WAG Typical Start of Season Scores?

[my4buffaloes]

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

I do not feel that the minimum scores that USAG sets forth as a requirement to move up a level actually show that a gymnast is truly ready to move up and tackle bigger, harder skills. Just meeting the minimum requirements does not indicate readiness for more. Doing more than the minimum and doing it well enough to score higher than an 8.5 on each or most of the events indicates more of a readiness to move up. But even if a girl was scoring 38s at a level does not mean she is ready to move up if she does not have the harder skills. THAT is what you cannot tell at a meet or by looking at scores. You call it sandbagging. It might not be. Just because you think you know of 1 gym that might sandbag does not mean it is the norm or even happens that often at all.

Every gymnast has their own path in this sport. Yes sometimes I wish my dd's paths were different, but it is what it is. In the end it is an individual sport and someone else's path likely would not have worked out for my girls. My dd did a whole year of 4, whole year of 5, whole year of 6 and whole year of 7 - now getting ready to do level 8. This is what was/is best for her. It has helped her be successful. Just because she has been successful does not mean her path should have been different. Just because she had giants in level 6 (along with a clear hip HS) does not mean she was ready for more. Just because 1 event was great does not mean she was great at the others. You can't look at that small snapshot and assume she should be a higher level and/or that the coaches are holding her back to win medals. You don't know her whole story. Her path is her own - it does not matter what other gymnasts, coaches or gyms are doing.

We are beating a dead horse here. There are lots of options within the USAG optional levels. Each coach will hopefully do what is best for each gymnast. Speculate all you want - or don't because really all this speculating takes up a lot of brain space and mental energy. As we say at my school - "worry about yourself".

 

[l.c.o]

@Deleted member 18037 - FWIW, in regards to warmups. My DS often warmed up bonus skills at meets, but didn’t compete them because they weren’t ready to compete. Having a skill and having it truly competition ready are two different things.

As for the rest, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

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

Lovely giants. And BHS-BHS

 

[wallflower]

Lovely giants. And BHS-BHS

Giants aren't required in level 7. Neither is a bhs bhs.

 

[Mish]

One thing I don't understand is why some of you think girls should move up if they are scoring 37-38 in order to get 35s at next level. 35 does not seem "proficient at current level". The sport is based out of 10 in JO. If an athlete wants to get to states, regionals, nationals, etc., there is usually a certain number they have to achieve. If an athlete/coach wants to perfect everything in a level (cast angles, form, etc.) why should they be chastised for doing so? Doing things cleanly and with proper form lessens the chance of injuries. Repeating lv 3 to get 38 does seem silly, but I think we are talking here about moving up into optionals. I don't think they are sandbagging around here bc I see the girls moving up the levels. Someone on this very board accused my daughter (her gym, I guess) of sandbagging bc she's repeating lv 6 and got 37s first 2 meets. She can't move up, developed fear/block on giant, needs a giant for 7, period, case closed. Also missed half of last season due to injury. My gym doesn't sandbag, she was one of only a few who did not move up and the others are not near getting 37s. Yes, she I think she would do well in 7, maybe even close to what she is getting now. But the fact is she can't. And a girl on her team beat her on beam with an "easier" routine, (BWO only, my dd does a BHS and a BWO). She could take out the 2nd acro and get a cleaner score, I suppose, but she competed that last year so that would be going backwards. She is dying to move up and if she gets this giant by the Jan deadline she will.

I just don't get how people assume they know all of the answers when each girl is different. I get the "sandbagging" thing, and I guess some gyms do that to get business. I don't see too much of that around here, maybe I'm naive. I just don't understand the argument of moving up to get 35s.

 

[wallflower]

One thing I don't understand is why some of you think girls should move up if they are scoring 37-38 in order to get 35s at next level. 35 does not seem "proficient at current level". The sport is based out of 10 in JO. If an athlete wants to get to states, regionals, nationals, etc., there is usually a certain number they have to achieve. If an athlete/coach wants to perfect everything in a level (cast angles, form, etc.) why should they be chastised for doing so? Doing things cleanly and with proper form lessens the chance of injuries. Repeating lv 3 to get 38 does seem silly, but I think we are talking here about moving up into optionals. I don't think they are sandbagging around here bc I see the girls moving up the levels. Someone on this very board accused my daughter (her gym, I guess) of sandbagging bc she's repeating lv 6 and got 37s first 2 meets. She can't move up, developed fear/block on giant, needs a giant for 7, period, case closed. Also missed half of last season due to injury. My gym doesn't sandbag, she was one of only a few who did not move up and the others are not near getting 37s. Yes, she I think she would do well in 7, maybe even close to what she is getting now. But the fact is she can't. And a girl on her team beat her on beam with an "easier" routine, (BWO only, my dd does a BHS and a BWO). She could take out the 2nd acro and get a cleaner score, I suppose, but she competed that last year so that would be going backwards. She is dying to move up and if she gets this giant by the Jan deadline she will.

