WAG Getting skills before puberty

[Fliptwisttumble]

I was speaking with a former competitive coach a while go, who was talking about a theory that girls should learn as many skills as possible before hitting puberty.

The focus was generally on high performance kids.... That they should try and get all top level skills before hitting puberty, because as their bodies change, they have enough work to do modifying how they do them, without the added pressure of gaining new skills. That they could refine, tweak, etc., but shoild have everything they plan to compete in the following years. He didn't suggest that they wouldn't EVER learn anything new, but that it was just so much easier for most to learn the skills while they are smaller.

i'm interested to know what others think of this. Would this also parlay into the psychological aspects, such as fear, nerves, etc?

Thanks.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

this is true. ^^^

 

[gymgymgymnast08]

I have heard that to an extent but I am an example of when that is not the case. I hit puberty as I was moving up to 8. I actually learned my bigger skills when I was older because I was an "old compulsory" and we never uptrained.

I learned a tsuk and a yurchenko on vault. On bars I learned a straddle back to handstand, Higgins combination, a double back dismount and I was working on giant fulls and jaegars. (I caught like very few-I had just started them before I got injured). On beam I learned a back tuck and a pike and a side somi and a front full dismount. On floor I learned all twisting and bounding.

I never really had any fear so that didn't stop me. Just wanted to point out that while that makes sense there are definitely exceptions to it; don't be too worried! Granted, I was only a level 9 but I think some of those skills could be considered "high level."

 

[Fliptwisttumble]

Granted, I was only a level 9 but I think some of those skills could be considered "high level."

I totally agree. BTW, I would never use "only" and L9 together Also, if the theory stated were the only option, there would be thousands of unhappy/dissatisfied older gymnasts.

there are quite a few girls in DD's gym that started late, and did/do exceedingly well at upper levels. It was just an interesting discussion I had, and wanted to share/discuss.

 

[Deleted member 14190]

I totally agree. BTW, I would never use "only" and L9 together Also, if the theory stated were the only option, there would be thousands of unhappy/dissatisfied older gymnasts.

there are quite a few girls in DD's gym that started late, and did/do exceedingly well at upper levels. It was just an interesting discussion I had, and wanted to share/discuss.

==
Depends on the kid, but as with anything in any sport, the earlier the better.

 

[Faith]

I totally agree. BTW, I would never use "only" and L9 together Also, if the theory stated were the only option, there would be thousands of unhappy/dissatisfied older gymnasts.

there are quite a few girls in DD's gym that started late, and did/do exceedingly well at upper levels. It was just an interesting discussion I had, and wanted to share/discuss.

I completely agree that reaching upper levels is no small thing, and that it can be done relatively late...

However, having done a bit of research recently, it does appear that if we are talking about a child that wants to reach national team/international/chance at the olympics kind of elite, they do need to aquire most skills before puberty, for the reasons given.

Although I think worth bearing in mind is a lot of elite gymnasts reach puberty relatively late, so pre- puberty might well be under 14 for most of these girls, which gives a little more time.

There has been nobody I could find who has competed internationally for GB in the last few olympic cycles who weren't elite track by age 11/12. Which means they have many big skills- double backs, release moves, multiple twists, LO yurchenko at least by that age. And probably up-training more, as those are just the skills ready to compete. So then it's a matter of maybe adding another twist to a skill, or connecting moves together.


In the UK you can qualify elite at any time- but it seems those who do after the age of 13/14 don't make the national team.

I haven't done as much with US gymnastics as the path is different, but still most of the national team appears to have made level 10 by 12/13 and qualify junior elite at 14, as soon as they are eligible, which probably means they are also working the big skills around age 12..

 

[Pineapple_Lump]

I have heard that to an extent but I am an example of when that is not the case. I hit puberty as I was moving up to 8. I actually learned my bigger skills when I was older because I was an "old compulsory" and we never uptrained.

Yes, and you might have been further along had you started earlier and developed those skills earlier. A better example of kids who might disprove this theory would be young gymnasts who quickly gain foundation skills for the bigger skills and then plateau, but we probably don't see much of them because they are likely to fade away and leave the sport as a result.

