WAG Typical Start of Season Scores?

[raenndrops]

I have seen this warm up at a level 5 meet as well. In this case, it was a group of girls who had competed level 4 the prior season, trained for 7 for 10ish months, and they were now attempting to score out of 5 in order to compete 7 the following month. What would you have them do in this case?

For scoring out, it is different... although it may be intimidating to those not using the meet to score out
But actually, meet warm ups should be used for skills that are going to be competed in a meet (only warming up harder skills if it is possible they will be put in if they are good enough). YG warms up her kip on bars each meet. She didn't compete it the first meet, but she did compete it her second meet. Our L8s warm up 2 different vaults. They may or may not compete both. But our L5s warm up L5 skills (even the ones that may be moving to L6 mid-season).

 

[Letstalkgymnastics]

Our gym philosophy is...compete where you will be successful and train where you'll be challenged. A gymnast should have all their skills consistently for a level before starting the competition season. For example, my daughter was able to consistently perform all her level 7 skills by the end of summer last season. As we went into the fall/competition season, the head coach moved her up with the level 8's during practice (where she was challenged) and at competitions she competed level 7 (where she was successful)

This concept worked great! She did very well at level 7. Her scores were very consistent and she saw a gradual improvement throughout the season. By the time she finished the season, she already had a good portion of her level 8 skills under her belt and did not have that added stress of learning all new skills over what we all know is a very short summer!

This concept might explain why it seems like some teams are more prepared at the beginning of the season then others. They're always one step ahead!

 

[raenndrops]

Our gym philosophy is...compete where you will be successful and train where you'll be challenged. A gymnast should have all their skills consistently for a level before starting the competition season. For example, my daughter was able to consistently perform all her level 7 skills by the end of summer last season. As we went into the fall/competition season, the head coach moved her up with the level 8's during practice (where she was challenged) and at competitions she competed level 7 (where she was successful)

This concept worked great! She did very well at level 7. Her scores were very consistent and she saw a gradual improvement throughout the season. By the time she finished the season, she already had a good portion of her level 8 skills under her belt and did not have that added stress of learning all new skills over what we all know is a very short summer!

This concept might explain why it seems like some teams are more prepared at the beginning of the season then others. They're always one step ahead!

I completely understand and agree with your gym's concept. It makes sense.

 

[profmom]

I tried to reply but something weird happened. Anyway, not looking to argue but yes, she can't compete 7 without the giant because we are not switching gyms. Most gyms around here have the same philosophy anyway, and we are not in a region known for gymnastics She is working her *** off and I'm happy she is seeing some tangible results. She has also said she'd give up the 1st AAs to go to lv 7. Everyone has their own journey. She is 10. Tonight she did her giant on pit by herself for the first time since summer. Then heavily spotted on bar set. Happiest I've seen her in a long time. But maybe she will stay at 6, who knows.

My gym has that rule as well; when my daughter was learning giants, it was a question of moving from old L6 or doing a second season there. I know it's a very tough skill for some, but it's great to hear that she's moved them onto the real bars. She's almost there! Fingers crossed that she gets the rest of the way in the next few weeks.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but re: level 6s competing 7 routines. There is a big jump btwn 7 and 8 that parents may not be aware of, which is compositional deductions. These are in addition to execution and start value dedutions. This may play into some of the program decisions to spend more time working the early optional skills before compositional deductions come into play.

 

[raenndrops]

Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but re: level 6s competing 7 routines. There is a big jump btwn 7 and 8 that parents may not be aware of, which is compositional deductions. These are in addition to execution and start value dedutions. This may play into some of the program decisions to spend more time working the early optional skills before compositional deductions come into play.

But in that case, why not still have them compete L7 if they are doing L7 routines anyways.
In L6, they are limited to 1 C skill (clear hip to handstand, etc), but in L7 they can compete more than 1. That leaves room to upgrade and they could repeat L7 until ready for L8.
This seems like a better option than competing L6 where they are topping out allowed skills and scoring 37+ from the jump.

 

[Seeker]

Maybe they can’t do another C skill yet. Maybe they need some other sort of development before moving up (mental, emotional, become a better competitor).

 

[l.c.o]

I feel like this thread is going around in circles.

But I guess I’m still wondering - what is the overall benefit to the gymnast in competing 7-7-8 over 6-7-8?

 

[QueenBee]

I feel like this thread is going around in circles.

But I guess I’m still wondering - what is the overall benefit to the gymnast in competing 7-7-8 over 6-7-8?