I just don't get how people assume they know all of the answers when each girl is different. I get the "sandbagging" thing, and I guess some gyms do that to get business. I don't see too much of that around here, maybe I'm naive. I just don't understand the argument of moving up to get 35s.

You are not naive. You are right on.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Giants aren't required in level 7. Neither is a bhs bhs.

They were warming them up at a L 5 meet.

Really this is getting silly. Clearly these girls were more than ready to be done with L5 long before they stopped competing it.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that not competing until level 4 is not different than waiting until level 9 to compete.

Its a choice. They are both a choice

Again, if in theory the goal is to get a Div1 ride and to do that you need to get to L10. And this seems to be what most think the end goal is get them to L10.

And then its stated over and over again that scores don't matter until there is a national stage, Easterns/Westerns at 9 and Nationals at 10.

Then there really isn't a need to compete a lot before that.

There is a gym in our area that does very few meets before that . They don't do states at early levels at all.

 

[wandrewsjr]

There are deductions that are higher in 7 vs 6.

No. Execution deductions are the same at all optional levels, including angle deductions on casts and circling skills. The same routine that scored an 8.2 at level 7 would not score a 9.5 level 6. The only possible difference in score would be if cast height was enough to meet the special requirement for level 6(horizontal) but not level 7(45 degrees). In that case the routine would have a start value of 9.5 at level 7 and a start value of 10 at level 6 and score 0.5 apart. But all other deductions are the same at both levels.

 

[gymgal]

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.

I was under the assumption that we were talking about routines that would score 37s in both levels, so I was thinking the gymnasts would have the L7 requirements including angles.

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

clear hip (with or without HS), stalder, toe on/HS.

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 have never heard of this. I think my dd would have loved this type of gym! especially in the beginning. She would have preferred to just train skills and not be concerned about "perfecting" routines.

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.

I don't know. I think it has more to do with the spirit of competition and fairness. I know nothing is truly fair. You will always have different number of hours, different ways of choosing team members, different training techniques, etc. which is why this debate is truly just academic.

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.

Gymnasts often compete one event at a slightly lower skill level while they are working on that skill in the training. Why hold them back if they are ready in the other events? Especially for something like vt? Again, a difference in coaching philosophy. And again, you don't need giants in any level, as long as you have other skills. As far as competing a FHS vs a flipping vt in L8, it may be regional differences but I have not seen a FHS vault score higher than a landed flipping/advanced vt in L8. one with a messed up landing? maybe but even these tend to score at least as well or slightly better than a FHS in our area.

 

[duyetanh]

Honestly, sandbagging exists. So does moving up before ready (and boy those routines are cringe worthy). And so does competing at the level you are competent at. And so does repeating a level of something for a variety of reasons other than sandbagging.
Thay's just sports.

 

[bogwoppit]

I deleted a few posts that were really on the edge of being personal attacks. Please continue the discussion without them thank you. I have soap operas to watch.

 

[gymgal]

One thing I don't understand is why some of you think girls should move up if they are scoring 37-38 in order to get 35s at next level. 35 does not seem "proficient at current level". The sport is based out of 10 in JO. If an athlete wants to get to states, regionals, nationals, etc., there is usually a certain number they have to achieve.

No one is talking about girls getting 35s at the next level. We are talking about girls who would score just as high at the next level. But that's besides the point. You or your gym might not view 35 as being proficient but it actually is proficient in terms of skill development. USAG appears to feel the same way and that's what counts. Obviously we all strive for higher scores but we are talking about girls repeating a level in which they got a 37+ the previous season. Obviously they are "proficient" in that level.

