All-Star Save Youth 5

[samantha says]

All I can say is, if you voted for the restrictions, I hope you will show up at competitions, with your newly minted Y5 team ready to back up your convictions and compete with whomever is willing to challenge you!

Agree to disagree. I don't believe that's the attitude to go in with. Sometimes one needs to count their blessings that there is a division for these kids to compete in, and not scold those for trying to make the division deeper, safer, and ultimately more competitive. I believe Youth 5 should stick around, but I know as a coach and an athlete that competing against yourself 80% of the season is less than ideal. Wouldn't that be counter productive of the goal? We don't go to competitions to get a score that, so to speak, tells us "we're the best." Trophies and numbers don't make you the best, other competitors do. If restrictions are what the masses believe will make this division grow, then that's what this division needs. Just my two cents...

 

[BubbleToes]

I think if you make Y5 with restrictions, you'll have these same kids who you're trying to protect, pushing themselves harder to get their double fulls to make the J5 team. And...for those coaches who are pushing them in Y5 to double, they'd still be pushing them for the J5 team. Its not like J5 is all straight doubles now and the Y5 kids with doubles or close to them couldn't make the team. Most aren't on the J5 team because they had the option to throw these doubles on Y5.

 

[Katie]

teams may push for a youth 5, and the girls could get hurt, but the same stuff happens with Junior and Senior 5's. They are not ready to be a level 5 and they are a mess & get hurt. Sure there are some youth teams like that, but there's also juniors and senior teams like that, you'd have to eliminate all 5 teams, there are alot of teams that push for level 5, not just youths. And there are some amazing youth 5 teams out there, why punish those girls because some teams aren't ready, and might get hurt?

 

[newcheerdad]

It's funny, I checked the performance list for jamfest indy and there are two level 5 youth teams, at a competition where pretty much every other division is packed to the rafters. That's a pretty good sign that there isn't a lot of youth 5 competition. But that also doesn't mean you should get rid of the division, either, as long as the kids who are competing on those teams can do so safely and teams aren't being pushed into a level where they can't be competitive. (again, my whole riff on teams being of relatively equal skill level when possible)

Unless there's clear evidence that the athletes in question are unable to perform those skills competently, then things should stay as they are.

But this begs another question for me - why is there a youth 5 team, but mini stops at 3? (and it isn't like there are that many mini 3 teams) If there are as many seven and eight-year olds out there with layouts and fulls as is suggested by some of the posters on this thread, wouldn't it make sense that minis should be able to perform level 4 skills? Is there a reason why that level doesn't exist, other than if it did my daughter would beg to be on that team. :)

 

[ChEeRxxLoVe]

I say keep Youth 5, and keep it the way it is. Most of the programs that have a Youth 5, also have Junior and Senior level 5 teams. Most of those gyms train their kids properly and have kids 11 and under that are very capable of level 5 skills. Although there may not be many Youth 5 times, let those that can field Youth 5 teams battle it out, and anyone else that doesn't want to can go Youth 4. No need to eliminate the division.

 

[just_kay_today]

Agree to disagree. I don't believe that's the attitude to go in with. Sometimes one needs to count their blessings that there is a division for these kids to compete in, and not scold those for trying to make the division deeper, safer, and ultimately more competitive. I believe Youth 5 should stick around, but I know as a coach and an athlete that competing against yourself 80% of the season is less than ideal. Wouldn't that be counter productive of the goal? We don't go to competitions to get a score that, so to speak, tells us "we're the best." Trophies and numbers don't make you the best, other competitors do. If restrictions are what the masses believe will make this division grow, then that's what this division needs. Just my two cents...

