WAG Repeating Levels

[iwannacoach]

Unless you know for a fact the specific reasons that a child is repeating a level, it is hard to know if a gym really is sandbagging or not..........

In order for her to compete L8 she would have been required to increase her training hours significantly and she and her family did not want to commit to the increased hours at her age, so she was told she would have to compete L7 again.

What's the point in that though? Her routines are L8, so the only difference is ticking the L8 box on the entry form rather than L7.

Faith, I would agree with you except it's not nearly as simple as ticking the L8 box in the entry form.

This kid is on a team that has obviously got a knack for training kids to compete well and progress to the next level, and I assume they generally move their kids up as they develop their abilities. Part of making that happen is having team level policies that create minimum training standards at each level. Those standards create team unity and atmosphere that allow a child support, both through their own efforts and those of their teammates.

If a child were allowed to choose, as it seems you're suggesting, their level of competition as well as their commitment to training hours those benefits would soon evaporate for everyone associated with the team program. I'll agree it's difficult to see a child dominate their level and then repeat the level. The choice in this case is to do what's right for the child by letting her train age appropriate hours and still compete within the frame work of her team's policies.

 

[gymdog]

Everything is relative. Old level 4 state champion to new level 4 is not a done deal. I have an old level 4 state champion who has made her kip on lb a handful of times but no where near consistently. Same child cannot hs on beam to vertical at all especially since it is now expected to be done in the middle of the beam... Ugh. She is working new 4 but if it doesn't happen it doesn't happen. We don't do privates for philosophical reasons so if she can't get it together soon... Yet she was a state champion in your/our state Gymdog.

Well I think in September it may be a bit premature if she's already making kips in a season that goes until May. Most of the kids who won AA in the age groups under 10 had a vertical handstand in the old level 4. How old is she?

 

[Deleted member 14190]

This is one of the reasons why I would like to see mandatory move up scores.[/quote]


===
This was tried and defeated. It is legally irresponsible and puts children in danger. By doing this You (not you gymgal) are basically forcing a child to compete in the next level, ready or not, and "not" may equal injury.
The goal is to have happy and successful children that move up through USA gymnastics when the coach thinks they are ready, not some outsider who hasn't a clue what is going on
with this particular child, or what the plans are.

 

[my4buffaloes]

coachp - I wouldn't say you are forcing them to compete whether they are ready or not. The coaches shouldn't let them compete if they are not ready. Maybe they could make it so they have to compete the next level the following season once they get a certain score. And of course if they aren't quite ready at the first meet or two then they shouldn't compete.

You say that USAG wants happy successful children- but how is a child going to be happy and successful if they are getting crushed by girls scoring several points higher than them? I know that mine has gotten discouraged at times when she scores very low compared to other girls and also at times when she scored high (in the 9's) and even though they placed out 10 places she didn't even place. And yes I know it isn't all about the placings, but to a kid who finally scores in the 9's and doesn't even get a medal that can be very hard.

I know you can't make everyone happy, but it is hard to watch girls repeat levels or drop back levels to get the team an easy win.

 

[Datgymcoach]

@ Gymdog
She is over 10. I would out myself if I gave exact age.

 

[gymdog]

@ Gymdog
She is over 10. I would out myself if I gave exact age.

Totally understand, but as I mentioned on my previous posts the scores for winning AA aren't the same in all the age groups so I excepted that. The 6-10 year old age groups are typically particularly competitive. But Xcel does offer a great alternative to continue progressing on some events while still missing some skills. Good luck!

 

[happychaos]

[quote="my4buffaloes, post: 249142, member: 7354"

You say that USAG wants happy successful children- but how is a child going to be happy and successful if they are getting crushed by girls scoring several points higher than them? I know that mine has gotten discouraged at times when she scores very low compared to other girls and also at times when she scored high (in the 9's) and even though they placed out 10 places she didn't even place. And yes I know it isn't all about the placings, but to a kid who finally scores in the 9's and doesn't even get a medal that can be very hard.
.[/quote]

YES!!! Totally agree. I feel that repeating until you score a 37-38 is almost becoming the norm with a few gyms in my area. These are good, large gyms that have many girls scoring in the 36's their first year who place top 5 or 6 at state. These girls ALL repeat. Now I know not every single one would have the skills to move up, but they are not even being trained on the move-up skills until well after their first season ends, when repeating has already become inevitable. Admittedly, my DD trains at one of these gyms, although her current gym is much, much better than her former gym in this area. The attention and energy is not going to new skills, but endless perfection of routines. I think that the coaches almost feel that they have to do this, because it has become the new normal. Our area's first meets were last weekend and this weekend. Sure enough, plenty of girls scoring 37+ and even a few 38's. At the first meet!!! I just don't think that is what USAG intended with the compulsory program.

