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.
