Proposed changes for USAG 2013-2020

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Mariposa, thanks for sharing that. I find that very interesting as well. I haven't read over everything yet. A couple of things that stand out are the new level structure and bringing back the kip for L4.

BTW, it's tempting to share this with the rest of our parents. Maybe I shouldn't due to sensitivity issues.
 
I just figured it belonged here and was hoping to hear what coaches, parents, gymnasts all thought of this. :) It is funny because so many skills are questioned as to why they are there (by parents mostly I think) and yet most seem to still be there. I was surprised this hadn't been discussed and thought maybe I had missed it.
 
I don't really have much to say on the compulsory changes, except that I don't really understand the handstand walking on floor, or the handstand, step down, walking backward on beam for level 6. For the optional changes (extra level), I actually like that, because it would help level the playing field for level 8.
 
These are really early proposals. It was sent out for voting in late Oct or early Nov. I don't expect all of these to be well received. And clearly, they won't all be implemented since some of them would be incompatible.

I didn't reread but what I remember from taking the survey, something about making level 6 optional. I commented that I feel it is unreasonable to expect gyms and families to make that commitment in level 6, and it would make more sense to facilitate prep opt programs. Maybe it'll happen. 2013 is still a long way off to me.

I would like a FHS bounder in level 6. Definitely. I was discussing it with another coach. With our current optional structure, the bounding front skills are more important to me than step out front skills.

Something about handstand three steps roll down in level 5. Not sure what the thought behind that is exactly, but I'm just imagining all these little kids doing two steps, four steps, falling halfway through, taking 30 seconds to do it while the music plays, etc.
 
The consensus at my gym was some of the skills we like and are already teaching (split jump straddle jump, front handspring flyspring, switch leaps though we don't know that they should be required...we've all known a girl who can do anything BUT a switch leap, right?...the handspring over the sideways mat stack)...and that some are drills, not skills (handstand walking does not belong in a routine), and that some things just make no sense (handstand stepdown and walk backwards? The EARLY compulsory bars being absurdly hard for that level? Think about it, a pullover is a HARD thing...virtually the same beam dismount for 4 levels).

We aren't fans of the proposed structure. Level 4 being as competitive as it is is kind of intense already...if levels 1-3 were like that, that's not good for the kids or our sport. They should be learning good solid basics at that level, rather than drilling compulsory wrist flicks. And as much fun as it is for the girls to have their own routines at level 6, making it an optional level means way more commitment, which isn't something that they necessarily need to be pushed into.
 
I don't like the HS walking either. I like the L6 tumbling as I'm not a big fan of step-out skills and would rather see the FHS-bounder but I still like FHS-SO as a drill.

I like bringing the kip back. Perhaps, giving it a higher SV or just leaving it as an option. Then again, I view L4 as a recreational level. This may be where a lot of kids end their gymnastic careers, but we need to bring the kip back.

As for vaulting, I'd like to FHS over a mat stack or FHS to flatback on mats behind the table. That would be good as well.
 
I've had a look at the changes and it seems like a lot of them are in the right direction. I do like the idea of making levels 1-3 competitive. Here in Australia they are competitive and it works well. I presume it will be the same as Australia where they are competitive but not compulsory. Here you can compete from level 1 or you can start competing at any level up to level 4. It does work well to have the little ones in comps. In other sports kids can start competing almost from their first day. I think gymnastics looses too many kids from the sport because they have to train so long and so hard to start competing.

We have many similar skills like the kip being an option for level 4. It works well. All the level 4's are learning kip to get ready for level 5. Once they get it they can compete it. The only problem with this is that most level 4's shouldn't compete the kip. Its worth a 0.2 bonus for us, but most will get far higher deductions because they stop after the kip or bend their arms.

I like the Front handspring vault over the mat stack. It will work well for the smaller level 5's, also help to eliminate a bit of the fear with going over the vault table.

I don't think there is anything wrong with a few drill type skills being in the compulsory levels. They are developmental levels. I mean look at vault. All the the vaults from level 1-4 are not really vaults they are just drills. But it doesn't matter because drills is what we want at this level.

I don't think it would make it too much harder for level 6 being optional. here in Australia we do optional routines from level 4. There are a list of skills and each gymnast has their own beam, bar and floor routines and own music based on these skills. But the skills aren't hard so they really don't need any more training time than level 4-6's in the USA.
 
Vault proposals are okay, but the progressions are still off to me. I used to see L5s having trouble getting over (literally, just doing handstands on the table) like the first year the switch happened, but honestly at a big invite this weekend, I don't think I saw single kid not get over - sure some aren't great, but I have one who's about the size of your average 5 year old and gets over.

Meanwhile I have L4s who I'd love to have to clearing the mat stack - once they can vault, doing the L4 vault can be hard, they start hitting their heels first, etc.

My thought is L4 - they can either do what they're doing now or the handspring over. We used to have L4s doing either squat through or FHS...this has been done before. No reason we can't have this option.