I really love the idea of not allowing a repeater's score to count toward the team total, or even having a separate scoring group for repeaters. Sure this would mean that the age brackets would have to be larger. But I would rather have my 1st year DD competing against 8 and 9 y/o only 1st years, instead of only 8 y/o repeaters and 1st years, which is how it is set up now.

 

[raenndrops]

[quote="my4buffaloes, post: 249142, member: 7354"

You say that USAG wants happy successful children- but how is a child going to be happy and successful if they are getting crushed by girls scoring several points higher than them? I know that mine has gotten discouraged at times when she scores very low compared to other girls and also at times when she scored high (in the 9's) and even though they placed out 10 places she didn't even place. And yes I know it isn't all about the placings, but to a kid who finally scores in the 9's and doesn't even get a medal that can be very hard.
.

YES!!! Totally agree. I feel that repeating until you score a 37-38 is almost becoming the norm with a few gyms in my area. These are good, large gyms that have many girls scoring in the 36's their first year who place top 5 or 6 at state. These girls ALL repeat. Now I know not every single one would have the skills to move up, but they are not even being trained on the move-up skills until well after their first season ends, when repeating has already become inevitable. Admittedly, my DD trains at one of these gyms, although her current gym is much, much better than her former gym in this area. The attention and energy is not going to new skills, but endless perfection of routines. I think that the coaches almost feel that they have to do this, because it has become the new normal. Our area's first meets were last weekend and this weekend. Sure enough, plenty of girls scoring 37+ and even a few 38's. At the first meet!!! I just don't think that is what USAG intended with the compulsory program.

I really love the idea of not allowing a repeater's score to count toward the team total, or even having a separate scoring group for repeaters. Sure this would mean that the age brackets would have to be larger. But I would rather have my 1st year DD competing against 8 and 9 y/o only 1st years, instead of only 8 y/o repeaters and 1st years, which is how it is set up now.[/quote]

USAG says themselves that even though there is no mandate score, gyms should not "stack the deck" to ensure team victories. It is unsportsmanlike to do that.
They also suggest that states divide age groups (even suggesting a veteran and a rookie division as choices). In Ohio, I know they divide the teams based on size. They have a "National Division" for the larger gym teams and an "American Division" for the smaller gym teams. I wish that they would do vet / rookie instead.

We go to a YMCA gym and our Zone (think regionals) has Mandate scores to go along with USAG Minimums... of course, they make you achieve the USAG minimum 2x in a meet season to move up instead of once. The Mandate scores are much lower than I would like, but it is better than having a girl repeat who is capable of getting 37s all season.

 

[wgymmom]

I just don't understand the point of holding kids back so they can win the Level 4 Olympics. It really irritates me as a coach, because my kids and I work our butts off and get beat by kids who look like robots, add flourishes to the routines that are NOT in the text, and can adequately perform routines three levels above them!!! Okay so I know there are exceptions. I just hate to see my ultra talented, amazing little level 4s get their 9.2 scores crushed by "those" teams. Maybe I'm doing it wrong. I just can't hold my kids back like that!!

We have That Gym in our area too. My DD made it to the top tier for states but got crushed place-wise even though she had a 37.5+ AA. I know for a fact that the girls that made top scores were repeaters 2-3 times.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I really love the idea of not allowing a repeater's score to count toward the team total, or even having a separate scoring group for repeaters. Sure this would mean that the age brackets would have to be larger. But I would rather have my 1st year DD competing against 8 and 9 y/o only 1st years, instead of only 8 y/o repeaters and 1st years, which is how it is set up now.[/quote]
=
In theory that would be great, however, teams will and DO incubate kids for an extra year on pre team prior to competing them to combat this, or even make it look like they are moving kids along at a quick pace. So in a nutshell, ,, no solution.
USAG will never mandate that a child has to move up, it's legally and morally irresponsible.

 

[skschlag]

I guess, for me, I realize that the scores and places are not the important part at this level. And I love that we are at a gym taht enforces taht. Kids are praised for getting a new skill, doing something tighter, etc. The coach makes a big deal about it. In fact, many times our boys are not even paying attention when tehy are called to the podium.

In fact, my son came out of a meet once when one of his teammates was upset about not placing and said "X let places and scores ruin a perfectly good meet." We should all be able to have that attitude and celebrate what our child, team did rather than get upset about what other kids/teams did,

(and I do get that kids get upset, and want to win, etc. I understand that. But it is part of hte learning process to realize that we can't all win, and we need to look at our accomplishments!)

 

[Aussie_coach]

I feel it would not really be a fair system to discount repeaters scores from the Club total. Each gymnast is very individual. You can have a gymnasts with a learning difficulty who takes a few more years for it all to click.

