WAG Mobility scores raised for 2017

[gymbeam]

There is a girl in DD current gym that won nothing at level 5, she did well but couldn't win. Level 6 optionals she was all around stae champion.

Safety is important in a dangerous sport. With that said there has to be a better way of moving girls into optionals.

Just a thought and it may not be true in this case- but Level 5 and 6 are about the same so if she did full seasons of both it's almost like repeating a level so I'd expect she would do better.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

There is a girl in DD current gym that won nothing at level 5, she did well but couldn't win. Level 6 optionals she was all around stae champion.

Safety is important in a dangerous sport. With that said there has to be a better way of moving girls into optionals.

Could be that she had her "athlete maturity" growth spurt, too. This often is presented as a case against compulsories, but the thing is that levels 4/5/6 often coincide with the developmental stage where kids sort of start doing gymnastics as an athlete, for themselves, with intrinsic motivation greater than extrinsic. This results in a big jump in skill attainment, form, etc., as they are more motivated and can apply corrections quicker.

 

[raenndrops]

Just a thought and it may not be true in this case- but Level 5 and 6 are about the same so if she did full seasons of both it's almost like repeating a level so I'd expect she would do better.

Could be that she had her "athlete maturity" growth spurt, too. This often is presented as a case against compulsories, but the thing is that levels 4/5/6 often coincide with the developmental stage where kids sort of start doing gymnastics as an athlete, for themselves, with intrinsic motivation greater than extrinsic. This results in a big jump in skill attainment, form, etc., as they are more motivated and can apply corrections quicker.

Level 5 and 6 CAN be about the same, but they don't have to be.
We had 3 girls that competed L5 and L6 in the same season (gym required scoring out 2x before moving up). Took one girl 3 meets and the other two needed 4 and 5 meets.
At L5, they struggled (31.5 average). At L6, they all did so much better (33.3 average). These scores may seem low but beam falls (L5 and L6), stopping between skills on bars (L5 and L6), and sudden fear of a back tuck and flyaway (L5) in one case tend to lower the AA.
At L6, the back tuck girl was able to choreograph her floor routine to leave out the back tuck for a couple months until it came back. The other girls were able to work to their strengths on floor.
Only 1 of the 3 continued with the BWO on beam (the source of the falls). The other 2 went back to a cartwheel or dive cartwheel.
On bars, they substituted a BHC for the LHPO on high bar and flyaway girl switched to an under swing.
On vault, only 1 continued the FHS. The other 2 worked 1/2-1/2 while competing 1/2 on - repulsion off.
Their average AA scores were in L6 were about 1.8 points better and the 2 that continued with the Y team have only gotten better as repeating L6.
One competed High School Team last year. One has just retired (unless she decides to compete High School Team this year). The last one is training for L7 (or at least she will be when we go back to practice - lol).

 

[gymbeam]

I call shenanigans on the usag. If a 14 year old can video out to level 7 why should a younger child be forced to score out at all? Then you raise the score for no reason other than to hold children back. I am. Sure there are reason but I don't beleive those reason will ever be shared.

When I first heard about this I had hypothesized it's intent was part of efforts to reduce the number of girls using Xcel to circumvent compulsories. It makes sense. Requiring a 34 will increase the amount of time actually spent training level 4 hopefully to the point a lot of gyms will go ahead and dedicate themselves to actually competing 4 rather than only half-heartedly learning it well enough to meet a 31 at a mobility meet (which notoriously score higher).

I just wanted to share that theory seems to have been confirmed in the recent Region 8 minutes. Here's the link and I'll attach a screen shot of the portion of the document that states the primary discussion around raising that requirement was about Xcel.

http://region8gymnastics.org/downloads/2016-2017/Minutesjune17.pdf

 

[Amanda]

I have a question about mobility scores in general- are they just for trying to score out of a level in a single meet? If a girl competed an entire season at a level, would they need to hit the mobility score to move up to the next level? That might be a dumb question, but my dd is just starting competing! Thanks!

 

[gymbeam]

I have a question about mobility scores in general- are they just for trying to score out of a level in a single meet? If a girl competed an entire season at a level, would they need to hit the mobility score to move up to the next level? That might be a dumb question, but my dd is just starting competing! Thanks!

