Parents Thinking of switching gyms - advice please :)

[GymDad9.9]

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.

Your comparison to baseball is not a good one. A batter is facing off against a pitcher and fielders both behind him and in front of him that can moved into different positions on the field to take away certain batter's strengths. The batter's success is really the end result of alot of factors beyond that batter's control. A gymnast is competing against themselves and judged "objectively" on a whole series of executions that make up a routine. Conjecture: (You might have Judge issues. don't worry, I have them for time to time) Baseball simply is not played on the same basis as gymnastics is performed. I think diving would be an apt comparison.

As for producing gymnasts for failure in JO as you allude to, and only speaking for myself (my daughter), her experience is she has worked hard in the gym and in competitions has performed better than average and I tend to believe it's the result of her hard work, focus, and being coachable and handling her corrections. Perfection will always be elusive, but it's something you strive for, something you recognize requires hard work and focus. Isn't that a really good strong life lesson in and of itself considering life is never perfect?

 

[MILgymFAM]

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.

I think that it can be attainable- there are kids who get 10s. I also think that it doesn't have to be attainable because most people will never see a 10. It works both ways. It's just an ideal to be judged against. Even without the text errors, most Xcel or optional gymnasts will ever see a 10 either. Honestly, I'd hate it if they started giving them out like candy.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

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..

Twin momma, can't speak to your specific situation. But my kid has done JO, XCel and IGC and has been on both sides.

Great tumbling bad form on the details. And she has gotten beat by kids with blown BHS. And it used to make my husband crazy but he has watched enough now to notice the details, so he now gets it when he sees a routine with bad form. Only speaking for husband and I when we were new, we just assumed great tumbling she always trump form and we weren't as clear on what good form was. We know better now.

Great form blown CW or BW on beam. And she has won the event.

My kid got less then 7 on her bars at a meet. The other parents went to the coach because my kid doesn't typically score like that....... Let's go to the videotape. Tons of form stuff. It was an off day.

The reality is a bunch of "little" mistakes can cost a kid more then a fall.
Sloppy "more difficult" skills won't score as well as a cleaner "less difficult"

It works that way no matter JO, Xcel or IGC.

 

[LindyHopper]

Okay... I have to ask: what is a text error?

 

[MILgymFAM]

Okay... I have to ask: what is a text error?

I'm probably not saying this clearly, but it's an error in doing the exact movement written for a compulsory routine. Like the fingers are pointed wrong, or the leg isn't properly positioned. It's less about arms being bent on a kip and more about the degree of foot turn out on a floor dance passage, or the skills being out of order, or something else that doesn't necessarily affect ability. The little stuff that's hard for a layperson to even see.

 

[gymmomtotwo]

I hate to get into the fray here, but oh well... It is clear that USAG did not intend for XCEL to be a way for gyms to bypass compulsories, but created it to keep more kids in the the sport. Kid could compete in XCEL bronze without having to have Level 3 skills,kids or families who didn't want to do as many hours, or even JO kids who no longer wanted to give up everything else for one sport now had a forum to compete in gymnastics. I firmly believe that it violates the spirit of the program for gyms to place their kids that they have every intention of preparing for optionals into the XCEL program. The fact that the rule can be used to do just that, doesn't make it right or within the spirit intended when the program was created.. For kids to practice JO hours, learning JO routines for scoreout, and in the meantime competing against XCEL gymnasts seems wrong to me. Just because you can within the rules doesn't mean you should. We have mobility between the two tracks. JO kids move because they are tired of the hour or are struggling to move up the levels, Xcel kids move when they want to make a bigger commitment. No way would our gym allow what amounts to our JO athletes compete against kids doing far lesser hours. I understand different areas of the country do this different ways, so everyone plays the way that area does things, but if that is what USAG wanted, they would just merge the two programs.

 

[bogwoppit]

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.

But that is the system, you can choose to not put your child in it if you know they are not going to be able to manage it. Some kids thrive in JO, some kids hate it. Same for Xcel. Some kids cannot handle any kind of competition.

In the world the reality is that if you are the best you will be rewarded no matter if someone else worked harder than you did yet had a poorer outcome. That is the essence of judged sports.

