms have longer DP practices compared to "equivalent" Xcel Levels, so it would make more sense to give them a chance to get the skills quicker (if that is what they want) by having them in DP.
We have had 2 gymnasts go from DP L2 at 10-11 years old to Xcel Gold the next season (gymnast's choice), to Platinum the next season, and petition into L6 the season after that. One of them earned her Varsity Letter in gymnastics this season, competing L8 worthy routines on Bars and Floor and an "upgraded" L7 routine on beam (or L8 with 0.2 in compositional deductions) and a Handspring On-1/1 Off vault. She went from Level 2 to "almost" Level 8 in 5 years.

 

[Anonymous (5140)]

If they are not really going to progress in the sport then why compete those early levels? Why not showcase their strengths in xcel?

Some gyms (ours lol) only compete DP, they don't have enough coaches for an xcel program.

 

[Anonymous (c22c)]

I think the gym owner has a good point with levels 1-3 being reserved for talented young kids to experience competitions. I really don't see why an older kid would ever need to compete those lower levels when they aren't even required.

I disagree with the idea of slating older kids for xcel based on age alone. But if they can't get level 4 skills and want to compete, xcel seems like a reasonable default to me.

What is "young" and what is "old" ?

 

[Anonymous (5140)]

The lowest competition level when I was a gymnast was level 5 (equivalent to current level 4). The requirements for joining team were a kip, BHS-BHS on floor, a cartwheel on beam, and a FHS on the old scary vault. Gymnasts with lower skill levels still enjoyed the sport in rec and pre-team programs. Gyms hosted in-house meets and exhibitions for these gymnasts to show off their skills. (Anyone else remember doing group floor routines in the 80s?) It was fun and it was much more affordable for families. I think that offering competition at novice levels (1-3 and bronze, silver) is a total money grab for gyms. Rec and pre-team kids come and go but gyms can lock in reliable cash-flow by getting families to sign team contracts. Additionally, gyms can exploit the crazy competitive American parenting culture to generate more investment from parents. Dangle a $3 medal in front of their child’s nose and the parents will open up their wallets and give gyms all their money.

I actually think very low level competition is bad for development because the kids spend tons of time preparing for and attending competitions, when they could instead be learning to do gymnastics. I also think it’s developmentally inappropriate for children younger than age 7 or 8 to participate in competitions at all. It’s too stressful and it starts kids on an unhealthy path of comparing themselves to others and looking for external validation for their accomplishments.

As far as I’m concerned, level 1, 2, and bronze shouldn’t exist as competitive levels. I’ve sort of come around on level 3 because the expectations for level 4 are quite high with everyone skipping level 5 and on Silver because gyms do need to make money the level is flexible enough to accommodate a wider variety of gymnasts who want the team experience.

This is a good point, I competed in the 90s, started with level 5 at age 11 (started gymnastics at age 9). We did fun group floor routines for a showcase every year, some of my favorite memories actually!

My older daughter went to a gym that started competing level 1 at age 5(lol so cute, but pointless), she progressed slowly to level 8 then quit. We moved across the country and ended up at our current gym where my younger daughter didn't start competing until level 4, age 9. She still made it to level 10 by 9th grade.

All that to say, yes I agree with you that there is ZERO reason for all those early competition levels for future development. Its just for fun. Either way, I don't think there should be an age limit on those levels if thats what parents and gyms want.

 

[Anonymous (c23d)]

The lowest competition level when I was a gymnast was level 5 (equivalent to current level 4). The requirements for joining team were a kip, BHS-BHS on floor, a cartwheel on beam, and a FHS on the old scary vault. Gymnasts with lower skill levels still enjoyed the sport in rec and pre-team programs. Gyms hosted in-house meets and exhibitions for these gymnasts to show off their skills. (Anyone else remember doing group floor routines in the 80s?) It was fun and it was much more affordable for families. I think that offering competition at novice levels (1-3 and bronze, silver) is a total money grab for gyms. Rec and pre-team kids come and go but gyms can lock in reliable cash-flow by getting families to sign team contracts. Additionally, gyms can exploit the crazy competitive American parenting culture to generate more investment from parents. Dangle a $3 medal in front of their child’s nose and the parents will open up their wallets and give gyms all their money.

I actually think very low level competition is bad for development because the kids spend tons of time preparing for and attending competitions, when they could instead be learning to do gymnastics. I also think it’s developmentally inappropriate for children younger than age 7 or 8 to participate in competitions at all. It’s too stressful and it starts kids on an unhealthy path of comparing themselves to others and looking for external validation for their accomplishments.

As far as I’m concerned, level 1, 2, and bronze shouldn’t exist as competitive levels. I’ve sort of come around on level 3 because the expectations for level 4 are quite high with everyone skipping level 5 and on Silver because gyms do need to make money the level is flexible enough to accommodate a wider variety of gymnasts who want the team experience.

Yes! Levels 1 and 2 and bronze especially. It is so obviously a money grab to me as well. I think even in the 90s it wasn't uncommon to start competing at level 4 or 5. My friend and I both had that experience, she in Texas and me in Wisconsin.