WAG Typical Start of Season Scores?

[raenndrops]

*I say mostly because there are always exceptions so I’m sure sandbagging happens, but I’ve yet to see any examples given here as definite examples of that. Scoring high doesn’t prove it nor does moving to 7 right after 5.

Ok. what about an entire gym where the L6 team competes L7 Routines on all events and scores 37+ from the first meet?
The deductions are the same in these levels (even with the cast on bars... if it meets the requirements for L7, the deductions would be the same for L6 and L7 - I just checked to be sure).
Since L6 is NOT required, if an entire gym is doing this, I could call THAT sandbagging.

 

[raenndrops]

I wish USAG required the giant. Requiring a giant for L7 is pretty standard among competitive gyms. It is such a fundamental skill going forward that waiting till L8 to even compete it is hard for a gymnast to recover from. Bars is tough enough w/o offering a year of delayed giants. I know in theory the kid could keep working it while trying to score well on their L7 Franken-routine, but a lot of gyms will let the giant uptraining slip during that competition season, and where does that leave you for L8?

We have L8s without giants. They regularly beat girls WITH giants. We had 1 compete Saturday and she was 2nd place out of all L8s on bars (and AA).

 

[wallflower]

Ok. what about an entire gym where the L6 team competes L7 Routines on all events and scores 37+ from the first meet?
The deductions are the same in these levels (even with the cast on bars... if it meets the requirements for L7, the deductions would be the same for L6 and L7 - I just checked to be sure).
Since L6 is NOT required, if an entire gym is doing this, I could call THAT sandbagging.

Or maybe it's a coach who believes in using all the levels. Maybe a coach who understands that once they get to level 8 things will get scarier and harder on the body so why not take a slower approach? Doing 7 means you should be trying to do 8 next year. It gives kids more years to enjoy lower level optionals. There is less pressure with no regionals, less traveling and money required for families who are just dipping their toes in the sport. Many gyms decided their levels well in advance. Maybe in the best interest of the gymnasts the gym declared the girls level 6 early on and skill development picked up. Maybe when they decided levels the girls couldn't consistently do certain things and it's a lot less pressure to do level 6 than 7. If they were ready to do more that's great, but they didn't have to. Isn't that the beauty of optionals? Every gym can choose to use level 6/7 how they please and it doesn't mean they are doing it just to win.

I've seen several philosophies on 6. Some seem to use it for true optional level skills and some gyms use it to do less than level 5 skills. Who is to say which scenario is wrong? The rules allow for both and everyone should use it as it fits with their path for their gymnasts. If anything doing 6 with the harder skills is more risk and could result in lower scores.

 

[gymbeam]

Ok. what about an entire gym where the L6 team competes L7 Routines on all events and scores 37+ from the first meet?
The deductions are the same in these levels (even with the cast on bars... if it meets the requirements for L7, the deductions would be the same for L6 and L7 - I just checked to be sure).
Since L6 is NOT required, if an entire gym is doing this, I could call THAT sandbagging.

I honestly can’t really say much about this scenario because I don’t know enough about the scoring and skill requirements of 6 versus 7.

Are you saying that the routines in question would work for both levels, but using them in 6 versus 7 makes them score higher? If not, then I don’t understand why it’s sandbagging.

 

[Muddlethru]

To shadow several posts above, you can and kids do score in the high 37s without having skills for the next level. You can even score a 37 without having the standard skills for that level if you have a creative and experienced coach. To address the original post, there are no typical scores, not even typical for the specific gymnast. As many have said, too many variables, i.e., gym requirements, gym philosophy, level, state or regional expectations, fears, ability. And the list goes on. I will say, I guess it is a rite of passage/necessary evil when parents in compulsory levels or have kids starting out in gymnastics, worry, compare, question, think they know everything under the sun. It is good to get it out while your gymnast is in the early stages because once they reach Level 10 and you still have the same gungho mentality, you will find yourself in the nut house. lol

 

[Tigtimes]

Not sure I should join this conversation but my kid fits this conversation at the moment. Again this is one kid so will not address the whole "team issue"

Mine competed 7 last year successfully, not a superstar mind you, but was on the podium at all but one meet. She has her MINIMUM level 8 skills. She will repeat 7 this year with upgraded skills most being level 8. Is she sandbagging, nope. She fights with her perfectionism nature, this leads to crazy gymnast brain which then leads to skill hiccups. MENTALLY in order to progress and enter level 8 competitively and make the jump to 9 easier the coach feels giving her the sideways move of staying at level 7 will help her progress. She can continue to uptrain her 8 skills without the competition pressure of 8 this year. The goal is to keep moving skills forward and sometimes you need to stand still for this to happen.

You can not view a kids mental aspect from a score. Mental security is a major factor as skills get harder. Nothing wrong with giving kids confidence with being successful. If they beat my kid well then they beat my kid.

