Spotting talent....comments by Louis Smith coach

[Uglybetty]

Did anyone watch the Olympic inspire documentary on BBC earlier today? It featured Huntingdon gym club. I thought something LS's coach said was very interesting. He said (and I'm paraphrasing): "I didn't see any talent at first, it wasn't until he was around 13 that I thought he could achieve something exceptional".

I thought it was very interesting....especially given some recent debates on here about late starters, needing to be "in age" etc.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

yes but he is a boy, BIG difference.

Louis himself has said he excelled at Pommel because he was a right pain in the bum and when he misbehaved he was sent to do pommel as a punishment !

 

[Uglybetty]

I'm not sure why his sex is relevant (apart from the fact that perhaps fewer boys take up MAG and therefore there is less competition). My point was that it's not always possible for even experienced coaches to see talent immediately....some kids will take a few years to shine. Are you suggesting that the opposite is true with girls...that it is immediately possible to spot the talented ones? If so, how does that reconcile with coaches an here who say they don't have crystal balls and that it is hard to tell how a kid will develop longer term.

Until 5 weeks ago I knew almost nothing about WAG but I've already learned a lot from here and speaking to other mums/coaches.

I don't think anyone yet fully appreciates or understands what the new 2014 rules will mean. There appear to be strongly differing views about whether they will make it more or less important to start gym early and shine young. Only as things develop will it all become clear. However, it is strongly arguable BG wouldn't have made changes if they thought the current system was working 100%. The fact they seem to be moving away from the elite in age concept could suggest they have realised it is not always possible to spot talent early enough to get to elite within age.

I was speaking to a coach the other day who had a week earlier been on training with one of BG's top physiologists (who regularly works at Littleshall). He said two things of interest: (1) that BG always previously thought they lost most girls from the sport aged 13 ish but research has recently proved its closer to 9/10 (maybe elite track girls get frustrated with the long hours and having been pushed to do excessive hours too young have had enough/burned out/got injured and maybe non-elite girls get frustrated and go to do another sport which doesn't write them off too soon). (2) that all of their research shows that some people are not physically able to develop some of the harder skill sets and that no number of hours in a gym can fix that. This sometimes only becomes apparent as someone progresses through the skill sets so a child who shines at an early age might find it impossible at a later age to learn the required skills to remain elite ( because their body is simply not able to do so).

 

[vbbf]

I think the new changes of the compulsory levels make it important to start gym early if the gymnast is to be 'in age'. They have increased the difficulty of the skills required in the lower levels therefore if you didnt start early you wudnt be able to get the skills required in time to be 'in age'. I think the gymnasts that are able to compete 'in age' are talented from a young age but that doesnt mean 'out of age' gymnasts cant catch up to there talent level. So the gymnasts that start late could still end up being very talented elite gymnasts by junior level.

 

[Faith]

I'm not sure why his sex is relevant (apart from the fact that perhaps fewer boys take up MAG and therefore there is less competition).

Sex is relevant as puberty is a positive thing for boys gymnastics- it means they get a lot stronger as the testosterone affects muscle development as they grow. Girls not so much, when they hit puberty it gets harder to maintain strength:weight as the oestrogen tries to lay down fat, their proportions change with wider hips and breasts, so their centre of gravity changes. So boys tend to peak after puberty, where girls will find their gymnastics much tougher and the rate of skill aquisition will slow down, or indeed go backwards for a while.

I don't think anyone yet fully appreciates or understands what the new 2014 rules will mean. There appear to be strongly differing views about whether they will make it more or less important to start gym early and shine young. Only as things develop will it all become clear. However, it is strongly arguable BG wouldn't have made changes if they thought the current system was working 100%. The fact they seem to be moving away from the elite in age concept could suggest they have realised it is not always possible to spot talent early enough to get to elite within age.

But they have made the level requirements harder, so kids will be expected to learn tougher skills earlier. I don't think they are moving away from the "in-age" concept. I think it might give kids who aren't suited or who don't do the compulsory path for whatever reason a better chance of moving across to the elite stream- but their skill level will pretty much need to be equivalent at the same ages. The much quoted Ruby Harrold only did compulsory 4, but she competed roughly equivalent club grades 3 and 2 before qualifying to espoir.