 

[profmom]

I guess I think it's OK for different gyms to have different philosophies as long as the gyms are successful in getting the kids where they want to go. What happens to these girls/guys when they finally do move on to optionals? Do most of them get there and do well? Or have they gotten bored or failed to progress and left the sport as a result? And when they make the transition to optionals and find that they are no longer on the podium at every meet on most events and AA, does this throw them into a bad enough crisis of confidence that they find it difficult to keep going?

For the gyms that move up faster or don't jump levels frequently, how many girls/guys are they losing because the gymnasts or their parents are really unhappy by low/no placements at meets? Or have the coaches successfully encouraged them to focus on skill mastery as the ultimate goal rather than meet results?

Outright sandbagging -- competing meets at a level lower than the gymnasts will compete at states just so the gym can bring home the team banner -- seems like an easy bright line to me.

(For those who don't know, I write as the parent of one gymmie for whom "I scored a 9 on an event/I won a medal on one event" is a great meet outcome but who is more likely to think of meet results as "I did/didn't do what I set out to do on each event." DS has had more placement-based success at meets, but is strongly encouraged to think more about skills than placements. Both may repeat their levels this year.)

 

[my4buffaloes]

I don't think you can force everyone to move up after a year and it isn't right to not count their scores if they are repeating for a good reason. My dd repeated level 4 three times - and she needed it! She hasn't repeated since then. Even the third year I don't think she got a 36 AA (we were not at a good gym). Some times kids really do need to repeat. But sometimes they don't and I don't like the gyms that train the girls at a higher level and force them to compete a level or 2 below their ability so that the gymnast and the gym can win.

 

[Natasha]

I remember this discussion came up a while back and there is a state mandates that if you make a certain score (It may have been a 37 but I can't remember) and then if you do repeat the following year your score cannot count towards team score. I thought that was a great way to handle it.

 

[skschlag]

So, even if you have an injury/illness or problem that keeps you out of gym for months, you are penalized? I guess I don't get it. And I assume this rule would just be for compulsary levels?

 

[Natasha]

So, even if you have an injury/illness or problem that keeps you out of gym for months, you are penalized? I guess I don't get it. And I assume this rule would just be for compulsary levels?

I don't remember the details or if there is a petition option. I think it was just compulsories. And the gymnast doesn't get penalized- they are still eligible for all awards, it is just that the team can't count the score for a team score which prevents teams from sandbagging just to win team title...I think that is a good way to actually protect gymnasts from being "used" for a team score when really they are more than capable of moving up.

 

[LizzieLac]

I think it is impossible to make a rule about moving up based on a score in the previous level. I can't tell you how many times I have seen really good, successful gymnasts need to repeat because they were weak on one event or even one skill! Our HC/owner does require kids to be completely competent at a routine or he won't let them compete it and when it comes to levels where there is an option of 2 skills (i.e. BWO vs BHS on beam) he always requires the BHS. So, not having that one skill might require them to stay down a level and repeat. I don't think it equals sandbagging - in fact, he believes that requiring certain things at certain levels makes the gymmies' overall progression more sound and arguably smoother downstream. It is simply a philosophy of coaching.

 

[Quadqueen]

Our HC/owner does require kids to be completely competent at a routine or he won't let them compete it and when it comes to levels where there is an option of 2 skills (i.e. BWO vs BHS on beam) he always requires the BHS. So, not having that one skill might require them to stay down a level and repeat. I don't think it equals sandbagging - in fact, he believes that requiring certain things at certain levels makes the gymmies' overall progression more sound and arguably smoother downstream. It is simply a philosophy of coaching.

So all of your new level 5s will have a back handspring on beam? I can see some gyms having the tougher skill as the goal, but to keep a kid back for a skill that's optional to begin with...?

 

[happychaos]

I think it is impossible to make a rule about moving up based on a score in the previous level. I can't tell you how many times I have seen really good, successful gymnasts need to repeat because they were weak on one event or even one skill! Our HC/owner does require kids to be completely competent at a routine or he won't let them compete it and when it comes to levels where there is an option of 2 skills (i.e. BWO vs BHS on beam) he always requires the BHS. So, not having that one skill might require them to stay down a level and repeat. I don't think it equals sandbagging - in fact, he believes that requiring certain things at certain levels makes the gymmies' overall progression more sound and arguably smoother downstream. It is simply a philosophy of coaching.

Well, it depends on what type of gym you are at. If you are held back for no BHS on beam after you have very successfully completed the previous level, and have all other skills, you had better be at a gym that does tons of uptraining, and allows you to continue to train for the next level. If not, you're wasting a year. Some gyms are just not set up to allow repeaters to uptrain. They continue to train the routines that they already competed the year before, and not much else.