Welcome Gymnastics Fans!

ChalkBucket was created in September of 2005 to help everyone learn more about gymnastics.

Joining ChalkBucket not only allows you access to the main forums... but also to our "Social Groups". Around 25% of our conversations now happen in the "Social Groups" which are only available to members.

Rules you would change?

Discussion in 'Men's Artistic Gymnastics (MAG)' started by rosiekat, Mar 5, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This is obviously just for fun, as I'm assuming none of us has any authority here!

    I was thinking last night that at least once you hit about L6, they should divide competition into how many years you've done that level. So, instead of having a division like L6/D1/8-9, you'd have L6/1st year or L6/2nd year. I feel like L4 and L5 aren't uncommon to do in 1 year, which is why I didn't include them - but once you hit 6, it's almost a given that you'll take 2 years at least.

    Any thoughts on this, or how you would change things?
    MILgymFAM likes this.
  2. I would add a difficulty score to JO scoring. I am not sure if it should be added as a bonus or simply do what FIG does and have difficulty and execution scores.
    tpMom and MILgymFAM like this.
  3. MAG already has this :)
    Hollowarchkick, sce and amiandjim like this.
  4. Lucky for MAG. I wonder why the difference?
  5. No clue, although most of the US would like gymnatics to go back to the perfect 10. I like the way MAG does it as it challenges my son to keep working on his skills....
    sce likes this.
  6. Oh, I hate the perfect 10. I think it is what causes so much confusion and causing much grief trying to understand the sport. I think it is a good idea to let the athlete determine execution or difficulty. In the perfect world, you would have both, nothing is perfect.
  7. I would remove upper age limits
    PinPin and BachFlyer like this.
  8. Get rid of Division 2 at levels 6 and 7.

    Have 2 judges for each event and average the scores together.

    Allow for 2 vaults like the girls.
    gymboymom, PinPin, sjm2b3 and 4 others like this.
  9. That's interesting, I wonder if it varies by region. At least at the gyms DS has gone to, it's much more common to repeat L4 and L5. Out of the boys he competed L6 with last season, I can't think of any in our state who are repeating 6. Most went to 7, a couple older boys went to 8 or JD, and a few left the sport. Coaches seem to want to move the older boys with L6+ skills up to optionals/JD as quickly as possible, so it's mostly the 12 & under kids in L7.
    sce and profmom like this.
  10. Do away with the "age" date in MAG and do the age divisions at meets more like WAG
    M2Abi, BachFlyer and sjm2b3 like this.
  11. 2 judges would raise the cost of the meet. I’m quite happy not to.

    I understand why so many people think D2 is a waste for level 7... I personally kind of agree in spirit about that, though I disagree it is a waste for level 6. But since 7 is still compulsory, it looks better to treat it the same as the other compulsory levels. If you’re going to D2 any compulsory level, you’re gonna have to D2 them all or it really will look like you’re treating some kids differently.
  12. I actually proposed something like this for girls’ compulsories. Someone on Facebook proposed a score that would force girls to move up a level (ex: over 37, you have to move up). I didn’t like that idea bc individual circumstances can vary, so I suggested having 2 separate divisions, one for first time level girls and one for repeaters.
  13. My comment was based only on my admittedly limited experience. I think we have some who skipped 7 and we definitely had a crop of JDs last year. Anyone with just about any experience in this world knows more than I do, so take my words with a large grain of salt!
  14. Honestly, I just don't see the point of L7 D2. I don't think that all the compulsory levels have to be the same.

    Get rid of the swing to handstand requirement for L9. (My son has it, but it's a difficult and frustrating expectation for pre-pubertal boys.)
    Allow but do not require two vaults.
    Reconfigure nationals so that the percentage of each level making it is either the same or tilted in favor of L10.
    Invest in anything that will help the growth of the college club gym movement, since it looks like NCAA isn't coming back.
    PinPin, sce, gymmomx2 and 1 other person like this.
  15. Because Junior FIG scoring is now used for both L9 and L10....scoring and rules for all those kids is comparable (except for the dismount scoring differences in L9 and L10)....it would be an easy time to re-"band" the age groupings for levels. With consistent scoring across L9/L10 paired with the new quad's "age advancement" (May birthday cutoff), I would like to seem them reconfigure the level/age bands to L10 16-18; L9 14-15; L8 12-13. The leap from L6 to L8 and L7 to L8 is pretty dramatic, so it would help cushion that jump with an extra year...maybe keep a few more athletes in the sport. You could also make exceptions and let thriving 13s and 15s "level up" to L9 ad L10 early, particularly those who are ready to take on the more advanced element group requirements and "C" and "D" dismounts. They could level up by meeting a min threshold at November and December meets. The age advancement thing isn't likely to go away next quad unless USAG adopts a philosophy that moves away from focusing all rules, scoring and ages as preparation for international junior elite competition. Based on what national junior team coordinator has said, like many things done by USAG, the birth cutoff was done with only about 0.1% of the MAG population in mind....the very best of the Junior Elites so they come closer to matching the international standard. The "ideal birthday cutoff would have gone all the way to a fall month, vice May, to be perfectly aligned with the FIG age cutoff....May was a way to split the difference and it matched up with the end of the JO season and did not create a full 12-13 month age cutoff jump."
    profmom likes this.
  16. Remove upper age limits, or go to a different cut off where kids aren’t competing a year older than their actual age. For boys there’s a big physical strength difference between 12 and 14. The upper limits push the younger guys do to strength moves they can’t perform prior to puberty because they need to be “in age” group before their bodies are ready.