I was speaking to a coach the other day who had a week earlier been on training with one of BG's top physiologists (who regularly works at Littleshall). He said two things of interest: (1) that BG always previously thought they lost most girls from the sport aged 13 ish but research has recently proved its closer to 9/10 (maybe elite track girls get frustrated with the long hours and having been pushed to do excessive hours too young have had enough/burned out/got injured and maybe non-elite girls get frustrated and go to do another sport which doesn't write them off too soon). (2) that all of their research shows that some people are not physically able to develop some of the harder skill sets and that no number of hours in a gym can fix that.

I agree. We are a classic example. DD loved gymnastics, but even at 8 she could see that kids on the elite track were a couple of years ahead of her in skills. And her gym weren't keeping non-elite skills comparable, even with the same amount of hours. So she's gone to a sport which hasn't written her chances off so early. I think we could maybe have found a gym which would have let her progress faster, but she wanted a shot at the top and the other sport was clearer about it.

This sometimes only becomes apparent as someone progresses through the skill sets so a child who shines at an early age might find it impossible at a later age to learn the required skills to remain elite ( because their body is simply not able to do so).

Also agree. While I think the R+C set is amazing and really useful, I do think it means those kids who win at comp 4/3/2 are the ones who have amazing R+C. And those kids may not have the power, speed, fast twitch etc for higher level skills like double backs.

On that point- Kids like Louis Smith, Beth Tweddle and the like are often described as not "spotted" as talented. BUT. these are kids who were always on the elite track, just mid-bottom pack, and only "shone" as in started to win once they hit junior levels. Thing is if a kid doesn't start on the elite track it becomes self defeating- they aren't getting the same coaching, the same hours, learning the same skills the same way. So unless you are at a club with experience in developing kids to cross over via the challenge cup, it's pretty much impossible. Rebecca Tunny I don't think did spectacularly well at compulsories, and Gabby Jupp didn't shine until junior.

 

[Ex member]

youngest dd will be a sort of late starter, she has been doing rec for 2 years and is now waiting to start a development class in the next 2 months, she will be 7 when the class starts. From what I have seen with dd is that she seem to be making the biggest improvements over the last 6 months or so.

I can understand the burn out in children who started pre team/development groups from the age of 4, from what I have seen in a development group in dd's gym there is only 1 girl left from around 7-8 who started 2 years ago, all but 1 other have quit gym altogether, 1 other girl went back to rec for a year before joining a new development group at the start of the year.

 

[Flossyduck]

Tiny Dancer your daughter is not a late starter, lol, stop worrying!

She's been doing gymnastics since she was what - 4? Most of the girls in the GB squad didn't start until they were about 6 or even 7.

The elite clubs don't tend to take girls into a development squad until they are at least 6 or 7 because you can't even start competing until the year you turn 8.

Crikey, my daughter was a few weeks off her 7th birthday when she took her first class and couldn't even cartwheel or do a headstand. Luckily I didn't know enough about gymnastics to start regretting the late start until she had already moved into a squad and was doing really well, by which time it was somewhat irrelevant. You can't tell the difference between her and the girls who started at 4 in her group. The best gymnast in her age group started at 7.

And yes, on the gender thing... boys can't begin to develop their full strength until they have started puberty. Something to do with the way the muscles/hormones work. So it's normal for boys to start later and very difficult to tell how good they will be until much later.

But your dd doesn't fall into the late start bracket. She'll be fine

 

[Galadriel]

We had a boy start age 9 who is now elite with international experience

 

[vbbf]

My dd was an early starter. She started when she had just turned 4 and was put into a squad group. She is now 7 and loves gymnastics. She got quite a lot of skills b4 she turned 7 so i think its been a good thing that she started as early as she did. She is now elite track and ahead of were she needs to be on her skills. That takes alot of the pressure off her because she can relax. Any skills she gets are just a bonus because she has all the skills she needs to be 'in age'. I think late starters might have more pressure trying to catch up on all the skills