WAG Elite vs Div 1

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

luvmygymdtr

Proud Parent
I'm curious what the talent "gap" is between a child who is spotted to have enough talent to go the Elite route, or tracked to "just" go the college route. In my no-nothing, but trying to get educated, head, I would think the gap is very narrow.
For example, how could a coach say of a 10 year old, your gymnast isn't an elite gymnast, but she has enough talent that she shouldn't have to pay for college. Is there really that big of a difference in talent, between the two potential outcomes, that a coach could pigeon hole a child like that?
 
...and to elaborate just a little bit, because it sounds like I'm making the argument in the opposite direction. My real question is if a gymnast doesn't have enough talent to go Elite, then isn't it true, in all likelihood, they probably don't have enough talent for Division 1.
 
For example, how could a coach say of a 10 year old, your gymnast isn't an elite gymnast, but she has enough talent that she shouldn't have to pay for college. Is there really that big of a difference in talent, between the two potential outcomes, that a coach could pigeon hole a child like that?

Does this really happen? So here's my potentially very niave thought to this..... when you get elites who become NCAA athletes or vice versa (less frequent)..... they are the same kids so there is no difference in talent. Then there are kids who choose one over the other (ie. don't WANT to go elite, but want to compete NCAA) - their talent level could have made them choose the other.

At ten years old? To differentiate that much? I think that the likelihood is that there is no differentiating, but rather just the view of potential for either/or/both, etc. My DD is 9, about a L8. She, like so many little girls, wants to go to the Olympics, and get a scholarship to a US university (no athletic scholarships in Canada, generally). I can guarantee her coaches wouldn't divulge any differentiation like that in less than a year's time, even if they are training her with those goals in mind.
 
I think maybe age has something to do with it as some girls don't reach their full potential until after they are old enough to consider the elite track.
 
I know a gymnast who got a Div. 1 scholarship (not a top NCAA gymnastics team), who probably will not be able to do elite. Yet, you have several national team members who are in Div. 1 colleges. There are several Div. 1 colleges with varying degrees of qualifications/requirements. You can also be in a Div. 1 gymnastics team as a walk on. So, it is hard to make a generalized statement. Many coaches believe staying in JO and doing college gymnastics is more satisfying than going elite. At 10, I think coaches can tell if one has talent or not. But how far a gymnast can go (elite, Olympics, level 10, college) maybe hard for coaches to determine because unfortunately, talent alone is not enough to get to elite, or Div. 1 scholarship, or Level 10.
 
I think there's limit to a coach's forecasting ability that may allow them to say what's likely for a child. That doesn't mean the child won't surpass their own likely outcome, nor does it assure they'll realise the success the coach believes they're capable of.

How does it happen that kids can have enough ability to make a D1 team with a full ride scholarship, but not have what it takes to be an elite. Perhaps they have the talent but not the time due to a late start, or maybe the thought of being an elite wasn't something they'd entertain.

The idea that D1 is the exclusive domain of elites and any who break through from JO's are freaks of nature is false. Many of those elites we're talking about were only able to sustain participation in the elite level for a few years, and only then at a great emotional and mental cost..... and an amount of work they couldn't sustain on a long term basis, for one reason or another.
 
...and to elaborate just a little bit, because it sounds like I'm making the argument in the opposite direction. My real question is if a gymnast doesn't have enough talent to go Elite, then isn't it true, in all likelihood, they probably don't have enough talent for Division 1.

no, not true. but the difference between an Elite gymnast and a L10 gymnast usually comes down to 1 event. there are other biological considerations & deficiencies that separate the two, but suffice that it usually comes down to bars or vault in that one event.
 
no, not true. but the difference between an Elite gymnast and a L10 gymnast usually comes down to 1 event. there are other biological considerations & deficiencies that separate the two, but suffice that it usually comes down to bars or vault in that one event.


Hi dunno. Can you elaborate on the highlighted portion? Your statement seems self-explanatory but seems there is more to it. Are bars and vault more difficult to train or master? Would you say beam and floor are generally easier?
 
I've seen dunno elaborate with a smiley face or the famous "yikes"! So his response with three words is a novel by comparison.

Let me see if I can get more out of him. Is the majority of gymnasts going to be able to do beam and floor? And is it possible some gymnasts may never be good at bars and vault? Why so?
 
He has elaborated in the past on the fact that bars is fundamentally different from floor and beam. Bars is about swinging, which isn't at all what's going on in the other two. (I think that was the gist of it)

I'd also speculate that floor and beam are more "natural" - walking/jumping/turning are things you normally do. Swinging around a bar is not normal. Slamming into a table to see how high you can bounce off is not normal.
 
Wallinabl, that is my impression too. Those two events are also very very similar so when you are training one it almost counts as both. If equal time is spent on all four apparatus you will have significantly more practice on back walk overs ( or BHS) than giants.
 
He has elaborated in the past on the fact that bars is fundamentally different from floor and beam. Bars is about swinging, which isn't at all what's going on in the other two. (I think that was the gist of it)

I'd also speculate that floor and beam are more "natural" - walking/jumping/turning are things you normally do. Swinging around a bar is not normal. Slamming into a table to see how high you can bounce off is not normal.

that's it in a nutshell! and bars takes enormous of amount of strength. you can be a weaky on beam cause you hardly use your arms except to support almost static positions and your butt and legs are the strongest part of your body cause you walk on them all day long. but bars? OMG, your hand grip has to be like a mans and your upper body so strong to be able to handle the forces/gravity of what is taking place, not only when things are working perfectly which requires a bit less energy, but when things go wrong and gravity tries to 'throw' you off.
 
Ok. Thanks dunno. How about vault? My daughter has been in two different gyms and it seems they practice vault the least, maybe every three days, What makes it so difficult or what supernatural :)-)) qualities must one possess. And if it is difficult, why do you think they practice it the least? Is it true if you are good in floor you are good in vault and that bars and beam also go hand in hand? My daughter's former coach believes this to be true,
 
Ok. Thanks dunno. How about vault? My daughter has been in two different gyms and it seems they practice vault the least, maybe every three days, What makes it so difficult or what supernatural :)-)) qualities must one possess. And if it is difficult, why do you think they practice it the least? Is it true if you are good in floor you are good in vault and that bars and beam also go hand in hand? My daughter's former coach believes this to be true,

DD's gym is same -- vault is practiced the least. Definitely made sense at L7 - hopefully still makes sense at 8 - 10 :). And time spent on vault (at least right now) includes at least one day of uptraining skills for future vaults.

If the coach's statement about bars/beam are true, then my DD is in an alternative universe. She's a vault and bar girl - always has been. Most girls good at floor seem to be good at beam (I know that's a complete generalization but in my limited experience the general rule).
 
This is interesting! My dd was best at floor and beam in compulsories and level 7, although always hung in there on bars and finished last frequently on the FHS vault. Now suddenly with the level 8 vault it is going very, very well. And bars got much better in level 7, even with no giants in sight. She now has the giants and bars are going very well right now too. Beam and floor I don't hear as much about but she is very excited about bars and vault and how well she has gotten her skills there. I can't wait to see what happens this season!
 
I wouldn't put a lot of weight on what my daughter's former coach. I just wanted to hear what dunno had to say. He'll probably say "yikes" to that. :)
 

New Posts

DON'T LURK... Join The Discussion!

Members see FEWER ads

Gymnaverse :: Recent Activity

College Gym News

New Posts

Back