Someone on this very board accused my daughter (her gym, I guess) of sandbagging bc she's repeating lv 6 and got 37s first 2 meets. She can't move up, developed fear/block on giant, needs a giant for 7, period, case closed. Also missed half of last season due to injury. My gym doesn't sandbag, she was one of only a few who did not move up and the others are not near getting 37s. Yes, she I think she would do well in 7, maybe even close to what she is getting now. But the fact is she can't. I get the "sandbagging" thing, and I guess some gyms do that to get business. I don't see too much of that around here, maybe I'm naive. I just don't understand the argument of moving up to get 35s.

That would be me. I did not accuse. What I said was

But she doesn't need giants for L7. Many compete without them and if they have a good substitute, their score does not suffer. They easily could let her compete with another circling skill or even just scratch bars, if she is ready for the other events. Holding her back to a level below she is competently ready to compete (though not to their level of competency) is, by definition, sandbagging. Personally, I don't care... there are different philosophies as to how to run a team and that's fine.

That isn't an accusation. I took the information you provided to the forum and applied it to the definition. You say she "can't" compete L7. That is untrue. She can compete L7 without giants. Her gym chooses to not let her. That is the difference. Many other gyms would have her compete without giants (using a substitute skill or scratching bars) while she is working through that fear. As above, I stated - different philosophies as to how to run a team and that's fine. Obviously we disagree about this. so be it.

 

[raenndrops]

One thing I don't understand is why some of you think girls should move up if they are scoring 37-38 in order to get 35s at next level. 35 does not seem "proficient at current level". The sport is based out of 10 in JO. If an athlete wants to get to states, regionals, nationals, etc., there is usually a certain number they have to achieve. If an athlete/coach wants to perfect everything in a level (cast angles, form, etc.) why should they be chastised for doing so? Doing things cleanly and with proper form lessens the chance of injuries.

When I was talking about a gym sandbagging at L6, the girls were competing L7 routines on ALL events. The entire gym was scoring 37+ AA at L6 with these L7 routines.
The SV would have been the same in either level.
The deductions in L6 and L7 are EXACTLY the same (they are for all optional levels... except L6 and L7 don't have composition deductions), so those same routines at L7 in that same meet with the same judges would score 37+.

I understand that a girl could be scoring 37+ in Level 7 and not be ready for Level 8.
But scoring 37+ in L6 with L7 routines means the girl doesn't need L6.

I have no dog in this fight because we don't compete against "club" teams.
I just believe that an entire team scoring that high at L6 with maxed out routines should not be competing L6.

 

[l.c.o]

My DD repeated level 3 even though “she had all of her level 4 skills”. In those days I was a terrible judge of whether the skills were truly decent or not, and I inwardly questioned the decision.

DD scored mid to upper 37s and placed well. She then moved to level 4 a month after states. Her scores? All over the 33-34 range. Repeating was the correct choice. She improved overall form in the basics and built confidence.

She then did two full seasons of level 4. The second season was as her gym did not compete seasons of level 5 or 6. So it was compete 4 and/or 7. She repeated level 4 with most teammates and did well - 37s and 38s. Could she have competed level 5 that season, skills-wise? Maybe had level 5 been the sole focus - but it hadn’t been. She’d been focusing on level 7. Finally got ger L5 flyaway a month before she scored out of 5.

I don’t count that above as sandbagging. Does girls repeating often help their team score? Sure! Could her gym plan to compete full seasons of levels 5 and 6? Sure! I’m even sure they’d be pretty successful. But they like to say their goal is getting the girls to optionals, not compulsories.

Some progress to optionals more quickly than others.

DD’s repeating partially involved bars fear + a poorly timed growth spurt which contributed to a loss of all L5+ beam skills that lasted quite awhile.

I know sandbagging exists. It existed at a former gym with her teammates at her level - the TOPS girls had their old level 5 and many L6 and L7 skills but competed L3. It wasn’t the greatest experience, but it was humbling and a life lesson. There will always be someone better than you, no matter how good you are.

And FWIW, the kids who sandbagged? Their parents weren’t happy either. And none of them are still with the gym.

 

[raenndrops]

My DD repeated level 3 even though “she had all of her level 4 skills”. In those days I was a terrible judge of whether the skills were truly decent or not, and I inwardly questioned the decision.

DD scored mid to upper 37s and placed well. She then moved to level 4 a month after states. Her scores? All over the 33-34 range. Repeating was the correct choice. She improved overall form in the basics and built confidence.

