MAG Criteria for Moving Up

[JLev]

DS competed L5 last season. We have recently switched gyms due to a move. Our old gym was somewhat aggressive about moving boys up through the levels as the philosophy was to get them to compulsories as soon as possible. Our new gym has stated that they keep boys at each level for more than one year.

What is a good set of criteria for moving to a new level? Bonuses/skills accomplished? Certain average score? Placement at States or Regionals? I'm trying to understand the differing philosophies and the merits of each?

 

[skschlag]

In my opinion, move ups should be based on individual needs/skills. Our gym moves up based on very individual criteria. There may not be a system...bonuses,scores, places, but boys seem to end up where they need to be.

That could change. I know one coach we had liked them ot have solid basics. With the changes, I can see that older boys might get moved up more quickly to move to optionals.

I am not a fan of blanket statements of keeping kiddos at levels for x number of years. My ds did 1 year of 4, 3 years of 5, and 1 year of 6,7,and 8. he is starting his 2nd year of 9.

Good luck with your new gym! Can't wait to see how your ds is growing!

 

[sce]

What is a good set of criteria for moving to a new level? Bonuses/skills accomplished? Certain average score? Placement at States or Regionals? I'm trying to understand the differing philosophies and the merits of each?

Not sure the best way to answer this, as you are at a gym that dies it a certain way and our opinions will not change that. That being said, ds' gym does it by boy, based on skills, technique etc. Sometime boys do a level one year, sometimes they repeat and sometimes they skip levels.

 

[Madden3]

At our gym, it depends entirely on the boy and where he is at when levels are finally solidified in August. (Over the summer boys practice at their "presumptive" level.) Sometimes they stay at same level and sometimes they do two years. Both are common. Only very rarely more than two at one level, but it has happened. Skipping levels also happens, but rarely in 4-6.

This is the gym we have always been at so I guess it is good I like the way our gym does it. I do not really understand either one size fits all system. A gym that ALWAYS keeps every boy at the same level for two years sounds like they are possibly overly interested in scores. A gym that is aggressively trying to push boys out of compulsories sounds even weirder. Compulsory levels are vital in order to lay a rock solid foundation for the athlete- at least that is how I always looked at it.

Both of my sons have repeated compulsory levels (or will be repeating this coming season.) In their case it has made for a good season score wise and more confidence overall IMO. On the other hand they have both also 'moved up" when staying at the same level another season might have made more sense score-wise. While the scores might not have been great those seasons, the move up was still the best choice for other reasons.

As far as the new rules changing gym philosophy, imo the general philosophy of keeping more boys at the same level 2 years is going to get a boost with the new bonus/no bonus compulsories, which in a way splits every level into two levels anyway. But I agree that working to counter that will be the new upper age limits for optionals that will create a new urgency to move "older" boys more quickly into optionals.

 

[SPX]

Ds' s gym had a set criteria, AA of 59 or above at 2 competitions to move to the next level. Unless the is a reason for an exception. Those reasons can be anything from the gymnast needing more time or more challenge to team dynamics (due to other moves or lack of L5 would be huge and L6 tiny). Moves happen over the summer and potentially again in the fall. There Is no policy on how many years at a given level and both repeats and skips are common.

 

[Madden3]

It occurred to me that I did not really answer the question re: criteria for moving up. Now I have no idea what exact criteria is in the HC's head, but after 5 years I can make a few guesses. I think previous season scores are part of it but not all that much. The AA to qualify for 5 and 6 States in my state has been 54 or so the last few years, and kids who make it to State seem to usually move up, but it also depends on what is happening with that boy closer to the new season.

Now, this may change with the new bonus/no bonus system, but up to this point, having every required skill for the next level has not been a firm requirement to move up. Having lots of bonuses is not a requirement either, but usually the boys who move up have some bonuses on their stronger events even if they may be missing a required skill here and there on their weaker ones. A new stated 'goal' due to the changes is for boys to do no more than two years at any one level, and to not do more than one year at the no-bonus level. I actually took that to mean, going forward, more kids might be doing two years at both 5 and 6, one year with bonuses and one without. But it is too early to know for sure how that will shake out.

What the kid wants and parents want seems to be taken into consideration in some cases.

It all sounds rather vague but I have only rarely been surprised by who and who does not move up-It all seems to make sense in the end.