Sam, I was being sarcastic. However, this is how gyms with long standing youth 5 teams have built them successfully. They went where the competition was, lost, continued to compete and grew that part of their program over time. It isn't a matter of numbers, it's a matter of coaches being willing to take a chance on their teams. I remember when Cheersport had to split the youth 5 division. The last year that Rave competed in youth, there were 5 teams at Cheersport that year. The age grid changed, and suddenly, no one could field a team they felt good about. Prior to that, there was plenty of competition. The gyms who stayed in the Y5 game, got stronger and produced amazing junior talent.

Here's a suggestion: If, as a coach, you are concerned with your little ones having competition, why not get together with the other coaches in the Y5 division, and plan on two nationals, that your program can afford, where you can meet and compete. To do so, would not only be proactive, but it would foster goodwill between programs. I just do not believe that arresting the kids development is the answer. Certify Y5 coaches, through the USASF, if you are concerned about safety. Communicate with other Y5 gym owners if competition is your issue. But, this solution is just a bandaid that ultimately does not serve the children.

 

[F!ERCE]

I just wanna say that at this point, most all - if not all - of the coaches involved in Y5 are pretty well seasoned and probably know a thing or two about athlete safety. I'm guessing they would be especially concerned with keeping youth aged "prodigies" healthy, considering they're probably planning on them being the future elite junior and senior athletes in their gym.

Anywho, I have no dog in this fight, but have noticed that almost everyone in support of keeping Y5 has some personal tie into it, while those for eliminating or restricting it mostly do not. This is a very, very personal battle. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but it seems there isn't much "seeing it from the other side". We're all entitled to our opinion, though.

 

[Rudags]

So here is my thing about Youth 5...

I dont have a dog in the fight, as everyone has been saying, but who knows? Maybe someday I would. I for a short time, used to coach a Youth 5 team at my old gym. They were SOOO FIERCE! They were actually inspiration for me one day to start working doubles. At the time, I only had a full, and I thought to myself - This little 8 year old Susie has a double - So can I. Anyway, that is neither here nor there.

It seems to meet that the two major issues reading this and watching the webcast with Youth 5, seem to be 1) Competition and 2) Safety...Am I correct? If so, I would like to give my opinion on both of those concerns.

1. Competition:
So its been stated that there are less then 10 Youth 5s out there right now. I admit, that is low - And I can also admit, that if my gym had a Youth 5 right now, we would have to do a LOT of traveling to have competition. Parents would probabbly complain, etc. BUT - What would be wrong with leaving Youth 5 AS IS, and creating a Restricted Youth or Restricted Junior 5. That would allow more gyms to enter if they would be worried about getting killed by the "Big Dog" Youth 5. It could bring more competition about and maybe be the steppingstone to build more true Youth level 5 teams. I think Courtney brought up that a Youth 5 team can be very inspiring? Thoughts?

2. Safety:
Here is my question that I pose: Is the safety TRUELY in the skills being thrown in Youth 5? Or is the safety from COACHES either pushing too fast for skills (not thru progression) or teaching them wrong??

I dont have a dog in the fight - but I would like to keep this division around because it is inspiring and impressive. What CA, Rays, CEA, WC does with those little munchkins is incredible!!! I say if they want to have them - Let em!

 

[ECcheer]

I have to agree with sloppiness not being a factor. Rays youth 5 is a lot cleaner than many Senior and Junior teams out there! I don't think they should just get rid of the division all together. It is sort of common sense that there aren't a lot of youth 5 teams out there..junior 5 gets bigger and then senior 5 is the largest. In a few years I'm sure youth 5 will grow. Yes maybe adding some restrictions will benefit and help other programs be able to have a youth 5 team. Overall I just don't feel elimiating the division is the right answer.

 

[samantha says]

Sam, I was being sarcastic. However, this is how gyms with long standing youth 5 teams have built them successfully. They went where the competition was, lost, continued to compete and grew that part of their program over time. It isn't a matter of numbers, it's a matter of coaches being willing to take a chance on their teams. I remember when Cheersport had to split the youth 5 division. The last year that Rave competed in youth, there were 5 teams at Cheersport that year. The age grid changed, and suddenly, no one could field a team they felt good about. Prior to that, there was plenty of competition. The gyms who stayed in the Y5 game, got stronger and produced amazing junior talent.

