Parents Thinking of switching gyms - advice please :)

[gymbeam]

Oh yah- totally true of optionals too which is why people want to circumvent compulsories using xcel to get to optionals.

Xcel does sometimes get a bad rap and I 100% agree that it can be just as demanding at certain gyms.

 

[3rd_time_around]

According to USAG's website, and the Xcel national committee meetings, the changes that are coming do not support what you are saying, which is why I asked you to cite it. Anything going into effect in August would likely have been socialized outside of some secret meeting that nobody really knows about.

And, you did say - "They get judged on what they do." Implying they do not get judged for how well they do it. Forgive me if I misinterpreted. What has been repeatedly said and reinforced here is that Xcel is somehow a lesser program than JO. When in reality, our experience is that Xcel athletes are as competent as the JO athletes at comparable levels (i.e. Silver vs. JO 3/4, etc...)

Why would they have been socialized outside of some secret meeting? I was at Regional Congress, I sat through the Xcel update session, I took notes and photos. They are trying to get Xcel back to what it was originally intended for. And once again I will say what we were told: they get judged on what they CAN do. It's like optionals, but not like optionals. They can repeat major skills, and that's ok, but it's not in JO. They can make connections that would never be allowed in JO. Their list of skills to choose from is smaller, AND a kid doing 3 back handsprings that are clean and executed well will out score a kid throwing a sloppy back tuck, etc., etc. There are too many differences to list, you'll have to read both books to see it all for yourself.

I'm sorry to tell you, it's not the same and it's not supposed to be the same. It's designed to keep more gymnasts in the sport, therefore it is not supposed to be as rigorous or time-consuming as JO. And that's what they were emphasizing! That it's not JO and shouldn't be treated like JO, nor judged like JO. Changes are coming, these are not my opinions, these are the things they told us. I feel like you are grinding an axe with me for some reason, and I don't get it. I'm not making stuff up, nor talking as a lay person. I've been around the sport for 13 years, have my 3rd child starting team; we've been through JO to Level 10; as well as rec team, compulsories, and Prep Op. I've experienced it all, including judging. I say all this because you seem to keep sarcastically quoting and disputing my posts. I don't have a problem with healthy discussions, but I feel like it's gotten personal, and I don't understand why. I'm sorry if the general attitude towards Xcel is not how you'd like it to be, but it was never supposed to be another JO track. I've seen amazing Xcel gymnasts, very impressive, I take nothing away from them.

 

[z2akids]

The goal of Xcel is for the gymnast to perform what she can perform, not to build on skills and keep adding difficulty. We judge what they do and how they do it, that's all. (Please don't waste space arguing with me about this. I'm in the region that started Xcel and just sat through the Xcel updates clinic. They explained the philosophy and why it was started, and how they're trying to get it back to the way it was intended to be. I understand it much better now. Btw, there are changes and new level qualifications, so be prepared.)

Can you explain where it says that Xcel is not to build up on skills and adding difficulty. Here in Region 5, our Xcel girls absolutely up their difficulty and continue learning and perfecting new skills. As they become competition ready, they add their skills in. I don't know any gymnast who would be okay with only practicing the same skills over and over never having the opportunity to try new things. Our gym (and as far as I have seen, our region) uses Xcel as an alternate competitive track. Most gyms seem to compete their optionals up through compulsories with some movement between Xcel and JO. But, that does not mean that the track is non-competitive. It definitely is competitive, while still holding true to the idea that girls have more time to be involved in other sports and activities.

Compulsories focuses on every minute detail and all the core skills and their execution. Each level builds on the previous level, building a foundation for higher level gymnastics. If the core skills are not learned correctly, it does affect most gymnasts down the line. (I didn't say ALL gymnasts.) Xcel focuses on what the gymnast is doing. They get judged on what they do. (That's the philosophy, I'm not interjecting my opinion.) I know a gymnast who's coach somehow skipped her from 4 to 7 when she was just 8 years old (because she could throw a BHS on the beam). Her parent told me that if they could do it over, she would not have let that happen, because she could tell the difference from the girls who went through compulsories. That doesn't mean that this is true for all gymnasts, but it does show that those cour ore skills need to be there, and there's a reason for them, and a good reason why USAG requires at least a minimal training in level 4/5. As for gyms that circumvent the system with bogus score out meets (and the judges that allegedly go along with it), they are only hurting their athletes and possibly setting their gym up for loss of sanctions. I have also heard or read that an unqualified athlete in a competition can void the entire competition (or session, I can't remember which), so it's taken pretty seriously. The new meet registration system will help with a lot of that, but if people are intent on bucking the system and requirements, they will find a way.

