Women Rachel Gowey, Simone Biles, Mykayla Skinner: Better to hold off Elite testing till age 14?

[millymomof4]

I attended US Championships last year and was struck by the very few number of gymnasts the U.S. had on the senior Elite level, and among them, how few were able to compete all around. There were only 15 Seniors competing and somewhere around 40ish juniors. This is a very high drop out rate. Do you think we are losing our best gymnasts because we are pushing them so hard at a young age and their bodies are giving out before they are seniors (Lexie Preissman, Katelyn Ohashi, Rebecca Bross)? The 3 gymnasts I listed in the title are examples of gymnasts who seem to have peaked at the right time and with a very hard skill set. The question is, will the most talented gymnasts still be able to accomplish a high level of difficulty if they start competing these skills at an older age like 13-14.

Just curious about opinions.

 

[bogwoppit]

In my opinion yes, in a rush to elite. Way too many cannot handle it (for so many reasons) and we are left with 15 seniors.

Many kids test for elite and are not even able to get to champs because they do not qualify, what does that tell you about the system.

But I guess for the PTB having as many gymnasts as possible in the pool means that enough will be left to win Internationally.

 

[Seeker]

The question is, will the most talented gymnasts still be able to accomplish a high level of difficulty if they start competing these skills at an older age like 13-14.

Just curious about opinions.

I think the answer is clearly yes...but it takes a coach skilled at pacing the athlete properly as well as good skill selection (sequencing). Not introducing a skill before they're really ready is important too....seems like those that push the envelope too hard too fast are the ones that either get hurt or burn out.

 

[raenndrops]

We want them to peak in time for the Olympics, if they are age eligible... that means that they have to turn 16 or older sometime in 2016 (Born in 2000 or earlier). Championships were in August. There could have been girls with late birthdays who were still 13, but will be Seniors in time for the Olympics.
I think the number of Juniors versus Seniors varies depending on where we are in the Olympic cycle.

 

[Uglybetty]

I have had similar thoughts about our elite pathway (UK). They recently changed it so that you can take our elite levels 3, 2 & 1 (taken in that order at 10, 11, 12) at any age. However, it is my understanding that if you are "out of age" you don't get a national final. This means if you opt into the elite pathway out of age you could go three years (because you have to take all three levels) without competing nationally against other kids at your level.

This has led to some very good gyms seemingly having a reluctance to push exceptionally good but out of age kids into this pathway. They're using an alternative "middle" pathway (national grades), with a view to those girls entering elite by the back door via the UK's challenge cup (the way Ruby Harold did). These girls will "peak" at a later age and as a whole have less injuries (their bodies aren't quite so battered).

I wish I could fast forward 5 years and see how it all pans out!

 

[Faith]

Ugly Betty I wish that were true about ooa and grades being a viable path to elite. In reality it's not.

The amount of effort, time and dedication needed to produce elites is phenomenal. The reality is any coach with elite ambitions wants in age kids. You'll find at most clubs ooa/grades kids just aren't offered the hours and coaches that ia kids are, and aren't coached the same way. Their skills are usually way behind elite track kids at 9 or 10.

Ruby Harold is the only one to break elite from grades since 2006 (which is as far as bg goes back online). But she did start elite track, did compulsory 4, then competed grades with an equivalent skill set (3,2,) before qualifying espoir. Her coaches obviously had elite in mind, but for some reason thought compulsories wouldn't suit her.

I agree with the o/p. Our elite system is case in point. So, so many of the early superstars burn out or injure, or just can't do it (I don't think you can predict at 6 who really has the talent for elite). If you look at many of our British team, they were all mid-bottom of the compulsory table, then accelerated through junior. I also don't think it's a coincidence that may start off at small, less intense clubs, and move to a big club around 12.

 

[Jenny]

Faith do you think that the big program's have a tendency to burn their little superstars out by juniors? They seem to pack out the top ten at nationals early on. Could it be that the small club start has a long term benefit in terms of less intensity in those early years. Kind of an accidental peaking?

 

[Faith]

Faith do you think that the big program's have a tendency to burn their little superstars out by juniors? They seem to pack out the top ten at nationals early on. Could it be that the small club start has a long term benefit in terms of less intensity in those early years. Kind of an accidental peaking?

Yes, exactly that. Liverpool I think do 18 hours a week from 6, if not before. So really not surprised that none of their talent is home grown, beth, hannah, jennifer etc all moved in from other clubs around espoir. Beth was 33 rd I think at her first junior (or espoir?) british when her club said they couldn't take her any further.

