Coaches Requiring skills that aren't required

[CoachTodd]

OK, I've seen it in many posts and I see it all around in the sport.
Why do folks have requirements for skills to compete a certain level that aren't required for that level?

Example:
"Little Sue has to have her giants to compete level 7"
I've had several kids do level 7 without giants and do quite well. It would be nice to have the giants first but it isn't required.

The craziest one (IMO) that I've ever heard was when a girl came to our gym to do level 4 because her old gym wouldn't let them do level 4 unless they had their back tuck on floor.

I can see the need to have the next level skill while you are competing your current level but I can't see requiring them.

Thanks,

 

[gymjourneymom]

OK, I've seen it in many posts and I see it all around in the sport.
Why do folks have requirements for skills to compete a certain level that aren't required for that level?

Example:
"Little Sue has to have her giants to compete level 7"
I've had several kids do level 7 without giants and do quite well. It would be nice to have the giants first but it isn't required.

The craziest one (IMO) that I've ever heard was when a girl came to our gym to do level 4 because her old gym wouldn't let them do level 4 unless they had their back tuck on floor.

I can see the need to have the next level skill while you are competing your current level but I can't see requiring them.

Thanks,

I ask myself that everyday! Will you be my DD's coach??? You can just call her "Little Sue".

 

[gymnut29]

I agree...I can understand training for the next level and having most of those skills, but why does a level 4 need a back tuck, some are natural at tumbling and will get it easily but requiring thats crazy.

I have heard the giants in level 7 more, I guess some coaches think they will score better, I dont see it. I see the need to be training them but until they are consistent and good it makes sense to compete other skills, ie clear hip circles which should have been mastered in level 6.

In our gym girls are required to be training the next level, with a lot of them having a few skills for 2 levels up if they are good on one event but once they have all the new skills they move up no matter what.

Coaches who require otherwise tend to be looking for winning scores. Its like requiring a kid to get a 37AA before moving to another level...silly!

 

[gymdog]

The back tuck on floor thing is crazy.

Here, it is really because they aren't competitive without giants. But it depends on the goals of the gym, obviously. Any gym that wants to consistently place on bars, especially in the biggest age groups, is going to require giants. Some gyms have different goals or a way to the end. That's fine.

Where I grew up, it was definitely the former. Where I'm working now, we're somewhere in between the former and the latter. A little more flexible. But on the other hand, we are planning a strong campaign of giants for 7. Especially with new cast handstand requirement.

I will say, it would not be my preference to compete a kid at USAG 7 with two horizontal clear hips, unless they are super strong on every other event.

 

[coachmolly]

This is somewhat of a sore subject for me and I really think some coaches can stand to be much more flexible than they actually are. So many are stuck on 1 set of skills for all gymnasts, especially optionals, that they don't consider individual abilities. Optionals allow gymnasts to cater their routines to their own strengths (with some limitations) and it's unfortunate when coaches extreme requirements dictate otherwise.
Giants are becoming more needed at level 7 with the new rules, but some girls can score just fine without them. If a girl is close and has all the other skills, there is NO reason she should compete level 6 again. I've seen girls get as high as level 9 with no giants. Of course their scores on bars aren't as high, but they score high enough on the other 3 events to make up for it. They aren't regional or national champions, but they are continuing to progress and don't feel "stuck" because of one weak area.
One gym I trained at required a tick tock-bwo series on beam for level 7 for EVERY girl. It was certainly a cool, less used idea and great for the girls who could master it, but I think you can be plenty successful as an optional gymnast without ever being able to do a tick tock on beam. Keeping a girl back at level 6 for her inability to do a tick tock on beam is ridiculous to me. Giants at least make a little more sense.
For compulsories, if a girl can do the skills in the routines safely and at least relatively cleanly, I don't see a reason to hold her back. If at the optional level a girl has skills that meet all of the requirements, I say move them along. I really think coaches need to show more flexibility in the composition of routines.
That being said, the gym I currently coach at is moving girls up to team who cannot do even a fraction of the skills needed (level 4s with NONE of the skills for bars, no tumbling on floor, etc.) and that is just as ridiculous to me. But that doesn't seem to be the problem for most of the gyms mentioned on this board.

 

[gymdog]

One gym I trained at required a tick tock-bwo series on beam for level 7 for EVERY girl. It was certainly a cool, less used idea and great for the girls who could master it, but I think you can be plenty successful as an optional gymnast without ever being able to do a tick tock on beam.

We didn't have to do this as a series. But it was part of our complex, and I recall needing it to move into a higher group at some point...maybe when I moved from 6 to 7. I can remember getting it on the high beam around the time I had BHS. Handstand forward roll also.