Yes, they would. Not a dumb question.

 

[amiandjim]

They need to hit the mobility score at least once.

 

[hearts_and_stars]

I may be way off on this, but here's my $.02 on the mobility score change...

I'm in TX and this is what I've seen over the past few years: Gymnast competes Level 4 and scores the mobility score of 31. They score out of 5 in the off season, again only needing the 31 (or an average of 7.75 on each event). TX compulsory season is in the summer; optionals season in the spring. So this gymnast who barely met the mobility score of 4 (and also likely for 5) finishes Level 4 October/November, scores out of 5 at the first opportunity in the spring and then competes either 6 or 7 (mainly depending on giants). In a competitive state like TX, a 7.75 on any event at optionals will get you creamed. Why do that to a kid just for the sake of getting them out of compulsories?

The other thing I've seen, unfortunately, is coaches who despise compulsories and 'fast-track' their kids to optionals, only to have them suffer from injury after injury because their bodies have not had the time to build the strength and flexibility needed to meet the demands of upper level gymnastics. There are a lot of gymnasts in our area who are dealing with stress fractures in their backs. I'm not sure if this is just a fluke, but I don't recall having seen so many stress fractures in the past....

I don't know if either of those factors I just mentioned factored into any of the decision-making in regards to mobility scores, but it's excruciating to watch kids who were clearly rushed through the developmental levels to get to optionals only to be injured or be attempting skills well above their ability.

 

[amiandjim]

I may be way off on this, but here's my $.02 on the mobility score change...

I'm in TX and this is what I've seen over the past few years: Gymnast competes Level 4 and scores the mobility score of 31. They score out of 5 in the off season, again only needing the 31 (or an average of 7.75 on each event). TX compulsory season is in the summer; optionals season in the spring. So this gymnast who barely met the mobility score of 4 (and also likely for 5) finishes Level 4 October/November, scores out of 5 at the first opportunity in the spring and then competes either 6 or 7 (mainly depending on giants). In a competitive state like TX, a 7.75 on any event at optionals will get you creamed. Why do that to a kid just for the sake of getting them out of compulsories?

The other thing I've seen, unfortunately, is coaches who despise compulsories and 'fast-track' their kids to optionals, only to have them suffer from injury after injury because their bodies have not had the time to build the strength and flexibility needed to meet the demands of upper level gymnastics. There are a lot of gymnasts in our area who are dealing with stress fractures in their backs. I'm not sure if this is just a fluke, but I don't recall having seen so many stress fractures in the past....

I don't know if either of those factors I just mentioned factored into any of the decision-making in regards to mobility scores, but it's excruciating to watch kids who were clearly rushed through the developmental levels to get to optionals only to be injured or be attempting skills well above their ability.

That actually makes a lot of sense! There is a VERY well known gym in our area that has multiple elites and a large group of tens who usually get scholarships but they are also known for lots injuries. They have openly stated they try to get girls through compulsories as fast as possible and I wonder if that contributes to the injuries.

 

[Ms.Pak-Man]

I think it depends on hours in the gym, and what they did before the rushing. Some gyms don't compete kids until level 4, and in this case they have had more time for skills training and conditioning. So long as progressions are followed, conditioning is optimal, and safety is paramount, it's not the "level" that contributes to injuries.

 

[hearts_and_stars]

I think it depends on hours in the gym, and what they did before the rushing. Some gyms don't compete kids until level 4, and in this case they have had more time for skills training and conditioning. So long as progressions are followed, conditioning is optimal, and safety is paramount, it's not the "level" that contributes to injuries.

Of course not. But what I've witnessed a couple of our local gyms is that kids start competing at 3, struggle because they've not had enough time for proper conditioning and flexibility training, then go to 4, meet the minimum score, go to 5, meet the minimum score there, and then jump to optionals. This is all within the span of 2-3 years. I'm not a coach and have never been a gymnast, but watching my gymmie and what she's been through, I just don't think 2-3 years from placement on team to optionals is a good idea for MOST gymnasts. Yes, there are gyms who do proper conditioning and flexibility training and have their girls prepared for optionals in that time span. I just think they are the exception and not the rule.