Women Thoughts on required avg season score to train next level

[littlegirlsdream]

I have heard some gyms talk about needing an average season score in order to train the next level. What are coaches opinions on this. Does requiring a 35-36 season avg really help in the long run or is it a way to make sure teams and kids can place well.

 

[catou]

I think it might be a good way to ensure consistency but I wouldn't apply this rule to every body. I would make an exception for injured gymnasts. As a gymnast, I competed in something like 2 meets/year because I was injured. If I had been a gymnast at one of these clubs, I would never have been able to move on, because, let's say you mess at one of the meets, you don't really have a chance to improve again.

 

[Aussie_coach]

Score can't be the only factor in the desicion. I would also look at skills attained, strength, flexibility, dedication to training, age, length of time in a level, group structure, mental readiness and maturity.

 

[wallinbl]

Ideally, it would be based on a variety of (subjective) factors and the coaches would evaluate each girl. The down side is that's open to argument from the crazy parents, so some coaches just fall back on something like multiple 36+ scores or something quantifiable that a parent can't argue with.

 

[littlegirlsdream]

I find it interesting. If a gymnast gets a 34 average but doesn't get to train to move up will that help the gymnast in the long run or will the gymnast get bored and frustrated and unmotivated. Is it really a rule to help the gymnast or one to help the gym? Should inconsistent meet results be considered important enough to keep a gymnast back despite having all the basic skills and then some? What is proficiency in your opinion? It seems like some gyms will move kids up as long as skills are there while others do it based on scores. If you see a gym repeat many kids (half or more) every year is that a reflection of the gymnast or a failure of the gym? I know these are broad general questions but I am interested in theories on progression and what makes some gyms say you must have a 36 to move vs the ones that want you to move based on skill not score.

 

[GymBeeMom]

I find it interesting. If a gymnast gets a 34 average but doesn't get to train to move up will that help the gymnast in the long run or will the gymnast get bored and frustrated and unmotivated. Is it really a rule to help the gymnast or one to help the gym? Should inconsistent meet results be considered important enough to keep a gymnast back despite having all the basic skills and then some? What is proficiency in your opinion? It seems like some gyms will move kids up as long as skills are there while others do it based on scores. If you see a gym repeat many kids (half or more) every year is that a reflection of the gymnast or a failure of the gym? I know these are broad general questions but I am interested in theories on progression and what makes some gyms say you must have a 36 to move vs the ones that want you to move based on skill not score.

My DD/DS gym says that scores don't matter. They do want to see successful meets but they look at the whole picture. If anything, I think they will help push a kid to move up if they can rather than hold them back sheerly based on scores. Of course they won't move up a kid struggling to get a 32 but they don't expect 37 and 38 to be considered proficient and ready to move on. They only repeat a kid if they do not have the skill set ready for the next level, but this is rare due to the constant uptraining throughout the year. Different gyms definitely do it differently and I don't think there is a right answer, just varied philosophies.