Why the long hours?

[Faith]

Do you think they'll get rid of the challenge cup then? It does seem a little pointless, very few get the qualifying score, and I don't think anyone has made GB squad from junior/senior recently.

Perhaps a better idea would be to allow transfers over from NDP grades? Use those scores to qualify the following year, so anyone getting over that score in NDP 3 can compete compulsory 2 the year after...This would also mean that late starters or late bloomers would have more opportunities.

Lilysmum there are ways to get through the elite grades even starting older. Level 3 isn't impossible for a talented kid with good coaches, and you *can* compete two levels a year, she could do compulsory 3 in the spring of 2015, and the level 2 retake in age in the autumn. Or they could compete her in NDP grades for 2 years, ready for the espoir challenge in 2016 -which is how Ruby Harrold qualified elite having been deemed not compulsory material after not doing well at level 4 :lol:

I'm not sure what the point of increasing the out of age is for. I suppose it may allow for a small kid to get the power for vault, or for a less composed child to mature a bit for R+C. But to my mind, they still need to be doing those approximate skills at those approximate ages if they want a shot at national senior squad.

Flossyduck, if they have good coaches who know what they're doing, I don't think it would harm your DD's ultimate achievement in gymnastics to step down to NDP for a couple of years with the aim of re-qualifying at espoir level.

re. hours, my own feeling is if they need huge hours to keep up at this sort of age (under 13), it leaves them nowhere to go as they progress- the kids on lower hours will overtake as their hours increase. The talented kid on DD's squad was easily working Level 4 on 9 hours a week, and keeping up with the rest of the squad who were doing 15 hours for regional competition.

I have come across conversations online that suggest other viable options are competing regional voluntaries until espoir challenge- it does give them more flexibility on skills.

 

[Flossyduck]

Ok, just back from the gym. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

First I just want to say that I'm pretty sure that our gym doesn't do 'padding' and anyone on the elite track is pretty much on trial every day. As soon as they think someone is going to struggle they are moved out - it's brutal. There are only two or three girls at each level. Just to illustrate, there are girls who will be doing the voluntary level 4, in age, who are not on the elite track - they are in a competitive rec group. They will almost certainly do pretty well and there are a couple who could even make nationals, depending how it all goes the day, but they are not in the 'elite' squad. That's how high the standard is.

I totally get that the club wants to keep girls in age, so that they can make age group squad and it looks good for the club. But to be honest, it's not my job to worry what looks good for the club. I'm concerned with the implications for my daughter and whether she could still get there if we ease up by just a small amount.

Lets say we lower the pressure and ease of a few hours and say that we don't want dd to do compulsory 3 next march, we are happy for her to do it the year after, one year out of age. She has most of her level 3 skills, but she needs to be hitting cast handstand every time and move her giants off the pit bar to get the dismount sorted. She can do that easily by March, but what if she took another year? So what if she can't go to national finals. It's one competition, just one. After that she'd be level 2 and it's straight to nationals, there is no out of age for level 2 any more.

People like Ruby Harrold crop up in discussion. She was doing club grades until 2008 and only made elite at 13. She's probably the strongest candidate we have for a worlds medal at the moment.

That was why I wanted to post in general WAG, as I can see that in the states the choice to go elite can be made later and if a late starter shows great talent she wouldn't be stuffed before she's even got going.

And the comments above contain the same mixed messages as I've already heard. It's not too late at 9 to just be starting on the competitive track and it should be easier to still qualify elite if you're on fewer hours until an older age, but then... gently suggesting the national squad is not the be all and end all and so on. Which suggests that the comments about it being a marathon are not really true, because those who sprint actually do stand a better chance. But then there's Ruby Harrold. Aghhh

Yes I know elite is not the be all and end all and I would be happy for dd to give up tomorrow and take up competitive knitting, but she is spending her childhood training for something she wants very badly. But I'm wondering if it's necessary to do that?

 

[Flossyduck]

Since they changed the rules, if I'm honest, I have been longing for the club to announce they are going to embrace the out of age levels thing, but they haven't. Not a squeak. I ove the idea of her being a year out of age. It would be like being a 1st september baby - just feeling ahead of the game.