I don't generally like to get into absolutes, but having seen several programs...I kind of disagree about needing these things. This is a basic skill. I honestly can say I think i would have progressed nowhere with series without being proficient at those basics. It was difficult for me - I have scoliosis, not great range in my shoulders, and hip flexors not good either - but once I mastered it, and when i worked on it everyday, it helped my alignment and ability tremendously. Again gyms have different goals. But if your goal is to be one of the strongest optional programs, these basics are almost non-negotiable to me. I saw a presentation by Tammy Biggs, talking about complexes and not enough basics like this. I often agree - I see kids who can't get to forced arch fast enough, they won't be able to flip series well, lots of poor alignment, not hitting the handstands fast enough, not strong through the shoulders.

I feel the same way about giants. If you want strong level 10s, this is a very, very basic skill from that perspective. It's easier than a free hip handstand - maybe a little more "scary" because it tends to go to the high bar sooner, and it's a little less familiar, but it's a basic circling skill. The kids have to get competing this, and they need to get strong to get the endurance to do the higher level routines. This comes from doing sets of giants and free hips, etc, to me. Many gyms that are working to the higher levels, just train like this. I struggled getting giants - it took about 7 or 8 months - which probably doesn't sound long but seemed long at the time from the context of the group I was in. I was doing cast handstand free hip hand on high bar, but had some blocks with the giant. Eventually I needed it to move into a higher optional group - had the physical ability, had the other skills, needed to get over it. That group warmed with, first thing, get up on the high bar and do 5 giants layout flyaway. The HC let me work in that group for a day, we got to bars, she looked at me and said "your choice." Giants were the warm up. Assignment was 2 sets of 5. I did it in two turns. No further giant issues. I know this is a little different than what we're talking about, but I truly believe in some other programs I've seen, that I might have just never had giants - or, since I didn't start competing until I was 11, I wouldn't have had them until my senior year of high school or something. I would definitely not have won states in level 8 with a 9.6. And that all would have been okay - again, different programs, different things, different goals.

But at the time some of these things didn't make as much sense to me as they do in retrospect and from a coaching standpoint now. There are definitely some things I think might be, how to put it, a necessary evil if you want to really be a top program that consistently produces strong optionals. I know that might be controversial to say. But it's the conclusion I'm coming to. I'm not saying an individual super talented girl won't become a strong L10 in a more relaxed program that still has good coaching...but what you're going to see, I think, is that some slightly less physically talented, with still a lot of potential, or who started later, are not going to make it as far as they could have in a more intense environment with stronger expectations.

 

[coachmolly]

I definitely agree that there are some skills (tick tocks for example) that are good skills to have and to continue working on. I certainly see their importance. My problem is with making that an absolute requirement in order to move to the next level. It's a good skill to have, but not necessarily essential to be able to succeed.

 

[gymdog]

I definitely agree that there are some skills (tick tocks for example) that are good skills to have and to continue working on. I certainly see their importance. My problem is with making that an absolute requirement in order to move to the next level. It's a good skill to have, but not necessarily essential to be able to succeed.

But, I think the view under some programs will be if a kid cannot do this, eventually they hit a wall in that kind of program. If you are requiring a forward move in level 8+ because of the compositional aspect, and they really cannot do a tick tock for whatever reason, then they are likely stuck. Again that is imposing additional requirements, but it is because the routines will compositionally not score as well.

In the case of that particular requirement, I would agree it is unreasonable and I would not choose this as a competitive series for most level 7s, probably, unless they found it easier in terms of alignment. However if I was coaching several groups of optional beam, I might make it an absolute requirement in order to train in some higher optional groups, where the series demand is greater and that would simply be in the complex. And I think a lot of times kids will perform to the level of expectations, and we need to set them. Now if the kid has back problems, okay. Then we avoid that - that's another story to me. But if they are just scared or don't have the physical ability, then I think that needs to be addressed - again this is a basic skill. Progression wise, by mastering it, even with difficulty, can potentially prevent being unable to master other skills. Also I found tick tocks to be much easier on my back and wrist, and having wrist problems there was actually a period where this was some of the only alignment work I could do (tick tock back tuck, etc).

 

[Geoffrey Taucer]

I can sort of see the reasoning behind this for optionals. To use the giants example, I wouldn't require giants for level 7, but I certainly would for level 8, even though they aren't specifically required, simply because it would be a disservice to allow a kid to continue moving forward without certain essential skills.

For compulsories, I think it's absurd. If they have the necessary skills with acceptable technique (and what constitutes "acceptable" is admittedly difficult to define and largely subjective), they should be allowed to compete the level in my opinion. It's absurd to require them to have specific skills that aren't actually in the routines.

 

[Deleted member D3987]

wow! and this didn't come as a response from me me grumpy. awesome! this is exactly what is essential and required for kids to become gymnasts. NOT doing mill circles at any level. good for you! i'll do a clinic at your gym for FREE!

