WAG Is this fair...or even really happening?

[LIGYMMOM]

I was recently at a competition with my DD who competes L4, and got into discussion with a few of the moms about the "power gyms" who tend to do very well and tend to always have their kids up on the podium. One of the moms had heard a theory that there are gyms that have their kids compete a level down from the level they are training and capable of, so that they win. In other words, they are held back a year in competition, but not in the gym. Is this simply "uptraining", or a tactic that is unfair? Curious to know what you all think about this.

 

[LizzieLac]

I consider it good training and a good competition experience, if it is done with the right intention. We tend to follow a similar approach, but we are by no means a "powerhouse gym." Our coach's philosophy is that he wants kids to compete at the level where they are the most competent, can have success, and NOT have to spend their training focusing on to be competent and have success. In his mind, that just puts them behind the 8 ball.

That doesn't mean that some gyms don't purposely sandbag...

 

[Fliptwisttumble]

DD does not compete all the skills in her repertoire. I think as levels increase, this is likely more and more the case. Her competition skills have had a year plus to perfect, which she is doing with her "hard skills" to compete in the future. And I have read here and have heard at our gym that girls compete at the event at which they are the least competent (ie. Level 7 bars, level 8 floor and beam, you compete Level 7). This makes complete sense to me, as they don't always improve on all equipment at the same speed.

Our gym has the same philosophy as @LizzieLac, they compete where they will be successful and have an enjoyable experience. Nothing worse than putting a kid in a level where you KNOW they'll come in 32nd before they even get there.

There is a gym near us that has a list of skills required to compete each level, and they are usually the skills of the next level up. Uptraining to some, sandbagging to others.

 

[Deleted member 15064]

When I think sandbag, I think gymnasts repeating levels, even though they did well at the previous States for that level. (On or near the podium for AA). In our area they are typically in the older age groups for their level as well (because they have repeated).

What @LizzieLac is talking about is a sweet spot I sometimes wished my gym occupied. The gyms in our area who kick *** by having girls compete down a level from training, do not repeat gymnasts, and the girls are in the younger age groups. They are just confident in their skills. To the tune of 9.5 + scores at the start of the season. Impressive.

 

[Midwestmommy]

Yes, several in our area do it. It's really fun when your kids sometimes score better than a bunch of their kids, though.... Some gyms are so crowded and popular that other than a few standouts, "space availability" can impact some kids' opportunity/training/competition level at that gym. That's one of the reasons finding the right fit for your own kid is more complicated than just looking at meet scores online. The gym with the most athletes at every level and the best 10s or elites may just lose your kid in the crowd and they won't reach even close to their full potential, or it might be the very best place for them if they are super talented or their parents have an "in" (friends with owner coaches etc).. Also keep in mind that the judging is sometimes a bit biased to various circumstances. Well, it's best for kids to just focus on their own progress as much as possible versus focusing too much on the scoring. Hopefully by higher levels these issues tend to even themselves out a bit....

 

[IreneKa]

We have a gym like that in the area. At our last L3 meet we competed against them, and they were all above 37. They keep their girls on a pre-team for 2-3 years until they know they can score 37-38. Or, if someone switches from other gyms, they always put them a level down from what they competed at their old gyms. There was one girl on their L3 team, who was at our gym last year competing old L4. This year she is at that other gym competing new 3, and scoring high. Also, I noticed that they don't repeat much after L3. I think they uptrain the next level while competing the level below, so by the next year the girls are good enough to compete the next level. Not a bad tactics I guess.

 

[2G1B]

There is a gym near us that has a list of skills required to compete each level, and they are usually the skills of the next level up. Uptraining to some, sandbagging to others.

I personally think there is a big difference between having a kid compete a level where they can be successful (read, mid 8s by beginning of the season on up to 9s by mid/late season, maybe even some 9s at the start) and what is described here. If a kid has the skills to compete a level, then IMO it IS sandbagging to have them compete below there. If a kid is starting off the season scoring 36.5+ AND they have the skills for the next level, then they should be competing that next level.

That is different than having some of the skills for the next level. I have a friend who's kid is competing level 4 and having a pretty good season so far (spring season). She already has stuff like her ROBHSBT; but she doesn't have all of the skills for level 5.

I also think that it is different if the kid has the skills for the next level at the end of the season vs starting the season with them. If they start the season ready to compete the next level then it is holding the kid back to have them compete down and it is IMO sandbagging.

 

[wallinbl]

Think about laying a good foundation for optionals. Could some gymnasts move up more quickly because they can perform the skills? Sure, but do they have those skills mechanically sound in such a way that the coaches can build the bigger, harder skills on them? I think in some of the cases where it looks like a girl is being held back, the coach knows the girl has talent and can go far in optionals, but the coach wants a solid foundation and doesn't want to rush the building blocks. Bad habits are hard to break.

 

[LIGYMMOM]

I personally think there is a big difference between having a kid compete a level where they can be successful (read, mid 8s by beginning of the season on up to 9s by mid/late season, maybe even some 9s at the start) and what is described here. If a kid has the skills to compete a level, then IMO it IS sandbagging to have them compete below there. If a kid is starting off the season scoring 36.5+ AND they have the skills for the next level, then they should be competing that next level.

