Fast-tracking to Elite - Pitfalls or red flags to look for?

[Geoffrey Taucer]

Have you ever considered that gymnastics is in our neurology? ...In 1891, Robinson found that a new-born human infant is able to support its own weight when holding on to a horizontal rod. He tested sixty infants, and found that all except two could hang for at least ten seconds, and one infant hung for two minutes and thirty-five seconds.
from the JAMA archives of neurology and psychiatry.

Hanging from a bar is a far cry from performing elite gymnastics. It's also exactly what one would expect in a species descended from primates.

Let's take a step back here, so I can make clear: I'm not against kids going elite. If they have the ability and the passion for the sport necessary to do so, more power to them.

I AM, however, against parents and coaches making life decisions for six-year-old children, especially when those decisions entail a decade of grueling work and 99% odds that the kid won't accomplish the goal anyway, and ESPECIALLY when that same goal can in most cases be accomplished just as effectively by waiting until the kid is old enough to make the decision for themselves.

Let me phrase it a different way: EVEN IF THE STATED GOAL IS FOR A KID TO GO ELITE, I think they're better off waiting until they're older to really start training for it. I think that a kid who trains conservatively until the onset of puberty, then (by her own decision) trains for elite will find herself in better physical and psychological shape when she reaches her mid twenties and beyond, AND I believe that she would accomplish this WITHOUT significantly decreasing her odds of going elite.

Dunno, what else do you have in the way of statistics? This is mostly conjecture on my part, but I'm sure much of it could be demonstrated if the statistics are available. Here's what I'd like to know:

1) Among athletes who train specifically with the goal of going elite at age 7 or younger, what percentage succeeded?

2) Among athletes who waited until at least age 12 before training specifically to go elite, what percentage succeeded?

I suspect that the answer to #2 will be significantly higher than the answer to #1. I also suspect gymnasts from category #2 will tend to lead healthier, happier, and more productive lives after retirement, though this is difficult to quantify.

 

[Linsul]

Have you ever considered that we are born to swim...concensus dictates that the optimal age to start babies is between six months and 12 months old...have you ever considered that we are born with a stretching instinct for a purpose and is essential to any exercise regimen? We are born with a grip reflex, ability to swim, stretch tendencies and much more. Do we see a pattern?

There are lots of thing our bodies are capable of to get by in the natural world. Flexibility, stretching, strength, stamina are all important in the grand scheme of things for us physically. Not in a gymnastics specific evolutionary sense though. If a hunter gatherer a million plus years ago discovered a leopard in the tree he's in, my bet is he would simply jump down. To do so without injury would require good physical health. He wouldn't go for the 10.0 flawlessly executed tree dismount. If such skill was important we'd be tracking ancient coaching practices along with the bronze age.

If I was looking to connect the dots between born physical traits developing into trained physical forms; I'd sooner look to martial arts than than gymnastics.

Our worlds are so different now that what we were born physically to cope with. Good thing our brains can manage. If you can dodge a Hummer in the parking lot to get coffee, and have the dexterity to grab your cash from your wallet without dumping everything out you're doing pretty good nowadays lol.

 

[Linsul]

One last thing to add to this: I'm surprised competitive vs elite track age debate is still so relevant. From a developmental, fiscal, and time standpoint it makes sense to not push the decision early on. There are so many things that could stand a fresh scientific look with published stats and conclusions. I can't think of any other sport that's such a slave to perception as gymnastics. It gives bad information a foothold in the decision making process. Also fosters the notion of secretive or arbitrary training practices, which results in drama, which results in all kinds of flawed decision making.

 

[Pickle's Mom]

I am relatively new to this sport and have far less experience than all of the coaches and most of the parents here. I really don’t follow elite gymnastics at all (except to watch the occasional televised meet with Pickle). So, I wonder, what is the most common path to elite/national team gymnastics?

Just to clarify, this is not for me to follow. Pickle is a beautiful gymnast but she definitely falls into the “incredible joy at making her back walkover on the beamâ€￾ camp (which, btw, she made for the first time on a floor beam just last week). At 8, our main hopes are that she continues to progress and remain injury free and has coaches that challenge and inspire her.

But, for actual elite gymnasts in America today (or the past decade), what did they do? Did they compete in compulsories? Optionals? Were they all identified as elites and fast tracked into a pre-elite program when they were 6?