Question for those who can/do heavy spotting (optionals). Is the quality of your spotting/shaping affected by the size of the gymnast? Surly you can spot and shape an over shoot better with a small 12 year old compared to a college age/size gymnast when learning from scratch.

 

[kecks]

there is such a thing as learning window for nearly everthing in humans (and animals in general). for learning to speak this is somewhere around age 0-3, for learning complex movement patterns like sport specific skills or developing individual speed to maximum potential this is somehwere around 8 to 12, definitly before puberty hits. of course you can learn everything still later on, but not as easy and fast as in these 'golden learning age' for movements. add higher bodyweight and more height and there you go: really complicated things have to be mastered before puberty to get really ingrained which is essential in sports performance.

 

[GymBee97]

I don't know if I agree. I think re-learning a skill because your body changes is harder and I know for my DD was a bit frustrating as she could do it before but now can't and has to really change how she does some of the skills. I see her learning new skills every day and those are the skills she really rocks on the ones she had to relearn are the ones that she can really mess up on. The only thing I see with older girls is that they have learned to fear and don't always go for it like they did when they were younger. It The fear that will get them every time.

 

[profmom]

there is such a thing as learning window for nearly everthing in humans (and animals in general). for learning to speak this is somewhere around age 0-3, for learning complex movement patterns like sport specific skills or developing individual speed to maximum potential this is somehwere around 8 to 12, definitly before puberty hits. of course you can learn everything still later on, but not as easy and fast as in these 'golden learning age' for movements. add higher bodyweight and more height and there you go: really complicated things have to be mastered before puberty to get really ingrained which is essential in sports performance.

Is there any good scientific research on the "golden age" for learning kinetic skills? If so, it would seem logical that athletes in a lot of different sports would peak around the same time -- shortly after puberty -- with guys peaking just a little later than gals because on average they reach and complete puberty about a year later. Yet this isn't what we see. That leads me to think it may be a combination of biological and cultural factors.

(I find this generally interesting, but personally interesting as well, as all of my offspring seem destined to be late bloomers -- oldest DS is not even a Tanner 2 at age 14.5.)

 

[GymGirl's Mom]

Is there any good scientific research on the "golden age" for learning kinetic skills? If so, it would seem logical that athletes in a lot of different sports would peak around the same time -- shortly after puberty -- with guys peaking just a little later than gals because on average they reach and complete puberty about a year later. Yet this isn't what we see. That leads me to think it may be a combination of biological and cultural factors.

(I find this generally interesting, but personally interesting as well, as all of my offspring seem destined to be late bloomers -- oldest DS is not even a Tanner 2 at age 14.5.)

It's one theory of development- not the only theory of development. This theory would draw from Piaget. I do not believe in "hard and fast" critical windows of development- it's very fatalistic, and can create self fulfilling prophecies.

Interesting article I found. Not about gymnastics, but about development. I hear what you are saying about it's easier to teach them young/before puberty- I suspect that's due to the "fearlessness" that many young children have that tends to "go away" as they age. Also- younger kids are smaller, easier to spot, easier to physically/manually manipulate into shapes and skills a 50 lb 4 ft tall kid than it is a 110 pound 5 ft tall kid.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/teenbrain/science/firstyears.html

 

[gymgymgymnast08]

Surly you can spot and shape an over shoot better with a small 12 year old compared to a college age/size gymnast when learning from scratch.

You are certainly correct. I went to a gym that didn't ever spot. Actually, most of the skills I taught myself by chucking them at open gym. **** I don't recommend this to anyone! In hindsight, it was very unsafe and I should not have done it.

I struggled a lot with form and shape so I think that goes back to me never being spotted/teaching myself skills.

So with all of that, I guess that proves that kids should learn shape before puberty when they can still be easily spotted through every skill. If you have the shape, shouldn't it be easier to learn skills later anyway?

 

[Fliptwisttumble]

Thank you everyone for your replies. It was an interesting concept when I initially had the discussion, and as I've mulled it over for the last month or so, I came to realize that it did make sense to me as a "unlearned" in the subject, but wanted to get others' opinions.