 

[rosiekat]

This was our first team year, so my knowledge is certainly not complete. At the lower levels, at least, it looks like there is as much a "gut feel" about someone as anything else. It appears to me to be a combination of skills, future potential, and work habits. Does the kid have good work habits and attitude, is his attendance prompt and regular, does he seem to be growing as a person, etc. ? And then the other part of it is the skills and abilities - how were scores during the past season, how is his mastery of current level skills and is he ready to move on? I don't think there is particular consideration of how many kids are at a current level except for levels 4 and 5 since they have a defined class with a single defined coach so they can't just take everyone at those levels. The higher levels mostly train together, and have very different numbers of kids at different levels.

There are a few kids that I believe will repeat levels for this coming season for two different reasons. One is a level 4 boy who is OK but not great, is older, and has a body type that's going to make it really hard for him to do level 5. (I'm not being mean, this is from the boy's parent after talking with coach.) I think it is likely he will actually drop team and do a tumbling class, which would actually be great for him as that's the part of gym he really loves. Now, I don't know what the coach's decision would be if this boy chooses to stay on - I suspect it would be kind of a difficult decision because this was already this boy's second year at level 4. However, our head coach is a pretty cool combination of someone who wants to win, but also wants any boy who is interested in gym to have an outlet.

Then there are a few boys (I don't know how many) that will probably get held at level 5 not so much for skills, but because level 6 doesn't have the same level of one-on-one attention. The coach is concerned that these kids haven't yet developed the discipline to be able to work more independently yet and is worried they'll be a safety concern. I don't know anything about the skill level of these kids, and whether that's a factor or not.

I believe DS would likely move up to level 5 in fall due to skills alone, as he had all the bonuses except mushroom and did well in level 4. But I also know that his coach really appreciates that we are always on time and come to every single practice - up until the surgery, which was technically post-season, we only missed one optional practice and once due to a stomach bug. I suspect that if you have a kid who's OK but not outstanding with skills, work habits make the deciding factor, and vice versa.

 

[gracyomalley]

It will be interesting to see how all the changes pan out over the next 4 years. The new system will push coaches to move any boys who are slightly older or a late starter much faster than previously, as not doing so essentially means the coach is setting them up to have to do the JD track as optionals or quit before they want to....

In the past our coaches liked to see boys do 2 years at compulsory levels unless they were very successful (high scores, regional placements and likely most bonuses). This worked pretty well as the younger kids had time to learn fundamentals well and the older boys could move slow then speed up after puberty if able. A few kids would move faster (lots only did one year of L4 as its so basic - but important - but most did 2-3 years at L5), but the idea was there was no rush, and boys would be happier if they were successful while "uptraining". Skipping levels once older was encouraged as well. There have also been 3 different head coaches in the last 3.5 years, so hard to say what would have happened otherwise. During our time at the gym there have been lots of state and regional champs and a few boys going to Nationals and succeeding as Future Stars from our small team, so coaching method must have some value.

Present HC started "summer" plans with the hope that all the boys would move up (most repeated last season and all qualified for regionals), and has met with each boy individually, made official individual goals on paper and will check in formally with them on a monthly basis over the summer and early fall. The summer is mostly spent on strength and drills, so how he will determine who's ready "skillwise" is yet to be determined. He coaches from strength and drills not "skills" anyway - boys don't know that they are getting their giants until one day they go all the way around, etc..

We have 2 optional boys who were L8 last year who are forced to be L10 this year with the changes, and a L6 boy who will need to be L9 2 years from now, so I think there will be many of the 9-12 year old boys who are moved a bit faster now, to avoid that stress for them in the future - it really has the boys quite unhappy - the older ones are joking that they are L10s - or L7s (they are 16 and 17 but count as 17 and 18 next season)....there is a legitimate fear that they will injure themselves due to having to get so many new skills on so many apparatuses - coach is trying to be supportive but its a fine line - neither of these boys are elite level possibilites - but both have been developing into excellent optional gymnasts...now they will have to train as if they wanted college scholarships just to stay in the sport.

In any case, after 3 kids and multiple different move up strategies over the years, I will come back to USAG changes the rules every 4 years, and each kid is so different both from the others and from THEMSELVES at different ages...what's important is trusting the coach (need a good one) and helping the kids enjoy the journey - which is probably why I'm so annoyed with the new age limits...momma bear out!