I remember watching the US Olympic Trials with Pickle and thinking “hmmm…. Looks like the key to being an Olympic gymnast is having a parent who was an elite gymnast or coach…â€￾ Nastia Luikin falls into that category obviously. But also Chelsie Memmel and at least one other who didn’t make the team (like I said, I don’t follow elites, so the names escape me).

For those of you who do follow this, what is the path that these girls take?

 

[Mariainlv]

I guess I have a question. At what age should theythen begin to seriosuly train? I ask because the current Jr National team, all of them (based on Bios) were level 10 by age 12, most by age 11. Are we to assume they didnt start training seriosly at a pretty young age? I find that hard to believe...In fact all but one was in the gym by age 4. Not saying they were doing anything crazy that young but odds are by 6 or 7 for most they were fairly intense.


This is something I happened to look up based on this discussion. I know a child can turn into a high level gymnast even though they start late (ala Sacramone) but does this mean it is the best path for all kids? If so it doesn't appear to be the current standard?

Im honestly curious since this seems to be so contested and comes up over and over here on the CB. Again, caveat, I have no experience at all, just looking at data.

ETA: Geoffrey you state that they would be more successful waiting till after 12 to START training for elite. How does that jive with the current team of kids who were L10 by 11. I cannot imagine training a child that young as a L10 without elite being the end goal, no?

 

[MdGymMom01]

I would think, and this is just speculation, that the coaches would look at the years that the olympics are (2008, 2012, 2016, 2020...) and calculate the kids ages that way. Considering that you have to be a minimum of age 16 to compete in any olympics there is a very small window of opportunity to peak at the elite level. Let's take the 2016 olympics as an example. Since you will have to be at least 16 years old, then you are looking at kids born no later than 2000. So, coaches ideally will be looking at kids ages 11-14 for a 2016 team of 16-20 year olds, thoeretically, of course. So, coaches would need to "track" all of these 11 to 14 YOs for the next 6 years to see how they fair in the sport. A LOT can happen between now and then. Granted a lot of these 11 year olds are now Level 9's, but can they hold on for the next 6 years? There of course, will be the kids that "sneak in" and come out of nowhere, but how can you predict that? Sometimes, you can't.

So, all in all, it can be very difficult to stay on this elite path and time it right so that you overcome the odds.

 

[gymdog]

I am relatively new to this sport and have far less experience than all of the coaches and most of the parents here. I really don’t follow elite gymnastics at all (except to watch the occasional televised meet with Pickle). So, I wonder, what is the most common path to elite/national team gymnastics?

Just to clarify, this is not for me to follow. Pickle is a beautiful gymnast but she definitely falls into the “incredible joy at making her back walkover on the beam” camp (which, btw, she made for the first time on a floor beam just last week). At 8, our main hopes are that she continues to progress and remain injury free and has coaches that challenge and inspire her.

But, for actual elite gymnasts in America today (or the past decade), what did they do? Did they compete in compulsories? Optionals? Were they all identified as elites and fast tracked into a pre-elite program when they were 6?

I remember watching the US Olympic Trials with Pickle and thinking “hmmm…. Looks like the key to being an Olympic gymnast is having a parent who was an elite gymnast or coach…” Nastia Luikin falls into that category obviously. But also Chelsie Memmel and at least one other who didn’t make the team (like I said, I don’t follow elites, so the names escape me).

For those of you who do follow this, what is the path that these girls take?

Jana Bieger.

Yes, most of them competed in the JO system levels 5-10 (probably testing out of some levels but not entering at other levels). Well, you pretty much have to. I can only think of one gymnast (Bianca Flohr) who didn't really follow this path to a significant extent - they took advantage of the ability to enter at a higher level as a TOPs National Team member and she didn't do compulsories. But that's pretty unusual. I wouldn't usually post names but her parents have openly posted on gymnastics forums before so I don't think this is any secret.

I don't know their exact progression through the levels. I'm pretty sure Shawn competed at all the JO levels (probably starting in L5 back then - serious competition at L4 was more unusual in the 90s) and I see now (from youtube videos) that Chow's still has their team (a pretty selective group) competing in L6. I know another successful former elite who did most levels (tested out of 7 or 8) and did not go elite until 15 or so.

