WAG L4 mobility score

[M2Abi]

Our Level 4 team had about 20 girls. Only 2 of them did not get a 34 AA at some point during the season and we are not an easy scoring area. I think repeating Level 4 is appropriate for those that don't get a 34. Our gym's requirements are higher.

 

[2G1B]

I wouldn’t just blame the coaches for this.... more times than not it’s the parent basically demanding their child be moved up. Of course it could be poor coaching too, but parents thinking they can choose their childs levels happens way too often.

I have personally seen some coaches doing this. The parents don't really know much about what is going on; but the coaches come in and tell them how talented their kid is and want to "fast track" them. They skip kids ahead that were super stars at lower levels and really are great on two or three events; but they aren't ready (usually on bars or vault). These kids then go to their competitions at the higher levels, never having seen anything below a mid 9, to suddenly see not only 8s; but 7s and sometimes 6s. I have seen several kids quit because of being pushed ahead like this and it has absolutely come from coaches (though sometimes there is parental pressure too).

 

[sce]

We have a girl who struggled in Level 4 last season. She had a great summer. She has her BWO on beam. She has everything but a real clear hip circle. She is repeating Level 4 because we want her to have a successful season. So far, she still hasn't hit 34... but has placed as high as 2nd on bars.
She has 4-5 meets left. It will really stink if she can't move up to Level 5 for next year.

It would stink, but a 34 is an average of 8.5 per event. Any kid who is proficient at the level should be able to score that. We are in a tough scoring area and my dd who struggled at level 4 still scored above 34 more than once.

 

[sce]

Do you have the same concerns about the male gymnasts? That really makes no sense to me. Obviously a responsible coach won’t move a kid up before they can safely do skills.

I think it is a mixed bag with boys. I have seen boys in a level that looked unsafe. I have also seen boys repeat a level that they have clearly mastered. The boys now feel bound now by ta different problem, age maximums that push them up before some are ready (or push them out of the sport.)

 

[John]

Because some coaches move their gymnasts up before they are ready either for bragging rights, pride, because the parent pushes for it, whatever. It happens and it is dangerous. If you ever watched a level 8 or 9 meet with girls who clearly are not ready for that level and should not be there, and you suffer about 30 mini heartattacks minimum during the meet, you would understand the reason for a minimum score.

I personally believe it comes back to the USAG. A coach or a team that places athletes at levels where athletes do not have proficiency should receive sanctions from the USAG. The "USAG" and "ITS" regions receive money from every meet that is USAG sanctioned. Does the USAG believe it has no responsibility to police Meet safety? A representative of each region should be present at each meet, possibly judges could assume this role as well, to verify everything meets "SOME" standards. This would eliminate improper move-ups allowing Good coaches the ability to determine what is best for each athlete. Keeping athletes happy while improving in the sport is how dreams are met. All this craziness is for the athletes correct?

 

[Texasmomof3]

The closest I have gotten to having any input on my dd's level was earlier this year. Dd was coming back from stress fractures in both legs, and her coach asked me if I thought dd would prefer to plan to repeat level 7, for an easier transition back, or if I thought she was ready to push ahead to 8. I told her dd wanted to train towards 8 and they could assess if she was ready closer to comp season. But they only asked my input due to the whole returning from injury scenario, and in the end, if dd had not been safely ready for 8, she would be repeating 7 no matter what I thought.

And by safe I mean cleaning performing 10.0 start value routines on all four events at practice on a regular basis.

 

[MILgymFAM]

When we moved this summer and my DD tried her new gym she was given the option of platinum, working for L7, or simply repeating L6. She chose L6. I guess sometimes, if they can fit in multiple places, they may have a say.

 

[raenndrops]

I personally believe it comes back to the USAG. A coach or a team that places athletes at levels where athletes do not have proficiency should receive sanctions from the USAG. The "USAG" and "ITS" regions receive money from every meet that is USAG sanctioned. Does the USAG believe it has no responsibility to police Meet safety? A representative of each region should be present at each meet, possibly judges could assume this role as well, to verify everything meets "SOME" standards. This would eliminate improper move-ups allowing Good coaches the ability to determine what is best for each athlete. Keeping athletes happy while improving in the sport is how dreams are met. All this craziness is for the athletes correct?