Certainly if 3 bhs in a row were an allowed skill in the same Xcel division as a back tuck, then the well performed 3bhs would score higher. But, that isn't exclusive to Xcel. In Optionals, so long as skills are allowed in the level, a well performed, but less difficult skill should score higher than the more difficult, but poorly performed skill.

In my limited experience, our Xcel girls in Silver and Gold tend to score higher than the Level 3-5 JO gymnasts. However, I cannot attribute that to easier scoring or lesser skill/routines. I think the discrepancies in scoring can easily be accounted for by the lack of text errors in Xcel. In our area, the judges at Xcel meets are the same judges who are at JO meets.

 

[wandrewsjr]

In my limited experience, our Xcel girls in Silver and Gold tend to score higher than the Level 3-5 JO gymnasts. However, I cannot attribute that to easier scoring or lesser skill/routines. I think the discrepancies in scoring can easily be accounted for by the lack of text errors in Xcel. In our area, the judges at Xcel meets are the same judges who are at JO meets.

Text errors don't explain the discrepancies in scoring, the text deduction is up to 0.3. And a routine would have to have a huge number of text errors (like 15 to 2o in the routine) to get that max. Most compulsory routines might get 0.05 to 0.15 in text error deductions.

The main reason Xcel scoring tends to be higher is they tend to have fewer skills in their routines than compulsories. As GAgymmom said, xcel are only judged on what skills they can perform and include in their routines, while compulsories are judged on all the skills they must do.

 

[wandrewsjr]

"The Xcel Program is designed to offer a broad-based, affordable competitive experience outside the traditional Jr. Olympic Program to attract and retain a diverse group of athletes."

OUTSIDE, I repeat, OUTSIDE the traditional JO program.

But coaches and programs are going to do what they are going to do. I am not sure what USAG could do to completely prevent coaches from using the Xcel system however they want to use it.

 

[raenndrops]

As GAgymmom said, xcel are only judged on what skills they can perform and include in their routines,

How is this any different than L6 or the rest of the JO Optionals? They are only judged on the skills in their routines.

 

[raenndrops]

"The Xcel Program is designed to offer a broad-based, affordable competitive experience outside the traditional Jr. Olympic Program to attract and retain a diverse group of athletes."

OUTSIDE, I repeat, OUTSIDE the traditional JO program.

But coaches and programs are going to do what they are going to do. I am not sure what USAG could do to completely prevent coaches from using the Xcel system however they want to use it.

Yes, you are right… OUTSIDE the traditional JO program… using Xcel instead of full seasons of compulsory levels would be OUTSIDE the TRADITIONAL JO program. And as long as they properly score out of L4 and L5, they can enter L6 or L7 and then LEAVE the Xcel program to be INSIDE the traditional JO program from that point on. And using Xcel in this manner does attract a lot of families and gymnasts that may not have wanted to deal with the L3 music 72 times in a row, but believe that their gymnasts can succeed in JO Optionals when they are ready.

Of course, our gym uses Xcel for those who are in Jr. High or High School and would still be in compulsories… or slightly younger girls for whom compulsories were not a good fit (if they competed a full year first)… and all of our programs cost the same amount and have the same low hours.

 

[AmandaLynn]

And using Xcel in this manner does attract a lot of families and gymnasts that may not have wanted to deal with the L3 music 72 times in a row, but believe that their gymnasts can succeed in JO Optionals when they are ready.

Sorry, but I have been involved with this sport as a gymnast for years, then as a coach, and now as a parent and a coach, and if any parent/family has actually said that, then they are regurgitating what their coach/gym has told them.

My opionion on the whole matter (as if we need another one in this thread...) is that yes, gyms use Xcel as a path to avoid compulsories. Some because of skills that they don't like, but most (whether they admit it or not) because the competition is stiffer in compulsories and their kids can be more successful as XB or XS. Harsh? Yes. But true in most cases. I live in an area where this is common, and I am just going to put it out there... Most gyms that do this do not have truly successful optional programs. They may have a few that make it to optionals, but they aren't the gyms that have full teams of Level 10 athletes and girls getting scholarships.

 

[raenndrops]

Sorry, but I have been involved with this sport as a gymnast for years, then as a coach, and now as a parent and a coach, and if any parent/family has actually said that, then they are regurgitating what their coach/gym has told them.