That is different than having some of the skills for the next level. I have a friend who's kid is competing level 4 and having a pretty good season so far (spring season). She already has stuff like her ROBHSBT; but she doesn't have all of the skills for level 5.

I also think that it is different if the kid has the skills for the next level at the end of the season vs starting the season with them. If they start the season ready to compete the next level then it is holding the kid back to have them compete down and it is IMO sandbagging.

I completely agree with this. It's hard to tell with repeaters if they are repeating because they just didn't have all the skills for the next level (even though they did great at the current level), or if their coaches are just sandbagging, so I tend to not judge that decision. But if the philosophy is to compete their kids down a level for the purpose of winning, when they have the skills for the next level, then I think that's unethical.

 

[Bajanswife]

The thing is, someone has to come last. If all the gyms competed as low as they could get away with so that their kids were almost perfectly scored from the beginning of the season, it would end up getting ridiculous - there are only so many possible scores between 9.5 and 10 (and 37 and 40) - imagine the ties! Imagine coming last with 9.5! There would be no room for an "averagely talented" gymnast in this system either - can you imagine scoring AA of 34 when everyone else was at least 37?

I'm not sure how to make things seem more "fair" though. maybe there should be a mechanism that works the opposite of the mobility score i.e. maybe there should be forced mobility after scoring a certain AA (say 38), and coaches would have to go to the trouble of petitioning to repeat a gymnast if injury or mental blocks prevented them from being able to move up. It can't be that common for a gymnast scoring 38AA in one level to be unable to compete the next level up by the beginning of the next season. Sure, a weak event may cause low scores at first or scratching of the event, but most gymnasts who can score 38AA have the talent to advance unless they get injured and take a break from training, or have a very serious mental block/fear, in which case a successful petition should be easy. Maybe this wouldn't work as well in optionals, I don't know, but certainly it could for compulsories. Pity we even have to contemplate it, though.

 

[iwannacoach]

Is it equally possible that the training hours of these kids make it difficult to score below a 36. The compulsory routines at L5, for instance, occur in most gymnasts 3rd year of team gymnastics. If a gym has an excellent reputation, attracts numbers of littles that allow them to pick and choose, then it's likely their L4 and L5 learned all their respective compulsory skills while polishing their current level routines...... without ever repeating. It's never bothered me to see kids scoring high when they compete a level a year, but repeating kids as a standard policy really drives me crazy.

An altruistic soul may point out that a large part of a gymnast's reason for being, is to be a part of the process that takes place during a yearly training cycle. If not, then their role as a gymnast erodes as they seek out other means of enjoying the sport, like winning, having fun at practice that distracts from the team effort, and focusing on their team mate as a social network. Winning, fun, and socializing are all fine, but none of them come about gracefully unless the child wants to train from May through the end of April.

 

[Bajanswife]

Think about laying a good foundation for optionals. Could some gymnasts move up more quickly because they can perform the skills? Sure, but do they have those skills mechanically sound in such a way that the coaches can build the bigger, harder skills on them? I think in some of the cases where it looks like a girl is being held back, the coach knows the girl has talent and can go far in optionals, but the coach wants a solid foundation and doesn't want to rush the building blocks. Bad habits are hard to break.

I get that, but in compulsories you have to be so precise in the routines as well in order to score exceptionally well (especially in beam and floor), so there has to be more going on than just solid foundation. Surely a coach trying to build a solid foundation would be working mostly skills and drills, with enough routine work thrown in during meet season to be successful? They wouldn't be drilling routines over and over and over until they were darned near perfect? These gyms turning out perfect little compulsories look like they are doing mostly routines in their training or they are repeating a lot of kids (i.e. the kids have longer to perfect the routines).

I am not a coach though - these are just my layman's observations.

 

[Fliptwisttumble]

If they start the season ready to compete the next level then it is holding the kid back to have them compete down and it is IMO sandbagging.

I agree with you. Had my daughter been at that gym, she would be in a different level competition wise than she is now, and she is doing great where she is.

 

[iwannacoach]

The thing is, someone has to come last. If all the gyms competed as low as they could get away with so that their kids were almost perfectly scored from the beginning of the season, it would end up getting ridiculous - there are only so many possible scores between 9.5 and 10 (and 37 and 40) - imagine the ties! Imagine coming last with 9.5! There would be no room for an "averagely talented" gymnast in this system either - can you imagine scoring AA of 34 when everyone else was at least 37?

I'm not sure how to make things seem more "fair" though. maybe there should be a mechanism that works the opposite of the mobility score i.e. maybe there should be forced mobility after scoring a certain AA (say 38), and coaches would have to go to the trouble of petitioning to repeat a gymnast if injury or mental blocks prevented them from being able to move up. It can't be that common for a gymnast scoring 38AA in one level to be unable to compete the next level up by the beginning of the next season. Sure, a weak event may cause low scores at first or scratching of the event, but most gymnasts who can score 38AA have the talent to advance unless they get injured and take a break from training, or have a very serious mental block/fear, in which case a successful petition should be easy. Maybe this wouldn't work as well in optionals, I don't know, but certainly it could for compulsories. Pity we even have to contemplate it, though.