 

[CuriousCate]

My definition of sandbagging is holding a kid in a lower level than they are capable of *for the purpose of better placements*. That could happen even at one level per year, but isn’t always the case with repeaters. To me sandbagging is all about intent.

This is my definition as well.

While I don't think that I minimum score should hold you back from progressing to the next level (like it will at our gym - need a 36 to train the next level), I think that gyms have different philosophies about required skills for their own reasons that are often not score related at all but simply their chosen method of skill progression.

Our gym holds kids back at earlier levels for not meeting strength elements or flexibility elements even if they have the skills. I agree with this because I think they are really looking to build a better foundation to prevent injuries as they move up and train harder skills. I'm sure other gyms may have looked at this as sandbagging given the often high scores, but it is just our gym's philosophy on training.

 

[Seeker]

That is a very good point, @4theloveofsports. Clever choreography absolutely allows one to maximize the score if that is the goal. That doesn’t always translate to maximizing the skill development for the next level though — it’s often the opposite. I remember when my dd did L7 at her former gym, her team had floor routines with 3 passes and the hardest skills they could do consistently. They routinely got spanked by teams with 2 passes and easier skills. That’s just the way it goes. But she was a strong L8 the following year as well as a strong L9 right after that, so it leveled out.

 

[LindyHopper]

I know in theory the kid could keep working it while trying to score well on their L7 Franken-routine

Just curious... what is a franken-routine? Is it meant to be some sort of pejorative?

 

[John]

I have read this thread over a few times and it makes me think. I will say I was the first to use the word sandbagging, sorry I stirred everyone up.

My thoughts in random order:

• Everyone passive aggression is an ugly trait.
• It's a knowledge that when someone pens words to paper those words are the opinion of the author, nothing more.
• I think it is disturbing that individuals on both sides of the sandbagging argument think they know the intentions and feelings of other posters. I also find it funny that posters believe they know the TRUE intentions of coaches and gym owners. These are of course businesses and most have marketing plans that include displaying teams scores and team accomplishments. How can anyone know the true intentions of another human being from a few passing conversation and possibly limited meetings on gymnast progress?
• To truly be educated means to listen to all points of view. To examine them openly and except that everyone can not have the same beliefs and no point of few is either right or wrong.
• Gymnastics is done for many reasons. The pinnacle of the sport is the Olympics and World Championships. Not many will make it to that level so to me the ultimate goal for MY DD is level 10. If that is her goal what scores she gets in lower levers has zero bearing on her reaching her potential. Her focus must be making progress daily, learning new skills and refining old ones. To never work on the next levels skills is a waste of time and hard work. To watch girls as they age is to see fear creep into their gymnastics. This is, of course, all my opinion.
• Possibly Franken-Routine means one out of the norm, ie not doing giants while everyone else them.

 

[gymbeam]

Did I miss something? Why the lecture? I didn’t notice anyone “breaking any rules” of adult dialogue on a topic with differing opinions.

 

[raenndrops]

I honestly can’t really say much about this scenario because I don’t know enough about the scoring and skill requirements of 6 versus 7.

Are you saying that the routines in question would work for both levels, but using them in 6 versus 7 makes them score higher? If not, then I don’t understand why it’s sandbagging.

It is sandbagging because if your entire team is competing L7 routines in L6 and scoring 37+, then your team should be competing L7. I can see not moving up to L8 necessarily... because there is a big jump between L7 and L8, but L6 was designed for girls that aren't READY for L7. Since these girls are OBVIOUSLY ready for L7, they shouldn't be in L6.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Did I miss something? Why the lecture? I didn’t notice anyone “breaking any rules” of adult dialogue on a topic with differing opinions.

Yep this. Folks expressing different opinions. No need to school anyone.

And aside from being passive aggressively counseled perhaps, everyone has been pretty direct.

 

[LTB~Mom]

Regarding L6/7, I wonder if experienced coaches also take into account which girls will be ready for level 8 in a year vs two years when making that decision (specifically about competently and safely flipping a vault for level 8). I also wonder if competing routines with the most basic skills allowed (i.e. cartwheel for level 6, no giants for level 7, no flipping vault for level 8) eventually catches up with the girls.

 

[gymbeam]

It is sandbagging because if your entire team is competing L7 routines in L6 and scoring 37+, then your team should be competing L7. I can see not moving up to L8 necessarily... because there is a big jump between L7 and L8, but L6 was designed for girls that aren't READY for L7. Since these girls are OBVIOUSLY ready for L7, they shouldn't be in L6.

Is there an official statement that Level 6 is designed only for girls not ready for 7? If there is, then they shouldn’t be there.

I’ve actually always understood Level 6 to be there for a variety of purposes. One being what you said, another being a replacement for Level 5.