Parents from other gyms not thinking you are sandbagging is the only one I can think of off the top of my head. In my experience, the most naturally talented gymnasts at competitive gym programs rarely repeat a level before Level 9/10, and repeating is most often due to injury. There are only a couple reasons I've seen gymnasts repeat Level 7:

1) They haven't/can't gain the skills for Level 8
2) They didn't have all the skills necessary/cleanness of form to competitively compete Level 7 their first year (which usually goes back to reason #1, the inability to move to Level 8 due to skills/execution)

Maybe the reason this discussion goes round and round is just purely because each of us have such different experiences in gymnastics. One aspect of gymnastics that gets very little discussion is how each club chooses which meets they go to and what level of competition their gymnasts see before State meets. If your gym goes to highly competitive meets throughout the season, there would be very little sandbagging seen (or occurring). But there are lots of meets that aren't nearly so competitive...and in those meets, maybe there is more sandbagging occurring (including each club owner's choice to attend meets where winning is easier to achieve).

I have overheard parents at States and Regionals (at every level) who are shocked by the level/amount of competition they are seeing for the first time. I have listened to parents wonder why Susie is having her lunch eaten by other gymnasts because Susie had an awesome season before States, standing on podium at every meet until she arrived at State where she is firmly in the middle to bottom of the pack, with no chance to get on podium. It's not sandbagging that Susie's parents are seeing at State...it is different program philosophy/talent levels that were going on without Susie's parents being aware those differences existed. Sometimes, Susie's parents end up at switching gyms after States and finding out that Susie, too, can get those scores...with top coaching. We see that almost every year...which is why some of those 'under the radar' gymnasts seem to come out of nowhere to kick butt, they often have switched to a more competitive program.

 

[LindyHopper]

I feel like this thread is going around in circles.

But I guess I’m still wondering - w88hat is the overall benefit to the gymnast in competing 7-7-8 over 6-7-8?

A bit over a year ago, I was trying to figure out what the difference was between L5 & L6. What I came to understand was that L6 had been created for those gymnasts who were shown to be proficient in the compulsory levels, but might be dealing with fears or blocks, might be emotionally immature, might not have a skill or two, or might not have the amplitude on certain skills to be successful in L7. Essentially, L6 is a waiting room for L7. It helps those who aren't ready for 7 (for whatever reason) to gain experience as an optional gymnast, so they aren't stuck in compulsories, where they have already shown they are proficient.

I look at it and think that if one is ready for 7, one should compete 7. But at the same time, if a gymnast doesn't have the maturity and or the competition-ready skills for L7 until halfway or more through one's L6 season, one should be able to finish out the L6 season through to States.

In my opinion (And this is only my 4th season as a gym mom, so take it for what it's worth), if a gymnast is mentally, and emotionally strong/mature enough, and also has all L7 skills competition ready from the beginning of the season, I don't understand why the coach and/or gymnast would WANT the gymnast to compete an entire season at L6. The "waiting room" is unnecessary, and it would seem like a waste of time to me. I find that (in most areas of one's life) one grows when pushing oneself with those who are at the same level or better. If repeating L7 is necessary, so be it. But if one is ready for L7, I see no value in competing L6 for that gymnast.

 

[gymbeam]

Sandbagging happens.

With that out of the way I am going to repeat something I already mentioned, but I’ll say it again in case I didn’t explain it well the first time:

Just because a level 6 routine *could* be a Level 7 routine doesn’t mean it meets *that* particular gym’s criteria for level 7.

They may compete 6 with maxed out skills (making it passable for Level 7), then compete 7 the following year with maxed skills and then do the same with Level 8 so that when they hit levels 9 and 10 they are able to do them with 10.0 start values.

Competing Optionals, beginning with level 6, with maxed out skills can set you up for a killer first year at Level 10. Because start values become a huge component of being competitive in upper Optionals, this strategy is a good one.

It does not give them any advantage. In fact, they are taking more risk competing harder skills earlier. This is only one example of an acceptable strategy. I know this doesn’t apply to all gyms in question- just one example of why you can’t make sweeping generalizations about programs doing 6 with 7 skills.

My biggest gripe with Level 6 is actually the opposite of what we are all discussing. I think coaches are *sometimes* doing a disservice to their athletes when they use it in place of Level 5. It seems to be really popular for programs to just score girls out of 5 (sometimes both 4 and 5) and compete them in 6 because they know they can scrape by there. To me, that’s not what 6 was intended for. It shouldn’t be a way to skip compulsory and get to claim being an optional when the basics haven’t been finely tuned yet.