I know that at YMCA Nationals, they have an official that is watching warm ups and can prevent a gymnast from competing a skill (or an entire event) if they deem it unsafe. The official also watches the optional practices that happen the day before (Optional levels only) and can have gymnasts remove skills at that point too.

There should be someone at (at least for big meets) each meet that does that.

 

[3rd_time_around]

Level 8 and 9 meets are the epitome of scariness, and trust me when I say that many coaches move the kids up before they can safely do skills. I have had heart palpitations watching these levels at meets, as the bile gathers in my throat. Also, don't forget, because of adrenaline, weird crap can happen at this level, and girls fully capable of doing a routine can have issues, freak out, etc. I do think the coaches *think* they know what they are doing....but when the girls are obviously not ready (I am not going to go into details about how obvious it is, but believe me when I say it IS obvious), it is truly scary.

Thank you for articulating it so well. That's what I was trying to say.

 

[Natasha]

Unfortunately there are coaches that move kids up (either due to pressure from parents or just their own judgement) before they are really ready which is why the score needed to be increased. Under the old 31 requirement, it was possible for kids to get to optionals without solid and safe basics and I think with the invention of the new L6, this has become an even bigger issue. While I understand that when you are the parent of a kid having to deal with the pressure and nerves at L4 the frustration of knowing that *if only* they would hit their routines they would score out, the reality is that dealing with the nerves of competition is all part of the whole journey and compulsories is a good and safe place to learn this lesson. A gymnast who hasn't learned how to deal with nerves and pressure situations AND doesn't have solid skills is a terrifying thing to watch in Optionals. A 34 just really is not a very strict requirement and for those who are capable but just can't pull it together in a meet due to nerves may benefit from another year of 4 to gain more experience and confidence.

 

[Seeker]

Level 8 and 9 meets are the epitome of scariness, and trust me when I say that many coaches move the kids up before they can safely do skills. I have had heart palpitations watching these levels at meets, as the bile gathers in my throat. Also, don't forget, because of adrenaline, weird crap can happen at this level, and girls fully capable of doing a routine can have issues, freak out, etc. I do think the coaches *think* they know what they are doing....but when the girls are obviously not ready (I am not going to go into details about how obvious it is, but believe me when I say it IS obvious), it is truly scary.

Thank you for articulating it so well. That's what I was trying to say.

I can not stress this enough. I have seen so many near misses and terrifying examples of this and unfortunately a few pretty significant injuries during meets. I have seen a judge step in once when warmups were downright frightening and the gymnast was clearly injured, but that is not a common thing.

Anyone who has been at a handful of L9 and 10 sessions has likely seen this happen. The ability to do these skills safely develops over time. It also takes a level of confidence and surety in themselves that cannot be rushed. The time spent in the compulsory levels is so, SO important. Please don’t feel the need to pressure or rush your kids.

 

[John]

I think speaking of scoring out of level 4 to scary level 8 or 9 meet is a long reach at best. You score out of level 4 to reach level 5. Level 5 is more advanced then level 4 and being in level 5 or even 6 could allow a bored compulsory gymnast the option to stay in the sport.

 

[duyetanh]

I think speaking of scoring out of level 4 to scary level 8 or 9 meet is a long reach at best. You score out of level 4 to reach level 5. Level 5 is more advanced then level 4 and being in level 5 or even 6 could allow a bored compulsory gymnast the option to stay in the sport.

(disclaimer: this was not my child, she did not have score out requirements at her gym, thus had none of this type of stress)

I get what you are saying, but honestly, 4 is where all the fears truly start and the mental **** at least looks at the fan for many gymnasts. High bar, cartwheel on beam, two bhs, a vault TABLE....omg...you mean all of a sudden you have to run like hell and HUCK yourself at a table and hope you get over?!

