WAG optimal level to begin competition?

[mommyof1]

The discussion of the new level requirements has me wondering: What are the advantages and disadvantages to competing at the very low levels (current L3/4), and what is the optimal level for most girls to begin competing? (Average kids, not future elites.) All the gyms in our area start competing at L4, but I know there are other areas where it is common to compete at L3 and others where L5 is the norm. I have also heard talk that our gym may take advantage of the level switch to stop competing at the new L3 (old L4) and instead start at new L4 (current L5).

Do little kids tend to get bored spending lots of time preparing for L3 and L4 competitions instead of learning new skills, or are the routines simple enough that they don't have to spend a lot of practice time preparing for competition and can compete and still be working on new things? Do coaches like having kids get competitive experience at an early age, or would they rather have the girls wait and start competing later on?

 

[Quadqueen]

You're going to get a wide variety of opinions here. My DD started competing at L3 at age 6 and loved it. She wasn't bored, and she was learning new skills. I also don't think she "wasted time" competing at such a low level. She just turned 9 and will compete L6 this year. She has progressed along nicely in terms of skills, and is very comfortable competing.

 

[Quadqueen]

Also, the skills learned in those lower levels are the foundations for the harder skills (except maybe the mill circle), so they're going to have to learn and perfect these skills anyway.

 

[mommyof1]

Also, the skills learned in those lower levels are the foundations for the harder skills (except maybe the mill circle), so they're going to have to learn and perfect these skills anyway.

Yes, I guess I am really wondering whether there is value in spending time perfecting the routines, rather than just learning to do the skills well. I am also thinking back to the dance classes I took as a kid, when I always hated recital season because we spent all of our time running the show number over and over instead of doing what I considered to be "real work."

 

[Quadqueen]

Well, at least at DD's gym, they didn't spend a ton of practice time on routines at the beginner levels. And there are many ways a child can benefit from improving a routine, IMO.

 

[MaryA]

I can see both sides to this issue. It seems as though, in an ideal world, the coaches would prefer not competing till level 5, for the reason you mentioned... they don't have to worry about perfecting routines, they can just focus on the skills, and in a progression that they feel makes the most sense and not the one pre-ordained by USAG.

On the other hand, in terms of getting kids into your program "long term" before they're drawn away by soccer or cheer or whatever, competing is a huge carrot. The blingy leotard, the roar of the (albeit small) crowd, the pretty ribbons, glitter in your hair... what more could your early elementary girl want? (Though of course there are older girls who compete at the early levels as well.)

DD competed level 3 as a 7-year-old, loved loved loved it, and is now, as a level 7, very comfortable and confident at meets. Of course, her best level 7 gym friend also competed level 3 as a 6-year-old and is totally stressed out by meets. So it's not necessarily a cause and effect. I guess, if you're chosing a gym, I wouldn't let this be a deciding factor. Choose a great gym and then let the coaches decide when your daughter should compete and at what level.

 

[Faith]

I think my issue, not being from the US, is how many competitions you do. From what I read here it's nearly every weekend during "season". So the impression I get is either new skills go on hold while routines are perfected, as there's only limited training hours in the week for lower levels, or the kids do twice the hours so they can continue to progress while having time to perfect routines, and compete every weekend.

I think competing early is not a bad thing, give confidence, something to work for, all the reasons mentioned above. We only have 3 or 4 comps a year, so most of the year is up training, with the 4 weeks before a comp given over to working routines and consolidating the skills set.

So my totally uneducated compromise would be to compete at lower levels, but only a few comps at each level. Make it fun, learn loads of new stuff as well, and save the intense every weekend business for the higher (optional?) levels.

If I have it completely wrong, please do correct me

 

[gymmomtoo]

I think the only value of competing the early levels is the exposure to meets and competing. in addition to what's been said about perfecting skills rather than routines, I think many gyms don't compete lower levels due to the cost to parents. Meets, competition leos, etc. are expensive. That cost can turn people away if they don't want to spend a ton on their 5 or 6 yr olds activity.

 

[coachmolly]

I don't think it's a huge deal either way, it just depends on the program and the kids. Way back when I was a level 4 it was the "exeptional" kids that were pulled into a special developmental group and jumped right into level 5, not dealing with level routines and instead focusing on progressions. Those kids did better, but they were also the ones selected as being more naturally talented. And I think the retention rate of kids in the "normal" competitive group and kids in the "developmental" group were about the same.
On the other hand, I think some clubs use the early competitive levels specifically for their talented little ones to give them meet experience, learning routines, and in the competitive atmosphere- especially the ones who are too young to compete level 4. I've never been involved in that type of program, but I think a few posters here work with that type of system and it seems to work well for their kids. And the level 2/3s are just so darn cute!
As a coach (thought I'm not currently coaching USAG), I prefer waiting to compete just because the expense of even low level USAG team is pretty steep for what is essentially a recreational level sport at that point. Competition leos, warm ups, meet fees, USAG membership, travel to meets, the list goes on are not exactly equal to what parents are paying for pee-wee soccer or baseball and the kid (with a few exceptions) is essentially at the same commitment level at that point. I just think it's better financially, and for the stress level of the parents and kids, to wait until they show some level of commitment to the sport and a desire to compete on their own. Because getting up by yourself in front of judges and parents is also a totally different mental experience for a 5/6 year old than kicking a ball around in the midst of a bunch of kids. One that some will eat up and fall in love with and some will find totally overwhelming.
I definitely agree with MaryA, both paths to the competitive levels have their benefits and it all depends on how the program is run by the gym and the attention they give to your child.

