Slap the level 4 mom...

[NotAMom]

I mean 9's and high 8's are very good and I don't know why she wouldn't go to states??

Some gym would not let/encourage a kid go to states unless she can get high placement on the podium. It's all about reputation.

 

[NotAMom]

Not sure about the not repeating L4, I think that decision will really depend on the gymnast. I am assuming that my DD will repeat L4. Maybe not, but likely.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with repeating a level, regardless of age (but particularly so with the younger). If the gymnast is less than a natural to start out, rushing through the levels, even with all the up skills, will yield less than ideal scores and likely for the long run. I don't think I need to repeat what others and I have already said about being burnt out and discouraged. Sometimes, it takes a second year or third, especially at the lower level, for a gymnast to refine the skills. Once good form and habit (along with confidence) kicks in, there's much better chance that the kid will be more successful for good.

Our Optional HC has said he sees very little correlation between being great at compulsory level and doing well at optional level. He isn't a fan of pushing to do well early--he works towards the higher level skills, which may not translate well into high scores at the compulsory level.

That's baloney!!! (not you Cathiann) I hope not all coaches think that way. No matter what it is in life, learning starts with the fundamentals. The lack of correlation should never stop someone from learning the proper basics. Your gymnasts being successful is purely a coincidence. The only reason for their success is that their talent caught on later and they learn fast. I would bet you anything that with their "poor" performance in the earlier days if they had spent a bit more time to refine what they did (while uptraining -- that's the key), they are likely to outperform themselves at the current level.

 

[gymmomntc2e6]

NotAMom -
I don't have a problem with repeating levels. Sorry if it sounded that way. My DD is 9. She has already repeated L3. I am not worried about it, I just want her to have fun. All I meant was that it really needs to be a decision based on the particular child and situation. You could be scoring 38+ AA and not get your kip or your squat on and do L4 again. My DD struggles with tightness, I an just going to anticipate 2 yes at L4. If she gets her L5 skills and JC thinks she's ready I am all for going to L5, I an just not expecting that to happen.

I think repeating levels can be a great thing under the proper circumstances, so can scoring out.

 

[gymdog]

That's baloney!!! (not you Cathiann) I hope not all coaches think that way. No matter what it is in life, learning starts with the fundamentals. The lack of correlation should never stop someone from learning the proper basics. Your gymnasts being successful is purely a coincidence. The only reason for their success is that their talent caught on later and they learn fast. I would bet you anything that with their "poor" performance in the earlier days if they had spent a bit more time to refine what they did (while uptraining -- that's the key), they are likely to outperform themselves at the current level.

I don't think the statement described really implies this much. Many gyms focus on skill development rather than compulsory routines. That doesn't mean ignoring basics, but it can mean glossing over some things that are stressed at the compulsory level but don't necessarily work for particular gymnasts. It would be wonderful if we had the time to nitpick through compulsory routines while also training everything we want, but realistically sometimes we have to decide whether to work on free hip angles or the level 6 dismount. I think the level 6 beam dismount is rooted in a fair idea of control, balance, etc, but in the end next year the girls are doing a cartwheel tuck off the beam and they need to get a good free hip. I can already tell the place where we're possibly going to get a hit for much of the season is that beam dismount. I could spend the time it would take to develop marvelous handstand control and it sure wouldn't hurt, but I have to balance that against stuff that is more imminent. I'm looking for adequacy, and hoping to develop further control over time at this point.

That's just one example. Some skills are more important than others. The tumbling is more important than the specific leap series. I can already tell you some of mine are neverrrrrrrr going to do a single leg side leap again after this year. I am trying to get them to look adequate doing it, but I'd rather develop basic back and front tumbling in general.

 

[NotAMom]

gymdog, I don't think there is much difference between your approach and reasoning, and my preception on when advanced skills should be present to lower level gymnasts. I think we both agree on uptraining and exposing kids to upper level skills as early as possible. But, where we differ is where we think the core emphasis is placed. I also don't agree that at a lower level it isn't possible to push for big skills and demand for tight form at the same time.

Just for instance, we had a coach who can very effectively do both. My then L4 struggled with her BHS, vault and pretty much anything on the bars. It took her nearly two years to start competing after joining the team. OTOH, my then L6 tend to excel on bars over all other skills. Under his training, he was able to simultaneously hone in on all the basics and overcome the needed form for the L4, and produced the only (near perfect) clear hip handstand at L6 in our state. Yes, his preference was also in optional skills (and had his share of griping) but he never brush the lower level skills aside. He is also an advocate in keeping kids at the same level until they can show reasonable showmanship not just skills.

 

[gymkat]

You're conflating not pushing to win at compulsories with teaching crappy technique. Emphasizing uptraining is not the same thing as disregarding technique. There are some elements in the compulsory routines that are mostly irrelevant to higher-level skills (FHC, mill circle, L3 vault, L6 beam dismount... the list goes on...). I assume that cathiann's gym would focus less on having perfect front hip circles and mill circles and more on preparing kids for L6/7 skills-- the basics that kids will actually use in the future.

As an example, if I had my way, I wouldn't care what the L5 FHCs looked like-- I'd much rather spend that time working on strong kips, casts, and tap swings with great body shapes. Sure, theoretical gymnasts might never win L5 bars, but the emphasis on kips, casting, and swinging over a dead-end skill (say, FHC) would pay off in optionals. What's the last time that I did a mill circle? Well, except for when I was screwing around in practice, L4. What's the last time that I did a FHC, excluding demonstrating for L4s? L5. Give me that time that I spend teaching those skills and put it towards kips, casts, and tap swings-- those are the elements that matter for the future.