Here's a suggestion: If, as a coach, you are concerned with your little ones having competition, why not get together with the other coaches in the Y5 division, and plan on two nationals, that your program can afford, where you can meet and compete. To do so, would not only be proactive, but it would foster goodwill between programs. I just do not believe that arresting the kids development is the answer. Certify Y5 coaches, through the USASF, if you are concerned about safety. Communicate with other Y5 gym owners if competition is your issue. But, this solution is just a bandaid that ultimately does not serve the children.

Sorry Ms. K, I didn't know you were kidding. However, I agree with you, that this division was fostered on the same level 5 rules as any other level 5 division and at one point, yes, this division was able to cater to that. Unfortunately, I've never agreed on that. If little 10 year old Susie has a double, double... congratulations to her that is a stellar accomplishment, however a 10 year old is still a 10 year old. I don't care how "seasoned" she is, she is not as mature as a junior or senior aged athlete. The thought of an entire team of 10 year olds being pressured to throw 15 combination to doubles because that's what the division calls for in NCA is not progression I want to see within the "youth" age group. Facts don't lie, roughly 3 million children ages 14 and UNDER get hurt annually playing sports. Not to mention that children between 5 and 14 years old account for 40% (almost half) of sports related injuries for all age groups. Not to burst peoples bubble, but the facts don't lie... this is the prime age where children are likely to have injuries. Do I think little Susie should be able to learn her double, double? Yes. Do I think she can wait till she's of age to be on a junior team to throw it? Yes. Not to mention.... think of how excited little Susie will be when she finally gets to debut her technically sound double, double in the junior 5 division that she's worked so hard on for years.

 

[KB_Legend]

I agree that we can't be sure having a restricted youth level 5 would actually increase the amount of competition... What we can be sure of is that there is not enough competition as things stand, so we can't continue to do the same thing and expect a different result

As far as kids learning stunting skills, I don't think it is as big of a concern because rarely do major season or career ending injuries occur during stunting, not the case in high level tumbling especially when young athletes with developing bodies are moving at an accelerated rate. Also none of the potential restrictions would actually effect stunt transitions, full ups/1.5 ups, tick tocs etc. etc. would still be allowed... Potentially no double downs (although I voted to keep those) but I don't think that is holding them back very much as far as stunts go

It does 100% boil down to coaches responsibility! At the same time when we are being pushed to make parents happy and keep up with the jones' so you don't lose a kid to the gym down the street there can be pressure from a lot of different directions pushing a coach with the best of intentions to get the next new skill yesterday instead of tomorrow, which leads to poorly executed skills at every level, form breaks that inhibit higher level specialties later in the career and worst of all knee and ankle injuries that could be avoided. Would this rule eliminate skipped progressions? Absolutely not! Will some coaches choose to put the 9 year old with a bent kneed double on juniors instead of have them throw a really pretty specialty through to full on youth and work on that double slowly and safely before competing it?? I'm sure they would, but to be honest lots of people do that already... It's like I said at the gym, people are going to speed regardless of the law, but they still post the limits on the side of the road and that saves more people than doing nothing at all.... I don't think the fact that people will make bad choices is a reason to not encourage them to make good ones

 

[samantha says]

I agree that we can't be sure having a restricted youth level 5 would actually increase the amount of competition... What we can be sure of is that there is not enough competition as things stand, so we can't continue to do the same thing and expect a different result

As far as kids learning stunting skills, I don't think it is as big of a concern because rarely do major season or career ending injuries occur during stunting, not the case in high level tumbling especially when young athletes with developing bodies are moving at an accelerated rate. Also none of the potential restrictions would actually effect stunt transitions, full ups/1.5 ups, tick tocs etc. etc. would still be allowed... Potentially no double downs (although I voted to keep those) but I don't think that is holding them back very much as far as stunts go

