WAG Typical Start of Season Scores?

[strawberries]

We have L8s without giants. They regularly beat girls WITH giants. We had 1 compete Saturday and she was 2nd place out of all L8s on bars (and AA).

If it is a kid’s near-to-last season or near-to-last level, it is fine to pull out all the stops (so for that reason, it’s good USAG doesn’t actually require Giants—I stand corrected), but for girls who may want to keep options open (many do) it seems like “no giants” is the beginning of the end.

 

[raenndrops]

This is your opinion. Clearly it's not USAG's opinion or they would have put more difficulty restrictions on level 6 as they have with the levels above that. Gyms are choosing to use levels the way it works for their program. Just as you think these girls shouldn't be doing level 6, some might look at gyms using level 6 with skills less than 5 and say they shouldn't be doing level 6. They should be level 4/5. Both types of gyms are following the requirements.

Actually the reason L6 is skippable without having to score out is that L5 to L7 is the same as Old L6 to L7. Who is to say that the skills they are using in L6 are "less than 5"? They are meeting the minimum requirements of the level. An A or B acro skill on beam... could be a BWO or a CW or a HS which are all A skills or they could do a B skill. I know some girls that think cartwheels on beam are harder than BWO and some that think handstands are harder than either a CW or a BWO.

According to USAG:
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, fairness to all athletes and competitive balance, the mobility system within the Jr. Olympic Program should be followed in the manner that it was intended:

1. Before moving up a level, every athlete should show proficiency at her current level.
2. Once a high level of proficiency is achieved at the athlete's current level, she should strive to move up to the next level, as long as it is done safely.

Regarding #1 - starting the season at 37+ in Level 6 shows proficiency at her current level.
Regarding #2 - 37+ would be a high level of proficiency, so they should strive to move up to L7. If the Level 6 routines are actually meeting ALL the L7 requirements, then she could safely move up to L7.

 

[wallflower]

Because the CW and routine was cleaner.

SMH

Yes I'm aware of that. The point being why should people be so concerned if a gymnast is choosing to do more. More risk, potentially more deductions, etc.

 

[gymbeam]

. ...

According to USAG:
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, fairness to all athletes and competitive balance, the mobility system within the Jr. Olympic Program should be followed in the manner that it was intended:

1. Before moving up a level, every athlete should show proficiency at her current level.
2. Once a high level of proficiency is achieved at the athlete's current level, she should strive to move up to the next level, as long as it is done safely.

Regarding #1 - starting the season at 37+ in Level 6 shows proficiency at her current level.
Regarding #2 - 37+ would be a high level of proficiency, so they should strive to move up to L7. If the Level 6 routines are actually meeting ALL the L7 requirements, then she could safely move up to L7.

See, I interpret the passage above as saying don’t repeat a level a gymnast has already competed with high proficiency.

As you know, in both Xcel and JO there are many options of skills within each division/level. I would venture to guess that gyms you’re seeing competing Level 6 with skills that could qualify as 7 are probably competing 7 the next year with some higher skills not necessary until Level 8. That’s a solid, above board approach for arriving at Level 10 with 10.0 start values across the board. We don’t do Level 6, but we don’t do minimum skills in optional levels and it is for that very reason- to arrive at 10 as a competitive first year Level 10, not as a barely squeaking in one. That trickles down to the levels below and means competing at “higher than minimum” in 6,7, and 8 is one great way to accomplish that. Hope that makes sense. Having a hard time forming my thoughts on this.

I just still don’t see the problem. Level 6 doesnt award bonus points for giants or layouts in 7 so where do you feel it’s giving them any advantage? It’s the execution that counts at level 6.

 

[MILgymFAM]

No, I didn’t mean to be pejorative. I should apologize for that term. For me it represented a serious twisting away from original or natural skill intent for a given level, and the substantial mental gymnastics required to construct some of those higher level routines sans giant.

It still sounds perjorative. Usag has no problems requiring what they want to require- see the layout in L7 that can’t be subbed for a full. A giant is not required and it doesn’t require mental gymnastics at all to have a routine without one- doesn’t a clear hip fulfill the same requirement that a giant does?

 

[wallflower]

Actually the reason L6 is skippable without having to score out is that L5 to L7 is the same as Old L6 to L7. Who is to say that the skills they are using in L6 are "less than 5"? They are meeting the minimum requirements of the level. An A or B acro skill on beam... could be a BWO or a CW or a HS which are all A skills or they could do a B skill. I know some girls that think cartwheels on beam are harder than BWO and some that think handstands are harder than either a CW or a BWO.

