Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I think level 5s score went up to 32, but i agree with you. I have a gymnast who scored out of 4 this year with a 36 (point something) and level 5 was still a big shock. A 34 should absolutely be manageable for a gymnast ready to score out. The only rough part is that it doesn't leave much room for a bad meet. One uncharacteristically rough event and the gymnast is stuck, unless their gym will give them another shot at it!It was raised this year to ensure gymnasts have a good foundation of basic skills before moving up in levels. I think it was for safety reasons. L5 was not raised, probably because so many teams score out of L5 and compete L6 in place of L5. And really, if a gymnast can't score a 34 at L4, they will really struggle at L5.
Not always....but I am aware that my kid was one of the ones in the minority.It was raised this year to ensure gymnasts have a good foundation of basic skills before moving up in levels. I think it was for safety reasons. L5 was not raised, probably because so many teams score out of L5 and compete L6 in place of L5. And really, if a gymnast can't score a 34 at L4, they will really struggle at L5.
I think some states aligned the state qualifying score with the mobility score. To me that makes a lot of sense.It's a 34 to states in our state now for level 4, so if they don't get a 34 and make it to states, repeating would probably be a likely option anyway even if the mobility score was still lower. That said as the meets go on I doubt many kids who can do all the skills will not achieve a 34 at some meets.
It was also raised to slow down the rush from Xcel to level 6 or 7. It has been stressed repeatedly that Xcel is not a pathway to skip compulsories and jump to JO optionals, yet it continues to be used that way. I'm glad the score was raised. I always thought 31 was too low, as our state needed a 32.00 twice to qualify to the state meet. If you can't even score high enough to qualify to the state meet, you really shouldn't be able to score out and move up a level. But that's just me.As this is the first year they have required the score, I am guessing it will be reviewed if it becomes too hard to achieve it.
It's a 34 to states in our state now for level 4, so if they don't get a 34 and make it to states, repeating would probably be a likely option anyway even if the mobility score was still lower. That said as the meets go on I doubt many kids who can do all the skills will not achieve a 34 at some meets.
At my kid's gym there appears to be an unwritten requirement for multiple 36s or possibly even a 37 to move up in compulsories, but since this is not articulated to the girls my kid is obsessing about the state qualification and mobility score of 34. At her gym I don't think the new mobility score is going to prevent anyone from moving up who otherwise would have, but it is creating massive stress which for my child translates into suboptimal meet performance. She has all the skills (vault is not super but is passable) and could easily score above 34 if she actually hit 4 for 4, which she is not doing because she's worried about getting that darn 34 and is therefore making tons of nerve-induced errors even on her strongest events. If the requirement were 32 she'd be worry-free and relaxed at meets. Several of her teammates appear to be in the same boat. I just don't see how putting that kind of pressure on so many kids is going to be productive.
There shouldn't be pressure on the girls. There coaches should not even mention it. If they have the skills, they will make the score. They had to raise the score as the level of gymnastics has improved greatly over the last 10 years. Also, as I mentioned, to prevent coaches skipping kids through compulsories who aren't prepared to compete in optionals. Seriously, a 31.00 AA is just too low to show proficiency for the next level. The foundation skills should be solid so that they have a successful optional career.At my kid's gym there appears to be an unwritten requirement for multiple 36s or possibly even a 37 to move up in compulsories, but since this is not articulated to the girls my kid is obsessing about the state qualification and mobility score of 34. At her gym I don't think the new mobility score is going to prevent anyone from moving up who otherwise would have, but it is creating massive stress which for my child translates into suboptimal meet performance. She has all the skills (vault is not super but is passable) and could easily score above 34 if she actually hit 4 for 4, which she is not doing because she's worried about getting that darn 34 and is therefore making tons of nerve-induced errors even on her strongest events. If the requirement were 32 she'd be worry-free and relaxed at meets. Several of her teammates appear to be in the same boat. I just don't see how putting that kind of pressure on so many kids is going to be productive.
We have a couple of gyms in our area who does this. I don’t care for it at all. At our gym, Xcel has the lowest training hours. We do allow movement from Xcel to JO, but likely they will go into L4, and with a slight disadvantage compared to the girls who did our L3 team... We have more movement the other way, girls from L5 or above who want less hours etc go to Xcel as a way to still do their sport, which is more in line with what the program was designed to be IMHO.It was also raised to slow down the rush from Xcel to level 6 or 7. It has been stressed repeatedly that Xcel is not a pathway to skip compulsories and jump to JO optionals, yet it continues to be used that way. I'm glad the score was raised. I always thought 31 was too low, as our state needed a 32.00 twice to qualify to the state meet. If you can't even score high enough to qualify to the state meet, you really shouldn't be able to score out and move up a level. But that's just me.
If they have the skills, they will make the score.
Do you not think any gymnasts should ever have to do a second year at a level? If a third aren’t getting score at first meet, should easily be down to 20-25% by end of season. 20% to a third of gymnasts doing second year of level 4 to build more sound basics sounds about right, in my experience.So if a 34 is the true sign of minimal proficiency, then half the kids in our state are not minimally proficient a third of the way into the season? That seems odd to me.
I have seen tons of sub-8 scores on vault this year, which means that it will be vault that's holding most kids back even though they have three more levels to master the FHS vault. That doesn't seem quite right. If the minimum is going to be 34, then they should be doing some sort of progression for the FHS vault at L4, like maybe a flatback vault over the table onto stacked mats. But I am just a mom, so what do I know...