 

[skschlag]

So, are gyms not even considering JD as an option? That is what it is there for....to keep boys competing and not being pushed so hard that they give up. It is an option for those that aren't ready for the next level to stay competing. So they can still be level 10, but doing the requirements for JD. That makes sense to me. And you can still be a 14 year old level 8, or a 16 yo level 9. There is nothing wrong with that.

It will be interesting to see how things play out for sure. We have 2 level 6s on our team...both will compete as 13 yo next year. I am not sure what will happen with them.....will they do level 8? JO/JD? or will they do 7? I would thinking jumping them to 8 and doing JD to get them ready for optionals would make the most sense. One has giants, both ways, so may be ready to just make the jump to 8. The other is just getting giants. Or make the jump to 9 and do JD and not worry about the requirements at. Way more than pushing them to 9 just because of their age.

I think there are so many more options now, that really, no one is being forced to do any level. Yes, at 17, you will have to do 10, but there are 3 levels of 10, so it really does give some flexibility.

As usual, it will take a year or 2 to tease out all the details, the logistics. Then another 2 years to solidify and understand. Then it will be 2020 and time to change it all again. sigh. That will be D's 4th and FINAL JO change to deal with

 

[gracyomalley]

Yes, thankfully DS the elder will not have another set of changes to deal with.

I think for most kids in our region JD will not be a big sell as there are so few upper optionals (I'd estimate less than 10-20 kids in the state 16 and older in ALL levels...) that if they all do different levels and different types of those levels they might all be the only one in their group...I don't think the boys coach wants to do JD at this point, as most of these boys (perhaps mine as an exception due to his music commitments) are not looking for JO light, but are ready to move up one level or master the one they are at, not move 2-3 this year .

Had the new age limits not been put in place there would be no need for JD here, there is no stigma for the older boys and at in state meets the upper level boys are cheered on by the whole crowd - everyone is proud of our kids who stuck with it...its a solution to a non-issue that creates problems, IMHO,but again this may be very different in more competitive areas.

No matter how many times I try to wrap my head around it I still see absolutely no benefit and only detriments to the in-age and age limits in boys gym...it really could be just me.

My DS has said he'd rather just train and not compete until ready for Level 10 than "compete" by himself in JD - unless all the boys he's competed with all along (in the state there were 6-8 15+ L8s this year, and another couple L9s - to put it in perspective there were probably less than 10 total L9s - its not that the older boys quit - in fact watching the last few years most of the teens actually were the ones that stayed with it - the middle school age boys dropped like flies) also did JD - or its a waste of time and money to do meets...I really think its different in areas where there may be 5-10 kids in JD per level, so still like a real meet.

I do hope JD is helpful in competitive areas with big teams where the older kids might otherwise be encouraged to quit due to being older...I just don't see why if they are ready to be awesome L9s they can't just be a L9???

 

[skschlag]

I do see what you are saying, but I think, at least here, those boys were not staying around. When they were a really good level 8, at 17, working out with 11 yo, they quit. I am assuming (and trying to figure out what people were thinking is always scary), that they were hoping to create an xcel type stream, that many have been asking for. I am with you in that I am not thinking it was needed. But it is here. So my only thought is that no one is being forced to do anything, you just have to choose the appropriate track. So rather than injuring yourself learning a release, compete JD routines until you have it, and take your time.

Not sure how JD will play out here either. And without a hc, I am left speculating with you guys

 

[sce]

I still don't understand why the older ones have to do level 10? Sure for nationals eligibility they would need to be level 10. But if they aren't ready for level 10, they aren't going to be competitive to qualify to nationals. So do level 8 or level 9. There is not upper age limit, right?

I too am not sure how JD will work out. Even in my more heavily populated area did not see hug numbers of optionals, so don;t see how dividing that group more makes sense. Will it really keep more boys in the sport? Will gyms want to have this other track as an option?

My kid doesn't want to do it. He's working hard to skip to optionals, but the idea of a lesser requirement track is not what he's aiming for.

 

[Madden3]

According to the info about changes given to us by our HC, there IS an upper age limit now for 8 and 9. Over 14 cannot do 8, and over 16 cannot do 9.

So if boys are in level 7, but cannot go to 8 or 9 due to being over age, I guess they have 2 choices. Stay in compulsories (7) until they are ready to move to 10, or do the Junior Development Program team so they can do optional routines. Given this, the addition of the Junior Development Program makes more sense to me. I am not sure which came first though- age limits, or the JDP, if they were conceived together, or if one inspired the other or what.
But since JDP is for 12 and up, it is obviously not only for boys who have aged above the age limit for the optional level they have the skills for.