But different gyms have done different things. It appears to me that WOGA is still using the JO system extensively. I have seen some VERY talented level 9s from WOGA that probably could be pushed to L10 and elite (I assume they are going to do Hopes or test soon anyway) but are doing clean basics in L9. And I've seen elite qualifier videos with kids wearing six braces crashing double fulls on floor...you have to wonder. But it appears the most successful gyms in this country are not following the path of throw them to the sharks and see who emerges. They are focusing on going through the levels with clean basics and testing the skills that are ready when they're ready.

Edit- also, Shawn Johnson moved to work with Chow as about a 6 year old (before competing I believe) when coaches at another gym told her parents she wasn't very good, just strong. Chow's agreed to work with her and have her compete. I know someone who competed in her state with her and she was very good but not unbeatable either at the JO levels. She really came into her own later as a gymnast. Around the time she was testing elite and competing as a junior, I remember hearing much more about other gymnasts at bigger names gyms that were more flexible and "prettier" gymnasts than she was perceived to be (i.e. Pama, Hong - both excellent gymnasts). Then Shawn bursts onto the senior int'l scene sticking double doubles.

 

[bogwoppit]

Kayla Williams, the world vault champ 2010, snuck in from nowhere, so to speak. She was at L10 nationals last summer and competing Elite by Worlds in October.

Based on that there is plenty of time to work through the levels to get to Elite. Not every gymnast is Elite at 12/13, some qualify later and still do fine. Assuming they begin as L5 at 7, as that is the first level that MUST be competed, they do one year at each of the remaining 5 levels, and perhaps even spend two years at a level. They still have time to be Elite by the time they are 15.

That is where all the what ifs come in. Rushing the kids through the lower levels to get to optionals doesn't always bring the best results, and what is the rush? Quality skills and good coaching with an emphasis on soft landings and many progressions to develop strong basics and good form. Too many kids fly through the lower levels only to disappear when they hit higher optionals. Those statistics are very well known, and they clearly show that kids quit the sport in droves by L7.

Stretch, can you use simpler words and smaller paragraphs in your replies. I am gifted linguistically, but your replies are difficut to wrap my small brain around!

 

[gymkat]

I guess I have a question. At what age should theythen begin to seriosuly train? I ask because the current Jr National team, all of them (based on Bios) were level 10 by age 12, most by age 11. Are we to assume they didnt start training seriosly at a pretty young age? I find that hard to believe...In fact all but one was in the gym by age 4. Not saying they were doing anything crazy that young but odds are by 6 or 7 for most they were fairly intense.

I lost my original post because my browser crashed, but I think it's important to note that no one is advocating for kids to be limited in skill progression. Young kids should be trained to have good, solid basics (this should be a goal for all ages). They should work on strength and flexibility. They should have proper skill progressions. But, IMO, saying that a child is training for elite at age 6 is disingenuous, unless the coach is also forthcoming in saying that the vast, vast majority of gymnasts will never make it to elite, will never get a scholarship, and will quit before graduating from high school.

My gym had two gymnasts who, IMO, had/have potential as elites (I'll just follow the first girl's progress). She never trained more than 12 hours/week. She did L4 at age 6, L5 at age 7, L6 at age 7/8, and did L7 and L8 at 8/9. She scored high 37s at all levels until L8, when she started severely limiting her practice time to do another sport (and she was still in the high 36s, low 37s). She quit when she was 10 and working L9 to focus on the second sport (now, she is on the junior national team in that sport). Getting her to L10 by 11 or 12 would not have been difficult because she was that talented, and she was certainly not practicing mega hours. Kids who truly have the talent to be top elites do not need to be in a gym 20 hours/week by age 6 to make it to L10 by the time they are 11-12.