 

[Bajanswife]

I think my issue, not being from the US, is how many competitions you do. From what I read here it's nearly every weekend during "season". So the impression I get is either new skills go on hold while routines are perfected, as there's only limited training hours in the week for lower levels, or the kids do twice the hours so they can continue to progress while having time to perfect routines, and compete every weekend.

I think competing early is not a bad thing, give confidence, something to work for, all the reasons mentioned above. We only have 3 or 4 comps a year, so most of the year is up training, with the 4 weeks before a comp given over to working routines and consolidating the skills set.

So my totally uneducated compromise would be to compete at lower levels, but only a few comps at each level. Make it fun, learn loads of new stuff as well, and save the intense every weekend business for the higher (optional?) levels.

If I have it completely wrong, please do correct me

Same for us in the Caribbean. We only have to do the whole meet prep thing 2 - 4 times a year (depending on each family's finances - all the meets are travel meets except for our home meet) so it really doesn't take away uptraining and basics. Also, many kids drop out at level 4 or 5, either due to not wanting the commitment or just not progressing enough to enjoy it any more, so it makes sense for us to compete the low levels for the sake of those kids. At our home meet and in Trinidad we compete from level 1. We don't often travel to the U.S. with level 1s, but may take a couple of very good level 2s and then level 3 and up. Level 3 used to be our starting point for competition up to a couple of years ago - then we got some young assistant coaches who could train the level 1s & 2s and we then started competing them.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Ideally, assuming kids wouldn't get bored, parents wouldn't get antsy, and both coaches and kids would stay motivated and excited?

Level 10.

 

[wallinbl]

I think my issue, not being from the US, is how many competitions you do. From what I read here it's nearly every weekend during "season". So the impression I get is either new skills go on hold while routines are perfected, as there's only limited training hours in the week for lower levels, or the kids do twice the hours so they can continue to progress while having time to perfect routines, and compete every weekend.

Depends on the gym. Some do 8-10 in a season (Sep-Dec or Jan-Apr). Ours does 4 + state/regional/national. Meets are expensive and time consuming, so I'm happy with keeping it reasonable, but I also understand the parents that think it's a lot of practice for not a lot of competing.

I don't think the number of meets is an issue either way. The problem I see is that the level system and the single competition season per calendar year leads to a progression that's somewhat stuck around one level per year (+/-, depending on gymnast). From what I've seen, there are gymnasts whose pace is around a level every 8 months, and some whose pace is around a level every 20 months (in terms of skill acquisition). To conform to competitions, that has to get rounded to the nearest level, which leads to some girls competing above their skill level and some competing beneath their skill level. Around here, it seems like a lot of girls are rounded down because then they can win state.

You're correct that meet season tends to halt the acquisition of new skills as coaches switch to routine perfection and stop working on higher level skills.

 

[Quadqueen]

Depends on the gym. Some do 8-10 in a season (Sep-Dec or Jan-Apr). Ours does 4 + state/regional/national. Meets are expensive and time consuming, so I'm happy with keeping it reasonable, but I also understand the parents that think it's a lot of practice for not a lot of competing.

I don't think the number of meets is an issue either way. The problem I see is that the level system and the single competition season per calendar year leads to a progression that's somewhat stuck around one level per year (+/-, depending on gymnast). From what I've seen, there are gymnasts whose pace is around a level every 8 months, and some whose pace is around a level every 20 months (in terms of skill acquisition). To conform to competitions, that has to get rounded to the nearest level, which leads to some girls competing above their skill level and some competing beneath their skill level. Around here, it seems like a lot of girls are rounded down because then they can win state.

You're correct that meet season tends to halt the acquisition of new skills as coaches switch to routine perfection and stop working on higher level skills.

We also don't do a lot of meets...maybe 6 from October to March/April.

 

[thefellowsmom]

I think it really depends on the gym and the philosophy. Everyone seems to have a different story. If you look at the bios of elite gymnasts there isn't even a true pattern there.

It also varies within the same program. Some girls really benefit from early competition and some are more motivated by skill development. The long term plan from the coaches tend to differ from girl to girl and in a good program they should be adjusting for the potential, motivations, skill development patterns and emotional needs of each girl. I have talked a lot about how our gym does things and it isn't always the way the parents wish it were done because there is a lot of trust involved, but I have to say I think it is great and the parents that "get it" are very happy.

The way our gym gets around all this is that skill training goes on year round and what level you compete is determined by where you can be successful without spending too many hours perfecting routines. There is only a slow down (not full stop) of new skill development for a couple of months - leading up to and the first part of competition season. This results in many girls competing well below their skill development level, but it has nothing to do with winning states (although some of our girls do very well) but is more so the emphasis can be put on getting to optional level skills, getting competition experience and developing discipline and attention to detail. This is all accomplished by the way our program is run.