My opionion on the whole matter (as if we need another one in this thread...) is that yes, gyms use Xcel as a path to avoid compulsories. Some because of skills that they don't like, but most (whether they admit it or not) because the competition is stiffer in compulsories and their kids can be more successful as XB or XS. Harsh? Yes. But true in most cases. I live in an area where this is common, and I am just going to put it out there... Most gyms that do this do not have truly successful optional programs. They may have a few that make it to optionals, but they aren't the gyms that have full teams of Level 10 athletes and girls getting scholarships.

Considering that Xcel is only 3 seasons old, this path hasn't had time to get anyone that far.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Considering that Xcel is only 3 seasons old, this path hasn't had time to get anyone that far.

Yep

 

[gymgal]

And using Xcel in this manner does attract a lot of families and gymnasts that may not have wanted to deal with the L3 music 72 times in a row, but believe that their gymnasts can succeed in JO Optionals when they are ready.

Sorry, but I have been involved with this sport as a gymnast for years, then as a coach, and now as a parent and a coach, and if any parent/family has actually said that, then they are regurgitating what their coach/gym has told them.

I agree with the premise of what raendrops is saying. I am fairly certain that my daughter would not have stayed through compulsory with all the intricacies of the routines. Either she would have found it too tedious or I would have (probably the latter) and would have gravitated to another sport or option. And that's not a regurgitation of a coach's line. It's our own experiences across 10+ years in a gym that switched from compulsory to prep-op/xcel, watching other gymnasts as well navigate through both streams in various gyms.

I live in an area where this is common, and I am just going to put it out there... Most gyms that do this do not have truly successful optional programs. They may have a few that make it to optionals, but they aren't the gyms that have full teams of Level 10 athletes and girls getting scholarships.

I have found that the gyms that use xcel instead of compulsory are gyms that are in more remote areas, where there is not as much of a population to pull in girls, so the gyms want to retain the girls as long as possible. Rather than create 2 different smaller streams, which stresses time, space and coach availability, it is easier to use only xcel stream and let the girls progress at their own pace. The ones destined to get to optionals will make it there regardless of whether they are in compulsory or xcel, as long as they have good coaching. I think the assumption that xcel doesn't create good optional gymnasts is false. I think other factors play into it, namely coaching and the number of girls in the gym capable of getting to optionals in the first place. This goes back to my thought above, that with a limited population, you are also going to have a limited number of girls able to get to optionals. So the numbers will dwindle down very fast when they try to make the leap to optionals but this happens in all gyms, it is just not as noticeable in the larger gyms who begin with lots of girls and can be very picky about who makes it to team in the first place. These places have already weeded out the girls who likely won't make it to optionals even before they begin team.

 

[gymgal]

Considering that Xcel is only 3 seasons old, this path hasn't had time to get anyone that far.

while xcel is technically only 3 seasons in, the older prep-op program that was individually run by states and then regions is much older. Closer to 10+ years in some states.

 

[gymbeam]

Considering that Xcel is only 3 seasons old, this path hasn't had time to get anyone that far.

and i dont think it ever should lead to college, either. the whole point is for it be less intense. also, xcel's birth mom (prep-op) began over a decade ago so while xcel is only 3 years old, it has been evolving for much longer than that.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

But prep- op is not Xcel, as it is currently intended. It is currently intended to be separate and less intense, in its present carnation it is meant to be separate from JO.

AND

That is not how it is currently being used.

It's use and how it is sold to parents is gym dependent.

Our JO girls train 12 hours a week and in the past used Xcel as an optional season in spring. Some other gyms got their knickers in a twist because JO girls were competing with their Xcel kids. I called those gyms under the guise of being new to the area and asked about their hours. One gyms Xcel did 12 hours, their JO 15. The other gyms Xcel did 15 hours their JO 18-20
So the gyms complaining that our kids trained more and that wasn't fair, actually trained as much or more than our kids.

What the rules/guidelines say is always the same as what actually happens. The current reality is not all gyms are using Xcel as USAG currently intends it.

And GAgymmom, perhaps the changes you speak of when implemented will "fix" Xcel to be used as USAG intends it. Awesome. And perhaps not.

Region 6 made some changes last year to tweak it to discourage JO and Xcel at the same time. I imagine they are tweaking things nationally. But that is future, not now.

 

[twinmomma]

Interesting the focus is whether or not a program is turning out college gymnasts. Is that really our goal here? Or is it that sport is to be used as a vehicle to create kids who are good citizens, resilient, and learn some fitness and life lessons along the way.