I have seen very scary level 4 meets also...and the jump from 4 to 5 is such a scary jump.....all of a sudden you have flips on two apparatuses, and are doing a complete mindscrew-of-a-backwards-skill-on-beam that shall not be named, but continues to haunt gymnasts in the future. The sport is (just imho, more mental than physical. You could be in Simone Biles shape. Doesn't mean poop if you are Jello pudding in the mindset. I feel the sport has tiers in terms of the drop offs. There are tiers in ages (meaning when girls quit-think 12/13 yrs old in summer), and tiers in levels. Between 4 and 5 is one tier; between 8 and 9 is another. And I fully believe that while they are both rough places, the tier for 4 and 5 is a rougher one because (again imho) it is the FIRST one (I am in no way shape or form saying a flyaway is harder than a bail!!!). Level 5 is when gymnastics really begins to get, er, 'interesting.' We know of many girls who repeat level 8 and are fine with it, because they get it, have gone through the first tier, been in the trenches, and know that it is better to repeat than it is to risk a career ending injury due to being unprepared mentally/physically. But there is a lot of pressure on level 4s to not repeat, because their peers might be moving on, the gym might push those repeaters to xcel when they want to be in J.O., they have seen others have to repeat and those might have or got less coaching, etc, etc. Level 4s know that they are getting close to the 'carrot' of gymnastics, if you will...the flippy things....and the stress those girls put themselves under can be unbelievable. And for many, this stress will create their first 'blocks,' and how they learn to deal with them will determine whether or not they continue in the sport.

Sorry for the rambling (on cold medicine and am wired). But I feel it's a valid comparison.

 

[3rd_time_around]

I think speaking of scoring out of level 4 to scary level 8 or 9 meet is a long reach at best. You score out of level 4 to reach level 5. Level 5 is more advanced then level 4 and being in level 5 or even 6 could allow a bored compulsory gymnast the option to stay in the sport.

The point being made that you were commenting on is not comparing scoring out of 4 to 5 to scary level 8/9 meets. The point was that there are coaches who rush kids through compulsories for whatever reason, even if they aren't competent at level 4/5. The posts about scary gymnastics was in reference to someone not believing that coaches will move up gymnasts that should not be moved up. They were in no way saying that scoring out of 4 equates to scary level 8 meets.

 

[mommyof1]

I am definitely not worried about a rush to L8/L9 with my kid. Her gym moves them up very, very slowly; most of the L7s are in high school. What I am worried about is a kid who was doing very well and talking about trying for L6 next year until she got her first set of scores, then decided she was no good because she didn't qualify for states and score out of L4 at the in-house meet and then started performing poorly at meets to prove it. And half her team seems to be in the same boat, so it's not just her. That is why I think the 34 requirement is counterproductive. Yes, I know the sport is 90% mental, but the mental challenges should be about the skills and not some stupid score. When it was all about the skills during summer training she was coping just fine.

 

[profmom]

I personally believe it comes back to the USAG. A coach or a team that places athletes at levels where athletes do not have proficiency should receive sanctions from the USAG. The "USAG" and "ITS" regions receive money from every meet that is USAG sanctioned. Does the USAG believe it has no responsibility to police Meet safety? A representative of each region should be present at each meet, possibly judges could assume this role as well, to verify everything meets "SOME" standards. This would eliminate improper move-ups allowing Good coaches the ability to determine what is best for each athlete. Keeping athletes happy while improving in the sport is how dreams are met. All this craziness is for the athletes correct?

USAG as an institution does not have anything close to the capacity to do what you suggest. Do you have any idea how many sanctioned meets there are just this weekend all across the country? It must rely on its members to set and enforce norms. The only power it has is to establish rules that will incentivize good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. Setting a higher move up score for certain levels sends a message -- take particular note of where they've put those 34s. Even then, some gyms will play games to work around these standards with cupcake in-house meets if they are hell bent on advancing girls who are not fully proficient.

I suppose USAG could establish a rule that a judge has discretion to award a score of 0 for an "unsafe exercise." Maybe there even is such a rule somewhere on the books already, but the challenge then would be that coaches would demand criteria and a threshold and I think most judges would be unwilling to use it because of the blowback. At many meets even in the current system, judges will set some kind of floor for their event scores, and will not use the bottom of the range to distinguish between a routine that had a lot of mistakes and one in which the gymnast was clearly competing above her capabilities.

USAG isn't separate from the coaches and owners who make it up. And one of the most frightening things I have ever seen in this sport was a whole squad of tiny L9 girls doing vaults that they were in no way ready to do. One after another, they crashed, and were sent off by their coach to cry in shame. Their team? One that has had many national team members.

We -- the parents, the coaches, and the athletes -- need to disinvest in the win/advance at any cost mentality if we want to see sensible advancement and safe gymnastics.

 

[John]

USAG as an institution does not have anything close to the capacity to do what you suggest. Do you have any idea how many sanctioned meets there are just this weekend all across the country? It must rely on its members to set and enforce norms. The only power it has is to establish rules that will incentivize good behavior and disincentivize bad behavior. Setting a higher move up score for certain levels sends a message -- take particular note of where they've put those 34s. Even then, some gyms will play games to work around these standards with cupcake in-house meets if they are hell bent on advancing girls who are not fully proficient.

