WAG Typical Start of Season Scores?

[Deleted member 18037]

This was her point, I believe. Their score would not be any different, therefore why are they competing 6 (a level that is not required) instead of 7 where they can do just as well?

Again scores could drop from 6-7 with the same routine as the deductions are different and slight differences cast height comes to mind on bars. And angle differences with regards to deductions.

My kid (as an example) was a high 8 scorer on bars last year at 6. If she had done 6 this year given her improvement she would of been mid 9s.

She currently scoring low 8s at 7. We all (her, coach and parents) knew this would happen and we expect those scores to go up as the season moves along (and they already have).

If she had stayed at L6, her 36s would be more like 38s. She is unlikely to be ready for 8 by next season, we all get that too. So a year at 6 then 7 or 2 at 7. The key is she is appropriately leveled. Just not going to be a podium sweeper, this year.

 

[gymmom41]

So... since it's been brought up repeatedly what can they compete on bars at Level 7 if they don't have their giants?

 

[l.c.o]

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.

My only argument here (and maybe has been addressed as I’m just catching up) is that what’s the difference?

Say a gym has a group of fast-tracked kids who progressed a bit more quickly than expected but won’t be ready for level 8 within a year - maybe they haven’t started working a flipping vault at all yet or whatever.... let’s say they could score just as well as a L7 doing full L7 routines vs competing same routines at L6.

Gym also has a full level 7 team coming up, plus a few second year 7s. So, they decide to enter the fast-tracked group of girls as 6’s. This way the girls feel some progress (compete 6, then 7), can maybe upgrade for L7 season, and be on track shoot for L8 in two years.

This group of talented girls then kicks butt as 6s. They’re clean and have comparatively difficult routines. They win a lot compared to less-prepared girls (not a criticism, just fact).

Had thise fast-tracked girls originally competed 7, they’d be competing against different girls, but still scoring as well. Probably placing similarly. Does it matter which cohort they compete against and do well against?

Because the next year they’d repeat level 7 anyway as, nope, still not ready for level 8. Now they’re “sandbagging” for repeating level 7, and guess what? They largely compete against those first year 7s who competed level 6 the previous year.

It’s like they just can’t win.

Now, maybe that fast-tracked group WOULD be ready for L8 in two years. And maybe the kids didn’t come into their skills right before season, have no confidence/fear issues, etc. Then maybe I’d consider it sandbagging to compete L6.

I’m sure some gyms really sandbag. Of course gyms want banners and publicity and to make money. But I don’t think it’s fair for parents to assume. Coaches in the know? Maybe.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

So... since it's been brought up repeatedly what can they compete on bars at Level 7 if they don't have their giants?

2 360 degree clear circling elements. One must be a B, they can be the same. Mine does free/clear hip.

 

[my4buffaloes]

Again scores could drop from 6-7 with the same routine as the deductions are different and slight differences cast height comes to mind on bars. And angle differences with regards to deductions.

My kid (as an example) was a high 8 scorer on bars last year at 6. If she had done 6 this year given her improvement she would of been mid 9s.

She currently scoring low 8s at 7. We all (her, coach and parents) knew this would happen and we expect those scores to go up as the season moves along (and they already have).

If she had stayed at L6, her 36s would be more like 38s. She is unlikely to be ready for 8 by next season, we all get that too. So a year at 6 then 7 or 2 at 7. The key is she is appropriately leveled. Just not going to be a podium sweeper, this year.

Just because a team is successful does not mean they are sandbagging. It is up to the coaches to determine appropriate levels - not you or anyone else watching in the stands or just looking at scores online. You can't tell the whole story unless you know the kid and the situation very well. I have always believed that there is great benefit to going through the levels 1 at a time and learning from them. Because each level builds into the next - skipping levels is not always best. For girls super young there is no reason to rush through to level 10 in order to do that for 6 or 7 years - that is really hard on the body. Take your time do one level at a time and move up the way USAG intended.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

This group of talented girls then kicks butt as 6s. They’re clean and have comparatively difficult routines. They win a lot compared to less-prepared girls (not a criticism, just fact).