Also, the references to Shakespeare metaphors aren't terribly accurate. I have a degree in English, and the posts in question are much closer to modernist poetry, like Ezra Pound. The issue is not readers' limited linguistic capabilities.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

i have to think about this one before i respond. it's complicated as it is complex and varies all the time. give me a few hours to think about this. but what i can tell you from experience from a couple of elites that i have had, i moved them back to level 10 either their junior or senior year of high school if they were 'off track' in an olympic cycle because i was concerned for their bodies and minds and their subsequent end years and their ability to compete 4 more years in college. if they were 2 or 3 years away from the actual olympic games, and they were in 10th-12th grade, i didn't think it was fair or reasonable to them to ask them to "defer" their college experience and full athletic scholarship for another 2-3 years and then hope that their minds and bodies would then hold up until they were 20, 21, 22 & 23 at the outside respectively. the biological wear and tear to their bodies is immeasurable.

so what i mean is that i tried to head the 'burn out' or 'body out' off at the pass that i knew would hit them eventually. 2 in particular competed in several international competitions both here and abroad. 1 in 1 world championships, and both had very rigorous schedules in 9th and 10th grades. they had successful careers [by my definition but maybe not by hardcore coaches] and went on to 3 & 4 NCAA nationals championships respectively.

so give me a few hours, i'll see what else is posted, and i'll get back tonight.

 

[Stretchsportguy]

To those of you who look at metaphors and tremble please consider the man who walked into a bar with a large bag of feathers. The bartender sees the man approaching and asks what is in the bag? The man explains that he spent the day cleaning out his chicken coop gym where he squeezes in as many profitable chickens as possible. It seems that the chickens had complained about all the feathers they were losing after all the hard egg laying work they were doing all the time. The man explained to the bartender that usually he burns the feathers in a heap at the gym but this time he wanted to burn them out where the chickens wouldn't complain. I have an idea said the bartender. Lets start a Tops program and we can test all the chickens to see who is losing the least amount of feathers. Then we can separate them into a different coop and the other chickens will stay quiet when they see the good chickens all together. The man and the bartender put their plan into action and sure enough, the bad chickens wished they could be like the good chickens that didn't lose so many feathers and all the chickens stayed quiet. In the end the chickens never figured out that nothing had changed. But they were much happier. Except for the man and the bartender who complained everytime they burned out the good chicken's feathers since less of them were worth more.

 

[Linsul]

To those of you who look at metaphors and tremble

Metaphors aren't the problem.

please consider the man who walked into a bar with a large bag of feathers. The bartender sees the man approaching and asks what is in the bag? The man explains that he spent the day cleaning out his chicken coop gym where he squeezes in as many profitable chickens as possible. It seems that the chickens had complained about all the feathers they were losing after all the hard egg laying work they were doing all the time. The man explained to the bartender that usually he burns the feathers in a heap at the gym but this time he wanted to burn them out where the chickens wouldn't complain. I have an idea said the bartender. Lets start a Tops program and we can test all the chickens to see who is losing the least amount of feathers. Then we can separate them into a different coop and the other chickens will stay quiet when they see the good chickens all together. The man and the bartender put their plan into action and sure enough, the bad chickens wished they could be like the good chickens that didn't lose so many feathers and all the chickens stayed quiet. In the end the chickens never figured out that nothing had changed. But they were much happier. Except for the man and the bartender who complained everytime they burned out the good chicken's feathers since less of them were worth more.

That is

 

[bogwoppit]

I have no issues with metaphors, but the way you write is making my head hurt.

 

[emorymom]

Have you ever considered that gymnastics is in our neurology? ...In 1891, Robinson found that a new-born human infant is able to support its own weight when holding on to a horizontal rod. He tested sixty infants, and found that all except two could hang for at least ten seconds, and one infant hung for two minutes and thirty-five seconds.
from the JAMA archives of neurology and psychiatry.

Yeah that's not gymnastics. We're born to hang on to fur the mothers no longer have.

 

[Aussie_coach]

I think perhaps the thing that is truly important with the infant study, is not that the baby had the ability to hang from the bar for so long, but the fact that the baby was so stubborn to keep hanging on that bar beyond any physical pain. Sounds like a perfect elite gymnast to me.

Here in Australia we do choose our elites at a young age, they don't go through the 10 tier level system. They are generally selected at 4-6 years of age and placed in High performance training programs, at specialist gyms for the next 10 years to prepare for the international level. They compete in a totally separate competition stream against only other elite gymnasts from the age of about 6. You can enter the program later, but this is rare.