"And in a twenty-three way tie for 2nd place....... Suzie Martin, Suzie Jennings, Suzie Smith, Suzie Smith, Suzie..........

 

[Bajanswife]

And by the way, I'm not really talking about 36s in my posts - I am talking about the kids that start the season up in 38+ and make it all look incredibly easy. You would expect some little wonderkids doing that, but on a consistent basis from certain gyms it's not a wonderkid issue any more.

 

[wallinbl]

And by the way, I'm not really talking about 36s in my posts - I am talking about the kids that start the season up in 38+ and make it all look incredibly easy. You would expect some little wonderkids doing that, but on a consistent basis from certain gyms it's not a wonderkid issue any more.

I used to gripe about that, as DD would be beaten by a couple of ridiculously good girls from big gyms in old level 4/5, and those girls clearly looked like they were sandbagging (beautiful casts to HS, etc). Two years later, those same girls are now competing level 8. My completely outside observation is that it was probably easier to get those girls along quickly by not having them struggle to compete skills they were in the midst of learning.

While it seemed unfair at the time, I'd bet it was the best tactic to move these girls along (and these girls are really good).

 

[LIGYMMOM]

It just seems to me that there should be some sort of "checks and balances" to ensure a level playing field. Thankfully, DD is not all too concerned about placement, she just wants to do well (for herself). She admires the teams that do well and says "wow, they're good!" but it doesn't really get her down. Not sure I would want her competing at a level that is not challenging to her, even if it means being way up on that podium.

 

[Short Balding Guy]

Different tactics and business decisions are held by each gym. The OP describes a situation that does not break rules, but demonstrates a mastery of the USA Gymnastics level and competition. I see each business, gym, making decisions for their situation. If the clients (parents) agree that repeating a year as a L3-5 is valuable on the way to the next level - all is good. The reasons are numerous. Asking for more detail of decision makers in the posted situation would provide insight.

Scores, scores, scores: The discussion of scores happens frequently for me. It is as simple as three inputs for outcomes as an athlete.
(1) Reps
(2) Quality
(3) Changes (coaching/athlete/parent)
The athlete that shows mastery is usually rewarded by a higher score. It is one way to receive reward in this sport. Gyms that have more hours, quality staff and have expectations for the most show higher meet results. How to have your team do better - work the three inputs, with approval from clients, and go to competitions prepared to seek high event scores.

In our local/state (USA) gymnastics community L3-6's train a variety of hours. The ambitious gyms have more hours, quality coaches and their athletes are rewarded with high scores. Should they train more hours (reps)? - Yes that is their choice. Should they train with high quality? - Yes, as it is the nature of JO's. Should they ask for changes performed by their athletes? -Yes, without change I see the athlete not continuing to have passion for this very tough sport and becoming a soccer player.

As to working a State Meet Championship, Regional or other big meets by holding an athlete; I have seen it and have seen instances were in the long run it did not work for the athlete or gym. However, in most cases, I have asked other HC's about their rosters and they have had very good reasons for competing an athlete at a level (often lower than skills being executed/trained/mastered). It works for their situation and client.

If they score big scores, cheer big! I put this into practice at meets. No matter what team places 1st at a meet, our team stands up and cheers for the athletes on the podium.

Best, SBG -

 

[beachgirl]

A former teammate of my daughter did a couple of invitational meets ( our off season) last February and scores 35s as an old L4. Her family moved to the next county a few months later. Her new gym said that she wasn't ready for L3 and put her on their preteam for our season that goes Sept - Nov. She was just now put on the L3 team to compete in fall and now has skills like a fly away, ROBHSBT. We have seen the new gym at meets and the majority of their team has 38s. I had to explain to my DD after a meet with this team that although she didn't place as high as she would have liked, most of the girls will be L4 when she is an optional.

 

[vagymmomma]

I think this is very difficult to judge. When my DD was in the compulsory levels, I remember seeing these gyms competing unbelievable routines -- clearly with skills "above the level". It seemed unfair at the time - like they were holding the gymnast deliberately back to win at all costs. Now I've been around the sport for a few years, I find that I'm less offended by this philosophy.

As SBG said, it's completely within the rules to compete one level and train another. Just like it's within the rules for someone to compete a very basic, but sufficient routine at the optional levels. L8 and above regulates this a bit by having the "not up to level" deduction, but it's just not that big a deduction. Gymnastics is a mental as well as physical sport though (some can attest that it's a VERY mental sport), and sometimes the extra confidence that comes with winning at a lower level will serve the gymnast very well as they progress through the levels. I believe this is the primary reason for gyms that use the approach the OP outlined.

Many coaches on this blog have noted that it is wise to keep the routines as simple as possible in optionals. Don't add extra passes if you don't need them - it just means more deductions. I think measuring based on scores alone gets harder at the optional level. We have a couple level 8s that were scoring 37+s last season but they don't have the required release or dismount on bars. The new rules for Cs let's them step it up on other events and make the transition easier. Should they have moved up? I could argue either way, but I certainly don't think it wrong that they're competing.