Had thise fast-tracked girls originally competed 7, they’d be competing against different girls, but still scoring as well. Probably placing similarly. Does it matter which cohort they compete against and do well against?

Because the next year they’d repeat level 7 anyway as, nope, still not ready for level 8. Now they’re “sandbagging” for repeating level 7, and guess what? They largely compete against those first year 7s who competed level 6 the previous year.

It’s like they just can’t win.

Now, maybe that fast-tracked group WOULD be ready for L8 in two years. And maybe the kids didn’t come into their skills right before season, have no confidence/fear issues, etc. Then maybe I’d consider it sandbagging to compete L6.

I’m sure some gyms really sandbag. Of course gyms want banners and publicity and to make money. But I don’t think it’s fair for parents to assume. Coaches in the know? Maybe.

Because

According to USAG:
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, fairness to all athletes and competitive balance, the mobility system within the Jr. Olympic Program should be followed in the manner that it was intended:

1. Before moving up a level, every athlete should show proficiency at her current level.
2. Once a high level of proficiency is achieved at the athlete's current level, she should strive to move up to the next level, as long as it is done safely.

The level is designed for gymmies past 5 but not ready for 7. If they are ready for 7 then "in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fairness to all athletes and competitive balance" they should be L7 . If you can do 7 you should do 7. If you score the same you are then competing with "competitive balance". Its a fair fight so to speak.

And again. By competing at 6 you can score higher then 7 based on things like cast height and angles, those things the not ready for 7 gymmies have not yet achieved. Which is why they are in 6. That's not competitive balance. That is not fairness to all athletes. Its not a fair fight.

Now if at L7 they truly aren't ready for 8. Then its 2 years at 7.

That is not sandbagging. How ever if they can do 8 and they stay back to get "better" at 8 before competing it. In other words they can score 35 at 8, but they get hold back until they can score 37-38. That is sandbagging. You might not define it as such. But it is certainly not "in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fairness to all athletes and competitive balance"

Its really not hard to understand. Its like using Xcel to skip compulsories. So high hour gyms trounce gyms with a less strenuous program. Its not "in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fairness to all athletes and competitive balance". They should be appropriately leveled.

 

[strawberries]

It still sounds perjorative. Usag has no problems requiring what they want to require- see the layout in L7 that can’t be subbed for a full. A giant is not required and it doesn’t require mental gymnastics at all to have a routine without one- doesn’t a clear hip fulfill the same requirement that a giant does?

You are right. I am truly sorry. I was tempted by the way the word seemed analogous—including the implied meanings of creative, resourceful, unique, outside-the-box, brilliant—but should have chosen something else. I am sorry to any of you whose daughters have enjoyed the benefit of no-giant routines for a variety of reasons, including mental blocks. I have followed many of your journeys and have been grateful on your behalf for the flexibility your daughter had. Again, I’m very sorry for the insensitivity.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Take your time do one level at a time and move up the way USAG intended.

Yes with the exception of 6. It is not required, Because USAG did not intend it to be. Otherwise it would have a required score out score.

That is not my opinion. That is how USAG designed it. 4,5,7,8,9 and 10 are required with minimum scores to move. 2,3 and 6 are not.

If everyone was doing what USAG intended, they would be moving with scores of 34, 35 and not being held back until they get 36 or 37

 

[profmom]

Can we please keep in mind the history of L6's implementation? Many gyms were skipping OLD Level 6 because the cast deductions, etc. were making it a challenging experience; they would go to Prep Opt for a year instead after completing L5 and then return to JO for L7. The implementation of new L6 was meant to solve this problem by creating this path within the JO system. Level 5 and Level 6, for a relatively quickly progressing gymnast, are not a progression. They are alternatives.

