Parents TOPS and Levels question

[2gymmies]

If the kid were really that talented, why would a gym even bother having her compete L3? Why not just have her training to compete at the proper level when she turned 7? L3 is such a waste of time.

Because maybe it's fun!

 

[Ginger]

Because maybe it's fun!

Actually, I think most gymnasts with strong level 7 skills would be dead bored doing/competing level 3

 

[Bess]

If the kid were really that talented, why would a gym even bother having her compete L3? Why not just have her training to compete at the proper level when she turned 7? L3 is such a waste of time.

Competition experience. Confidence building in a young child.

Exactly what I was thinking....doing something in a gym during practice is completely different from doing it during a meet...especially at a young age.

 

[Bess]

And no, she wasn't 6 as a level 3.

well then I got nothing lol

 

[3rd_time_around]

If the kid were really that talented, why would a gym even bother having her compete L3? Why not just have her training to compete at the proper level when she turned 7? L3 is such a waste of time.

Level 3 is not a waste of time. There are key skills, like RO BHS, that can be perfected. It also gives them the experience of competing in a lower-pressure setting, especially if they are young. Experience competing is an important component in building confidence at a young age. Plus, its boring to kids (i've had 3 gymnasts go through this) to train and train and train and never get to "show it off" to anyone. Having to wait may make them antsy to try another sport, like competition cheer, which is a lot of fun for these young, talented girls. So there are lots of reasons to compete level 3 even if they have higher skills. You never know the reasoning unless its your child and gym.

 

[mom2557]

I've known about TOPS and have read up on it and looked at the requirements long before I even had my daughter. So I guess it just dawned on me that there is no correlation between it and the levels. I'm wondering though, do the higher skills needed at the older ages not correlate with higher levels?

They correlate in that you need some of the same skills to compete JO optionals that you need to do TOPs testing. However, it is not always the case that a 10 year old L10 will do better at TOPs testing than a 10 year old L8. More skills doesn't mean they will do better since the skills/routines are very specific. I would think a gymnast would do well when they spend time training the TOPs routines to perfect them for the testing.

 

[l.c.o]

At DD's former gym, she had a couple of teammates training TOPS. They consistently had old level 5/6 skills, and some level 7+. They were definitely old enough to compete the higher levels, but the gym kept them down in old level 4.

One other mom from the gym with a girl in their age group/level made a comment that it was a bit unfair, but offered congratulations when the girls dominated at a meet. The TOPS moms did not seem any happier about the situation, and had apparently pushed for a higher level and were shut down. Of course, the girls dominated the competition, and their team won state. Within a year they were competing level 7 and dominating there.

I suspect the gym was after the banner, but what do I know? Perhaps they all peaked super late... and the gym couldn't edit their registered levels for the season?

 

[flipping_girls]

I believe the age groups in TOPS are by year of birth (so a girl born December 31, 2007 tested as 10 year old this year , though she is still only 9). In our state (we have fall compulsory season - state meet before Christmas), 9-year old level 4 would be probably still in the youngest age category (or second youngest), so nothing wrong with 10-years old TOPS gymnast competing level 4

Yes! This is almost exactly our experience through the compulsory levels. And boy did we hear about it from other gym parents at awards! My daughter (who is most likely going to be one of the youngest testing at National testing as a 10 year old with a very late birthday) has done very well at meets for the most part (she has also always been in the youngest age group for each level she competed), BUT she was incredibly immature, truthfully you never knew what you were going to see from her. ( the stories I could tell! ) For that reason, her coaches didn't push her through the levels quickly even though skill-wise she was able to do much more than the level she competed. She just did a level a year like most girls.

Eventually, when she matured a bit and SHE decided she was ready for more of a challenge, everything clicked in place. Coaches started working TOPS with her at the beginning of the summer, and she is progressing quickly. Sometimes, there is more to the story than just the ability to do the skills, sometimes there is a lot of mental and emotional growing that needs to be done. For perspective, She competed level 4 last fall at 8 years old , and will compete 8 this coming spring as a brand new 10 year old.

Sometimes we just get a glimpse of an athlete's story at meets. That's not to say that kids aren't held back to gain banners, but sometimes there is a legit reasoning behind it.