    Get rid of D2 at Levels 6 and 7. Just one group where you can do bonuses on whichever events you can. Most guys in these groups can do a couple bonuses here and there.
  17. Yes, Low-Bar! I understand that the national committee wants better international results, but I don't think the solution is to wrench the whole program around to benefit the tiny number of young guys who are being aimed at elite gymnastics from around age 8. With growth in the number of athletes, better retention as they get to be teenagers, and stronger programming/more opportunities for guys in their late teens and early 20s, I think we'd see both a more satisfying experience for the large number of guys in the sport who do not have elite ambitions and the growth of a pool of potential elite athletes -- some of whom may not realize they are part of that pool until after puberty!
    2G1B and gymmomx2 like this.
  18. I believe this (increasing opportunity for adult gymnasts (over 18) to stay in the sport) is the only change that will bring MAG back. US MAG is currently a sport with little to no opportunity to train or compete at all, at any level of ability, after HS. This makes it different than virtually all other even slightly popular sports. Adults can do most other sports, with relatively little expense, for fun, health, and friendly competition. There is of course also far more opportunity to seriously train and compete past HS in most other sports.

    Gymnastics is very expensive compared to other sports and there are many other far less difficult sports boys and young men can excel in. Like it or not, parents with athletically talented kids are less likely to keep their kids in a sport where there are very few college teams at all, let alone scholarships, and basically no other opportunities except the current club system, which has a few problems.

    Also, if international success is the goal, how does it make sense to keep focusing on younger and younger kids when generally speaking, international champions in MAG are consistently well into their 20s when they achieve their personal bests? And don't you think pushing these harder skills that are meant for mature bodies lower and lower in ages are likely to increase career-ending injuries before the peak performance age range?

    Everyone wonders why WAG in US is so much better than MAG, internationally. To me it is obvious. Numbers and training opportunity. Period. So the key to more consistent international performance for US MAG is increasing overall numbers and training opportunity.

    Provide more opportunity after HS and you will see more kids motivated to stay in the sport and the development of more and better MAG dedicated coaches. More kids want to be in the sport, more gyms will provide MAG training. This is how you bring a sport back. By fixing (or coming up with a solid alternative) to what went wrong in the first place. Not by monkeying around with ages and levels.

    How to do this? I am not sure. I agree, MAG college teams will not come back under current law. An alternate solution would include the club system but would have to get beyond what club system currently can offer.
  19. I so agree with this. For those who know way more than me, does the women's side have the age cut offs with FIG rules? I assume so and that that is why TOPS/HOPES has the age cut offs that they have; but they don't then apply that to every kid across the board in JO, it is just for those select few kids who are at least training to possibly do elite one day (via TOPS/HOPES). Other than that there is no age specified by USAG.

    Along those lines, I'd do away with the upper age limits for L8 and L9.

    For the boys, I'd also like the option of a 2nd vault.
  20. Sorry I’m late to the conversation, but I just signed up here. I like some of the ideas floated. Here are my ideas to help the program.

    1. Change compulsory levels back to a 10.0. The rules are way to confusing. Most coaches, not all, don’t even understand the rules and scoring very well. The parents certainly don’t. It’s confusing that the levels have different top possible scores. Start the compulsory levels at a 9.0 base with 3 specified bonus skills for .3 each and .1 for stick. It would be a better product for parents because they would understand scoring a little better the further they go in the sport.

    2. Separate the elite program from the JO program like the women do. Right now all our rules are written for the top 20 kids in the country. If you look at what they did to change the cutoff date for ages and what they did to the bonus rules, it’s all done for the benefit of the elite athletes. If we separate the elite athletes and create a set of rules designed to foster success internationally it would free up the JO program to create rules to cater to the devolping athlete. We could have a more competitive JO program with rules and bonuses to help more athletes. I think this would help retain more boys as well.

    3. Create more room for specialists. Some athletes aren’t designed to be all arounders but the rules make it hard for them to have success as a specialist. If your son is on the track team, they don’t make the shot putters compete in sprint races. If you swim, not every race is the individual medley. Some guys are horse specialists or rings specialists. How many guys that love floor and vault would be happy to drop horse as an event.

    4. Drop out of age group optional levels. There are way too many paths kids can go and it dilutes the competition. Right now kids can do JD, older 8, older 9, or the new excel program. Putting everyone into the JD level would increase the numbers and level of competition in that group. The JD rules are very flexible and allow for athletes to excel on events they are strong on while being able to hide weak events with smart clean routines.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice