What do we think of the new compulsories then…?

[Faith]

So a few regions have competed now, and looking at the results, plus this post from @Flossyduck got me thinking...

And the numbers being entered for compulsories are massively down.

Lots of people saying they have made the range too difficult, for no obvious benefit, and are not necessarily getting the 'best' gymnasts by going down this route.

I don't know what to think.

I don't think I agree with the elite system we have in the first place, I think by selecting so young and the "in age" thing we're missing many talented kids who may mature or develop later.

Firstly, I was looking at London region results- mainly because they are speedy with the results , but also because it encompasses 3 of the "big name" clubs- Heathrow, Europa, and East London- plus lots of smaller clubs with HPC coaches capable of producing elite athletes- Greenwich, Hendon, Ladywell, City of London, MG gymstars….so really, there should be a higher than average number of compulsory kids.

2 @ Level 5
7@ Level 4
8@ level 3
4 @ level 2

Is that really all those clubs can produce? Allowing for injury and natural attrition those numbers don't bode well for the UK's depth of field later on.

Also, following @Bubblegum1 's posts recently, and looking at grades/regional levels in london, it seems to follow (this is me reading between the lines ) that most clubs are selecting kids early, and those that don't make elite go down the grades route, with anybody else being left in rec. SO your averagely talented 5/6 year old never even gets started. WAG teams are extremely small in each club…

Back to the compulsories- I always got the impression compulsories were designed to slow down progress in talented kids, so coaches focussed on doing the early skills and progressions well rather chucking difficulty. R+C included so kids worked on the basic shapes and correct form. Now with the increases in difficulty are they going to have to select and increase hours even earlier? Are we going to burn our talented kids out?

I do agree with the removal of the pass mark on R+C…. I like R+C as a training tool but I do think it misses some fast twitch youngster who will struggle with it.

Any other thoughts?

 

[floppycat]

I think this is a transition year so hopefully numbers will be back up next year and I think the regionals in September will have higher numbers. Level 5 in regions differs, the london region had an ever harder bars than our region. I worry that the hours of training necessary to do level 5 and 4 has increased which I don't think that is right for 7-9 year olds.

 

[Faith]

Floppycat- I've just looked at london region for 2013

Level 5- 3
level 4- -9
level 3- 7
level 2- 5

So not that different so I'm not sure it's totally due to the new levels. only 5 of the level 4's went on to do level 3, and only 4 level 3's competed level 2 this year.

I just kind of think we need way more at the lower levels if we want anyone left by junior! I know we have the challenge route but very few clubs use that as a realistic alternative to elite.

 

[Flossyduck]

I agree with a lot of what you've said Faith. And I definitely agree that the pool is going to be dramatically smaller if the numbers this year are anything to go on, which wouldn't be healthy. However I also agree with Floppycat that it's a transition and will take a while to bed in. Some girls will fall between the gaps trying to make the jump to the next level when the goalposts have moved, but the ones just starting out will know no different I guess, so the situation may right itself in a year or two.

I definitely think removing the range pass mark is a step in the right direction. It allows girls who might be fabulous bar and floor workers or wonderful on beam to make up for any shortfall on range and still get through. Lots of good gymnasts have struggled with it and it would be a nonsense to lose them over a nervy handstand and shuffly leg lift.

I overheard someone saying at a comp recently that the range is a bit like practicing scales when learning a musical instrument - good that you practice them, but ultimately no-one wants to listen to them in concert and you wouldn't refuse to listen to a wonderful musician because they didn't practice scales or ever learn to read music.

And I think the littlest elite track girls in our club are definitely having to progress faster than before. The tiny compulsory 5's are already doing giants on strap bar and I know for a fact that our successful level 3's couldn't do some of the skills the new level 4's are doing at the same stage last year, or at least not competition ready.

I really hoped the out of age compulsory thing might step in to provide a cushion and allow more girls to progress, but it's all remarkably quiet on that front this year. There are two girls at our club who are lined up to go for that next year though, and a friend at another club has her dd already being prepared for out of age 3 next year, so maybe again it needs time to kick in.

I've mixed feelings. Somewhere in amongst them is a mild panic that the wonderful depth we have at junior level is about to unravel.

 

[Jenny]

So far I think the signs are Very good. I thought there would be a big drop this year but haven't seen it myself. I think the numbers will be up a lot next year when everyone has their heads round it.

I don't think it will change things in the big clubs much. I think they have solid systems on lots of hours and will channel their kids through in age as normal. They dont really need out of age and I don't think they will bother with it much . I think the out of age option will benefit smaller or newer clubs finding their feet without the steady stream the elite clubs have. They can work more at their own pace.

 

[floppycat]

A lot of very young girls are getting disheartened not being able to do level 5 or 4 when they would previously would have I think that is a shame and may lead to some talented girls quitting early. Doesn't seem normal that there are only 2 level 5 girls in the whole of the London region. My 7 year old is doing giants, upstarts, flicks on the beam, etc.... At a much earlier stage than many of the older girls had to. I'm not convinced this is a good thing. We have a mad training schedule for a 7 year over Easter and I presume over summer just so that they are up train to level 4. I'm worried about early overuse injuries, or perhaps I'm hoping she will get bored (the gym runs are hard to organise!).

 

[Faith]

Jenny do you not think the increase in difficulty will lead to Floppy's point- high hours, insane schedules for 7 year olds, and increases in overuse injuries?

Flossy, I really don't think the OOA thing is going to happen, except maybe in very small clubs so they can say they've had someone compete compulsory. You've said yourself the elite path is tough in many clubs- it's not even about the kids capable of passing, if you aren't going to do well you get moved to grades. I think I've only ever seen Comp.2 done OOA- usually for someone who passed 4 and 3 but for some reason missed comp.2 IA. Clubs aren't going to invest that sort of time into OOA, they want the phenoms that score well IA.

I was speaking to a mum last night who thinks her club won't even have a WAG grades/regional squad much longer. They've gone down from over 25 to 17 kids in the last 6m. Their HC will coach the elite compulsory girls, everyone else will be rec or F+V, except for one or two who've stepped down/unable to continue compulsories.

 

[Frase]

I think it's a shame that it seems a bit 'one strike and you are out' from comp 3 downwards and if the ooa does take off and fixes this then that's a good thing in my opinion.

For a number of reasons (injury, changes to comp 3 and skill) dd wasn't ready this year to move from comp 4 to comp 3 - does that mean that she should just give up her goal to reach elite?

Whilst I see flossyduck's point about losing kids through too tough a range, for us at least, there is the complete flip side to this. Dd strengths are her artistry, core strength and flexibility - making range and beam her highest scoring events at grades. I didnt actually think the step from 4 to 3 in range was that great.

Where she falls down heavily is power - she will never be a firecracker and therefore, for her the obstacles in comp 3 were the likes of the vault and the twist on floor. Obviously I am biased but I think there should be a place for both kinds of gymnasts - those with the amazing power and tumbles and those with the more control type skills (as well as those lucky ones with it all obviously!)

Maybe dd will never get enough power to compete with the best of them but anything that gives her a little more time to try and do so has got be a good thing in my book.

 

[Faith]

Frase- my dd is the opposite. She is total fast twitch and power- she was messing around in a pit a while back and was chucking doubles easily, and she all but made a giant.

Her flexibility though is only average- she has good shoulders and pike sit, but no good over splits. She would have got the skills easily, but because range would have been a challenge she wasn't even considered for compulsories. She didn't want to be stuck in regional competition not learning the skills she wanted to so she quit gymnastics, age 9.

Which is kind of my point- I don't think compulsories are inclusive enough. There were 6 girls on dd's squad who could have passed comp 4, but weren't even considered for it. All but one has quit gymnastics now, and the one left has been left in a regional squad and doesn't even have the comp . 5 skill set.

 

[Frase]

Sorry me again. I my opinion I think it would be a step forward if national grades became harder and narrowed the gap towards the comp levels. I haven't got an issue with dd being 'national' rather than 'compulsory' i do have an issue with just how vast the gap between the two is.

In addition I think there should be some limitations to age when it comes to national grades. In dd's regional team with her going to the national finals are one other 10 year old, a 12 year old and a 17 year old - in grade 8.

 

[Flossyduck]

I agree with you both... that was why I agree with removing the pass score for range, but not removing it completely - it means that girls who major in skills and power can still pass by making up on other events, but a girl who scores high on range can afford a less powerful vault etc. Later down the line, many gymnasts are known as event specialialists anyway, so why not.

There is no longer a step up in range from 4-3, it's the same. But the range is now proving hard to master by level 4 and it is overall much longer- with more static holds, plus more leg lifts and the split jumps. So more room for deduction on lack of split, or wobbling. If there was a pass mark, it would narrow the field down to a certain gymnast type pretty darn early on.

Your girl is typical of the ones I mentioned in danger of falling between the gaps Frase - who did the easier compulsory 4 last year and the step to 3 was suddenly made greater (goalposts moved). For girls doing 4 this year it wont be such a big step, but it does mean they are having to increase skills earlier.

If you look at national grade results this year you will find a few like her, who passed comp 4 last year and even made nationals. Some I know are planning to do it out of age and some will probably stay with national grades. And I hope she never has to give up her dream of elite, if that is what she wants!!!

 

[Frase]

Sorry I wasn't very clear - I meant the change from last year's level 4 range to this years new level 3 range (and obviously level 4).

I agree - there are lots of 'good names' dd's age that are missing from this years grades score sheets. Let's hope they all come flooding back next year.

 

[Flossyduck]

Gotcha.

Previously didn't they just have to do leg lifts on good leg? (might be wrong, but thought so) and they didn't have the split jumps - so that's two big flexibility elements added, with associated deductions. Then previously they just had to kick up to the split handstand change leg (how simple does that seem now?!) and were able to kick back into split before joining the legs too. So the pike up to hold and then kicking straight back from split bridge to handstand without going through split handstand are the two major additions, which girls seem to have struggled with - they require a good deal more balance/control/strength than previous range.

I've seen the new range done quite a lot and thought I'd seen it done very cleanly by a few girls, but the judges are being very picky. It's very interesting to see what they are and aren't prioritising. Tiniest handsteps or elbow pumps - big deductions, some knee bending seems less of an issue.

 

[floppycat]

I just hope out of age becomes more of a norm and not to be downgraded to national grades as the gap is so large.

 

[Frase]

Oh it's definitely harder with new elements no doubt at all - but I think if you'd managed old level 4 a year ago, new level 3 was achievable though I guess it depends on each child.

From memory it was forward roll to straddle, straddle to handstand, hold, split handstand hold, back to handstand hold, split handstand (other leg) hold, then down in to bridge and so on. If nothing else good has come of the new range at least there isn't that silly waves moves at the end anymore - what was that all about!

 

[Flossyduck]

Oh god, I forgot about the jelly fish dance

 

[Jenny]

There are less holds in the new range. I am sure it was mentioned at the clinic. a lot of it is just show the position etc now but I haven't got the details in front of me. Old 3 and new 3 range are not that different. I think it is harder than the old 4 though.

Surely everyone worked leg hold on both sides regardless- otherwise your gymnast would be uneven. So including both should be no issue. Nick Ruddock made that point in the national clinic.

And the jumps surely favour fast twitch girls and dynamic flexibility. So now the routine includes a variety of flexibility which is great.

I do think people had already started to crazy hours for 6 and 7 year olds but yes I think this will make it worse. I mean if you do 20 hours for comp 4 where do you go as the moves get harder, 30 hours, more, Homeschool? Although I keep hearing about kids doing grade 14 on 18 hours which is pretty nuts.

 

[meeeshymoo]

Our region not until last weekend in April, feels soo late this year.

I am interested to see how this pans out, our gym have swapped the girls who were hoping to do compulsory to national grades.

It is interesting, I have noticed our younger girls are training a lot more hours than my dd did at that age. The drop out rate appears to be higher.

I will be interested to see this years compulsories as lots of strong girls last year.

As with anything it will take a while to bed in.