It does 100% boil down to coaches responsibility! At the same time when we are being pushed to make parents happy and keep up with the jones' so you don't lose a kid to the gym down the street there can be pressure from a lot of different directions pushing a coach with the best of intentions to get the next new skill yesterday instead of tomorrow, which leads to poorly executed skills at every level, form breaks that inhibit higher level specialties later in the career and worst of all knee and ankle injuries that could be avoided. Would this rule eliminate skipped progressions? Absolutely not! Will some coaches choose to put the 9 year old with a bent kneed double on juniors instead of have them throw a really pretty specialty through to full on youth and work on that double slowly and safely before competing it?? I'm sure they would, but to be honest lots of people do that already... It's like I said at the gym, people are going to speed regardless of the law, but they still post the limits on the side of the road and that saves more people than doing nothing at all.... I don't think the fact that people will make bad choices is a reason to not encourage them to make good ones

Thank you for this post. That's basically the exact point I was trying to find the words to get across clearly on paper, except KB said it much more eloquently.

 

[Level5Mom]

BUT - What would be wrong with leaving Youth 5 AS IS, and creating a Restricted Youth or Restricted Junior 5. That would allow more gyms to enter if they would be worried about getting killed by the "Big Dog" Youth 5. It could bring more competition about and maybe be the steppingstone to build more true Youth level 5 teams. I think Courtney brought up that a Youth 5 team can be very inspiring? Thoughts?

!

Not a bad idea.....but it reminds me of keeping unlimited and adding a semi. It would certainly further dilute an already extremely diluted division.

 

[cheeringfor3]

Yes, it is true that there are few Youth 5 teams in the country. But is that really a reason to eliminate a division? The same could be said for Youth 4. The Youth 4 team at our gym will probably go all season without seeing competition, except for maybe 1 or 2 times (and we are in a well-populated "cheer" state). Last year, there were not any Youth 4 teams at UCA Nationals, and the schedule in Indy shows just 2 Youth 4 teams. So do we eliminate this division as well? And where does this stop?

I suspect that the gyms who have enough kids to field a Youth 5 team are doing so, and the ones that have only a few that age with the skills are just putting them on their Jr 5 teams. Eliminating the division will just serve to penalize the gyms with enough Youth 5 kids. I just don't feel like the other gyms are "hiding" 20 7- to 9-year olds with fulls and doubles on their jr teams.

And then, for the gyms that DO have enough to field a Youth 5, or the ones that are building up to it (as noted in other posts, it can take a few years to get there), they will be putting those young kids up to junior...and then the complaints start about "peanuts" flying on junior teams.

Also...isn't this one of the ideas behind the All Levels Championship? To allow those teams without a lot of local competition to be judged against the rest of the country?

As for restricting, if this will help increase the number of teams in the division, I would be for it. But I admit I don't know enough about that argument to say whether it would or not.

My 2 cents.

 

[Level5Mom]

Not a bad idea.....but it reminds me of keeping unlimited and adding a semi. It would certainly further dilute an already extremely diluted division.

To add to this thought......if the same thing happened to youth 5 that happened to semi and un, then most teams entering youth 5 would probably choose the "restricted" youth 5, as opposed to youth 5. That would be the TG, Cali, CEA division all over again for youth 5.

The response for this from the public was to "revamp" large coed, most saying we needed to eliminate it and make them all go semi. In turn that caused the coed divisions to be completely revised to small, medium, and large (if it passes).

Predicting that there would be only 3-4 teams in the country that would actually choose unrestricted youth 5, I can see this eventually going away completely anyway. So we would end up right back to where we are today. However, it would soften the blow NOW by letting those 2 years go by and allowing gyms to make that choice, knowing they wouldn't be able to in the future. Either way, it is a moot point, as it is not an option.