WAG Mobility scores raised for 2017

[raenndrops]

I like the 34 requirement. Ever since the invention of L6, there are more girls rushing through compulsories to get to L6 because it is so flexible in skills. I think the L4 34 requirement will help ensure that L6 girls are prepared for those skills. Also, it is nice that they made L4 the stricter score and not L5 as many gyms are simply scoring out of L5 and competing L6 in place of L5. A 34 is not unreasonable at L4. For girls that are just doing a score out meet, many judges are just looking to make sure they have solid skills and not being picky about text.

But what about those gyms that are using regular meets at the beginning of the season as the score out meet? A few gyms around here do it that way so they don't have to bother with getting a sanction themselves.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

But what about those gyms that are using regular meets at the beginning of the season as the score out meet? A few gyms around here do it that way so they don't have to bother with getting a sanction themselves.

Again, 32 is an average of 8 per event. A 34 an average of 8.5. If a kid is ready to move to the next level, this should not be a problem. And I'm talking about The whole meet not just our kids.

If someone is pulling scores that are that much less than 8-8.5, should they be moving up?
JMO but I don't think so. Just text errors shouldn't put you in the 7s unless you are literally leaving out huge portions of the routine.

I just looked at our first meet from last year. Nearly all the kids at least met the score out numbers. Level 4 had the most kids who didn't, but still had over 50 % at 34 or higher.

And if it takes an extra meet or 2 so be it.

 

[raenndrops]

Again, 32 is an average of 8 per event. A 34 an average of 8.5. If a kid is ready to move to the next level, this should not be a problem. And I'm talking about The whole meet not just our kids.

If someone is pulling scores that are that much less than 8-8.5, should they be moving up?
JMO but I don't think so. Just text errors shouldn't put you in the 7s unless you are literally leaving out huge portions of the routine.

I just looked at our first meet from last year. Nearly all the kids at least met the score out numbers. Level 4 had the most kids who didn't, but still had over 50 % at 34 or higher.

And if it takes an extra meet or 2 so be it.

We have several girls with all the skills that were only scoring in the 33s at L4 this past season. Maybe we are in a tough scoring area, idk... But they were placing high.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

We have several girls with all the skills that were only scoring in the 33s at L4 this past season. Maybe we are in a tough scoring area, idk... But they were placing high.

My point was are/were they ready to move to a higher level? Seems a bit more time would move those 33 up rather quickly. Again I don't know your girls.

But scoring out is about getting to do a higher level. I would think if a gym is wanting a kid at a higher level the 32 (34 for 4) shouldn't be a problem.

And lets also remember all the gyms folks post about here where the kids can't move as per their gym if they are scoring under 36. From my reading around here there a ton of gyms who have kids doing multi years at the same level.

And of course once you know the expectation you factor it in to your plans.......................

 

[duyetanh]

@bookworm your gymnasts were going through level 4-5 at least a decade ago, yes? Because I've noticed average scores in compulsories rising in those levels from 10 years ago to now. I was looking at some current Level 10s and college gymnasts' scores on mymeetscores and I noticed that there are many who didn't have 'huge' compulsory scores who did very well in optionals.

But now, it is uncommon (from what I've been able to piece together looking at mymeetscores) to see gymnasts who scored in the low 30s in compulsories to score well in optionals as they move up. A 32 or 33 or 34 from a decade ago seems to indicate how harshly judges scored execution and skills, rather than if the gymnast had a good foundation to continue.

I think being able to get a 34 in Level 4 in the current scoring environment helps to ensure a reasonable base level of foundational skills.

You just never know with this stuff....there are always exceptions to every rule....my kid is one of them. Her compulsory scores sucked. I cant sugar coat it. She is faring much better in optionals.