I suppose USAG could establish a rule that a judge has discretion to award a score of 0 for an "unsafe exercise." Maybe there even is such a rule somewhere on the books already, but the challenge then would be that coaches would demand criteria and a threshold and I think most judges would be unwilling to use it because of the blowback. At many meets even in the current system, judges will set some kind of floor for their event scores, and will not use the bottom of the range to distinguish between a routine that had a lot of mistakes and one in which the gymnast was clearly competing above her capabilities.

USAG isn't separate from the coaches and owners who make it up. And one of the most frightening things I have ever seen in this sport was a whole squad of tiny L9 girls doing vaults that they were in no way ready to do. One after another, they crashed, and were sent off by their coach to cry in shame. Their team? One that has had many national team members.

We -- the parents, the coaches, and the athletes -- need to disinvest in the win/advance at any cost mentality if we want to see sensible advancement and safe gymnastics.

Coming from USAIGC, at a meet, our gym had a few girls training above the comfort level. Some ugly rotations were witnessed by the state head judge. We were told, by our coaches, skills had to be cleaned or stopped or the head judge would have the gym's USAIGC sanction removed.

The point being made that you were commenting on is not comparing scoring out of 4 to 5 to scary level 8/9 meets. The point was that there are coaches who rush kids through compulsories for whatever reason, even if they aren't competent at level 4/5. The posts about scary gymnastics was in reference to someone not believing that coaches will move up gymnasts that should not be moved up. They were in no way saying that scoring out of 4 equates to scary level 8 meets.

Coaches who risk the health of an athlete should be removed from the USAG. How is this different from abuse?

(disclaimer: this was not my child, she did not have score out requirements at her gym, thus had none of this type of stress)

I get what you are saying, but honestly, 4 is where all the fears truly start and the mental **** at least looks at the fan for many gymnasts. High bar, cartwheel on beam, two bhs, a vault TABLE....omg...you mean all of a sudden you have to run like hell and HUCK yourself at a table and hope you get over?!

I have seen very scary level 4 meets also...and the jump from 4 to 5 is such a scary jump.....all of a sudden you have flips on two apparatuses, and are doing a complete mindscrew-of-a-backwards-skill-on-beam that shall not be named, but continues to haunt gymnasts in the future. The sport is (just imho, more mental than physical. You could be in Simone Biles shape. Doesn't mean poop if you are Jello pudding in the mindset. I feel the sport has tiers in terms of the drop offs. There are tiers in ages (meaning when girls quit-think 12/13 yrs old in summer), and tiers in levels. Between 4 and 5 is one tier; between 8 and 9 is another. And I fully believe that while they are both rough places, the tier for 4 and 5 is a rougher one because (again imho) it is the FIRST one (I am in no way shape or form saying a flyaway is harder than a bail!!!). Level 5 is when gymnastics really begins to get, er, 'interesting.' We know of many girls who repeat level 8 and are fine with it, because they get it, have gone through the first tier, been in the trenches, and know that it is better to repeat than it is to risk a career ending injury due to being unprepared mentally/physically. But there is a lot of pressure on level 4s to not repeat, because their peers might be moving on, the gym might push those repeaters to xcel when they want to be in J.O., they have seen others have to repeat and those might have or got less coaching, etc, etc. Level 4s know that they are getting close to the 'carrot' of gymnastics, if you will...the flippy things....and the stress those girls put themselves under can be unbelievable. And for many, this stress will create their first 'blocks,' and how they learn to deal with them will determine whether or not they continue in the sport.

Sorry for the rambling (on cold medicine and am wired). But I feel it's a valid comparison.

Agree with this. Level 5 is what a young person can equate to what they watch on Television. With that said as a parent, I would prefer my DD to be a level 6 versus level 5 as it seems being able to build routines around her stronger skills leads to safer gymnastics. I would also be interested in a true matrix on the reasons girls retire. My feeling is Fear and Blocks that aren't overcome. Love of something is usually not lost overnight.

 

[profmom]

I don't want to start a big debate about USAIGC versus USAG, but for many reasons, the comparison is not apples to apples.