Faith, I like the idea of regional voluntaries then espoir challenge and our club do have some girls enter the challenge cup, but it's a bit like putting all your eggs in one basket, one competition and you pretty much have to win it. I've seen girls work their backside off and try it several times and not get there and then actually, if they've finished national grades, what is there?

I still think the system, even with it's modifications, doesn't allow clubs to put the gymnast first.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

Just like to say ladies, really enjoying this conversation. Its not one I can intelligently add to as we have no elites in my county (or hope of elites), but we all want whats best for our daughters and I would love P&F to go as far a her dreams take her. So what if she is 14, if she can do the skills I hope she has a platform to show them. xxx

 

[Jenny]

Do you think they'll get rid of the challenge cup then? It does seem a little pointless, very few get the qualifying score, and I don't think anyone has made GB squad from junior/senior recently.

Perhaps a better idea would be to allow transfers over from NDP grades? Use those scores to qualify the following year, so anyone getting over that score in NDP 3 can compete compulsory 2 the year after...This would also mean that late starters or late bloomers would have more opportunities.

Lilysmum there are ways to get through the elite grades even starting older. Level 3 isn't impossible for a talented kid with good coaches, and you *can* compete two levels a year, she could do compulsory 3 in the spring of 2015, and the level 2 retake in age in the autumn. Or they could compete her in NDP grades for 2 years, ready for the espoir challenge in 2016 -which is how Ruby Harrold qualified elite having been deemed not compulsory material after not doing well at level 4 :lol:

I'm not sure what the point of increasing the out of age is for. I suppose it may allow for a small kid to get the power for vault, or for a less composed child to mature a bit for R+C. But to my mind, they still need to be doing those approximate skills at those approximate ages if they want a shot at national senior squad.

Flossyduck, if they have good coaches who know what they're doing, I don't think it would harm your DD's ultimate achievement in gymnastics to step down to NDP for a couple of years with the aim of re-qualifying at espoir level.

re. hours, my own feeling is if they need huge hours to keep up at this sort of age (under 13), it leaves them nowhere to go as they progress- the kids on lower hours will overtake as their hours increase. The talented kid on DD's squad was easily working Level 4 on 9 hours a week, and keeping up with the rest of the squad who were doing 15 hours for regional competition.

I have come across conversations online that suggest other viable options are competing regional voluntaries until espoir challenge- it does give them more flexibility on skills.

Faith the Challenge cup is a fantastic FIG competition in it's own right for those gymnasts who are not British level. It allows gymnasts who may be outstanding on one or two pieces to compete to the best of their ability. I think it will become less important as a way in to the British but should still stand on it's own as an important competition.

There is no national grade 3. There is only national 8,7,6 and 5.

I agree completely with your point about hours. Kids with huge hours tend to look amazing early on but if you are doing 20 hours for grade 13 there is no where to go. Those kids you are beating who are on 8 hours whizz past you when their hours increase later on. You just reach your ceiling earlier.

 

[Uglybetty]

Level 3 isn't impossible for a talented kid with good coaches, and you *can* compete two levels a year, she could do compulsory 3 in the spring of 2015, and the level 2 retake in age in the autumn.

Have I read the overview on BG website wrong then? I thought that it was saying that levels 3, 2 and 1 can be taken at any age but that you now have to complete level 1 to go to Espoir - which will remain age 12/13 according to the materials they've issued. I assume they mean 12/13 "in age" which for my DD would mean 2016/17, so she'd need to complete levels 3, 2 and 1 as a minimum by then. Could it be that someone taking level 1 late could jump straight to junior missing Espoir entirely?

I guess my question for the gym/coach is the reverse of Flossyduck's.....should we ramp up her hours soon to get through all those levels within that relatively short time period?

 

[Jenny]

Hmmm I was assuming that if you passed compulsory 1 you would feed into the British at whatever age was appropriate ie that could be a espoirs, juniors or seniors depending on the age you were. So I was assuming that say your dd passed compulsory 1 at age 14 she would go into junior British the year after at age 15.

