Repeating Levels - Best for Gymnast or Selfish Gym

[bookworm]

I'm lost...are you saying that Geddert's doesn't progress individuals...they have the current world champion?

I'm trying to see it from your side but I'm having a very hard time...I have never been at a club like this. Valuing team does not mean that we do not uptrain or progress individuals. Just as the pitcher must be trained as an individual in baseball...so must gymnasts be trained.

".

My point on this is that just because Geddert's has the World Champion and great teams doesn't mean that Susie (the individual gymnast being retained at Level 6) is going to be recruited because the team around her is good....if we use your school of thought, Geddert should have held Jordyn back for the sake of team scores (because I'm sure she would have helped) but instead, she was 10 yrs old competing at Level 10 Nationals in Oklahoma City in 2006...and the rest, as they say, is history.

 

[wallinbl]

if we use your school of thought, Geddert should have held Jordyn back for the sake of team scores (because I'm sure she would have helped)

That's not been stated at all.

 

[cbone]

bookworm, I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. Nobody has defended sandbagging as a general practice. In fact, i think holding a gymnast back for the sole purpose of winning competitions by having them at a lower level than their skills is deplorable.

In OPs situation, however, some of us have advocated trusting the coach to do what they think is best for the team. It's an oversimplification to assume that this coach holding this gymnast back only for scores. Maybe there are two less mature gymnasts that need an example to thrive and OPs daughter is the best leader in the coach's opinion. To help the progression of multiple gymnasts in this example, one gymnast's progression is slowed. The team as a whole is benefitted. The gymnast that was "held back" also has a season in a leadership role to help her grow as a person (this is about more than gymnastics after all). There's far more to this than what meets the eye and OP has said nothing to indicate that the gym has a history of sandbagging.

You are absolutely right that being on a winning team does Not necessarily make the individual achieve. However, some of us are saying that a great team provides the best opportunity for individual success. I have seen it work with my little one.

 

[bookworm]

She nearly made the 38 club a few times last year [/B](just missed by 0.025 and 0.125 at the closest meets), but she's hoping to excel and maybe even make the 39.000 mark). We'll see, but it's nice for her to set the goals and work toward them!

Late to the thread.

If everything said by OP was true, then I call BS on the coach. Sorry, get someone else to carry your team. I've dealt with this in myself thinking with this kid staying down a level, we're gonna rule as a team. Then said kid gets moved up and I'm out a score. I deal with it, I move on.

Keeping kids another year in the compulsories doesn't make sense. Ever. Especially if they have the talent to be a collegiate or elite gymnast. Wasted time on learning the compulsories and practicing them when they could be uptraining. Also, higher levels typically means they will train more hours. Most L7s train more than L6's, possibly by another day of training (5 instead of 4) or an hour longer per workout.

.

]bookworm, I think you're painting with too broad a brush here. Nobody has defended sandbagging as a general practice[/B]. In fact, i think holding a gymnast back for the sole purpose of winning competitions by having them at a lower level than their skills is deplorable.

In OPs situation, however, some of us have advocated trusting the coach to do what they think is best for the team. It's an oversimplification to assume that this coach holding this gymnast back only for scores. Maybe there are two less mature gymnasts that need an example to thrive and OPs daughter is the best leader in the coach's opinion. To help the progression of multiple gymnasts in this example, one gymnast's progression is slowed. The team as a whole is benefitted. The gymnast that was "held back" also has a season in a leadership role to help her grow as a person (this is about more than gymnastics after all). There's far more to this than what meets the eye and OP has said nothing to indicate that the gym has a history of sandbagging.

You are absolutely right that being on a winning team does Not necessarily make the individual achieve. However, some of us are saying that a great team provides the best opportunity for individual success. I have seen it work with my little one.

I guess I go back to the OPs posts and can't see how another season at a compulsory level will benefit HER CHILD...she's scored 37s ("almost in the 38 club a few times") , has the skills for the next level , and she's not very young, she's 10...and gymnastics isn't a cheap sport (the tuition in our gym for a Level 6 is 425/month) ...and she also mentioned that others were moving up with lesser skills..I just can't help but think that this mom's trusting nature is being taken advantage of....just saying. I personally don't care if she stays a 6 for 5 years but the OP did ask what people thought , given her circumstances, and this is what I thought...

 

[iwannacoach]

Thanks @JBS for your comments. It's great to hear from other coaches and parents and not just the murmuring and feedback from the other "crazy" parents at my gym. (Myself included at times)

And after letting everything settle and having a couple talks with my daughter, she's set some great goals for the season and she feels good about the upcoming year. Which is all I want. She nearly made the 38 club a few times last year (just missed by 0.025 and 0.125 at the closest meets), but she's hoping to excel and maybe even make the 39.000 mark). We'll see, but it's nice for her to set the goals and work toward them.

Thanks again for all the support!

Sounds like dd is hearing that shout I was talking about (dramatic pause). I'm so excited for both of you and the rest of the family. Ya make me wanna shout!!!