 

[Uglybetty]

Ugly Betty I wish that were true about ooa and grades being a viable path to elite. In reality it's not. The amount of effort, time and dedication needed to produce elites is phenomenal. The reality is any coach with elite ambitions wants in age kids. You'll find at most clubs ooa/grades kids just aren't offered the hours and coaches that ia kids are, and aren't coached the same way.
12.

The girls I'm referring to are receiving the exact same coaching and same hours as those on the equivalent elite pathway (in fact the groups are mixed...so they're working alongside each other). They are working through the national grades at a phenomenal pace....skipping some each year. The coaches have a proven track record of getting girls to the very top. Maybe...just maybe...one of those girls will make history.

 

[marie83]

Wow really? 18 hours from age 6! ours do 4 hours at 5/6 move to 14 hours at 7 and then we review and look at where they might go - Elites do a minimum of 17 per week. Our ooa/regional grades group do 9 hours per week. All others train somewhere in between!

 

[JBS]

The question is, will the most talented gymnasts still be able to accomplish a high level of difficulty if they start competing these skills at an older age like 13-14.

Start training or competing the skills at an older age?

Either way...no.

 

[Faith]

The girls I'm referring to are receiving the exact same coaching and same hours as those on the equivalent elite pathway (in fact the groups are mixed...so they're working alongside each other). They are working through the national grades at a phenomenal pace....skipping some each year. The coaches have a proven track record of getting girls to the very top. Maybe...just maybe...one of those girls will make history.

So basically they're doing the same training, the same skills and hours, as elites. The only difference being they compete two different comps per year (reg and nat grades vs reg and nat compulsory.

How old are these girls?

So I'd say these kids aren't on an alternative pathway at all. They're at just as much risk of burnout and injury as those competing compulsory, as it's the hours and rapid skill acquisition that will burn them out.

While I'm glad some coaches are seeing compulsories aren't be all and end all, I'd still like to see kids being developed slower, and these opportunities offered to late starters or late bloomers. I thought the original aim of compulsories was to pace talented kids so over enthusiastic coaches didn't have double backing 8 year olds... slow them down not speed them up.

I find it interesting that our boys are doing far better on the international scene, and we have a much deeper talent pool, despite fewer boys in gymnastics, and very few HPC boys clubs. Possibly because there are no age restrictions on boys, or path to the british champs? Last year there were nearly twice as many junior boys as junior girls, iirc.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Thats interesting about the boys @Faith. A club I know, basically at the arse end of nowhere, had a boy go to nationals this year and I think come 6th in one event, they have a great boys set up and are no-where near an HPC ! Why does girls have to be so restrictive?

 

[Uglybetty]

How old are these girls?
.

It varies. I'd say 12-16 roughly, although I think there are some younger ones too using that pathway. Although two girls had some background in an alternative but related discipline, I've seen them make mind-blowing progress in just 18 months training 4 pieces - so rapid that one will soon be back "in age" doing national 2.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

Thats interesting about the boys @Faith. A club I know, basically at the arse end of nowhere, had a boy go to nationals this year and I think come 6th in one event, they have a great boys set up and are no-where near an HPC ! Why does girls have to be so restrictive?

because boys in gymnastics don't get good till they're older. girls are ending their learning curve when boys are just beginning. and the UK doesn't have college gymnastics like we do here. i wish gymnastics was at the University level for all countries. then they could have their own World's and girls would have some place to do gymnastics after high school if they chose to do so.

 

[Faith]

It varies. I'd say 12-16 roughly, although I think there are some younger ones too using that pathway. Although two girls had some background in an alternative but related discipline, I've seen them make mind-blowing progress in just 18 months training 4 pieces - so rapid that one will soon be back "in age" doing national 2.

Oh that sounds interesting- so from nothing to compulsory 2 in 18 months? SO starting gym age 9 or maybe even 10?

I hope big clubs like yours take the lead on this and show that older or less obvious kids can make elite, but I still think most clubs with fewer resources won't take them on, too big a risk for too much investment.

 

[gasrgoose]

I attended US Championships last year and was struck by the very few number of gymnasts the U.S. had on the senior Elite level, and among them, how few were able to compete all around. There were only 15 Seniors competing and somewhere around 40ish juniors. This is a very high drop out rate. Do you think we are losing our best gymnasts because we are pushing them so hard at a young age and their bodies are giving out before they are seniors (Lexie Preissman, Katelyn Ohashi, Rebecca Bross)? The 3 gymnasts I listed in the title are examples of gymnasts who seem to have peaked at the right time and with a very hard skill set. The question is, will the most talented gymnasts still be able to accomplish a high level of difficulty if they start competing these skills at an older age like 13-14.