Our gym has a few boys who are slated to do JDP next season. I actually do not think it is supposed to be like Xcel, exactly. I may have a poor understanding of the purpose of Xcel, but what I have understood is it is in part for girls who have less time for practice and/or less money for gymnastics in general. At least at our gym, for the summer anyway, the cost difference and practice time difference between JDP and, say, Level 7 or 8, is nominal. Basically it gives boys a way to move to optional routines sooner than they otherwise would. It also gives boys a chance to specialize- and I guess specialists might potentially have much fewer training hours. It is also being presented as a way for boys to practice with other older boys, as it is for ages 12-18 only. Our HC is also presenting JDP as a temporary option for some boys- giving them time to improve their skills while working/competing optional skills rather than stuck in 7 forever doing compulsory skills.

 

[Madden3]

Ok seriously there is a 5 minute limit for edits? I am used to editing my posts to death. OK, so I wanted to change that last sentence a bit to indicate, for some boys they will be temporarily in JDP until they have the skills to move back into JO at the appropriate optional level.

 

[skschlag]

I thikn JD is intended for several different scenarios: THe late starter, the gymnast that wants to continue but without the time commitment, gymnasts who are good at some events and not others, and those that are old enough to be done with compulsaries but not ready for full optionals. It could be good, if it does keep boys in....

 

[sce]

According to the info about changes given to us by our HC, there IS an upper age limit now for 8 and 9. Over 14 cannot do 8, and over 16 cannot do 9.

.

Sks can you check in this regarding ages? Are there upper limits in optionally? Man, I really dislike that coaches can't get any info until the clinic, since our closest clinic isn't until July!

 

[skschlag]

I am pretty sure there are. I think Level 8 JO is 12-14, level 9 is like 13-16....(JO).

 

[sce]

I am pretty sure there are. I think Level 8 JO is 12-14, level 9 is like 13-16....(JO).

Well then that helps define what level ds will be aiming for. Thanks!

 

[gracyomalley]

Those are the correct ages, and yes the age limits AND JD all came out this year, so I assume contrived together?

We have such a small team (15-20 total) all our optionals worked out together anyway , or in age groups not level, (the older boys sometimes were paired with younger compulsory boys for drills, strength etc). I can see that if the team were big enough for the boys to only get to ever train with their level they might not enjoy that if they were 16 year olds with all 12 year olds.

Any one with any idea WHAT JD requirements are? It would make sense if they were similar to JO just more lenient - as in L10 JD really L9...or if the base is set really low (L7 like) but all skills up to those allowed in L10 are allowed? Then the boys who are older but not with enough skills for each event would still be progressing...Our coach sent all the JO stuff to us but no JD.

Part of the reason I don't think our coach is considering it is none of the boys were unhappy (other than our stellar Nationally ranked L10 who was always planning on quitting after Nationals) and he didn't make the connection that the 2 oldest boys were late April birthdays so have to "age up" and skip a level this year. The rest of the boys team is either still compulsory or in age. The skills he has been discussing with DS are to meet JO level 10 requirements - although they both agree that in certain events he will take deductions. Its within DSs reach if he stays healthy and gets himself to gym between rehearsals and music jobs...

Perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised and our state will basically put most of the boys in JD, have very few actual JO boys (we already have only 1-4 JE most years and many of the rest of the L10s really could be JD), and they will all keep doing basically what they've been happily doing. Many are high school freshmen and sophomores, so could come back to JO if the program isn't treated like JO light. I'm not sure I know any boys who would want to do JD in high school if its "gym for fun". I'm not sure I know many high school age boys that would do anything this hard if it were just "for fun" and seen as the "easy" route. Not saying they shouldn't, and probably in a few years the kids coming up with this option will see it differently...

I do see the intention is for the best with JDP. Just frustrated as a mom and DS is working so hard to balance school, music and staying in gym the combination of being 1 month too old for L9 and his recent injuries (all better, but set him back musically and gymnastically and 16 year olds don't deal great with that ) is unfortunate. As I've said before, I do realize that this wasn't a whim and will probably benefit far more kids than not.

 

[skschlag]

From what I have heard, JD is the same requirements, just need fewer skills to make a routine (like 6 instead of 8, or 8 instead of 10...) But I am not 100% sure how that plays out.