On 5 versus 6, my kids' gym does L5 and then, if a girl has good bar and beam skills, skips L6. The thing about L5 is that, even though the scoring can be unforgiving, there is no going around or avoiding the compulsory skills with which so many girls struggle if a girl wants to get beyond L7 and continue progressing. I know there are a handful of athletes and coaches who can design and pull off routines for upper optionals that don't involve strong casting skills on bars and backwards stuff on beam, but it's hard to do.

On departure from gymnastics, keep in mind that most US kids leave most club sports by around middle school age. Girls and boys leave gym for a lot of reasons. I thought CoachP's rundown on retention posted a few months ago really resonated with what I've seen. Gymnastics is a very difficult sport and it's not one that lends itself to stasis. Very few athletes are happy to reach a particular skill set/level and then just hang out there and assimilate the small improvements that come naturally with additional size and time doing the sport, a phenomenon one can see in other sports. I don't know if anyone has ever done a good study on it, but I'd hypothesize that most departures are due to slowed progress reinforced by reaching an age where school and other interests reduce the desire to invest fully in the hard work of progressing. Everyone sees the kid who has to leave after a major back injury or the very talented gymnast who struggles visibly with backwards stuff on beam and ends up quitting, but people tend not to notice as much the ones who just can't quite seem to nail down the skills for the next level, start missing practice more frequently, then maybe get injured because of poor conditioning, and then decide to stop.

I do not think it is at all a bad thing for kids to leave competitive gymnastics before they hit the teenage years or in the early teenage years. Gym is a special animal, and it takes a special kind of wiring for a child to be able to put up with the frustration and the sheer drudgery, especially when they hit the age where they are starting to grow rapidly and skills come much more slowly. If it's not bringing them happiness or at least some hope of happiness, there's no virtue in keeping on going more or less by rote.

 

[duyetanh]

I don't want to start a big debate about USAIGC versus USAG, but for many reasons, the comparison is not apples to apples.

On 5 versus 6, my kids' gym does L5 and then, if a girl has good bar and beam skills, skips L6. The thing about L5 is that, even though the scoring can be unforgiving, there is no going around or avoiding the compulsory skills with which so many girls struggle if a girl wants to get beyond L7 and continue progressing. I know there are a handful of athletes and coaches who can design and pull off routines for upper optionals that don't involve strong casting skills on bars and backwards stuff on beam, but it's hard to do.

On departure from gymnastics, keep in mind that most US kids leave most club sports by around middle school age. Girls and boys leave gym for a lot of reasons. I thought CoachP's rundown on retention posted a few months ago really resonated with what I've seen. Gymnastics is a very difficult sport and it's not one that lends itself to stasis. Very few athletes are happy to reach a particular skill set/level and then just hang out there and assimilate the small improvements that come naturally with additional size and time doing the sport, a phenomenon one can see in other sports. I don't know if anyone has ever done a good study on it, but I'd hypothesize that most departures are due to slowed progress reinforced by reaching an age where school and other interests reduce the desire to invest fully in the hard work of progressing. Everyone sees the kid who has to leave after a major back injury or the very talented gymnast who struggles visibly with backwards stuff on beam and ends up quitting, but people tend not to notice as much the ones who just can't quite seem to nail down the skills for the next level, start missing practice more frequently, then maybe get injured because of poor conditioning, and then decide to stop.

I do not think it is at all a bad thing for kids to leave competitive gymnastics before they hit the teenage years or in the early teenage years. Gym is a special animal, and it takes a special kind of wiring for a child to be able to put up with the frustration and the sheer drudgery, especially when they hit the age where they are starting to grow rapidly and skills come much more slowly. If it's not bringing them happiness or at least some hope of happiness, there's no virtue in keeping on going more or less by rote.

Well said!

 

[John]

Yes, your thoughts on retirement are nicely thought out. I would love to hear others thoughts.

I will stand by my opinion that the gyms and the USAG as a whole, as well as USAG state and regions, profit from our athletes. Because the USAG chooses to take money from participants it is the duty of the USAG and coaches to protect their athletes, at every level and at all involvement levels. You can interpret this protection in any way you chose fit. I chose to identify protection in terms of safety and the desire to keep athletes in the sport and happy for as long as possible.

In the Region we reside the USAG Region office gets $2.00 per gymnast per meet. The State USAG office receives $1.00 per gymnast per meet. I count 41 meets within our state.