 

[gymmomtotwo]

Gymnast has proven mastery of Level 6 with last years results. I'd consider repeating a state champion in a compulsory level who has the skills for the next level to be the ultimate in poor sportsmanship and blatantly unfair to the other kids getting ready to compete level 6. With the facts presented, and assuming there isn't anything unsaid, there is no way this kid would be competing Level 6 again in our gym. All of her efforts would be in getting ready for Level 7 and beyond. She doesn't belong in Level 6 any longer and it's unfair to the kids that do. It's not really an accomplishment for a gymnast who is supposed to be in Level 6 to win Level 4 states. I don't get what is to be accomplished here. It won't help her, and it should embarrass the gym to enter a state champion again in the same level. People do notice, and it reflects poorly on the gym.

 

[cbone]

Gymnast has proven mastery of Level 6 with last years results. I'd consider repeating a state champion in a compulsory level who has the skills for the next level to be the ultimate in poor sportsmanship and blatantly unfair to the other kids getting ready to compete level 6. With the facts presented, and assuming there isn't anything unsaid, there is no way this kid would be competing Level 6 again in our gym. All of her efforts would be in getting ready for Level 7 and beyond. She doesn't belong in Level 6 any longer and it's unfair to the kids that do. It's not really an accomplishment for a gymnast who is supposed to be in Level 6 to win Level 4 states. I don't get what is to be accomplished here. It won't help her, and it should embarrass the gym to enter a state champion again in the same level. People do notice, and it reflects poorly on the gym.

Our gym doesn't move gymnasts up unless they have ALL of their skills for the next level. OP acknowledged that her daughter is missing a skill. I'm not sure how OP's gym works, but at our gym, regardless of past success, you must be ready for the future. I'm not sure why that would embarrass a gym or reflect poorly on it.

My daughter has a teammate who is a state champion who will likely be repeating Level 3 (in the fall at least) because she is missing a skill. This gymnast is a state champion in the 38 club (whose best AA score is 0.20 higher than my daughter's best) and will likely repeat. Scores and championships are not necessarily relevant for move-ups.

 

[wallinbl]

Gymnast has proven mastery of Level 6 with last years results. I'd consider repeating a state champion in a compulsory level who has the skills for the next level to be the ultimate in poor sportsmanship and blatantly unfair to the other kids getting ready to compete level 6.

She doesn't belong in Level 6 any longer and it's unfair to the kids that do.

To make that statement, you have to define "fair" and I don't think you (or anyone) can.

I don't get what is to be accomplished here. It won't help her

Several people have already explained how it can.

it should embarrass the gym to enter a state champion again in the same level. People do notice, and it reflects poorly on the gym.

There's nothing embarrassing about it if it's what's right for this gymnast. No doubt that parents across the state will grouse about it, thinking that the gym is trying to win by cheating, but they'll be making assumptions in order to do so, and it's largely unfair to make those assumptions.

State champion is a bit misleading anyway. With such a huge number of age divisions, there's a huge number of "state champions" and it only means that you performed well relative to those at your level with a birthday near yours. At our last state meet, there were 1st place AA, state champions that would have been 9th out of 13 in other age divisions.

 

[gymmomtotwo]

According to Mom, she's missing a gym requirement that isn't a level 7 requirement. I'm reading that she has all of her Level 7 skills. My statement isn't a reflection on the poster, but instead on the gym. She has to live with the rules that the gym puts out. It remains my opinion that almost 38s reflect mastery of this compulsory level and that her efforts would be better served concentrating on building her skills as an optional gymnast. She sounds ready to compete level 7. If she is not, which is not stated in ops post, then by all means compete level 6. That doesn't seem to be the case here. To stick her in there in the fall to get another win for the team doesn't seem fair to me if she has her Level 7 skills.

 

[BlairBob]

the only reason you would clear hip on high bar is if you can't do a giant or to get to a giant if you can't all that high.

I see what you are saying about L3 but everything under L4 is meh to me. L3 doesn't mean much except money in the coffers and to get kids training more gym earlier to buy into team and acclimate it to it's demand on the child and parent.

 

[gymgal]

Our gym doesn't move gymnasts up unless they have ALL of their skills for the next level. OP acknowledged that her daughter is missing a skill. I'm not sure how OP's gym works, but at our gym, regardless of past success, you must be ready for the future..

Just clarify, the skill the OPs dd is missing (switch leap on beam at 180*) is a level 9 skill, not a level 7 - unless the mother meant a split leap instead of a switch leap, which would then be a L7 - and even if its a split leap, she has the skill now. Just didnt have it in time to compete L7 this past winter. Regardless, the gym has criteria WAY above what she needs to compete L7.

 

[cbone]

BlairBob, that is a common sentiment. I respectfully disagree, but that's because I watched my daughter work as hard as anyone in the compulsory program in our gym.

gymgal, I will certainly defer to your knowledge. I am uneducated with respect to requirements beyond Level 5. My comment was framed in the context that OP said her daughter was missing a relevant skill.