Honestly why put your kid in a sport like gym if you do not like the judging system? (That is not specifically directed at you though.) There are so many other options for kids, include rec gym and a ton of other options.

My kids competed in two systems one like JO and one like Xcel. In the end the Xcel type system was a better fit for the both because they could use their strongest skills, avoid weaker skills and add bonus skills.

 

[twinmomma]

But that is the system, you can choose to not put your child in it if you know they are not going to be able to manage it. Some kids thrive in JO, some kids hate it. Same for Xcel. Some kids cannot handle any kind of competition.

In the world the reality is that if you are the best you will be rewarded no matter if someone else worked harder than you did yet had a poorer outcome. That is the essence of judged sports.

Honestly why put your kid in a sport like gym if you do not like the judging system? (That is not specifically directed at you though.) There are so many other options for kids, include rec gym and a ton of other options.

My kids competed in two systems one like JO and one like Xcel. In the end the Xcel type system was a better fit for the both because they could use their strongest skills, avoid weaker skills and add bonus skills.

Oh I know it isn't directed at me. I have a lot of experience with subjective scoring (and I know it's supposed to be objective but it doesn't seem that way) coming from the dance world. And I warned my kid up front what it would be like, and luckily she's mostly good with it. I think for me watching kids who are passionate and good but uneven in skill development struggling with options. If a gym or an area isn't doing Xcel, does that kid quit altogether? What can we do to keep kids in the sport and maintain the high level of quality but not discourage kids at the same time? I guess I'd just like to see less conversations about Xcel alone and more about the programs offered in from a holistic perspective. Make sense?

 

[Mrs. Puma]

. Honestly, I'd hate it if they started giving them out like candy.

Like NCAA...I love watching college gym. I love how much fun they look like they're having compared to the somber elite faces. I love that it's clearly a team sport. I love the hair, the bows, the makeup (I know...you all think I'm nuts on that one LOL) But I hate that a 9.7 is a bad score! Way too many 10s!

The reality is a bunch of "little" mistakes can cost a kid more then a fall.
Sloppy "more difficult" skills won't score as well as a cleaner "less difficult"

Boy, it's this the truth...poor Puma Jr learned this the hard way!

 

[bogwoppit]

Oh I know it isn't directed at me. I have a lot of experience with subjective scoring (and I know it's supposed to be objective but it doesn't seem that way) coming from the dance world. And I warned my kid up front what it would be like, and luckily she's mostly good with it. I think for me watching kids who are passionate and good but uneven in skill development struggling with options. If a gym or an area isn't doing Xcel, does that kid quit altogether? What can we do to keep kids in the sport and maintain the high level of quality but not discourage kids at the same time? I guess I'd just like to see less conversations about Xcel alone and more about the programs offered in from a holistic perspective. Make sense?

Competitive sports just are not holistic. It is just not the way they work. Xcel is definitely the kinder option though as flaws and weaknesses can be worked around and glossed over. My kids would have been thrashed by JO, they just do not have that polish. But they loved gym and now they are grown they never say they wish they hadn't done it, even though they got judged for their inadequacies.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

I hate to get into the fray here, but oh well... It is clear that USAG did not intend for XCEL to be a way for gyms to bypass compulsories, but created it to keep more kids in the the sport. Kid could compete in XCEL bronze without having to have Level 3 skills,kids or families who didn't want to do as many hours, or even JO kids who no longer wanted to give up everything else for one sport now had a forum to compete in gymnastics. I firmly believe that it violates the spirit of the program for gyms to place their kids that they have every intention of preparing for optionals into the XCEL program. The fact that the rule can be used to do just that, doesn't make it right or within the spirit intended when the program was created.. For kids to practice JO hours, learning JO routines for scoreout, and in the meantime competing against XCEL gymnasts seems wrong to me. Just because you can within the rules doesn't mean you should. We have mobility between the two tracks. JO kids move because they are tired of the hour or are struggling to move up the levels, Xcel kids move when they want to make a bigger commitment. No way would our gym allow what amounts to our JO athletes compete against kids doing far lesser hours. I understand different areas of the country do this different ways, so everyone plays the way that area does things, but if that is what USAG wanted, they would just merge the two programs.