Let's say we have a solidly progressing gymnast who started JO in 2008 at one of the gyms that didn't like old L6. The progression would be old L5, Prep Opt, and then L7. The analogy in the current system for a gymnast who started in 2014 would be new L4, new L6, and then L7. There is absolutely NOTHING unreasonable or unfair about giving such a child a season at L6 before doing L7 even if the child is doing very well at L6. The alternative is new L4, new L5, and then L7. Many skills must be learned and perfected between the compulsory L4 routine and a routine that meets the minimum requirements for L7. It sounds like some of you are insisting that it's unfair for a team that is doing very well in compulsories to make a decision as a team to give their kids the chance to sit with those skills for a while before starting their optional careers. I am mystified by this standpoint.

Most gyms that are looking to get their girls to L10 and have a shot at college gym are not going to have them hanging around in compulsories or early optionals longer than necessary solely for the sake of winning championship banners.

 

[Jazzjerz]

Now if at L7 they truly aren't ready for 8. Then its 2 years at 7.

That is not sandbagging. How ever if they can do 8 and they stay back to get "better" at 8 before competing it. In other words they can score 35 at 8, but they get hold back until they can score 37-38. That is sandbagging. You might not define it as such. But it is certainly not "in the spirit of good sportsmanship and fairness to all athletes and competitive balance.

If USAG wanted a max score achieved to force a move up, they would have instituted it. Just because you define a 35 as ready (and necessary) to move up, doesn't mean that in the context of another program or goal, that is the case. It just doesn't make it so.

I believe that much of this debate comes down to goals and what each gymnast, coach and gym are aiming for. A family hoping to compete for fun, exercise, and friendship, with no college goals, could definitely view the whole thing (as well as what defines "proficient" scores) much differently than one with D1 scholarship dreams.

I honestly think much of it comes down to the training philosophy, and hours spent in the gym. At a certain level, the differences in time spent in the gym are bound to show - in both good ways (more time to perfect and upgrade skills), and not so good ways (higher chance for injury and burnout).

I do believe that some places do sandbag, which to me would be competing a girl at a level to get a score, at the expense of her personal gymnastics development. Beyond that, there is room for the many different coaching and level philosophies that exist in this sport.

 

[QueenBee]

Apologies in advance for the book below,

It seems like the only levels being discussed when talking sandbagging are 3, 4, 5 and 6. Honestly, I believe that some gyms at the compulsory levels do hold children back to score better; gymnastics is a business and many gyms are essentially compulsory gyms. In the same vein, most gymnasts will finish up with gymnastics never going higher than Level 5/6, so gyms who prioritize compulsories and prioritize high scores in those levels are making rational, positive choices as far as I am concerned. Gymnastics is meant to teach skills/promote health, and meets are the celebration of showing those skills off. I completely understand parents choosing gyms that help their children score high and win. That's important for lots of people (and winning is fun ). If your child probably isn't going beyond Level 6, why not choose the gym that will make your child's gymnastics the most successful it can be? It's a choice, and one that just doesn't bother me. Rushing through the levels isn't necessarily the best result for some gymnasts and nor even desirable. YMMV. I think this is an 'agree to disagree' point.

From watching a lot of compulsory competitions, I can say a lot of the gyms who might be accused of 'sandbagging' (more than 1 season at the same level) aren't doing it the way many people assume they are. I doubt they are doing a ton of 'uptraining' - those higher level skills aren't going to help them be any cleaner with a mill circle or many other skills, the way to sandbag effectively (in my observation) is to be devoted to the text of the routine, and often - to compete the minimum angles as cleanly as possible. The highest scoring routines we often see in compulsories clearly don't uptrain or don't do it terribly effectively, as their gymnasts' scores often drop quickly once they hit optionals. And really, once you hit Level 10, there's nowhere else to go...you have some gymnast who 'repeat' Level 10 five to six years in a row. Not sandbagging in the slightest...not even those gymnasts who start Level 10 with 37s and 38s.