Everything is so new this year I can't be sure. But I think if I remember your dd is in a 'novice' squad and is 9. I would suspect this means she is not on the elite (compulsory) route at her club. By Christmas clubs will have decided which grades girls are going to enter and even now they should have a pretty good idea. I would ask them which grade they have in mind for your dd. If they say grade 14, 13 or 12 she is not on the elite pathway. If they say compulsory 3 (or training for compulsory 3 to do a year out of age) you are in luck.

You can tell by the moves she already has too. If she has her upstart and is working giants they are working higher than if she is still learning to round off flick tuck back. As long as she enjoys her gymnastics I would follow the path they have laid out for her. Be brave and ask them which grade.

 

[Flossyduck]

I had assumed the same as Jenny, that you can now do level 2 and 1 out of age and then you progress to whatever elite age group is appropriate, be it espoir, junior or senior.

If you still have to compete as an espoir, latest being the year you turn 13, then there is no out of age. If you work back from there you'd need to do level 1 the year you turn 12 and you'd have to be in age to do level 3. Or I guess the maximum out of age you could be would be one year if you immediately compete British espoir a couple of months after passing level 1.

I was really pleased when I saw the new pathway change and thought it might take the pressure off and allow for things to be a bit more fluid. I was naively waiting for some acknowledgement from the club and some kind of changes to the training structure and maybe some sort of choice. I guess it's early days and they will all be looking to see who blinks first.

 

[Jenny]

I think level 1 and espoirs will fall the same year regardless. Girls will take compulsory 1 in about march and then espoirs in December. It is being attached to the Glasgow World cup event.

I don't think there will be many changes for the big elite clubs like yours Flossyduck. They have their system up and running for in age elite and if their goal is national squad that is not going to change. What is might do is allow for smaller clubs and gymnasts coming back from injury to still follow the compulsory path to the British. I don't think it will affect level 4 or 3 gymnasts. If you can't hit those levels in age (or 3 one year out as allowed already) in an established club then I don't think British level is a likely possibility. What is should hopefully do is 'catch' those gymnasts who miss/ fail level 2 at the moment for a variety of reasons. It should also encourage proper development of skills and technical excellence by removing the age limit and allow girls to develop more at their own pace.

Hopefully this overhaul of the compulsory system will be followed by something for the 'Challenge' girls. These second tier girls are still outstanding gymnasts and we need to value them and increase their opportunities and longevity in the sport. Their love and passion for the sport is an untapped resource. They should be a priority for developing as our judges, coaches, administrators and gym lovers of the future. At the moment there are not enough opportunities for them to compete against each other.

 

[Faith]

I thought there was NDP grades 4,3,2, and 1? I've definately seen you ube videos, and Ruby Harrold did grade 2 in 2008 before doing the espoir challenge. Girl at our gym did the grade 3 national final. I got the impression that they were roughly equivalent skill wise to compulsory grades.

Or have they changed it since then? Is this new scheme replacing the club grades with out of age compulsories? Must go and look some stuff up!

I don't agree that these changes will make it more flexible for those identified as future elite, those children will still be expected to hit their markers in age or a year out of age at most.

I thought I had a vague clue about British gymnastics pathways, but I think I'm lost again now!

 

[Flossyduck]

I think you are right Faith and I guess that goes back to my question, because all I hear is "it's not a sprint, it's a marathon" and people being reassured that many of the best gymnasts made it to elite without showing any great promise or getting serious until they were 11 and it's not too late if people are out of age.
And yet, those who are genuinely expected to do well are actually on the sprint track and putting in the hours at age 7/8/9 so they can stay in age. If that isn't necessary, other than for club reputation and getting noticed early why the heck do we put them through it? It's those mixed messages again.

Also, having looked at gyms in other parts of Europe relatively recently, due to a possible move, I am aware that they do not push so hard so young and dd was considerably ahead of her age group expectations. That includes Netherlands, France and Italy, as well as Portugal, so, they may not be Romania, but they end up doing pretty well in the end, but a year or two older maybe.