 

[CLgym]

I've been thinking about this whole thing quite a bit since it directly impacts my DD who will score-out of L5 in the late summer/early fall. On the one hand, I agree that the new scores are totally attainable and better show skill proficiency. However, psychologically it definitely adds pressure in our case. My DD's gym uses a regular meet in a neighboring state that competes compulsory levels in the fall. So no "easy" score-out meet. Plus the timing of the meet means she has to have her skills/routines mastered months before she would normally compete (our state does all levels in the spring). Moreover, because the goal is L6/7 for my DD's group, her coaches have been focusing on many skills that are not even competed in L5 (e.g., kip straddle cast to handstand on bars, 1/2 on 1/2 off vault, yurchenko timers, etc.). And scores in our area can be tough. I looked at my DD's first L4 meet and only 95 of 260 L4 girls scored 34 or higher. In fact, my DD ended up 7th AA in her age group at State (3rd place beam and 5th place bars) with an AA score under 36, and that was after competing a full season of L4. Finally, a BWO on high beam fear means that DD's beam score will likely be lower than she is used to (I'm assuming she will ask for a spot).

So... while I am still optimistic she can hit 32 no problem, I'm looking forward to this score-out meet even less than I was before. Ugh.

 

[raenndrops]

My point was are/were they ready to move to a higher level? Seems a bit more time would move those 33 up rather quickly. Again I don't know your girls.

But scoring out is about getting to do a higher level. I would think if a gym is wanting a kid at a higher level the 32 (34 for 4) shouldn't be a problem.

And lets also remember all the gyms folks post about here where the kids can't move as per their gym if they are scoring under 36. From my reading around here there a ton of gyms who have kids doing multi years at the same level.

And of course once you know the expectation you factor it in to your plans.......................

Actually, 3 or 4 of the 33+ girls are ready for L5. The other one is just missing her clear hip, but she is close.
Our current L5 squad scored similarly to the current L4s. Most of them (we have a couple that have been out due to injury) have scored 32+ at L5.
Our gymnasts all seem to do better in Optionals.

 

[gymgal]

Yep, especially the meets early in the season. Having seen the scary stuff getting thrown at optional meets by girls that don't appear ready, it's not surprising to see qualifying scores increase a bit. While I'm sure it's frustrating to some paths, as they'll have to spend a bit more time on the choreography in order to score out, it may well be necessary to counter some of the coaches that seem too willing to let a girl chuck skills before she's ready.

Having higher mobility scores for previous levels does/will not ensure that gymnasts are ready for the next level. Besides, the new mobility scores occur after the scary gymnasts routines. It is the level 3/4 skills that can be really scary to watch when little ones are just chucking their bhs onto their heads, flopping over the vts, or muscling up kips and doing scary jumps to high bar and tap swings. higher mobility scores for L4 into 5 is not going to cut down on the amount of these scary skills in 3/4. I understand they are trying to make things safer but higher mobility is not the way. Fines for gyms that allow gymnasts perform skills they obviously are not ready to compete without support might work though.

Just to be clear, the L9 and L10 'up to level' deductions that you are talking about are separate from start values. The start values have not changed. Also the 'up to level' deduction is not new, it is just spelled out now to help with a consistent deduction. The deduction was always there, it just was never specified what constituted 'up to level' so there was variance from meet to meet and region to region on taking these deductions. But you are right in that the 'up to level' that they have spelled out has some high expectations and there will probably be .1-.2 taken off routines that previously were not.

I don't know about other states and regions but ours has had no problems taking the full "not up to competitive level" deductions the past several years.

 

[gymgal]

Maybe they are doing this to STOP the Xcel thing! My DD had so suffer through compulsories, LOL, and a 34 was not hard for her. Maybe they are doing this to stop it so Xcel is used how it was intended and to quit have girls hopping around???? (No clue, just a theory b/c I feel like Xcel is losing it's purpose)

just to be clear, the USAG XCEL program developed from other programs that were already in place in a few regions. Many states developed programs to specifically supplement the JO program - to encourage compulsory girls to compete optional routines in the off season and to give an alternative for between-level for girls not ready for the next level (most often L7), and yes, for girls/gyms who didn't want to go the compulsory path. The programs were literally called "prep-op" as in prepare for optionals.