That said, we seem to keep saying the problem is with how Xcel is or isn't being used, but maybe Xcel isn't the problem. Maybe the problem is what the JO compulsory levels have turned in to. I watched a kid on our team do a very solid floor routine at a meet (L4), with NO major errors, pull a 7.85 score. Blew everyone away. Now, were there little details that needed addressing? Of course, but how beneficial is it when a kid cannot even tell you where their errors were because they were so slight ends up last behind kids who fell on back handsprings or whatever. While I understand JO is designed to be tough, it seems that in some areas, it's designed to beat these kids down to see if they can handle it, forgetting that they are 7,8 years old. In no other sport is such absolute perfection the only acceptable option. Xcel gives kids who are talented a fighting chance at success, while still learning the resilience that comes with getting back up when you fall, literally and figuratively.

Rather than attacking Xcel and how gyms are using it to bypass compulsories, maybe we need to focus more on WHY gyms would rather bypass compulsories, and I don't believe the answer is just that the scoring is easier. I think USAG may need to look at compulsories and make some changes as well.

*Edited to add that the coach discussed the routine with the judges who told her that all the "errors" were text errors/details that added up, no major issues. Things like, oh her foot was slightly turned in instead of turned out.

 

[bogwoppit]

*Edited to add that the coach discussed the routine with the judges who told her that all the "errors" were text errors/details that added up, no major issues. Things like, oh her foot was slightly turned in instead of turned out.

We call that being tenthed to death. JO girls suffer it often too. But it is what divides the incredible routines from the good routines.

 

[twinmomma]

We call that being tenthed to death. JO girls suffer it often too. But it is what divides the incredible routines from the good routines.

Oh I know. But I think that absolutely makes my point. Perfection? In a 7 year old? What lessons do they learn from that? Work your butt off, get destroyed anyway. I absolutely think the fact that there's a colloquialism for it means it should not be happening. I don't disagree it can separate the good from the amazing, but why does a 7 year old have to be amazing? Sure, reward the kid whose form was stronger, I have no problem with that. But in no way should a good routine garner a lesser score than a kid who falls three times. And if that's the philosophy, then I totally agree with using Xcel to bypass that. Because you're going to lose plenty of good kids who could learn a lot from this sport because they'll get fed up with being tenthed to death.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

Interesting the focus is whether or not a program is turning out college gymnasts. Is that really our goal here? Or is it that sport is to be used as a vehicle to create kids who are good citizens, resilient, and learn some fitness and life lessons along the way.

That said, we seem to keep saying the problem is with how Xcel is or isn't being used, but maybe Xcel isn't the problem. Maybe the problem is what the JO compulsory levels have turned in to. I watched a kid on our team do a very solid floor routine at a meet (L4), with NO major errors, pull a 7.85 score. Blew everyone away. Now, were there little details that needed addressing? Of course, but how beneficial is it when a kid cannot even tell you where their errors were because they were so slight ends up last behind kids who fell on back handsprings or whatever. While I understand JO is designed to be tough, it seems that in some areas, it's designed to beat these kids down to see if they can handle it, forgetting that they are 7,8 years old. In no other sport is such absolute perfection the only acceptable option. Xcel gives kids who are talented a fighting chance at success, while still learning the resilience that comes with getting back up when you fall, literally and figuratively.

Rather than attacking Xcel and how gyms are using it to bypass compulsories, maybe we need to focus more on WHY gyms would rather bypass compulsories, and I don't believe the answer is just that the scoring is easier. I think USAG may need to look at compulsories and make some changes as well.

*Edited to add that the coach discussed the routine with the judges who told her that all the "errors" were text errors/details that added up, no major issues. Things like, oh her foot was slightly turned in instead of turned out.