 

[Deleted member D3987]

We didn't have to do this as a series. But it was part of our complex, and I recall needing it to move into a higher group at some point...maybe when I moved from 6 to 7. I can remember getting it on the high beam around the time I had BHS. Handstand forward roll also.

I don't generally like to get into absolutes, but having seen several programs...I kind of disagree about needing these things. This is a basic skill. I honestly can say I think i would have progressed nowhere with series without being proficient at those basics. It was difficult for me - I have scoliosis, not great range in my shoulders, and hip flexors not good either - but once I mastered it, and when i worked on it everyday, it helped my alignment and ability tremendously. Again gyms have different goals. But if your goal is to be one of the strongest optional programs, these basics are almost non-negotiable to me. I saw a presentation by Tammy Biggs, talking about complexes and not enough basics like this. I often agree - I see kids who can't get to forced arch fast enough, they won't be able to flip series well, lots of poor alignment, not hitting the handstands fast enough, not strong through the shoulders.

I feel the same way about giants. If you want strong level 10s, this is a very, very basic skill from that perspective. It's easier than a free hip handstand - maybe a little more "scary" because it tends to go to the high bar sooner, and it's a little less familiar, but it's a basic circling skill. The kids have to get competing this, and they need to get strong to get the endurance to do the higher level routines. This comes from doing sets of giants and free hips, etc, to me. Many gyms that are working to the higher levels, just train like this. I struggled getting giants - it took about 7 or 8 months - which probably doesn't sound long but seemed long at the time from the context of the group I was in. I was doing cast handstand free hip hand on high bar, but had some blocks with the giant. Eventually I needed it to move into a higher optional group - had the physical ability, had the other skills, needed to get over it. That group warmed with, first thing, get up on the high bar and do 5 giants layout flyaway. The HC let me work in that group for a day, we got to bars, she looked at me and said "your choice." Giants were the warm up. Assignment was 2 sets of 5. I did it in two turns. No further giant issues. I know this is a little different than what we're talking about, but I truly believe in some other programs I've seen, that I might have just never had giants - or, since I didn't start competing until I was 11, I wouldn't have had them until my senior year of high school or something. I would definitely not have won states in level 8 with a 9.6. And that all would have been okay - again, different programs, different things, different goals.

But at the time some of these things didn't make as much sense to me as they do in retrospect and from a coaching standpoint now. There are definitely some things I think might be, how to put it, a necessary evil if you want to really be a top program that consistently produces strong optionals. I know that might be controversial to say. But it's the conclusion I'm coming to. I'm not saying an individual super talented girl won't become a strong L10 in a more relaxed program that still has good coaching...but what you're going to see, I think, is that some slightly less physically talented, with still a lot of potential, or who started later, are not going to make it as far as they could have in a more intense environment with stronger expectations.

wow! and this didn't come as a response from me being grumpy. awesome! this is exactly what is essential and required for kids to become gymnasts. NOT doing mill circles at any level. good for you! i'll do a clinic at your gym for FREE!

 

[Aussie_coach]

Although I don't do it personally I can see the relevance of requiring certain skills that aren't required. Your child's gym may be more focussed on the long term rather than the short term. Yes she can compete level 7 without giants, but perhaps if they aren't gianting it takes an excessive amount of time on another level to master what is required.

I am more of the belief that you cater for the individual. For example if they can't do a back handspring on beam for level 7 we try a round off, or a front handspring or a back tuck (this is australia so its allowed), rather than being stuck on a single rule that the kid needs the flic flac to move up.

 

[CoachTodd]

Instead of trying to respond to everyone individually, I'll just add to the post.
I can see requiring certain skills for being in a certain work out group. (i.e. the group that warms up with giants, you need giants to be in that group). As I've seen at my gym, everyone seems to mistake work out group with competitive level. Using bars as the example and level 7. If I had a work out group that warmed up with giants, I may have some level 7's in that group. I may also have some level 7's in a different group that is still working on learning giants. I would not hold them back if they had all of the other skills they need and It is easy to put together a 10.0 start value level 7 bar routine that they could do without the giants. I've had plenty of 9.5's and better at level 7 without giants and when they got their giants the skill was put in.
I guess my way of looking at it is YES, teach basics. Drill them until they are correct. That is the most important thing we can work on if we want good gymnastics. The level 7 that never gets her giants and doesn't work out with the group that has the giants will most likely not progress until they get the skills needed. I don't think it is up to me to decide if this kid will hit a wall and not do well if I don't give them the chance to try.


Thanks for all of the input.

 

[BlairBob]

Ehh, I like the mill and front hip circle. If I could figure out a way to teach them to boys without needless pain I would.

Mandatory cups I guess. It's a good skill to learn.

Competing poor quality giants as most 7's do versus clear hip on HB isnt much better. However, those kids without giants, barely have anything that looks like a clear hip.