According to USAG:
In the spirit of good sportsmanship, fairness to all athletes and competitive balance, the mobility system within the Jr. Olympic Program should be followed in the manner that it was intended:

1. Before moving up a level, every athlete should show proficiency at her current level.
2. Once a high level of proficiency is achieved at the athlete's current level, she should strive to move up to the next level, as long as it is done safely.

Regarding #1 - starting the season at 37+ in Level 6 shows proficiency at her current level.
Regarding #2 - 37+ would be a high level of proficiency, so they should strive to move up to L7. If the Level 6 routines are actually meeting ALL the L7 requirements, then she could safely move up to L7.

I'm so glad USAG appointed you and other parents in charge of deciding when they have reached that level of proficiency.....Oh wait! I'm pretty sure they leave that up to coaches to decide within the context of their programs.

 

[wallflower]

See, I interpret the passage above as saying don’t repeat a level a gymnast has already competed with high proficiency.

As you know, in both Xcel and JO there are many options of skills within each division/level. I would venture to guess that gyms you’re seeing competing Level 6 with skills that could qualify as 7 are probably competing 7 the next year with some higher skills not necessary until Level 8. That’s a solid, above board approach for arriving at Level 10 with 10.0 start values across the board. We don’t do Level 6, but we don’t do minimum skills in optional levels and it is for that very reason- to arrive at 10 as a competitive first year Level 10, not as a barely squeaking in one. That trickles down to the levels below and means competing at “higher than minimum” in 6,7, and 8 is one great way to accomplish that. Hope that makes sense. Having a hard time forming my thoughts on this.

I just still don’t see the problem. Level 6 doesnt award bonus points for giants or layouts in 7 so where do you feel it’s giving them any advantage? It’s the execution that counts at level 6.

Well gymbeam that's just not fair! How dare the coaches look at the big picture and the overall long term development of their athletes! That's against the rules and just not right.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

I'm so glad USAG appointed you and other parents in charge of deciding when they have reached that level of proficiency.....Oh wait! I'm pretty sure they leave that up to coaches to decide within the context of their programs.

Good thing she’s a coach then!

 

[duyetanh]

Ok ok....come on peeps. Its almost Thanksgiving. Peace, love, and happiness.
The awesome thing if your kid hits optionals is that they have graduated to the "other side."

 

[cadybearsmommy]

On the original topic, I think there are a lot of good reasons for repeating. Dd has repeated a level before when she needed to and she will repeat level 6 this year. She jumped from Xcel silver to Level 6 last year and her requirements especially on bars were met for level 6, but definitely bare minimum (no flyaway, etc). She will have some upgrades this year but definitely not L7 routines by any means (no giants, beam flight/series, etc). It was the best decision for her bc she moved to a new gym and has been working really hard to catch up. She has her flyaway ready to compete this year, a new beam dismount and new floor routine so that’s progress in my book.

However, I have seen what I would call true sandbagging before. Last year when we went out of state, many full teams in L6 were doing full L7 routines (giants, layout, series) and were winning big. They could have been winning bc they were cleaner, but it does make you wonder if judges like seeing the higher difficulty.

There is also a gym in our state notorious for having their girls do 2-4 seasons at each Xcel level despite being state champions and making the state team the year before (some of them more than once.). That I do not agree with, I think it hurts everyone including the gymnasts who are quite talented but are being held back. I know some may not agree and that’s ok. . So in short I would say that yes I’ve seen sandbagging but not every case of scoring high or even repeating is sandbagging.

As far as beginning season scores, they can be low at first in our area but usually everyone improves significantly by the state meet.

 

[cadybearsmommy]

Ok ok....come on peeps. Its almost Thanksgiving. Peace, love, and happiness.
The awesome thing if your kid hits optionals is that they have graduated to the "other side."

I have to see my in laws so no peace, love or happiness here

However, there will be wine so that’s something!

 

[gymbeam]

Good thing she’s a coach then!

Whoops! That is true, but in wallflower’s defense she did say it was up to coaches within the context of their programs- meaning live and let live as long as no rules are being broken, right?

Live and let live..... peace, love and happiness!

 

[duyetanh]

Whoops!
Live and let live..... peace, love and happiness!

Bahaha...must have read my mind....