She then did two full seasons of level 4. The second season was as her gym did not compete seasons of level 5 or 6. So it was compete 4 and/or 7. She repeated level 4 with most teammates and did well - 37s and 38s. Could she have competed level 5 that season, skills-wise? Maybe had level 5 been the sole focus - but it hadn’t been. She’d been focusing on level 7. Finally got ger L5 flyaway a month before she scored out of 5.

I don’t count that above as sandbagging. Does girls repeating often help their team score? Sure! Could her gym plan to compete full seasons of levels 5 and 6? Sure! I’m even sure they’d be pretty successful. But they like to say their goal is getting the girls to optionals, not compulsories.

That is NOT sandbagging.
L3 to L4, cast angles need to be higher, the DFK, the beam cartwheel, the FHS vault... any of these can hold a girl back.
L4 to L5, cast angles, CHC, flyaway, Front tuck, back tuck, BWO on beam (or BHS or BER)... any of these can hold a girl back.
L5 to L6, cast angles... that's really it. In L6, while the requirement is cast to horizontal, they get up to 0.3 deduction for casts not to HS.
L6 to L7, beam series, flight on beam, BLO on floor, and while the cast requirement if 45º above horizontal, they get the SAME up to 0.3 deduction for not hitting HS.
L7 to L8 is a HUGE jump. Gyms could keep a girl at L7 until she has a 10.0 SV on all events even if the girl is scoring 38+ at L7, if the gym requirement is 10 SV on each event and a girl is missing something on her "weakest" event, then she doesnt move up.
L8 to L9 also a huge jump as is L9 to L10.

 

[Mish]

No one is talking about girls getting 35s at the next level. We are talking about girls who would score just as high at the next level. But that's besides the point. You or your gym might not view 35 as being proficient but it actually is proficient in terms of skill development. USAG appears to feel the same way and that's what counts. Obviously we all strive for higher scores but we are talking about girls repeating a level in which they got a 37+ the previous season. Obviously they are "proficient" in that level.

That would be me. I did not accuse. What I said was That isn't an accusation. I took the information you provided to the forum and applied it to the definition. You say she "can't" compete L7. That is untrue. She can compete L7 without giants. Her gym chooses to not let her. That is the difference. Many other gyms would have her compete without giants (using a substitute skill or scratching bars) while she is working through that fear. As above, I stated - different philosophies as to how to run a team and that's fine. Obviously we disagree about this. so be it.

 

[Jazzjerz]

They were warming them up at a L 5 meet.

Really this is getting silly. Clearly these girls were more than ready to be done with L5 long before they stopped competing it.

I have seen this warm up at a level 5 meet as well. In this case, it was a group of girls who had competed level 4 the prior season, trained for 7 for 10ish months, and they were now attempting to score out of 5 in order to compete 7 the following month. What would you have them do in this case?

 

[Mish]

I tried to reply but something weird happened. Anyway, not looking to argue but yes, she can't compete 7 without the giant because we are not switching gyms. Most gyms around here have the same philosophy anyway, and we are not in a region known for gymnastics She is working her *** off and I'm happy she is seeing some tangible results. She has also said she'd give up the 1st AAs to go to lv 7. Everyone has their own journey. She is 10. Tonight she did her giant on pit by herself for the first time since summer. Then heavily spotted on bar set. Happiest I've seen her in a long time. But maybe she will stay at 6, who knows.

 

[l.c.o]

That is NOT sandbagging.
L3 to L4, cast angles need to be higher, the DFK, the beam cartwheel, the FHS vault... any of these can hold a girl back.
L4 to L5, cast angles, CHC, flyaway, Front tuck, back tuck, BWO on beam (or BHS or BER)... any of these can hold a girl back.
L5 to L6, cast angles... that's really it. In L6, while the requirement is cast to horizontal, they get up to 0.3 deduction for casts not to HS.
L6 to L7, beam series, flight on beam, BLO on floor, and while the cast requirement if 45º above horizontal, they get the SAME up to 0.3 deduction for not hitting HS.
L7 to L8 is a HUGE jump. Gyms could keep a girl at L7 until she has a 10.0 SV on all events even if the girl is scoring 38+ at L7, if the gym requirement is 10 SV on each event and a girl is missing something on her "weakest" event, then she doesnt move up.
L8 to L9 also a huge jump as is L9 to L10.

I agree with you. But to an outsider who only saw my DD and teammates compete, it might look like the gym was sandbagging.