There’s a gym near us that does this. They only compete Xcel and Level 6. They do score outs of 4 and 5 at in-house mobility meets and then their girls never make it past that point. They go back to Xcel, quit or move gyms because they were never really prepared to be competing in JO beyond that point. It’s smoke and mirrors to make the kids and the parents think they are progressing more than they really are.

But that’s a worthy of a whole other thread! LOL.

 

[gymbeam]

PS: To be clear, I’m not making generalizations either. Not all gyms who circumvent compulsory are doing a disservice. Many do it well!

 

[wallflower]

Sandbagging happens.

With that out of the way I am going to repeat something I already mentioned, but I’ll say it again in case I didn’t explain it well the first time:

Just because a level 6 routine *could* be a Level 7 routine doesn’t mean it meets *that* particular gym’s criteria for level 7.

They may compete 6 with maxed out skills (making it passable for Level 7), then compete 7 the following year with maxed skills and then do the same with Level 8 so that when they hit levels 9 and 10 they are able to do them with 10.0 start values.

Competing Optionals, beginning with level 6, with maxed out skills can set you up for a killer first year at Level 10. Because start values become a huge component of being competitive in upper Optionals, this strategy is a good one.

It does not give them any advantage. In fact, they are taking more risk competing harder skills earlier. This is only one example of an acceptable strategy. I know this doesn’t apply to all gyms in question- just one example of why you can’t make sweeping generalizations about programs doing 6 with 7 skills.

My biggest gripe with Level 6 is actually the opposite of what we are all discussing. I think coaches are *sometimes* doing a disservice to their athletes when they use it in place of Level 5. It seems to be really popular for programs to just score girls out of 5 (sometimes both 4 and 5) and compete them in 6 because they know they can scrape by there. To me, that’s not what 6 was intended for. It shouldn’t be a way to skip compulsory and get to claim being an optional when the basics haven’t been finely tuned yet.

There’s a gym near us that does this. They only compete Xcel and Level 6. They do score outs of 4 and 5 at in-house mobility meets and then their girls never make it past that point. They go back to Xcel, quit or move gyms because they were never really prepared to be competing in JO beyond that point. It’s smoke and mirrors to make the kids and the parents think they are progressing more than they really are.

But that’s a worthy of a whole other thread! LOL.

Perfectly stated.

 

[wallflower]

A bit over a year ago, I was trying to figure out what the difference was between L5 & L6. What I came to understand was that L6 had been created for those gymnasts who were shown to be proficient in the compulsory levels, but might be dealing with fears or blocks, might be emotionally immature, might not have a skill or two, or might not have the amplitude on certain skills to be successful in L7. Essentially, L6 is a waiting room for L7. It helps those who aren't ready for 7 (for whatever reason) to gain experience as an optional gymnast, so they aren't stuck in compulsories, where they have already shown they are proficient.

I look at it and think that if one is ready for 7, one should compete 7. But at the same time, if a gymnast doesn't have the maturity and or the competition-ready skills for L7 until halfway or more through one's L6 season, one should be able to finish out the L6 season through to States.

In my opinion (And this is only my 4th season as a gym mom, so take it for what it's worth), if a gymnast is mentally, and emotionally strong/mature enough, and also has all L7 skills competition ready from the beginning of the season, I don't understand why the coach and/or gymnast would WANT the gymnast to compete an entire season at L6. The "waiting room" is unnecessary, and it would seem like a waste of time to me. I find that (in most areas of one's life) one grows when pushing oneself with those who are at the same level or better. If repeating L7 is necessary, so be it. But if one is ready for L7, I see no value in competing L6 for that gymnast.

One thing that hasn't been touched on in this thread is that many gyms don't have fluid groups. If you were pegged as a level 6 when they made summer groups, you will remain a 6 even if you take off over the summer and into the fall. That 6 group is preparing for 6 while working skills beyond 6 like giants. If the gymnast acquires clean skills that are allowed in level 6 then they get to compete them. Regardless the gym isn't going to move them up. The groups are made and won't re-evaluate until after the season. Other gyms may have fluid groups or all optionals training together so it's not a big deal to move kids between levels when they are ready.

In my area when a gym uses level 6 (we don't), you often see those girls filtered into 7 or 8 for the next year. So it seems those gyms are using 6 as an introductory optional level, teaching them good basic optional gymnastics and seeing where they can go after that.