And yet another being what @wallflower described. ...slowing down a bit before higher level Optionals. Some coaches may find that rushing to 7 and up is often leading to repeating. They may decide that doing every level offered instead of skipping 6 is better mentally for their team- keeps them feeling like they are moving forward each year.

It’s another example of the “art” of coaching and of each program having some degree of autonomy in how they develop their future level 10 athletes.

 

[wallflower]

It is sandbagging because if your entire team is competing L7 routines in L6 and scoring 37+, then your team should be competing L7. I can see not moving up to L8 necessarily... because there is a big jump between L7 and L8, but L6 was designed for girls that aren't READY for L7. Since these girls are OBVIOUSLY ready for L7, they shouldn't be in L6.

This is your opinion. Clearly it's not USAG's opinion or they would have put more difficulty restrictions on level 6 as they have with the levels above that. Gyms are choosing to use levels the way it works for their program. Just as you think these girls shouldn't be doing level 6, some might look at gyms using level 6 with skills less than 5 and say they shouldn't be doing level 6. They should be level 4/5. Both types of gyms are following the requirements.

Since my child is already a level 10 I really don't care what people do in level 6. I just don't think it's anyone's place to say these kids should have to move up or shouldn't do this or that. If your gym chooses to do the minimum required that's great, but you can't dictate levels to those choosing to do more.

The biggest complaint I've actually heard about level 6 is that the kids that do harder skills get more deductions and score lower. Why did the kid who did a cartwheel score higher than mine who did a bhs?

 

[NutterButter]

Regarding L6/7, I wonder if experienced coaches also take into account which girls will be ready for level 8 in a year vs two years when making that decision (specifically about competently and safely flipping a vault for level 8). I also wonder if competing routines with the most basic skills allowed (i.e. cartwheel for level 6, no giants for level 7, no flipping vault for level 8) eventually catches up with the girls.

I think it depends on the reason for the skill deficiency. My DD had a block on vault last year. She had her yurchenko at the very beginning of the season but then lost it. She ended up competing FHS all season. She actually is a very good vaulter but we didn't see it last year and the vault came back after the season ended. No need to keep her in another year of L8 because of this. This year she will be L9 and competing yurchenko pike with a possibility of upgrading to layout at some point. When DD was L7 I saw many kids who didn't have a giant in the routine. Most of them also had significant form issues and often scary flyaways and really in my opinion should not have been competing bars. But every now and then there was a solid routine, with good form that didn't have a giant. I think the gym rule of no giant, no L7 comes from the belief that if a kid doesn't have a giant for L7, there is probably other issues with bars. That's not always true of course.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Why did the kid who did a cartwheel score higher than mine who did a bhs?

Because the CW and routine was cleaner.

 

[Ali'sMom]

Because kids understand that they will get beat. They also understand whats fair and whats not fair.
They want a somewhat even playing field.

I personally would like to see a mandatory your done with the level point as far as competing goes. You score x at states you are done competing that level. Or put repeaters in their own group.

Understanding they will get beat, and WANTING an even playing field comes with maturity. They don't all start with that viewpoint. Yes, they are good traits to have, and my daughter grew to understand it, but we had some moments before she did.

As far as a mandatory move up score, that would have pushed my daughter right out of gymnastics. She did pretty well at L6. Even with a paralyzing panic of BWO on beam. She did well at States. Then hurt her back, and just as she was cleared from 3 months of limited activity, she sprained her ankle. So to force her to L7 wouldn't have worked. She could barely breathe when she touched the beam, much less work on going backwards and/or connecting or flight. She spent the summer training hours on modified training, and not training the L7 skills needed. She and coaches decided she would repeat L6, with some upgrades. She did even better, of course (hopefully that would always be the case, but not necessarily). She didn't sandbag, she just competed the only level she could. And I was grateful that she was allowed to repeat, and continue the sport. She did finish up at the end of that 2nd year (she decided after the injuries she only wanted one more year, then off to high school), but I will forever be grateful that she was allowed to make the decision to quit on her own. Not based on fear, or being forced out, but based on choosing less stress and more study time for herself.

Plus, you don't know who was out for a year due to injury and coming back, you don't know who really struggled last year and needs to repeat for a confidence boost, you don't know who is going through something really tough outside of gymnastics and needs to not be pushed on bigger, harder skills therefore is repeating or not moving up as fast as another parent thinks they should.

Each gymnast is an individual and I would like to think that the coaches and parents will make the best decision for each child. No reason for anyone else to second quess or make assumptions based on the snapshot they see at a meet.

THIS. 100%.

 

[strawberries]

Just curious... what is a franken-routine? Is it meant to be some sort of pejorative?

No, I didn’t mean to be pejorative. I should apologize for that term. For me it represented a serious twisting away from original or natural skill intent for a given level, and the substantial mental gymnastics required to construct some of those higher level routines sans giant.