The system has changed since Ruby Harrold (and Beth Tweddle who followed the same track) did grade 2. I believe it changed after Beijing, just as the system is now changing at the next of this quad. It's now Regional club grades 14-9, National club grades 8-5, compulsory levels 5-1

 

[Jenny]

I think when people say 'without showing great promise or getting serious until they were 11' they don't mean the child was still working on forward rolls until that time. What they actually mean is the child is not national squad or near but is actually in the compulsory system or equivalent in skills. Just not a shining star in the top 10. Those children have always had immense promise but maybe don't yet have the finesse, maturity or attention to detail to place highly at national level.

And by serious I think they mean the child gets to 11 or 12 without standing out and then realises that girls are starting to drop out, burn out, injure out or fear out and suddenly they are rising up the ranks and become in with a chance of making a national squad (like the Welsh or English if not GB). Lots of opportunities become a possibility and it starts to feel serious.

Btw compulsory grade 5 is individual to each region and varies quite a lot. It isn't part of the BG nationally specified grades like the others and doesn't go to a national final.

 

[Iwannabemargo]

my head hurts

is it too much to ask for one defined pathway, with the flexibility to do in and out of age, so that every child can rise as far as they can ?

Its lovely hearing about elite clubs BUT for the majority of us its geographically unattainable !

I know most Brits on here tend to be "higher up" I just have a technical interest in the sport and am you typical middle class mother who likes to know everything about what her children do ( don't worry I can quote chapter and verse about Rugby too !).

 

[Flossyduck]

I guess I have suspected all along that people are economical with the truth when they say that it's not too late for national squad at 10 or 11. If we are to be honest, it is.

Maybe I find that frustrating. As I'm facing another long winter of driving dd to gym in the dark and the fog and the rain and snow - many hours driving and many hours sitting in a slightly under-heated waiting area wishing I was tucked up by the fire. I'm dreading it.

Then I keep hearing on here, that you don't have to have started yet and you don't have to be doing more than 12 hours and so on and I'm thinking - so why do I have to do this then?! Honest truth is that whilst everyone is busy pretending it isn't necessary and we worry to much and reassuring people their daughter can still make the olympic team because it happened to x, some people are just getting on with doing the driving and paying the bills and putting in even more hours , because it secretly is necessary but we don't want to say so.

I 100% agree Margo. Why can't we just have one system through which they can progress at their own speed according to talent and work ethic and willingness to put in the hours. Surely that's the best way to see which ones rise to the top, rather than putting more energy into the ones who are doing the best and also trying to force some up and artificially enhance the skills with a ton of hours and then have to try and mop up the ones they've missed with some other system and have a parallel one for the ones who aren't aiming elite, (but some of whom could be the ones they've missed) and on it goes.

Can you guess I'm having a serious moment here, lol!! I am NOT looking forward to winter training. But we'll get through it and dd came downstairs in her competition leo this morning to show me the bit of her routine they tweeked last night and looked really happy and I feel bad for being a grumpy old woman.

 

[Flossyduck]

I also meant, apart from seeing which ones rise to the top, that it would create a good competitive playing field for all the girls and non of this divisive class system. If they all compete the same system but set the skills so that naturally some girls would move through at a faster pace and others would be out of age it would be a bit like GCSE's.

However, I also understand that this might encourage skills over form and having the separate route allows compulsory girls to focus on technique and range and conditioning and things which set them up for the future.

Right I promise I am going to shut up now!

 

[Aussie_coach]

The aim is to have kids ready to win at the Olympics and world championships by the time they are 15 turning 16. This is because it is not that common for girls to be able to stay in the sport much past their teen years. The intense training often leads to injuries and the required hours mean they can't work or take th next step in their lives.

To be successful on the international stage at 16 you need to be competing at a junior international level at least by 13. So this means cramming as many hours as they can in prior to this age.

It takes 10,000 hours to "master a sport or activity". If you divide that by the number of years the girls are training to get to the Olympics you see just how high the hours need to be.

 

[Faith]

Thing is, as I said earlier the compulsory track was introduced with the focus on the marathon- giving a defined pathway for potential elites with age-appropriate skills along the way. It was designed to stop kids burning out, or getting injured learning skills their bodies weren't ready for. The R+C focuses time on strength and conditioning, so under-conditioned kids aren't throwing skills they're not strong enough for. Also with the introduction of age limits for international competition (Anyone remember the trend for younger and younger children in the olympics? It got ridiculous, which is why they brought the age 16 thing in) it was designed to pace children to peak at 16.