For example, my dd competed 4 last season and will do either 4 or 5 this season (we won't know until about a month before competitions start), but she is working on level 5 and 6 skills and they are even doing introductory drills for 7 and 8. The other day she got her first go at the strap bar and they were working basic yurchenko drills last week.

 

[gymgal]

DD's gym competes prep-op instead of compulsory but she started competing the rookie level, which at the time was essentially L4 skills, with some flexibility for BHS, beam dismount, etc. As a parent, I really wanted her to compete because I felt it was an important part of gymnastics. Our state has since switched the Prep-Op levels and now the entry level is essentially a mix of 3-4 skills but weighed more heavily on the L3 side and some gyms use routines more likened to level 2-3. With my 20/20 hindsight, I would not place my dd in that level of competition. It just doesn't make sense to me (from where I stand now - not what I felt as an entry level parent). All the expense of competition - leo, warm-up, memberships, meet fees, travel, coach fees, etc. And dd's gym travels far for their meets, with only 1 meet in the local area (aside from our in house meet). It just doesn't make sense to me - especially for the little 4-6 yr olds. At that level, I would rather dd have the option to be in a developmental training group focusing on skills and conditioning.

as for the other question raised about number of meets and uptraining, dd's season goes from Jan- March with 6 meets, plus 1 pre-season meet and state/regionals/nationals. It definitely gets crazy with a meet every other weeks but it is only for 2.5 mths. the gym pretty much uptrains until November and goes right back to uptraining after the last meet of the season for each level (usually state meet, though about half go to regionals too). But uptraining is generally in full swing from the middle of March to November. Plenty of time to learn new skills for the net level. dd's gym used to uptrain only about 1 level above their anticipated level (new 7's would uptrain 8 skills as well) but as we get more girls going to the higher levels, they have realized the importance of uptraining even further, even if it is just through partial drills.

 

[momofthreegirls]

Our gym begins competing at L4, and I think that's a good level to begin competition. However, the owner mentioned he would prefer to start at L5, because he doesn't like spending a lot of time on some of the lower level skills. He held off on having a L4 team for quite some time. Eventually, though, all the gyms in our region had L4 teams, and he felt he needed a L4 team because his brand-new-to-competition L5s weren't doing as well as the girls on teams with a season or two of L4 competition under their belts.

I agree in a way - it's silly to spend tons of time on mill circles. It makes more sense to work on developing strength and solid basic skills. But I can see why some gyms choose to start lower level teams - it takes a considerable amount of time to attain the strength and skills necessary to get to L5. Kids/parents might quit and join another sport where they can compete right away.

L3 is becoming more and more popular around here. I've even seen a few L2 teams. With the level changes next Fall, I wonder what will happen...

 

[Krystan]

I'm not sure any gyms around here compete L3; most start at L4. Ours competes L4, but not very seriously. There are two pre-teams at our gym - one that feeds younger kids into L4 and one that feeds older or more advanced kids straight into L5. About half the USAG kids start at L4, the other half at L5. It depends on age, maturity, and whether they have a kip. One of the coaches hates competing 4 and the other thinks it's good experience. So I'm not sure whether they'll use the new level plan as a chance to axe competing at that level, but it will be interesting to see!

 

[Quadqueen]

Somewhat unrelated, but there is a trend in some areas to compete even lower, due to economic and other factors. Our gym will be competing L2s for the first time this year. I can only guess it's because it's another revenue stream for the gym and it's a good way to get people hooked into the sport at a young age. Personally, I think it's a little silly for 4 year olds to be competing, but...

It also gives the younger kids a chance to compete when so many never make it past L4 or L5.

 

[gymgal]

I can only guess it's because it's another revenue stream for the gym and it's a good way to get people hooked into the sport at a young age. Personally, I think it's a little silly for 4 year olds to be competing, but...

It also gives the younger kids a chance to compete when so many never make it past L4 or L5.

Really, it is more cost beneficial to keep them in rec/developmental classes and "force" the parents to increase their class sign-ups, though if they compete, they will aid in sharing the coaches/travel fees so that helps keep the overall team fees down a little. But it really doesn't benefit the gym's profits.

I do agree that the lower levels are good for those who likely won't stay in the sport. Problem is you just don't know who those will be. With dd's gym competing xcel, we have very little attrition until platinum/L7, when there is a huge increase in commitment (have to quit other sports).

 

[Aussie_coach]

In Australia kids compete fro. Level 1, if your kids don't compete from level 1 you are at a disadvantage. If your level 4's are going in for the first time they are going against other girls who have been competing for over 3 years already.

so a lot has to with what the other clubs you are competing against are doing.

havimg said that it does not reallyrompte longevity in the gym, young kids don't enjoy spending hours on end perfecting routines as much as they enjoy learning new skills. Also kids get tired of it faster if they have already competed for 5 years by the time they get to level 5 and we get a higher level of burn out.