 

[gasrgoose]

Gymnast has proven mastery of Level 6 with last years results. I'd consider repeating a state champion in a compulsory level who has the skills for the next level to be the ultimate in poor sportsmanship and blatantly unfair to the other kids getting ready to compete level 6. With the facts presented, and assuming there isn't anything unsaid, there is no way this kid would be competing Level 6 again in our gym. All of her efforts would be in getting ready for Level 7 and beyond. She doesn't belong in Level 6 any longer and it's unfair to the kids that do. It's not really an accomplishment for a gymnast who is supposed to be in Level 6 to win Level 4 states. I don't get what is to be accomplished here. It won't help her, and it should embarrass the gym to enter a state champion again in the same level. People do notice, and it reflects poorly on the gym.

I agree with most that is said here especially the poor sportsmanship. I'm not a big fan of "fair and unfair" as it is completely within the rules to repeat. But a gym who would repeat a kid at level 6 because the kid doesn't have a level 9 skill seems to be putting too much emphasis on winning. It might not be what the gym is trying to "say" or what they want to "say". But this kid was in the top five of all level 6 in the state. Come on man, really????? I think it's convenient for the gym to put these high requirements on advancement. Then they can choose who to retain on the team to insure a better chance at winning, even it it slows the kids progress. Maybe that's not the case here, but really, a ten year old who was in the top 5 of all age groups and she's repeating the level .

 

[LizzieLac]

Thanks for this great note. I do trust our coaches and I appreciate being reminded that I need to sit back and "cheer" from the sidelines. Sometimes the "play" just seems wrong and I feel like Leigh Anne Tuohy from the movie The Blind Side calling the coach on his cell phone in the middle of the game and saying, "Run the dang ball!" Yes, I'll just put the cell phone down...

Thanks again!

Thanks for the humor!! That was the best thing I have read all day! And...it is true...however, I think Leigh Anne turned out to have the right instrinct there, didn't she?

 

[edamame]

All, just to clarify. My daughter passed all her L7 skills this spring and will compete L7 spring 2013. Our gym tests additional skills, but they are not all required for passing, only a majority percentage of these skills. My daughter passed all of the additional skills, except for the switch leap on beam as her angle was only at 170 degrees.

My initial question was whether repeating a season of L6 would benefit her given her current skill level and success last season.

To add another drop to the bucket: She had all her L7 at the end of her L6 season 2011, but they wouldn't let her test for L7. They let some of the older girls test for L6 (which we didn't think was fair) and they competed in the spring. The coaches' reasoning was that the girls who got to test were older or had already competed two seasons of L6 and needed to move up, but since my daughter was so young, she could wait a year. Again, my issues with the gym always seem to revolve around a lack of fairness and standards. Life isn't fair (I know that), but when you are running a program and a business, there has to be some level of consistency.

however, I think Leigh Anne turned out to have the right instrinct there, didn't she?

@LizzieLac - Yes Leigh Anne was right. Hopefully I won't be too. At this point we are just going to do what the coaches say with no push back.

 

[edamame]

And the more and more I read the topic of this thread, I feel badly at the use of the word "selfish." I don't think our gym is selfish. I should have used a different word.

 

[mariposa]

I think that the issue seems to be lack of consistency with standards at the gym regarding move ups, etc. While no gym is perfect, it seems that most complaints come up when there are not clear standards for move ups, etc, and when different rules apply to different girls. It can lend to cries of favoritism, unfairness, and mostly just confusion.

 

[gymgal]

To add another drop to the bucket: She had all her L7 at the end of her L6 season 2011, but they wouldn't let her test for L7. They let some of the older girls test for L6 (which we didn't think was fair) and they competed in the spring. The coaches' reasoning was that the girls who got to test were older or had already competed two seasons of L6 and needed to move up, but since my daughter was so young, she could wait a year. Again, my issues with the gym always seem to revolve around a lack of fairness and standards. Life isn't fair (I know that), but when you are running a program and a business, there has to be some level of consistency.

Well, all kids' situations are different so it is often best to have a fluid move up policy. However, when you have this, it's important to have clear communication with the parents, which doesn't appear to happen very often given all the posts about lack of communication on these forums. I know you said that you will follow the coach's decision, but I still think you deserve a clear understanding of why they made that decision for her and it really shouldn't hinge only on the L6 team doing better with her there.

 

[lhmom]

I guess my question would be why would the OP need to spend more money on meet fees and travel to repeat a level in the fall when her daughter will be competing level 7 in the spring? I'm not so sure I'd want to spend that extra money repeating a season unless the coaches had very good reasons for doing so, especially considering how well she did. Guess I am just thinking of what money our optional parents spend on travel during the season (they travel much further than our compulsory team does).

 

[cbone]

I guess my question would be why would the OP need to spend more money on meet fees and travel to repeat a level in the fall when her daughter will be competing level 7 in the spring? I'm not so sure I'd want to spend that extra money repeating a season unless the coaches had very good reasons for doing so, especially considering how well she did. Guess I am just thinking of what money our optional parents spend on travel during the season (they travel much further than our compulsory team does).

I've heard this argument before at my gym. I guess I don't understand it. If you would have been spending money on competitions and travel anyway, why is money spent competing at the gymnast's previous level a waste, but competing at the new level is money well spent?