So no, the original purpose was not a less intense program. It was a supplemental program. Even once USAG began to nationalize the program, it was still touted as a supplement for compulsory gymnasts in the off season. It was only a few years later that it transformed into a completely separate, less intense program. Of course, USAG had planned this along but had to do it in steps over several years, including the change in JO levels with the addition of a mid-range L6 to decrease the cross-over of girls who aren't quite ready for 7. The areas where you see the most XCEL-to-optionals, are the areas that had strong prep-op programs before USAG took over XCEL. These areas were essentially forced to adopt the name and rules, for national continuity, but some gyms continue to prefer to follow the prep-op to optionals path because it works for their gymnasts. Dd went through prep-op just before Xcel was formed nationally. I don't think she/we would have stuck it out in the early years if she had to go the compulsory path, but she had enough talent to get to L10 and I am grateful that we had the option of an alternate path that helped to get her there.

 

[gymgal]

A 32 is in an average of 8 on all 4 events. A 34 and average of 8.5. An average.

These do not seem unreasonable to me. Nor do they seem unreasonable for kids wanting and able to move up (or in) as the case maybe. For kids on the cusp, it may take a bit longer but that seems to be a good thing from my point of view, it means their skills are better (more solid).

Just thinking about our gym and state. These are pretty much the scores to qualify for states. All our girls, qualify at the first or second meet of the season. In 5 years at our gym, I have only seen one gymmie not qualify for states. That was this year. And the kid had a lot going on personally and missed a bunch of gym. And she missed qualifying by less than 0.5.

NC state meet (traditionally a "hard" scoring state) had a full 30% of L4s scoring under 34, including many from higher scoring gyms. I don't think the 32 for L5 is the issue but 34 can be for daunting for an average gymnast.

 

[sce]

That mobility score from level 4 to 5 is interesting.

I wonder if they are trying to discourage scoring out of level 4.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

just to be clear, the USAG XCEL program developed from other programs that were already in place in a few regions. Many states developed programs to specifically supplement the JO program - to encourage compulsory girls to compete optional routines in the off season and to give an alternative for between-level for girls not ready for the next level (most often L7), and yes, for girls/gyms who didn't want to go the compulsory path. The programs were literally called "prep-op" as in prepare for optionals.

So no, the original purpose was not a less intense program. It was a supplemental program. Even once USAG began to nationalize the program, it was still touted as a supplement for compulsory gymnasts in the off season. It was only a few years later that it transformed into a completely separate, less intense program. Of course, USAG had planned this along but had to do it in steps over several years, including the change in JO levels with the addition of a mid-range L6 to decrease the cross-over of girls who aren't quite ready for 7. The areas where you see the most XCEL-to-optionals, are the areas that had strong prep-op programs before USAG took over XCEL. These areas were essentially forced to adopt the name and rules, for national continuity, but some gyms continue to prefer to follow the prep-op to optionals path because it works for their gymnasts. Dd went through prep-op just before Xcel was formed nationally. I don't think she/we would have stuck it out in the early years if she had to go the compulsory path, but she had enough talent to get to L10 and I am grateful that we had the option of an alternate path that helped to get her there.

That's a very interesting point! I knew that Xcel used to be called prep-op but I had no idea about everything else. Makes perfect sense for our area b/c prep op already had a decent following before it was ever called Xcel.

 

[raenndrops]

I wonder if they are trying to discourage scoring out of level 4.

But it applies to everyone competing L4.
At our YMCA Regional Meet (several of the Y teams that were there also compete USAG club meets in addition to their YMCA League meets), there were 170 L4 gymnasts. I know 1 meet is not the full picture, but of the 170, only 61 scored 34.0 or better.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

But it applies to everyone competing L4.

And nothing is forever if they find it too restrictive and causes loss of revenue they will change it yet again.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

I would have liked to see Level 5 increased to 34 as well (to discourage gyms from testing out with the bare minimum and then moving those kids to level 6 with sloppy basics), but I'll take it.

 

[wallflower]

I've been thinking about this whole thing quite a bit since it directly impacts my DD who will score-out of L5 in the late summer/early fall. On the one hand, I agree that the new scores are totally attainable and better show skill proficiency. However, psychologically it definitely adds pressure in our case. My DD's gym uses a regular meet in a neighboring state that competes compulsory levels in the fall. So no "easy" score-out meet. Plus the timing of the meet means she has to have her skills/routines mastered months before she would normally compete (our state does all levels in the spring). Moreover, because the goal is L6/7 for my DD's group, her coaches have been focusing on many skills that are not even competed in L5 (e.g., kip straddle cast to handstand on bars, 1/2 on 1/2 off vault, yurchenko timers, etc.). And scores in our area can be tough. I looked at my DD's first L4 meet and only 95 of 260 L4 girls scored 34 or higher. In fact, my DD ended up 7th AA in her age group at State (3rd place beam and 5th place bars) with an AA score under 36, and that was after competing a full season of L4. Finally, a BWO on high beam fear means that DD's beam score will likely be lower than she is used to (I'm assuming she will ask for a spot).