 

[Mish]

Your daughter sounds super talented and I get your story but I am not sure that I agree with it. If she has the skills down but not the maturity to keep it all together during s meet, I don't agree that she should compete the level down. My daughter did well at level six last year but at times had trouble controlling her nerves. Should we have had her do Level four again because of this? Of course not, but it is kind of the same thing. If she truly had all of the skills to complete the next level up successfully then why not work on getting through that level successfully. It still sounds a little bit like sandbagging to me, I'm not accusing of course, that is just what it reads like to me anyway.

 

[2G1B]

I see this two ways... for the above poster whose DD competed L4 last year and is competing L8 this year... really, if she just lacked some maturity; but was blowing every competition out of the water at L4 and had at least L6 skills, her gym was holding her back for the scores at least partly. Now, if she was concentrating on TOPS and just doing a few meets to keep her used to competing, that is a different story IMO. OR... one of my DDs had a teammate who actually did NOT do great at L2 of all levels. She actually struggled some and was even set to repeat L2. At the time I thought it was stupid for her to repeat L2 because repeating L2 is kind of dumb; but it wasn't them stacking the deck to do it. The kid had scored 34s as a L2. But then suddenly something clicked for the kid and she just GOT it. She was rocking skills. Instead she got moved to L3 the next year, I don't think she scored below a 36 at any meet and scored some 38s. Then she scored our of 4 and 5 and did a year at platinum. Did amazing there too. Then went on to do L7 last year. Did great. So this kid went from planning to repeat L2 to wining at L7 in less than 3 years. And it hadn't been that the gym was stacking the deck it had been that the gymnast suddenly came into her skills. So, there are instances of where a kid is legitimately at a lower level and then skips through some the next year because they were suddenly ready.

 

[flipping_girls]

Your daughter sounds super talented and I get your story but I am not sure that I agree with it. If she has the skills down but not the maturity to keep it all together during s meet, I don't agree that she should compete the level down. My daughter did well at level six last year but at times had trouble controlling her nerves. Should we have had her do Level four again because of this? Of course not, but it is kind of the same thing. If she truly had all of the skills to complete the next level up successfully then why not work on getting through that level successfully. It still sounds a little bit like sandbagging to me, I'm not accusing of course, that is just what it reads like to me anyway.

Thanks! I definitely respect your opinion, and getting perspective from others is always a great learning experience; one of the many benefits of the platform. I think the point of the original post was to determine if there is a correlation between JO levels and TOPs. My point was the level athletes compete JO, has a lot of factors to consider beyond just the skills they can do, which could be the reasoning between so many levels could be represented in TOPs girls. I am definitely not saying that if an athlete is struggling with a nerves or skills the right decision would be to not challenge them, or heaven forbid move them backwards. But it may be worth considering that each kid has a different path through the sport. I have more than one girl in JO gymnastics, and they are all on VERY different paths.

My example with my youngest daughter was meant to show just one example of a reason why the gymnasts' levels could possible vary, by illustrating that level determination for her has been so much more than a list of skills she could do. Its easy to look at a check list (like the TOPs skills) and assume a child is ready for the next level or two, but in our case, she would not have been ready to compete optionals any sooner than she did. (our gym doesn't do level 5) She just wasn't mature enough to train as an optional, and I don't think it would have been fair to ask the coaches to invest the time and effort into pushing her faster, when she clearly wasn't ready. When she chose to dig in and set goals for herself and do the work to achieve them, it was then that the coaches responded by changing her path, hence the level jump. I think possibly there are other girls out there who are in similar situations, or who have other reasons for being place in certain levels that have nothing to do for sandbagging.

Don't get me wrong, I am not naive , I get that there is plenty of sandbagging happening in the sport. (Although I struggle to understand why its done. ) It's unfortunate that the "must win at all costs" attitude some possess can overshadows other possible reasons for a child's path through the sport.

I am definitely not an expert, but thought maybe our story might shed open consideration to possible reasons for the variation in levels in TOPs girls.

 

[Flicfliclay]

You will see all sorts of different levels in TOPs. Some gyms focus girls purely on TOPs, I mean they train TOPs TOPs TOPs all the time! So technically those girls really can’t compete higher levels because they are just focusing on those TOPs routines and skills.
Trust me there’s known sandbagging gyms here and it’s annoying, but honestly in the end all of those girls that stay in Gymnastics will all be competing against each other once they are in level 10..