I can't speak for all gyms that don't compete compulsories but our gym doesn't train JO hours for Xcel bronze, silver and gold. Our bronze and silver train 6-6.5 hours and our gold trains 9 hrs plus one hour of dance. That's probably even on the lower end of what some train for Xcel only programs around here. They do learn the JO routines for score outs, during the summer only and only if optionals is a path they are interested in. It's one of the reasons I like it so much, no committing to the higher more intense training hours until later on. Even then we are on the low side, our L6's train 13 hours total, one of those hours being dance only. I think our Platinums train about 11 hours. I'm sure there are gyms out there who are training 15-20 hours for Xcel, but they aren't all like that.

 

[raenndrops]

I hate to get into the fray here, but oh well... It is clear that USAG did not intend for XCEL to be a way for gyms to bypass compulsories, but created it to keep more kids in the the sport. Kid could compete in XCEL bronze without having to have Level 3 skills,kids or families who didn't want to do as many hours, or even JO kids who no longer wanted to give up everything else for one sport now had a forum to compete in gymnastics. I firmly believe that it violates the spirit of the program for gyms to place their kids that they have every intention of preparing for optionals into the XCEL program. The fact that the rule can be used to do just that, doesn't make it right or within the spirit intended when the program was created.. For kids to practice JO hours, learning JO routines for scoreout, and in the meantime competing against XCEL gymnasts seems wrong to me. Just because you can within the rules doesn't mean you should. We have mobility between the two tracks. JO kids move because they are tired of the hour or are struggling to move up the levels, Xcel kids move when they want to make a bigger commitment. No way would our gym allow what amounts to our JO athletes compete against kids doing far lesser hours. I understand different areas of the country do this different ways, so everyone plays the way that area does things, but if that is what USAG wanted, they would just merge the two programs.

There are also states that do 2 seasons a year and the Fall season is COMPULSORIES only… Spring is OPTIONALS. Some gyms have their girls compete Compulsories in the Fall and if they aren't up to JO L6 yet, they can compete Xcel in the spring FOR FUN… and at the same time, they can work on training their new skills for their next JO Level. This is a way for L3 and L4 girls to get a chance to try out compulsories (and keep them in the gym when some lower level gymnasts may want to explore other sports because they are bored not competing - I know of at least 6 girls personally that took time out of club gymnastics every spring - starting right after states in December, when they were lower level compulsories at a Club gym that didn't have a competitive option for them in the spring… they cut their gym hours in half and played other sports… all of them have since left gymnastics for these other sports AFTER getting to and successfully competing in JO Optionals thru L7/L8).

 

[gymgal]

Pushing aside the issue of xcel vs JO for a minute... I just have always found it odd that JO has compulsory in the first place. From what others have said on the boards, countries like Canada, GB, and Australia do not have compulsories. They have individual routines from the start, with each level having a list of requirements. It just makes no sense to me why the US program would not have the same set-up from beginning to end.

Why not have optional routines with specific requirements. What is the purpose behind having all girls compete the same routines and be "tenthed to death" on the minute floor and beam details that mean nothing in the grand scheme of optionals - 7-10 and beyond? Seriously, who cares if she pointed to the left vs. the right. If we were a country like China, who takes control of the little girls lives from a very early age and pay for all their training, then sure it would make sense to find the exceptional ones at 4-6yrs of age. But in the JO system, parents pay for their child's training.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Pushing aside the issue of xcel vs JO for a minute... I just have always found it odd that JO has compulsory in the first place. From what others have said on the boards, countries like Canada, GB, and Australia do not have compulsories. They have individual routines from the start, with each level having a list of requirements. It just makes no sense to me why the US program would not have the same set-up from beginning to end.

Why not have optional routines with specific requirements. What is the purpose behind having all girls compete the same routines and be "tenthed to death" on the minute floor and beam details that mean nothing in the grand scheme of optionals - 7-10 and beyond? Seriously, who cares if she pointed to the left vs. the right. If we were a country like China, who takes control of the little girls lives from a very early age and pay for all their training, then sure it would make sense to find the exceptional ones at 4-6yrs of age. But in the JO system, parents pay for their child's training.

