Women Typical Start of Season Scores?

[gymgal]

I get it you were just looking to hold a conversation about how a gymnast scores start the season and how they improve as the season progresses. I have no idea why others choose not to simply discuss the topic.

because there is no consistent answer. As others have said it is too variable. Some gymnasts start at a 36 and stay there all season. Others start there and improve to high 37s. Still others start at 32/33/34 and move up (or stay the same). The OP's dd's scores look great to me for a first meet but we have several gyms around us who would never let their gymnasts compete with anything less than a 37 right from the first meet of the season.

 

[gymgal]

My feeling on this is that their uptraining stops earlier, therefore they have less skills (so they can't move up) and their form is better, because they have had much more time perfecting everything. Not sure of this is true though...

I think this is true for those scoring in the high 35/mid 36 range but once you get into the 37s from the start of the season, it is likely that the gym competes down a level. They have all of the skills for the next level but compete at the level where they can score very high.

 

[QueenBee]

To answer the question of what kind of scoring is typical in Level 7, as others have said it depends on your area and what type of gym your children are at. If a gym program/gymnast has strong fundamentals, Level 7 is usually a high-scoring level (in my experience). We consistently see scores in the high 37s and 38s from the start of the season through the end in level 7 (Region 5). Over 20% of gymnasts in our State score 37.5 or higher at State each year just going over the last few years of data. In our neck of the woods, gymnasts aren't anywhere near podium if they aren't at 37 or so from the get-go at Level 7.

The gyms in our area aren't sandbagging - gymnasts do a level each year. We just have a lot of strong gyms in our area. Each year, there are between 8-10 gymnasts in the youngest age group who score 38 or higher at State. Scoring high at Level 7 doesn't necessarily mean a gymnast will score high at Level 8 and higher. The skill jumps/composition component are just too large at Level 8 and higher to be able to correlate scores in Level 7 to future scores (except by the most talented of gymnasts).

 

[Mish]

Personally I don’t get starting the season quite that high- especially if it’s whole teams- it makes me wonder why some of those girls haven’t moved up.. but that’s just me.

My daughter got over a 37 first meet of season. She is repeating level 6 bc she developed a fear/block on the giant and you need one for level 7 in my gym. Simple answer sometimes. So, yes, she looks amazing and got a 37.3 yesterday, with a 9.45 on bars, and upgrades on other events. Stinks for her, too, she wanted to move up, but missed half of the season due to injury last year, so maybe it was for the best. Some other girls are in the same boat, our gym is definitely not in the sandbagging category.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

The gyms in our area aren't sandbagging - gymnasts do a level each year.

That doesn't mean you aren't (and I don't mean you or your gym personally) sandbagging.

Just like not having a giant is not what limits a kid from L7.

Having now seen L7 meets. I have seen kids score worse with giants then kids without.

My kid doesn't have a giant yet. But keeping her at 6 would of been keeping her there for scores. I get it. gyms have their own requirements which may be more stringent then USAGs.
And they can still sandbag.

JMO, not that it matters. Is beyond USAG scores, scores shouldn't be a factor for moving up.

I get it you were just looking to hold a conversation about how a gymnast scores start the season and how they improve as the season progresses. I have no idea why others choose not to simply discuss the topic.

And yes having seen my girl develop along with the ability to look up typical scores on meetscoresonline. I know how scores for our area go by level. It is a simple as looking up the scores for last years meet. How did this meet go last year. How did our gyms girls around this time of the year, last year. ...... I can then make a rather educated guess where my kid will fit.

I know exactly why others would be concerned. Folks joining to stir the pot or troll. Its the community being cautious.

 

[amiandjim]

It’s just an individual thing. My DD scored a 36.55 at her mock meet and will possibly be over 37 for her first or second meet (maybe not!) but she is a level 3 and can’t do a kip, a real level 4 vault, or round off 2 bhs. She is a kid who will not do higher level skills until her
Coaches “make” her. Now, we have a nearby gym who today had 11 year old level 3s scoring 37.9 at their first meet of the year and I honestly have a hard time believing those girls cannot do level 4 skills.

 

[gymgal]

My daughter got over a 37 first meet of season. She is repeating level 6 bc she developed a fear/block on the giant and you need one for level 7 in my gym. Simple answer sometimes. So, yes, she looks amazing and got a 37.3 yesterday, with a 9.45 on bars, and upgrades on other events. Stinks for her, too, she wanted to move up, but missed half of the season due to injury last year, so maybe it was for the best. Some other girls are in the same boat, our gym is definitely not in the sandbagging category.

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.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

It is not unusual for lower compulsories to score high and not have skills. Mine was a 37-38+ L3 scorer. Was the second to last on her team to get her kip, well after her L3 states. Wasn't sure she was going to 4. Not having a kip was simply not an option in L4, there was no other thing to replace it with.

Compulsory missing skills is a much bigger deal then optional. Compulsory routines are pretty much set, not a lot of wiggle room. Optional's have "options"

 

[Mish]

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.

You are wrong. Our gym requires them for 7 and does not sandbag. We have lv 6 and lv 7 who scored all the way from 32 -37 at the last meet. They let girls compete less than perfect. Giant is a requirement for lv 7, period. We do not dominate the podium by any means. Please do not comment when you have no idea. Repeating is not the norm, but is not unheard of either. My daughter was devastated initially and is working her butt off to get to 7.

 

[QueenBee]

That doesn't mean you aren't (and I don't mean you or your gym personally) sandbagging.

Just like not having a giant is not what limits a kid from L7...