In some ways I think it's good- we don't have 6 year olds competing somersaults or other skills too advanced. In others I think the US system seems better- one clear path to elite, with hours increasing as the level of difficulty increases. Excel for those kids who don't have any such aspirations. Back in the 80's there was something similar, everyone did club grades 6-1, then regional grades 3-1, national grades 2-1, then world sets (back when even the olympics had compulsories!) I don't think there were age brackets then though, as there was no minimum age for competing internationally.

I know the BGA has a LTAD plan which suggests the high hours aren't necessary, and I agree. However I think some coaches and clubs it isn't good enough to have children pass compulsories, they want them to place. So this means they have high hours for these children from the start- they may pass the grade on 15 hours, but an extra 5 gives them that advantage over the rest, be it slightly more conditioning, or up training more.

I do find it interesting that often the kids that do end up "superstars" Gabby Jupp being one, weren't particularly outstanding in compulsories, but shone at Junior level. I think the high hours are important, but not right from the beginning.

How many hours does your DD do out of interest Flossy? If it were my kid on the elite track, I think I'd be happy with 15-20 (4 days). I don't think there's any need for more- I'd expect it to increase at espoir to 23-25.

 

[Faith]

Just as comparison- DD is elite track in another sport. She trains 4 days for 15 hours total and is aiming at national squad next year (they have trials rather than going on comp results). I do actually find it frustrating as there is no clear pathway to elite, it's down to her coaches which levels and competitions she enters. I'd prefer it if there was something that said she should be competing at x level by x age, then I could get an idea whether her progress is on track for senior, or even junior competitions!

 

[Jenny]

The aim is to have kids ready to win at the Olympics and world championships by the time they are 15 turning 16. This is because it is not that common for girls to be able to stay in the sport much past their teen years. The intense training often leads to injuries and the required hours mean they can't work or take th next step in their lives.

To be successful on the international stage at 16 you need to be competing at a junior international level at least by 13. So this means cramming as many hours as they can in prior to this age.

It takes 10,000 hours to "master a sport or activity". If you divide that by the number of years the girls are training to get to the Olympics you see just how high the hours need to be.

Respectfully I just don't agree with all of that. The percentage of 20 something gymnasts on the world stage is increasing not decreasing. Compare the ages of the BG team in 2008 and 2012. I think that is true of most European countries. USA less so. I think their system does encourage a higher turn over of gymnasts each quad for various reasons.

I don't think a wise coach 'crams in as many hours as they can' up to the age of 13. Maybe if they are prepared to burn out 10 gymnasts for every one that makes it. Not all coaches are like that. Let's hope not anyway!

 

[Jenny]

I know the BGA has a LTAD plan which suggests the high hours aren't necessary, and I agree. However I think some coaches and clubs it isn't good enough to have children pass compulsories, they want them to place. So this means they have high hours for these children from the start- they may pass the grade on 15 hours, but an extra 5 gives them that advantage over the rest, be it slightly more conditioning, or up training more.



I do find it interesting that often the kids that do end up "superstars" Gabby Jupp being one, weren't particularly outstanding in compulsories, but shone at Junior level. I think the high hours are important, but not right from the beginning.

How many hours does your DD do out of interest Flossy? If it were my kid on the elite track, I think I'd be happy with 15-20 (4 days). I don't think there's any need for more- I'd expect it to increase at espoir to 23-25.

I think you have it on the head Faith. 15 hours will get them through the extra 5 will have them place and make the BG squad earlier. It is hard to resist the lure of that and trust that long term planning will work (and convince parents and girls it will work too - little Susie down the road does 25 hours and beat my Suzie on 15, some parents will just move their kid regardless because we are an instant gratification society. So huge pressure on gyms to match gym down the road or lose kids). High hours are definitely needed later.

I think my ideal would be 4 days of 3.5 hours at level 4 (14hrs) increasing to 5 days of 3.5 hours at level 3 (17.5 hrs). But it would have to be a small group and no messing approach to training!