For those gyms who are actually using it to just get out of compulsories like gymbeam mentioned, I'm sure it's disheartening to go compete against kids who are really ready for optionals. I don't think either type of gym is using it the wrong way. It's a difference of opinion by different types of programs.

 

[l.c.o]

I guess the way I see it is that if a gymnast's competition-ready skills are within a given level's requirements, then go ahead and compete said level.

I find it interesting that it's so easy for a girl with competition ready level 7 skills to compete level 6. One would think that there is a reason for this.

Perhaps a few girls had inconsistent kip handstands and/or clear hips to (near) handstand. Now let's say that these are a gym's requirements for level 7, PLUS we probably know that they score much better in level 6 than level 7.

Maybe these girls get those skills right as season starts. Or they just happen to compete them really well under competition stress (ahem, one of my kids). Or maybe the skill comes and goes.

Honestly, I just don't see many gyms placing their truly level-7 ready kids at level 6 for the sole purpose of sandbagging. Maybe I'm exceptionally naive. How frequently does this actually happen?

I mean, I've seen some kids in L6 compete level 7-like routines on 2-3 events, but usually at least one event is missing (most often beam or bars).

 

[LindyHopper]

My biggest gripe with Level 6 is actually the opposite of what we are all discussing. I think coaches are doing a disservice to their athletes when they use it in place of Level 5. It seems to be really popular for programs to just score girls out of 5 (sometimes both 4 and 5) and compete them in 6 because they know they can scrape by there. To me, that’s not what 6 was intended for. It shouldn’t be a way to skip compulsory and get to claim being an optional when the basics haven’t been finely tuned yet.

I agree 100%. Scraping by at a minimum score in L4 & L5 in an in-house meet doesn't necessarily demonstrate proficiency in compulsory gymnastics.

I think L6 is probably the most misused level in WAG... from both above and below.

Short Stack competed L2, L4, & L5 and is competing L6 this season. I think she is who L6 was made for. She was middle of the pack in L5, and would be bored out of her mind repeating. She would be trounced in L7... SO not ready... Only 4 of our 17 L5s from last year are competing L7 this year. Two went to Xcel, two switched gyms, one quit, and the remainder are competing L6 this year.

I fully expect her to be a middle of the pack gymnast again, possibly higher if she is one of those gymnasts who does better in optionals than in compulsory. Another reason I feel she'll be in the middle is because those who could conceivably compete L7 right away are probably more solid than her and those who scored out of the required levels of compulsory to jump to L6 are possibly less solid than she is.

 

[LindyHopper]

I think L6 is probably the most misused level in WAG... from both above and below.

I just want to expound on this a bit.

It seems to me, at least in my area, that L5 is the level with the smallest number of gymnasts L7 and below. I guess in my mind, if L6 was being used as a "waiting room" for L7 for gymnasts who have proven proficiency in compulsory gymnastics but aren't ready for L7, the smallest amount of gymnasts would be in L6.

And misused is probably too strong of a word... gyms absolutely use their own philosophies. Thankfully, Short Stack's gym's philosophy meshes with ours as a family.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

But in that case, why not still have them compete L7 if they are doing L7 routines anyways.
In L6, they are limited to 1 C skill (clear hip to handstand, etc), but in L7 they can compete more than 1. That leaves room to upgrade and they could repeat L7 until ready for L8.
This seems like a better option than competing L6 where they are topping out allowed skills and scoring 37+ from the jump.

In this example it’s a program wide thing. So Level 6s could be weak 7s, Level 7s weak 8s, and so on.

 

[raenndrops]

In this example it’s a program wide thing. So Level 6s could be weak 7s, Level 7s weak 8s, and so on.

OK... If they would be weak L7s, I get competing them at L6. However, in the program wide example I was using, the L6s would have been strong L7s... Not just doing minimum L7 routines, but giants, cast handstands, clear hip to handstand, series on beam with flight, front series on floor and layout series, etc. Totally L7 worthy routines from the first meet scoring 37+. Since Optional deductions are the same at L6 and L7 after calculating SV, then the scores earned at L6 would be the same (given same meet, same judges) at L7… however, L7 would allow more room to grow throughout the season.

 

[Committed]

I don’t understand the negativity about L5 girls who have L7 skills.
In many instances, they compete L4 states, then have to train L5 &L7 in just a few months. In most cases, these girls need to be competition season ready by October(ish). Which happens to be in the middle of the compulsory season.
They’ll then have States and then compete again in approximately 2 months. They don’t get the luxury of just training one level on the off-season.