Just curious about opinions.

I think the higher qualifying score is also a contributing factor to the lower numbers in Senior. Also reality sets in. In junior elite every girl thinks she has a shot at the national team. "I just need to keep working". By the time a girl is 16 she has a better understanding of what it takes (scores, mentally, physically, etc) to make the national team. If she realizes she might qualify senior elite but doesn't really have what it takes to make the team, why pound the body for elite? Save it for NCAA or just enjoy gymnastics at level 10. The injury rate for 16-22 year old gymnasts that I know is pretty high. I don't see much of a difference between elite and JO gymnasts.

 

[Midwestmommy]

Ah yes the old long hours training of children versus training teenagers/tweens debate. The aura of absurdity that creeps in when hearing a coach talk with a straight face about a junior elite career as if that's actually a "thing." The concept of training itty bitties super hard to peak really early, and having to cast a little wider net than is ideal since it's impossible to know whose bodies can last.

I am a big advocate of not lowering the age limits. Because of the potential impact on the bodies and lives of hundreds maybe thousands of tiny aspiring children who are many years away from being consenting adults, and are swept up in the wave of their elite aspirations fueled in no small way by the adults in their lives--some gyms even requiring them to be pulled out of school at elementary ages (before they are anywhere near elite) so they can have more team practice during the day (when the gym has more space available, without the lucrative rec classes fighting for space).

Sigh. That's why I always cheer for gyms in the midwest versus gyms from "you know where"--seems like they have a bit more sanity in their approach and are still producing some amazing athletes.

Ducking for cover.

 

[flippingtogether]

Ah yes the old long hours training of children versus training teenagers/tweens debate. The aura of absurdity that creeps in when hearing a coach talk with a straight face about a junior elite career as if that's actually a "thing." The concept of training itty bitties super hard to peak really early, and having to cast a little wider net than is ideal since it's impossible to know whose bodies can last.

I am a big advocate of not lowering the age limits. Because of the potential impact on the bodies and lives of hundreds maybe thousands of tiny aspiring children who are many years away from being consenting adults, and are swept up in the wave of their elite aspirations fueled in no small way by the adults in their lives--some gyms even requiring them to be pulled out of school at elementary ages (before they are anywhere near elite) so they can have more team practice during the day (when the gym has more space available, without the lucrative rec classes fighting for space).

Sigh. That's why I always cheer for gyms in the midwest versus gyms from "you know where"--seems like they have a bit more sanity in their approach and are still producing some amazing athletes.

Ducking for cover.

As someone who's DD has been mainly in gymnastics in the midwest, I find these observations interesting. There is one MW junior elite we are keeping an eye on - Norah Flatley, who was at a non-powerhouse gym in WI until about 3 years ago, and then she went to Chows to finish up her JO career and move on to elite.

She is the perfect Olympic age - 16 in '16. I would imagine for her to get to the point where she is today, she's had to train the crazy hours and crazy skills over the last couple of years. But before then, I think she had a saner beginning and it seems to me she may been able to peak more gradually to get to where she is today. I guess I'm not sure about all this and someone might correct me and say her progression is on the same warp sped of others on the junior scene today and has been intense since she was bitty, but it I think it may have been more gradual.
From what I can tell she was a L10 in '12, and qualified elite in '13. I don't know if you can go elite much later than that and make the '16 team.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

As someone who's DD has been mainly in gymnastics in the midwest, I find these observations interesting. There is one MW junior elite we are keeping an eye on - Norah Flatley, who was at a non-powerhouse gym in WI until about 3 years ago, and then she went to Chows to finish up her JO career and move on to elite.

She is the perfect Olympic age - 16 in '16. I would imagine for her to get to the point where she is today, she's had to train the crazy hours and crazy skills over the last couple of years. But before then, I think she had a saner beginning and it seems to me she may been able to peak more gradually to get to where she is today. I guess I'm not sure about all this and someone might correct me and say her progression is on the same warp sped of others on the junior scene today and has been intense since she was bitty, but it I think it may have been more gradual.
From what I can tell she was a L10 in '12, and qualified elite in '13. I don't know if you can go elite much later than that and make the '16 team.

stranger things HAVE happened...