Holding kids back a level to win?

[All Chalked Up]

Half rage, half question.
There's a club around here whose girls are spectacular gymnasts! Always on the podium. All the bonuses for our level, very clean skills, etc. I went for a camp sort of thing awhile ago, and these girls are doing BHS-BHS and standing back tucks on beam, tsuks and front-fronts on vault, flyaway fulls and giants on bars and front-to-back with a layed out full at the end. All of which are level 4 skills, and we compete level 2.

It just makes me angry to see this because in my opinion, I don't think it's fair at all! Is it normal for clubs to do this? I can see this happening if they were in level 3, but they're level 2.

 

[wallinbl]

There are a few gyms around this state that get accused of it in the general gossip that goes around (accusations from both parents and coaches). I don't have any specific knowledge of it happening.

You don't think what you saw was a normal outcome of uptraining? DD will compete L5 for the first time in fall, but can do the L6 skills and some of the L7 skills. Even at a pace of one year/level, she'll end up having skills for levels above where she is. I assumed that was somewhat normal.

 

[skschlag]

My ds is repeating a level, and is doing well. I am sure some people may think that we did it for "winning" but in reality, he was missing just enough basics that repeating the level made sense. These were basics that are goign to affect him for the rest of his gymnastics levels (handstands on pbars and swings in general on high bar and rings.) He has just about all the skills for 6, some for 7, and mostly practices those now.

I know that I have heard of this, but I also think that it may just look that way sometimes.

 

[hawaii_gymnast]

Same thing happens here. Mostly in qualifying meets (zones, trials, and then provincials because they qualified for that level). I have seen meets where there are national girls and pre novice competing P2-P3. First off its not fair to those who worked really hard to get there and get those skills. And second of all, it must get boring. Competing skills from so long ago? A coach from another gym told mine that she should have put me down a level so I could make a team, but I did very well at my level and would have qualified if it weren't for the others who competed down a level.
I generally find it is the coaches pushing this, but sometimes the girls too. I understand uptraining, but seriously, if they are doing skills for 2 levels up the ones for the level in between must be very nice already.

 

[Kiwi]

I've heard rumours of this here too. There is not much uptraining in our gym for the STEPs girls, they train the skills for the step and then compete the step. It does mean a bit of a scramble to get the new skills competition-ready in time.

 

[Aussie_coach]

In Australia that is normal and it is considered smart coaching. Gymnasts should not be competing skills they learned last week, their skills should be absolutely solid.

Ideally and gymnasts should be near perfect at the skills for their level. They should have mastered the vast majority of the skills for one level above and be perfecting them ready for the next season and be working skills two levels above.

The question is, is this coach holding these girls back so they will win or are other coaches competing kids too early on skills they are not ready for. I am always shocked when I read on here that a kid still needs a spot for a skill at competition, or a kid scratches bars because she doesn't have her skills for that level, I am even more shocked when I read of kids always moving up with most of their skills. That would never happen here, you have everything to an excellent standard or you don;t move up.

 

[gymgal]

We see this here with one or two gyms routinely. The girls always win the top spots with scores in the 38+ range when the next highest ones are low 37's or below. These coaches just have a different philosophy - one that enforces perfecting skills before competing them. Having seen their uptraining skills in action, there is no doubt these girls would do well 2 levels above where they are but the coaches want the high scores and no mistakes. And while the coaches have every right to do that, I just wish the playing field was a little more level - either everyone coaches this way or no one... It's frustrating for other girls to attempt to compete against this type of perfection.

 

[gymmomof1]

Yes, for what every reason there seem to be teams that are capable of competing at a much more difficult level but stay at the lower level. Frustrating for sure since you know how hard you work and are competing at a level that is just right for you only to be blown away by those who could be at a harder level AND even do well . I personally just don't get it.

 

[DND]

Same thing happens here. Mostly in qualifying meets (zones, trials, and then provincials because they qualified for that level). I have seen meets where there are national girls and pre novice competing P2-P3. First off its not fair to those who worked really hard to get there and get those skills. And second of all, it must get boring. Competing skills from so long ago? A coach from another gym told mine that she should have put me down a level so I could make a team, but I did very well at my level and would have qualified if it weren't for the others who competed down a level.
I generally find it is the coaches pushing this, but sometimes the girls too. I understand uptraining, but seriously, if they are doing skills for 2 levels up the ones for the level in between must be very nice already.