 

[profmom]

I've seen actual intentional sandbagging on the boys' side. Having a girl go from L4 to L6 before competing L7 ain't it, even if the girl knocks her L6 season out of the park. And if you're feeling resentful towards another gym because you think this is happening, best to remind yourself that teams that are truly sandbagging do not do their athletes any favors when -- or if -- they reach upper optionals.

I think it's always best to be generous with one's assumptions about why coaches have chosen to have their athletes compete particular levels.

 

[wallflower]

Good thing she’s a coach then!

Then he/she gets to make those decisions for his/her team!

 

[Deleted member 18037]

SMH

yes me too

I'm so glad USAG appointed you and other parents in charge of deciding when they have reached that level of proficiency.....Oh wait! I'm pretty sure they leave that up to coaches to decide within the context of their programs.

And USAG also says a BHS and CW get the same credit so the cleaner one wins.......................

And I am not sure why you are intentionally ignoring the specific situation. We are not talking about a few kids. We are not talking about kids with blocks/injuries etc...... In fact that is why there is a petition process. For extenuating circumstances.

But when a WHOLE team is performing L7 routines at a L6 meet and the WHOLE teams is scoring 37-38 at the start of the season. The are not appropriately leveled. Especially when the level is not required. They should be competing L7. And yeah they might get 35-36s at level 7 but it does not in anyway impede their progress.

However, I have seen what I would call true sandbagging before. Last year when we went out of state, many full teams in L6 were doing full L7 routines (giants, layout, series) and were winning big. They could have been winning bc they were cleaner, but it does make you wonder if judges like seeing the higher difficulty.

 

[gymbeam]

That’s where I’m confused- why would their score be any different in level 7?

 

[Ali'sMom]

That’s where I’m confused- why would their score be any different in level 7?

I agree - if they are getting 37s in L6 with L7 skills, wouldn't they also get 37s in L7 with the same skills executed the same way?

 

[Deleted member 18037]

That’s where I’m confused- why would their score be any different in level 7?

There are deductions that are higher in 7 vs 6.

 

[gymgal]

Is there an official statement that Level 6 is designed only for girls not ready for 7? If there is, then they shouldn’t be there..

Most of us have been around long enough to know exactly why optional L6 was implemented. There were endless debates about it. It was to offer a level for girls who weren't quite ready for L7 and who needed an extra year but didn't want to have to repeat a compulsory level. It was meant to be a bridge and it was to stop the flow of girls going to the prep-op and xcel programs around this level. They even changed the platinum xcel rules to make it more difficult than L6 in some respects to further curtail the back and forth. There doesn't need to be an official statement of it. It was clear from the beginning what the intent was. It was made optional for that exact reason - if a girls was ready to go to L7 after 5, then they should. It was never meant to "slow down" the gymnasts. But regardless, coaches are going to use it how they see fit. BTW, if we didn't have girls start competing as young as we do, we would not need to worry about slowing down the gymnasts. but that' just my opinion.

No, I didn’t mean to be pejorative. I should apologize for that term. For me it represented a serious twisting away from original or natural skill intent for a given level, and the substantial mental gymnastics required to construct some of those higher level routines sans giant.

If it is a kid’s near-to-last season or near-to-last level, it is fine to pull out all the stops (so for that reason, it’s good USAG doesn’t actually require Giants—I stand corrected), but for girls who may want to keep options open (many do) it seems like “no giants” is the beginning of the end.

Not getting these two statements. IT is not all that difficult to construct routines without giants. Yes, the gymnast would have to be strong in other circling skills but many can do other skills and just have fears about giants in particular. I find it funny that skills can be so variable on the other events but for bars, it is giants or nothing.

I'm so glad USAG appointed you and other parents in charge of deciding when they have reached that level of proficiency.....Oh wait! I'm pretty sure they leave that up to coaches to decide within the context of their programs.

Can we not all agree that a 37+ clearly shows proficiency in the current level? And if they are doing routines in a lower level that would score well (37+) in the next level up, wouldn't that also show proficiency? I would completely agree is we are talking about scores in the 34-36 range. That would be debatable. Is the gymnast weak in a certain event that needs more work? Personally, I do not feel that is a reason to keep a gymnast back but I know most coaches would disagree with me on that. But if a gymnast is getting mid 37s, it just isn't realistic that she would be bombing one event. Numbers wise, it doesn't add up

That’s where I’m confused- why would their score be any different in level 7?

This was her point, I believe. Their score would not be any different, therefore why are they competing 6 (a level that is not required) instead of 7 where they can do just as well?