But compulsory gymnasts don't get tenthed to death for being pointed the wrong direction or other text errors(that's only up to 0.3 and usually only a tenth or tw0). They get tenthed to death for having bent knees, bent arms, poor posture and flexed feet on every skill in their routine(and the compulsory routines do have a lot of skills). And those are things that should be fixed at the lower levels. How many back extension rolls do you see in Xcel floor routines? Not very many, because they are HARD to do correctly, and a gymnast will score better by picking a different skill they can perform with less deductions. But those back extension rolls on floor lay the foundation for good uneven bars in the future.

We don't have mandatory coach training in the USA. I think that is one of the main reasons we have a compulsory program, to lay out all the skills that girls should be perfecting at the lower levels, show the coaches what they should be working. Using fx dance as an example, gymnasts should be working split leaps and straddle jumps and sissones and turning jumps, not just the jump or leap that they can perform the best. By having a compulsory routine that includes all those skills, it helps ensure that coaches are working all of the base skills and laying a good foundation.

 

[bogwoppit]

Pushing aside the issue of xcel vs JO for a minute... I just have always found it odd that JO has compulsory in the first place. From what others have said on the boards, countries like Canada, GB, and Australia do not have compulsories. They have individual routines from the start, with each level having a list of requirements. It just makes no sense to me why the US program would not have the same set-up from beginning to end.

All of Canada, except Quebec of course, has adopted the JO system. They now have the compulsory routine. The PTB decided that the system really works.

 

[gymgal]

But compulsory gymnasts don't get tenthed to death for being pointed the wrong direction or other text errors(that's only up to 0.3 and usually only a tenth or tw0). They get tenthed to death for having bent knees, bent arms, poor posture and flexed feet on every skill in their routine(and the compulsory routines do have a lot of skills). And those are things that should be fixed at the lower levels. How many back extension rolls do you see in Xcel floor routines? Not very many, because they are HARD to do correctly, and a gymnast will score better by picking a different skill they can perform with less deductions. But those back extension rolls on floor lay the foundation for good uneven bars in the future.

We don't have mandatory coach training in the USA. I think that is one of the main reasons we have a compulsory program, to lay out all the skills that girls should be perfecting at the lower levels, show the coaches what they should be working. Using fx dance as an example, gymnasts should be working split leaps and straddle jumps and sissones and turning jumps, not just the jump or leap that they can perform the best. By having a compulsory routine that includes all those skills, it helps ensure that coaches are working all of the base skills and laying a good foundation.

Not having mandatory coach training does make sense a possible reason for leaning toward compulsory requirements, but that still doesn't require compulsory routines.

I have read about the text errors only being up to .3 but I have also read many many parents talking about kids getting deducted for taking more/less steps than required, taking an extra jump, facing the wrong way, etc. That sounds more like a compositional error and would be separate from the text errors? These types of errors would never be caught in an optional routine and really don't affect the gymnast's ability or form.

 

[gymgal]

All of Canada, except Quebec of course, has adopted the JO system. They now have the compulsory routine. The PTB decided that the system really works.

I stand corrected. I thought they did it only for optional. How about other countries?

 

[Deleted member 18037]

No way would our gym allow what amounts to our JO athletes compete against kids doing far lesser hours. .

But that makes the assumption that JO kids are doing more hours then Xcel kids and that is not true.

There are Xcel kids training more hours then our JO team trains. I know this for a fact.

 

[wandrewsjr]

Not having mandatory training does make sense a possible reason for leaning toward compulsory requirements, but that still doesn't require compulsory routines.

I have read about the text errors only being up to .3 but I have also read many many parents talking about kids getting deducted for taking more/less steps than required, taking an extra jump, facing the wrong way, etc. That sounds more like a compositional error and would be separate from the text errors? These types of errors would never be caught in an optional routine and really don't affect the gymnast's ability or form.

There are no compositional deductions/errors in compulsories. The last couple cycles of compulsories had a specified number of steps into stumbling passes, but those were removed in the current cycle, so no more deductions for extras steps.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Pushing aside the issue of xcel vs JO for a minute... I just have always found it odd that JO has compulsory in the first place. From what others have said on the boards, countries like Canada, GB, and Australia do not have compulsories. They have individual routines from the start, with each level having a list of requirements. It just makes no sense to me why the US program would not have the same set-up from beginning to end.

.

Which programs tend to score better in international meets?