 

[gymdog]

As an example, if I had my way, I wouldn't care what the L5 FHCs looked like-- I'd much rather spend that time working on strong kips, casts, and tap swings with great body shapes.

I'd be more concerned about how quickly they could go into it, because it's a good kip cast drill, than whether they even made it around. But I have to balance that with some control. I'm not advocating teaching poor form. That's different than not endlessly working on handstand dismounts. We would not even entertain the idea of moving a kid to level 6 if they could literally not do a handstand on beam with good form. That's just not acceptable as you move through the levels. But it takes a great deal of skill to be able to do that dismount as it's written in the text. To be honest, I'd probably miss it some of the time about now, and I have a much better ability to hold handstands than your average level 6. Some kids really pick up that handstand ability, some it takes longer. It is important. But if they're in the correct body position, even if they can't really hold it, I'm mostly concerned with other things for now. Handstand hold is important for shoulder strength I think so wall handstands and partner "balance" holds are my choices for that as they develop control. If I let them loose, some can do it, but it's going to be terrible positioning.

Anyway most of that is besides the point. I'm basically happy with most of the USAG progressions. I might change the L6 dismount...I think the handstand for 3+ years in a row may be excessive, but it's a fair enough principle. They should be aiming towards developing that control. In my scenario, I'm not really even talking about "uptraining" which I think gets thrown around a lot. I try to mix things up and do things that are a challenge, but to be honest, unless the kid is repeating a level, I mainly focus on that level's "core" skills, which are the skills I view to be the most important functions of that level. All compulsory levels - roundoff tumbling, casting, form on beam. Within each level, I find some skills to be more worthwhile progressions than others though, and I don't think that idea is very controversial. There are so many little things they can pick up deductions on - the mounts on beam, etc, and I really would like to be able to devote more time to some things, sometimes, but overall when I'm trying to allocate my time efficiently, sometimes I can't do something else. I can appreciate that you can teach form and skills. I would like to think I'm not that incompetent, either. But there is still not unlimited time, resources, set-ups, etc. There is not a coach out there with the unlimited time to devote to each compulsory skill. Priorities happen. Form/technique is actually my biggest priority, but it is sometimes over how things might be in the text, also depending on the specific gymnast.

For what it's worth, I'm actually pretty picky in the grand scheme of things. I have an almost obsessive desire to have things look a certain way, which comes from having had somewhat obsessive coaches for a long time. But to be honest, I don't have a) the time b) the facility or c) the program, that they have going. Those are excuses, sure, but they're also reality. There are some concessions. I do my best, it's not always quite what I'd find ideal. First priority is safety. Second/equal to first priority is personal development and mental health of the children we're dealing with. Third priority is progressive gymnastics to the extent the resources allow.

 

[MdGymMom01]

I am not through this journey by any means but I, too, have heard all the information you're being given here that success (or not) at any one level has very little bearing on future levels. Success in this sport really is a very individual thing. There doesn't seem to be any pattern, no precedent, no frame of reference. Every kid, and every path is different. There are many roads to Oz.

I agree with Shawn. The way I see it is gymnastics is kind of like school. A kids’ first grade report card really has little correlation to how well they will do in high school or college. When my dd was younger she was an avid reader—could “readâ€￾ pretty much anything and was well above her grade level. But, now that she is in 5th grade and comprehension is now factored into reading, she has leveled off and is on grade level. She struggles with the comprehension and is starting to lose an interest in reading for enjoyment now. My son, however, seemed to take forever to learn to read (he is now in the 2nd grade) and he is starting to do a lot better and is showing more of an interest in it. So even with academics, it is a journey.

So what does it mean that a child had a great level 4 season? To me, it means that she had a great level 4 season. Period. Will she continue to have a great Level 5, 6 or 7 season? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t think anyone can really predict success really because there are so many factors that play into it—age, maturity, injuries, other activities and interests that may take precedence over the gymnastics…the list can go on and on. Just look at how many posts on the CB are about gymnasts who start other activities—cheerleading, T & T, dance, soccer, track, drill team, ect and eventually drop out of gymnastics. Or the kids that enter into gymnastics after doing other sports. When people say that gymnastics is a marathon, not a sprint, there really is so much truth and wisdom to that saying.

I know how exciting it is when your dd does really well and you think the sky is the limit, but gymnastics is really a good practice in living in the NOW and appreciating every moment for what it is, because before you know it, there will be ups and downs, success and disappointment and laughter and tears—all which are necessary to make each gymnast the individual and unique person that they are.

 

[cathiann]

I don't think the statement described really implies this much. Many gyms focus on skill development rather than compulsory routines. That doesn't mean ignoring basics, but it can mean glossing over some things that are stressed at the compulsory level but don't necessarily work for particular gymnasts. It would be wonderful if we had the time to nitpick through compulsory routines while also training everything we want, but realistically sometimes we have to decide whether to work on free hip angles or the level 6 dismount. I think the level 6 beam dismount is rooted in a fair idea of control, balance, etc, but in the end next year the girls are doing a cartwheel tuck off the beam and they need to get a good free hip. I can already tell the place where we're possibly going to get a hit for much of the season is that beam dismount. I could spend the time it would take to develop marvelous handstand control and it sure wouldn't hurt, but I have to balance that against stuff that is more imminent. I'm looking for adequacy, and hoping to develop further control over time at this point.

That's just one example. Some skills are more important than others. The tumbling is more important than the specific leap series. I can already tell you some of mine are neverrrrrrrr going to do a single leg side leap again after this year. I am trying to get them to look adequate doing it, but I'd rather develop basic back and front tumbling in general.

Thanks for this post--describes exactly what our gym does. Our HC does focus on the basics, but doesn't worry about correcting every little thing to score really high at the compulsory level.