So... while I am still optimistic she can hit 32 no problem, I'm looking forward to this score-out meet even less than I was before. Ugh.

Your DD doesn't have to do a BWO in level 5, she can do the bhs on beam.

Not directed at you CLgym, just responding in the same post.

The new scores seem very reasonable. There seems to be a lot of worry about kids who won't be able to get that score. Maybe that's the point. There is nothing wrong with repeating levels until you can meet that score. I'm sorry, but if my child does an entire season of level 4 and she can't get a 34 at least once, she isn't ready to move on. She hasn't mastered basic things if that is the case. There is nothing saying a child who never gets a 34 in level 4 during the season can't train 5, do one meet of level 4 at the start of the next season and then do 5 the rest of the season. And again, if she still can't get a 34, she isn't ready!

 

[wallflower]

But it applies to everyone competing L4.
At our YMCA Regional Meet (several of the Y teams that were there also compete USAG club meets in addition to their YMCA League meets), there were 170 L4 gymnasts. I know 1 meet is not the full picture, but of the 170, only 61 scored 34.0 or better.

Then it sounds like only 61 meet the minimum standard. There's nothing wrong with that. Level 4 is basic skills. Anyone doing them well should be able to score above a 34.00. If they can't, then more work on those basics will be good for them.

 

[Deleted member 18037]

Just a quick look at this years L4 States in NY

http://www.mymeetscores.com/meet.pl?meetid=62181

Nearly 80% hit 34 and the next 10% were on the cusp for the new mobility but over the current mobility score of 31
The kids who were lower then 32.5 typically had multiple events less then 8 or even 6.

Is the goal to have a move up score that includes anyone who wants to move up? Then why bother with a move up score at all.

Will it slow some kids down, sure and that is not a bad thing. Racing through levels is not a given or a right.

The expectation is set, folks will know what they have to do........... And so it will go.

 

[raenndrops]

Then it sounds like only 61 meet the minimum standard. There's nothing wrong with that. Level 4 is basic skills. Anyone doing them well should be able to score above a 34.00. If they can't, then more work on those basics will be good for them.

Actually, my math was off. There were 190, not 170. The minimum standard at that meet was still a 31. 34 doesn't go into effect until August. Y Nationals requires a 32 for Level 4. I think that would be a better minimum than 34 (based on my area).

61/190 scored 34+
144/190 scored 32+
171/190 scored 31+
3 girls only competed 3 events.

Years ago, our region actually had Maximum Mandate Scores for each level, meaning that if you met the Maximum Mandate scores 2x in one season, the next season, you had to move up to the next level.
For L4 (and Old L5), it was a 34.0 … with at least 8.0 on each event in the same meets that you earned the 34s. The event scores were put into place so someone weak in one event would not be forced up.

And… we had a girl in L4 last year. Her highest score in L4 was a 32.700. According to you, she would not meet the minimum standard since she couldn't score over a 34. This year, she competed L5 and actually scored BETTER. Her highest score so far (with one meet to go) is a 33.700. And next year, as a L6, we expect that she will be in the 35-36 range.

 

[gymbeam]

[QUOTE="raenndrops, post: 516235, member: 5751 QUOTE]

And… we had a girl in L4 last year. Her highest score in L4 was a 32.700. According to you, she would not meet the minimum standard since she couldn't score over a 34. This year, she competed L5 and actually scored BETTER. Her highest score so far (with one meet to go) is a 33.700. And next year, as a L6, we expect that she will be in the 35-36 range.[/QUOTE]

She would have been the perfect example of what wallflower posted which was the scenario of not reaching 34 in a season but the next season doing one meet at level 4 to hopefully get that score and then move to 5.