Is there not rules in place that you also can only train "X" number of hours that is equivalent to the group you are with? In our gym the provincial girls only train 12 - 16 hours a week where the national girls all train near or about 25hours.

I guess there would be no way to know or enforce such a rule and you have to go with the honour system.

I am glad that I have tried to teach my DD that in the end she only has to compete against herself and have fun. I can't imagine any sense of accomplishment in being on a podium when you have not competed against your peers.

 

[twoofthem]

I know of a few gyms around here that do this with the compulsory lvls, especially lvl 4. They will train lvl 4 for one year and compete it the next. Of course their scores are pretty solid because of this. Our gym doesn't do this and rarely holds kids back. We have one girl who did not qualify for states that will repeat lvl 4 next year but that's it. My oldest is a lvl 7 and they got a new girl on her team that is a 3rd year lvl 7 who should be a lvl 8. I know it's been a little hard for the girls on my dd team to be out scored by so much since all of these girls have moved up one lvl a year as a group. This new girl is a great gymnasts and many of us wonder why she isn't an 8. She has started to work out with the 8's a couple days a week.

 

[All Chalked Up]

Most of the girls that repeated are Atlantic and Provincial champions.

And when I said they were walking on their P4 skills, I meant they had their P4 skills PERFECT. I couldn't see a flaw. They're holding back these kids to WIN. I can see uptraining the next level, maybe even the next level up on certain events, but not flawless, two-levels-up skills.

It just makes me so mad. I work HARD to get where I am and succeed. I've only been in gymnastics for three years, so I have to work my butt off to have a chance. When the girls I compete against could easily go National level but are competing the middle level, it drives me crazy! I have nothing against them but it makes me mad.

Thanks for letting me rant and answering my questions.

EDIT: I do have the last laugh sometimes though: I always come top ten and always place on at least two events! That's where the hard work and my drive to be the best comes through. I think two girls went up a level after the first meet anyway.

 

[hawaii_gymnast]

Is there not rules in place that you also can only train "X" number of hours that is equivalent to the group you are with? In our gym the provincial girls only train 12 - 16 hours a week where the national girls all train near or about 25hours.

I guess there would be no way to know or enforce such a rule and you have to go with the honour system.

I am glad that I have tried to teach my DD that in the end she only has to compete against herself and have fun. I can't imagine any sense of accomplishment in being on a podium when you have not competed against your peers.

No rule here. Only rule is that once you compete at a sanctioned meet that season (season before doesn't count) you cannot move down from that level at any other sanctioned meet. Invitationals are totally different you could compete what ever you want at inivitationals and then move down for sanctioned meets. It is really unfair.

 

[xstitchcarina]

With us in Holland I think it used to happen somewhat. But they put a stop to that now. They national gymnastics union has made a chart. This chart has got all the divisions, levels and ages on it. If you win a medal in the highest competition possible of a season, you have to move up a division, in other words, level. And if you score more than a certain amount of points in any of the competitions you compete in one season, you have to move up too. There is also a voluntary amount of points, and than that is up to the trainer/coach to say, if he/she knows that the girl can handle a higher level. So since this season there is less chance of it happening, that girls stay in a level they shouldn't be.

 

[gymgal]

With us in Holland I think it used to happen somewhat. But they put a stop to that now. They national gymnastics union has made a chart. This chart has got all the divisions, levels and ages on it. If you win a medal in the highest competition possible of a season, you have to move up a division, in other words, level. And if you score more than a certain amount of points in any of the competitions you compete in one season, you have to move up too.

At first I thought this type of policy would be really unfair to those girls who score really well in one level but do not have the skills for the next level. But I suppose if the qualifying scores were high enough, like a 37, this wouldn't affect many girls.

This would solve the "repeating levels" gyms but it still doesn't address the gyms that purposely delay the girls' introduction to competition until they are already performing above level. These girls are always 1-2 levels above their playing field. No real way to police it unless there are two different score divisions set at the beginning of the season.


Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[beamer]

There is an interesting article on this subject (from the US point of view...I realize the OP is Canadian) on the Gymnastics Zone website called "The Unethical Practice of Competitive Sandbagging".

Holding gymnasts back for meet wins and high scores does happen, but probably not as much as parents/gymnasts suspect. I'm sure, for most gyms, there is a fine line between holding gymnasts back a level in order that they achieve a desired/expected level of competency while also advancing them for the sake of progression, motivation to continue, etc.

The current compulsory-level (the only area in which I am even vaguely knowledgeable) mobility score of 31 is not a true reflection of adequate skills to move to the next level, but rather is more of an indicator of basic competency. Not many gyms, from what I have seen, use this score for move-ups unless they have athletes trying to score out of levels.

The problem with the current system is that USAG has set a mobility minimum without setting a maximum. This works okay for the gymnasts at the lower-scoring end (you don't score a 31, you don't move) and the ones at the higher end (i.e. most -- but not all --gyms will send athletes making 36s and above to the next level in a new competitive season.

It doesn't really work for the kids in the middle (32-35) and, really, this is where the vast majority of gymnasts fall. For this group, mobility seems to be at the whim of the clubs, all of which have wildly varying standards of what, exactly, constitutes a gymnast ready to move to the next level. The least USAG could do for this group is ensure they are not competing against repeat-a-level sandbaggers. So why not set a mandatory move-up score (for the sake of argument: maybe 36 achieved at at least two meets?) to alleviate this problem?

I know it is not simple to make a change like this and that there are attendant issues to consider -- gym autonomy, skills progression (lack thereof?), and individual needs of gymnasts, for example. But it seems like a mandatory move-up score would answer more questions than it would create. There would also be the added bonus (!!) of eliminating just a bit of the move-up angst that regularly plagues coaches, gymnasts and parents.

Does someone have a definitive answer as to why there is no mandatory move-up score??

 

[wallinbl]

Does someone have a definitive answer as to why there is no mandatory move-up score??

Two 36's and no kip does not a Level 5 make.

 

[Esoteric]

My dd had her first competitive season this past fall as a level 4. She did exceptionally well with scores and placements. She is spending this spring season as a 4 again. At her first "spring" meet a couple weeks ago I had a parent from another club ask me why she was repeating, and that it didn't seem fair because her dd is always competing against mine. This parent was not being catty, just genuinely curious. I explained that the coaches though dd could benefit from a couple more months at level 4 and left it at that.

Behind the scenes, it turns out dd was wanted by level 5 coach to move up a few months ago, but current coach was concerned about shoulder flexibility and getting into wrong tumbling habits, (which could potentially lead to injury,) if it wasn't addressed prior to moving up. It didn't matter her AA scores are high and that she "has" the necessary skills. Coach made a gymnast specific decision based on safety. People don't always know what the background is, especially if things appear a certain way.

 

[gymgal]

Two 36's and no kip does not a Level 5 make.

True, but that doesn't mean she should be allowed to compete 4 again. Personally I would go for a higher AA, like 37. Very few 37s would not be able to move on. Or they could have two divisions in the lower levels: 1st years and repeat years. Or create restrictions for medaling for the repeaters. There are lots if possible options to correct this. The powers-that-be obviously dont think its a big enough issue to change it.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk

 

[Esoteric]

True, but that doesn't mean she should be allowed to compete 4 again. Personally I would go for a higher AA, like 37. Very few 37s would not be able to move on.

My dd had 9 meets last fall season- every AA except for the 1st was above 37. She was not ready to move to level 5 due to an issue that had nothing to do with level 4 AA scores.

 

[gymgal]

My dd had 9 meets last fall season- every AA except for the 1st was above 37. She was not ready to move to level 5 due to an issue that had nothing to do with level 4 AA scores.

Your dd's situation is different. She is not repeating a level. She is spending the whole year in level 4, as expected for most L4s. Very few gymnasts compete different levels in the same competition year. The OP's complaint is about gymnasts who repeat a full year of a particular level just to get high scores.