I agree with this. My dd is one who would probably have been stuck in compulsory levels indefinitely b/c of her uneven progress on bars compared to her other events. Her kip is still inconsistent so if she was JO, she would probably be looking at doing L3 for about the 3rd year in a row lol. B/c of Xcel she can continue to progress. No doubt she would have become frustrated in compulsories. Our gym happens to be one that doesn't compete compulsories. With our newer program after Xcel gold, some girls will continue in Xcel Platinum and up and some will go to optionals/L6. My dd would like the chance to go to optionals one day. Will she be as "successful" as girls who have been training JO at powerhouse gyms with huge L10 teams getting scholarships? I can almost say certainly not. But we live in a state with NO gyms JO, Xcel, or otherwise that have huge L10 teams and girls getting scholarships. I don't think having a huge L10 team getting scholarships is the only indication of successful optionals by any means. That would mean we would have to go out of state to have a shot at being "successful". Our girls who did Xcel instead of compulsories are holding their own. They are placing higher than other local gyms who do compulsories instead of Xcel. They have also placed lower than other gyms from further away with more intense JO programs. We have one girl that is training level 8 that scored higher in Level 7 last year than she ever did in Xcel. Everyone has to start somewhere and I think if you can produce optionals that are competitive in your area, that is success. It's less about the program and more about the individual gym and their philosophy. My dd's first gym did JO, but there was no focus on form in their JO program or their Xcel program. So not all JO programs are created equal, just like not all Xcel programs are created equal. I get that people don't like using Xcel to bypass compulsories, I really do see that perspective. But it feels different on this side of the fence. I feel like if an Xcel gymnast shows good progress and wants to try optionals later on and is ready to take on the additional commitment and hours, than why not give them that chance? They might have not have been a good fit for the compulsory program, and they may not have wanted to commit to the big hours so early on, but I think if they are ready and willing than I don't see the harm in letting them try if it's a personal goal and it important to them.

 

[bogwoppit]

Oh I know. But I think that absolutely makes my point. Perfection? In a 7 year old? What lessons do they learn from that? Work your butt off, get destroyed anyway. I absolutely think the fact that there's a colloquialism for it means it should not be happening. I don't disagree it can separate the good from the amazing, but why does a 7 year old have to be amazing? Sure, reward the kid whose form was stronger, I have no problem with that. But in no way should a good routine garner a lesser score than a kid who falls three times. And if that's the philosophy, then I totally agree with using Xcel to bypass that. Because you're going to lose plenty of good kids who could learn a lot from this sport because they'll get fed up with being tenthed to death.

Of course that is the JO compulsory philosophy. It is all about perfection and executing the routines as cleanly as possible.

I agree that JO is not for every child, Xcel is a great alternative for some kids. Either as a path to optionals or just as a path to enjoy competition.

Just like in other sports there are different levels of competition, there are in gymnastics too.

Elite is a higher level than JO, I imagine JO parents in a gym with elites often feel like their kids do not get the attention the elite girls do etc etc.

The playing field will never, ever be even. It just is what it is.

 

[twinmomma]

Of course that is the JO compulsory philosophy. It is all about perfection and executing the routines as cleanly as possible.

I agree that JO is not for every child, Xcel is a great alternative for some kids. Either as a path to optionals or just as a path to enjoy competition.

Just like in other sports there are different levels of competition, there are in gymnastics too.

Elite is a higher level than JO, I imagine JO parents in a gym with elites often feel like their kids do not get the attention the elite girls do etc etc.

The playing field will never, ever be even. It just is what it is.

It's not an attention issue. And it isn't even about a "level" playing field. Other sports, let me use my son as an example. He's a baseball player. "Perfect" would be batting 1000. It doesn't happen, just like perfect scores don't happen in the Olympics (anymore) and just like in soccer every goal attempt doesn't go in and in tennis every serve isn't an ace. In what other sport are you guaranteed never to hit the goal? Why even have a score of 10.0 if it simply isn't attainable? And it's not that's it isn't attainable because kids aren't good enough, it's because the judging system guarantees it isn't attainable. But you can advance in those other sports without being perfect. As @cadybearsmommy indicates, her daughter would be languishing in L3 for a third year without Xcel - it doesn't mean she isn't "JO material" it means that as an organization we are neglecting good kids who could do well and then relegating them to what seems to be seen as a "lesser" program.

My point is we set these kids up. We teach them these routines, and work on the details and put them out there KNOWING they're going to get torn to shreds and making the only option for success to be competing 1-2 levels below your skill set. In baseball, you would never have a 12 year old playing on a 10u team. I love this sport, my daughter loves this sport, but I think there are some serious issues to be dealt with in terms of making it the best it can be.

As a mom to a kid who's done Xcel and JO, I honestly say I prefer Xcel not because it's "easier" but because the lessons that come out of it are much more in line with my philosophy as a parent - work hard and be rewarded for it. Work harder, better rewards. JO seemed to just teach her that no matter how hard you work it depends on which judges are at the table and what they decide to deductions for. I'm not sure what the solution is - I'm sure there are folks here with much better ideas than I have. But I do think if gyms are purposefully using Xcel to bypass compulsories, that says more about compulsories than about Xcel.