Of course the question to ask is, could these kids have trained in a regular gym and gone over to elite at 11 or 12? And the answer is generally no. The reason for training them at the High performance gyms is the quality of the coaching. Not just any coach can produce an elite athlete. They need to have very specific coaching from a young age. A coach can ruin a kids chances of making it to the top level by 7 or 8, if they are coached badly. Perhaps in the US you have more coaches capable of producing elites, but we don't.

I agree that for that rare kid with true elite potential you don't want to stick them in the levels system and hold them back. These are the kids who will be bored to death, and we may lose them from the sport altogether.

Of course it all depends on the quality of the coach.

 

[Bobby]

Gosh what an amazing thread.
Stretch - welcome aboard. I think you've started a really worthwhile discussion here. And I want what you're smoking.
Dunno. I've been enjoying your posts a long time without having a clue about your distiguished career. What a misleadingly modest user name you've chosen!
For all the debates about age to start training toward elite, I'd point to the sad number of posts on CB started by girls aged 12+ who are asking if they're too old to make elite. The clear reality is that they are. Whatever ambition and work ethic they have at that age is futile in terms of reaching their desired goal because they haven't previously trained enough to have achieved the minimum skill levels they'd need to build on. It's as if they wished they'd been identified and fast tracked from age 6.
As a parent, I'd hope that my DDs' coaches will provide my girls with enough training/opportunities for them to keep their options open until we learn in X years what sort of gymnastics experience their ability and ambition will point them toward (ie: the life of a game animal or garden vegetable ).

 

[Bobby]

Have you ever considered that gymnastics is in our neurology? ...In 1891, Robinson found that a new-born human infant is able to support its own weight when holding on to a horizontal rod. He tested sixty infants, and found that all except two could hang for at least ten seconds, and one infant hung for two minutes and thirty-five seconds.
from the JAMA archives of neurology and psychiatry.

Pretty sure it wasn't 1891.
In fact the grasp reflex emerges around 37 weeks gestation and is utterly lost by 4-6 weeks of age (in full term babies). It is hypothesised to have evolved to elicit a bonding response from caregivers (who feel warm and fuzzy when baby grasps their finger with such "enthusiasm"). The big meaningless smile (ie: the spontaeous one that is not in response to a stimulus/person) that emerges around 4-6 weeks is believed to serve the same function.
The type of grasp (ie: thumb opposing fingers) innate at birth would not be useful in women's gymnastics.

 

[Stretchsportguy]

Routines should be planned 8 years in advance or more containing an original move or two of impossible scope and measure which no human or monkey ever fathomed doing and kept as secret as Victoria's...then maybe we might impress somebody every four years. The script reads like a Shakespearean Play authored by agents who enlist players apt to render the billing...the elite mind has spoken.

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

Pretty sure it wasn't 1891.
In fact the grasp reflex emerges around 37 weeks gestation and is utterly lost by 4-6 weeks of age (in full term babies). It is hypothesised to have evolved to elicit a bonding response from caregivers (who feel warm and fuzzy when baby grasps their finger with such "enthusiasm"). The big meaningless smile (ie: the spontaeous one that is not in response to a stimulus/person) that emerges around 4-6 weeks is believed to serve the same function.
The type of grasp (ie: thumb opposing fingers) innate at birth would not be useful in women's gymnastics.

Thank you for clarifying this. I remember a top general gym coach talking about this at a course. She went on to basically mock a parent who thought her baby was going to be an Olympian based on reflex which she believed to be strength. The coaches remark was ‘that’s what babies do’.

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I think perhaps the thing that is truly important with the infant study, is not that the baby had the ability to hang from the bar for so long, but the fact that the baby was so stubborn to keep hanging on that bar beyond any physical pain. Sounds like a perfect elite gymnast to me.

Here in Australia we do choose our elites at a young age, they don't go through the 10 tier level system. They are generally selected at 4-6 years of age and placed in High performance training programs, at specialist gyms for the next 10 years to prepare for the international level. They compete in a totally separate competition stream against only other elite gymnasts from the age of about 6. You can enter the program later, but this is rare.

Of course the question to ask is, could these kids have trained in a regular gym and gone over to elite at 11 or 12?

By 11 or 12? Probably not. Could they have gotten there by 16 or 17? Who knows? But I strongly suspect they would have. And I suspect they'd last longer in the sport if that were the case.

I've never understood what possible advantage there could be to having a kid go elite at 11 or 12.