Sandbagging isn't an effective strategy long-term. If one gym is sandbagging their compulsory - Level 6 gymnasts, your gymnast will move past the gymnasts they competed against in the compulsory levels and meet up with new gymnasts with enough skill and talent to make it to Level 6, 7, 8, 9 and 1o at the same age as your gymnast. At that point, it is as even a playing field as it can be. Some gyms have better coaching, their gymnasts will on average do better than gyms with weaker coaching. Some gyms are high hours, their gymnasts may or may not do better, depending on the gym and the coaching ability. Some gymnasts are just better, and your child has a snowball's chance in Haitch E Double Hockey Sticks of ever winning against said gymnast (shout-out to all those gymnasts who match that description in my child's level/age group. I am sure I will get to see all y'all be amazing again this upcoming season ).

My child is a Level 9 this year, I'm looking at this from the perspective of BTDT. For my experience, everything has a way of falling into place, even if how it happens looks unexpected. A lot of 'hot shot' youngsters (by scores) who blew everyone away at level 3/4 have quit the sport by this point. Some of those hot shots are still in the sport and have either not progressed on the same timeline (so they are in a different level), or are no longer the hot shots (now an average, or even a low scoring gymnast - for reasons that may have to do with injuries, mental blocks, coaching or something else; I wouldn't know and don't care to speculate upon). Some "just below the radar" gymnasts in those lower levels have taken off and are just crushing it in upper optionals. But you know what? None of that has anything to do with my gymnast, her gymnastics or what her skills and scores will be. It didn't have anything to do with her skills and scores in any of the lower levels either. Run your own race.

We picked a gym that fit our pocketbook & my child's goals whose philosophy made sense to us. I can't control anything else about this sport, nor do I think (personally) that it makes sense to spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out what other gyms may be doing or what their intent is. I kinda figure their intent is the same one as the gym my child attends - to get the best gymnastics out of each child who trains with them. What each gym/gymnast/parent considers "best gymnastics" is based on personal philosophy and may not mean what I think it should mean. As @gymbeam said earlier in this conversation - it is a very good thing that there are so many gyms that concentrate on different goals so every family has a good shot at finding the right gym for them.

 

[NutterButter]

@QueenBee mic drop Love it and I agree with you 100%!

What do ya'll think about this scenario which is kinda the opposite of sandbagging...the gym that doesn't put kids out for competitions at all until L9? Their athletes score out of levels 4-8 and then start entering meets in L9. This is the gym's strategy. I'm not sure how many of them fall off along the way or go to another gym because none appear in mymeetscores until L9.

 

[Muddlethru]

The only reason in my opinion (I mean my opinion, not anyone else) I see for sandbagging accusations are that if gyms did not "sandbagged" perhaps, my daughter would place higher. Because the sandbaggers' gymnasts always get the top spots, if they were gone then my daughter will be up in the podium. The sad truth is there are no guarantees. If some gymnasts are unknowingly and unwillingly being sandbagged then one would hope the situation be corrected because it would be detrimental to the gymnast and only the gymnast being sandbagged no one else.

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.

Seriously, its pretty disheartening to the kids, when a bunch of kids are leaving a hotel for states to hear a set of parents tell the other parents that their kids are doing a Level 7 meet next week. And they are competing L5 for states. If they have meet ready L7 skills, clearly have done L5 and met move up score. They should of went to 7.

"Even playing field"? Is there such a thing? How do our kids determine or even know what is fair? That the gymnast next to her has all the skills for the level and "how dare this gymnast compete my level because I don't have my skills or don't have it as well as my competitor or have not been doing it as long even if they are the same age group? If the USAG were to modify their rules, parents would still find another reason to complain or an excuse why their daughter is not on the podium. "Oh they practice more hours." "They have better coaches". "Their skills are not as hard as ours." Believe me I would love to protect my kids from disheartening situations, but we can't. And who stinkin' cares what another parent says, or another coach or another gymnast for that matter. I don't like it anymore than the next person. But it is ridiculous to think we can control our kids surroundings.

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).

Not uncommon at all! Anytime you are starting to do a more difficult skill, it will obviously score lower than a skill you've been doing for a while. In level 8, a fhs vault can regularly beat a flipping vault. In level 10, a layout yurchenko can beat a full by a significant number. But in the end, the gymnast doing the more difficult score eventually does better. If the Level 8 continues to do a fhs throughout her Level 8 season or not have a giant, she will be extremely behind in Level 9 and will likely not get to Level 10. A Level 10 gymnast who continues to do a layout yurchenko will not help her chances at doing college gym. I think the gymnast allowed to compete above their skill level is more at a disadvantage than someone more difficult skills than required in their level provided of course they are doing it safely. The latter in fact would be my preference because it better prepares them to tackle the higher levels if that is the goal. If it is not, then just enjoy your journey and leave the highly competitive alone.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

@QueenBee mic drop Love it and I agree with you 100%!

What do ya'll think about this scenario which is kinda the opposite of sandbagging...the gym that doesn't put kids out for competitions at all until L9? Their athletes score out of levels 4-8 and then start entering meets in L9. This is the gym's strategy. I'm not sure how many of them fall off along the way or go to another gym because none appear in mymeetscores until L9.

I actually know a gym like that. Its not different then waiting to start at 4 and not do 2/3.

The gym I that I know of, the girls do really well. I guess it does squash the they "have to compete" theory.

 

[NutterButter]

I actually know a gym like that. Its not different then waiting to start at 4 and not do 2/3.

The gym I that I know of, the girls do really well. I guess it does squash the they "have to compete" theory.

I think it's a lot different. Around here most gyms don't compete L2/L3 so kids spend 1-3 years on pre-team until they are ready for L4. For gyms that don't compete until L9, that equates to a VERY long pre-team! Probably a minimum of 4-6 years for most. Plus they don't get the competition experience.

 

[MILgymFAM]

The only reason in my opinion (I mean my opinion, not anyone else) I see for sandbagging accusations are that if gyms did not "sandbagged" perhaps, my daughter would place higher.

It really can be an academic discussion. My kid is not winning regardless and I know it. I am not hating on anyone at all, but I can still discuss my opinions.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

"Even playing field"? Is there such a thing?

The grown up s know. And its a question of degrees. There will always be someone going more hours. Have more talent. Train differently.. I think every one gets that. Personally it just makes getting on the podium even better when it happens.

That is not a problem.

But when a group of kids do their L7 skills in warm up and then compete L5 routines. Trust me the girls know. When those same kids parents in front of gymnasts talk about how their kids are at the meet just to get the medals. The girls know.

Really I get not every high scoring gymnast is competing down.

However please do not presume to say that competing down to win doesn't happen. It does.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I think it's a lot different. Around here most gyms don't compete L2/L3 so kids spend 1-3 years on pre-team until they are ready for L4. For gyms that don't compete until L9, that equates to a VERY long pre-team! Probably a minimum of 4-6 years for most. Plus they don't get the competition experience.

Yes the gym I know of does that. Very few meets until L9. They have a high number of L9/10s. They get rides. And they don't compete much until L9.

Again, proving you don't need to compete a lot. You just need to compete at the right time. They are proof that scores don't matter until 9/10

 

[l.c.o]

I guess I’m wondering - if the scores/placements don’t matter in any way until the girls are level 9/10, then why this discussion?

 

[wallflower]

The grown up s know. And its a question of degrees. There will always be someone going more hours. Have more talent. Train differently.. I think every one gets that. Personally it just makes getting on the podium even better when it happens.

That is not a problem.

But when a group of kids do their L7 skills in warm up and then compete L5 routines. Trust me the girls know. When those same kids parents in front of gymnasts talk about how their kids are at the meet just to get the medals. The girls know.

Really I get not every high scoring gymnast is competing down.

However please do not presume to say that competing down to win doesn't happen. It does.

What level 7 skills did these kids do in warm-up?