I guess I don't understand what 'sandbagging' means in this conversation. If a gymnast starts competing gymnastic at Level 3 at age 6/7/8 (begins competing as soon as age eligible or as soon as they are ready to compete Level 3 regardless of when what age they began training), competes a higher level every year (never repeats a level, most probably skips Level 6 completely)...how is the gymnast's score a sandbagging score?

I'm just really confused. What do you mean by sandbagging here? I thought sandbagging was when a gym purposefully held a gymnast back at a level the gymnast has already competed in order to sweep the podium...is there a different meaning we are using here? Please help me understand what you are saying.

 

[MILgymFAM]

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.

 

[John]

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.

I think you have the same definition as me.

 

[MILgymFAM]

I wanted to add that gym specific requirements for move ups aren’t necessarily sandbagging but they have always confounded me. The usag requirements for level should be sufficient imo.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I guess I don't understand what 'sandbagging' means in this conversation. If a gymnast starts competing gymnastic at Level 3 at age 6/7/8 (begins competing as soon as age eligible or as soon as they are ready to compete Level 3 regardless of when what age they began training), competes a higher level every year (never repeats a level, most probably skips Level 6 completely)...how is the gymnast's score a sandbagging score?

I'm just really confused. What do you mean by sandbagging here? I thought sandbagging was when a gym purposefully held a gymnast back at a level the gymnast has already competed in order to sweep the podium...is there a different meaning we are using here? Please help me understand what you are saying.

There is no requirement that they even compete a level every year. If they have all their skills any gymmie meeting age and min score out requirement could go from L4 to L7 or even higher in one season.

Sandbagging is when they have the next levels skills and are kept back to score higher in the previous level. Especially in the optional levels where there is actually a range of skills.

I think for many its the Level 6/7 are where this is most apparent. Because you can pretty much do all L7 skills in 6. So gymmies held back to score higher in 6 rather then just OK in 7.

Many folks feel, I include myself in with that group. If you can do the skills for the level consistently you should be doing that level. Consistently doesn't mean scoring higher than 36/37. You can be consistent and lower then that.

 

[John]

I wanted to add that gym specific requirements for move ups aren’t necessarily sandbagging but they have always confounded me. The usag requirements for level should be sufficient imo.

If usag says requirements are X and gym says X plus Y, there is something behind the Y. Possibly how the owner feels other gyms will view his or her gym. With that said DD's requires giants. I haven't had the cojones to ask why.

 

[reluctant]

My daughters had their first meet of the season yesterday and they did well. It was a small meet so they placed well...second AA for both of them. The level 9 fell on beam and got a 36.4 and the level 7 fell on bars and got a 36.425. I was wondering what you all think typical start of season scores are. Thanks

This is just not a question that anyone can answer for you. you said that they did well. Isn't that the proof to yourself that the scores were better than you expected. Some people would be over the moon with these scores. Others who are used to scoring higher would want them to be higher. We all know that there is a lot of variation with scores. How did your girls feel about their performance?

 

[MILgymFAM]

If usag says requirements are X and gym says X plus Y, there is something behind the Y. Possibly how the owner feels other gyms will view his or her gym. With that said DD's requires giants. I haven't had the cojones to ask why.

I always question everything and gym is part of everything. My DD had a coach that scratched her all season once over his arbitrary requirements and she was threatened to be kicked off a team once because she couldn’t do an arbitrary skill well. Obviously that’s the lense I am viewing this through. I see it as I see anything else- who cares what other gyms think if you’re training each girl as an individual. I has always been somewhat amused at how few options most coaches allow in lower optionals.

 

[gymbeam]

I’m very sensitive to the sandbagging accusations when people base it solely on scores. You just can’t do that. You have to understand that there are truly coach/athlete combos that make it possible to score 37s and 38s all season- legitimately.

I will use my daughter as an example. Kid walked into a gym with zero prior athletic experience of any kind and exactly 2 years and 6 months later she started her Level 7 season with a 37.75 (and then one year after that started Level 8 in the same range).

Would anyone call that sandbagging? Would you really expect a kid to go from complete beginner any faster than that? No way! She worked hard to get what she needed- when she needed it. Ya, there was uptraining but never so much that she had all the skills for the next level.

So I will say again that there are coach/athlete combos that work really well. We’re fortunate to be in a gym with head coaches that know how to time things very well so that the team has mastered their current level with enough uptraining happening that they have just enough time after meet season to master the next.

 

[gymbeam]

If usag says requirements are X and gym says X plus Y, there is something behind the Y. Possibly how the owner feels other gyms will view his or her gym. With that said DD's requires giants. I haven't had the cojones to ask why.

The Giants requirement being in place for Level 7 has been explained to me that moving on at that point without them starts to make the gap too wide when trying to then move forward to Level 8 bars. Level 8 is a big jump even for girls with great giants in Level 7.

I’m not a coach so I don’t know how necessary this method really is, but it does seem to be very common so there must something to it. Plus, keep in mind that having giants doesn’t make you score any higher in 7 so it’s not like their requiring it for that. It is obviously a requirement because they feel the skill is important at that point in time.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

I has always been somewhat amused at how few options most coaches allow in lower optionals.

Yes, it seems sometimes and at some gyms that there aren't a lot of options in optionals.

From a personal perspective. I get why my kid was not moved as quickly at the compulsory level. She truly didn't have the skills to zip past one level to the next. They are compulsory skills as in they must be in the routine.

Now at optional, where there are min-max skills. I want her where she meets min. If she has to stay because she doesn't meet the next level min, so be it. But I do not want her held back until she meets max level skills for what ever level is her next at the time.

And yes before someone jumps on the exception bus. I know things like blocks and injuries are whole different beast. And that is not what I and others are talking about.