L5 - let them do the vault over the mat stack for a reduction in SV or they can vault over the table. Again, been done before. I understand the JO committee wanted to eliminate this to equalize but honestly I don't see the big deal. I would do it with some the younger kids - I don't have to worry about this kid and also the small ones get a little more chance to compress that resi and pop off. Even with a 9.5 start the score would be better. And truthfully in terms of unfairness, it's the same as it is now - vault scores will be lower in the 7-8 ages, and higher in the older ages. Most at the lowest age level will choose the lower SV choice and there will be no reason for it when you have 12 year olds.

Then L7. Progressions way off in 7 and 8. The flipping vaults are almost a requirement in 8. Seeing all sorts of vaults with poor entries, landing way short. I have my own opinion on this, but either way it's the trend. No reason for all L7s to still be doing FHS. We're pushing all this resi vaulting anyway, we know these kids can go over the table - they should be timering. Easiest way set up wise would be let them do RO BHS right on to the resi, or 1/4 on. Don't even need it behind the table if you ask me. If we're worried about landings they can go to feet then fall to a tight lying position just like L4 from the handstand. don't need to evaluate a landing, we'll do that in L8. Just evaluate the shapes and power. If resistance to not using the table, could put the resi behind. But either way if kids are going to be doing yurchenkos in L8, putting in another progression like this will facilitate smaller gyms trying to move into optional competition. Even the prep opt advanced is allowing tsuks in my state.
 
Great points from lots of experienced coaches! Liked those vaults for L7 as well, that would be a nice transition.

It will be interesting what they eventually come up with. Nice that coaches have some input and hopefully it will be changes for the good!
 
Anybody have an "in" with USAG that can pass along this video to them?

Well I mean, I'm sure they're aware of the possibility (also as an aside, I wouldn't even require the flip out...but I'm not opposed...mostly I just feel like we need something different). This is a common drill. But it's taken some time for things to adjust, which usually happens. The main barriers are equipment concerns (they don't want to add additional equipment burdens, and meet set up, etc. there can be concern these things aren't efficient). But for level 4, we have this resi set up anyway, so I'm not sure about that argument. I'm sure we could come up with some efficient way to use it. Concerns over the skill being too hard at the level, etc

Also there is some resistance because not using the full equipment is not "traditional", I suspect, especially at that level. With level 4 people didn't really care. Although, I can't imagine people don't want a chance to develop the RO entry and have kids learn to warm up and compete it. This, to me, is a huge thing. We have these kids going from doing a handspring in a competitive environment (which they can do with no warm up) to a yurchenko (which they probably don't just get right to the event and throw). I see inconsistent entries and bafflingly high scores for vaults that to me are dangerous or at least too hard on the body. There is too much incentive to just throw these flipping vaults. This is another issue to me. Scores need to come down on these vaults that shouldn't be competed. A good FHS should not be outscored by a flipping vault that barely misses being voided.

Another interesting point to me is that in my state, it was voted to allow yurchenko vaults in high school gymnastics (separate entity from USAG), but the coach MUST spot the entry. Not touch the gymnast (deduction) but safety spot. Now in high school, this has it's own problems, mostly being the fact most of these are not optional level coaches. But in a USAG program, where all the coaches generally have some level of ability to develop this vault, I would feel much better about watching L8 sessions and having L8s do this right out of 7. I also don't feel this would be very controversial. At least ALLOW it without voiding the vault.

To be clear, I've never seen a kid get seriously hurt on an entry. With the zone and table, we've made yurchenko vaulting much safer. but I've still seen some things that are not good, and injuries on landings (some due to poor entries).
 
To add to the block videos -
In national grade 5 they use the two block set up with the choice of the yurchenko drill, the handspring front one, or a tsuk entry tuck back off.

Are those red blocks (200x100x60) something that is common in US gyms? Here in the UK they are very very common, and one is also required for vault at Grade 14 - the very first grade.

They could also use the vault and pile up the mats behind and use the shoot through to back drills (for either yurchenko or tsuk).

Or give the option of the yurchenko without turning it over the vault at level 7.
 
The problem with allowing the RO BHS entry without a flip or twist in L7 is that it trains precisely what you DON'T want gymmies to learn. If you can control the landing of a 1/2 on or RO BHS on, congratulations-- you're going to have a hard time flipping.

Also, USAG is well aware that some coaches and judges would like for gymnasts to be able to compete timers in L7. This is not a new suggestion.
 
Last edited:
Here's how I would set it up; I would make the level 7 vault similar to the current boys future stars vault for the 11-12 year olds; that is they put a resi behind the table and do a timer for either a tsuk, a handspring front, or a yurchenko. This would allow the gymnasts to work towards higher level vaults without the risks associated with actually flipping the skills.

EDIT: whatever they do, I think the biggest obstacle has more to do with logistics than anything else; if we don't want meets to take 934753948579347598 hours to finish, then all vault options must use the same setup. I think this is the biggest issue with the drill in the video; there's no tsuk or handspring front drills that I can think of which would use the same setup. And this is important; the system absolutely should not cater specifically to one vault family at the exclusion of the others.
 
Last edited:
Geoff - The other video on the page before shows the set up for a front entry option - handspring on, tuck front off. When this is competed at grade 5 there is also the option for tsuk - turn on, back tuck off.

Personally, I think I prefer the drills through to back on resi behind the vault. It seems it would be too easy to compete the two block drills fairly well but not have sufficient power once it came to moving on.
Thoughts?
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

Back