All-Star Worlds 2016 Videos

Welcome to our Cheerleading Community

Members see FEWER ads... join today!

Then maybe the USASF should change the medium division size to 28-30 members would that make you happy?
This. I've never understood the argument against non-maxed out teams. There's a reason why the age grid is written as 5-20, 21-30, etc. Not everyone's gonna have max numbers and that's ok! Plus Beatles have 7 awesome boys, are they just supposed to tell 3 of those boys that they need to go cheer somewhere else or be on a lower level team?
 
This. I've never understood the argument against non-maxed out teams. There's a reason why the age grid is written as 5-20, 21-30, etc. Not everyone's gonna have max numbers and that's ok! Plus Beatles have 7 awesome boys, are they just supposed to tell 3 of those boys that they need to go cheer somewhere else or be on a lower level team?

What is the boy count for Medium? Is it 8?
 
I think it's more that Beatles started off in SSC5, and then added male athletes to go SMC5, but didn't add females to the team also, thus keeping their numbers down and over all ratio up for the score sheets. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, hey they were amazing this weekend, but I think that was most peoples' view of it. (I could be wrong though.)
 
I think it's more that Beatles started off in SSC5, and then added male athletes to go SMC5, but didn't add females to the team also, thus keeping their numbers down and over all ratio up for the score sheets. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, hey they were amazing this weekend, but I think that was most peoples' view of it. (I could be wrong though.)

Beatles are losing several boys this year and the ones we added are the future of the program. I would never turn down or cut our athletes. We have teams competing with 21 or 22 in all divisions. This is a business And we take everyone. At the end of the day if people don't like medium to be 21-30 then contact the usasf and ask them to change it to 28-30. But to insult smaller teams because they don't have enough kids to max out team size is very disrespectful.
 
I think it's more that Beatles started off in SSC5, and then added male athletes to go SMC5, but didn't add females to the team also, thus keeping their numbers down and over all ratio up for the score sheets. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, hey they were amazing this weekend, but I think that was most peoples' view of it. (I could be wrong though.)

Every single gym in the top 10 in medium coed has the capability of doing this and chose not to. Even if the intention wasn't just to max out ratios as much as possible, Beatles were not the only team that was able to do this.
 
Beatles are losing several boys this year and the ones we added are the future of the program. I would never turn down or cut our athletes. We have teams competing with 21 or 22 in all divisions. This is a business And we take everyone. At the end of the day if people don't like medium to be 21-30 then contact the usasf and ask them to change it to 28-30. But to insult smaller teams because they don't have enough kids to max out team size is very disrespectful.

I didn't see any comments that insulted Rockstar (I don't pay attention to social media though). Everyone understands cheer is a BOOMING business, but some would rather see teams with the max number of athletes on the mat. I personally don't really care as long as they put a good product on the floor and the safety of the athletes come first. I also don't think people take into account the different areas gyms are in, not every market can pack out a gym in every division they are in...or have people travel INSANE distances to be on a team.
 
Every single gym in the top 10 in medium coed has the capability of doing this and chose not to. Even if the intention wasn't just to max out ratios as much as possible, Beatles were not the only team that was able to do this.

Trust me if we had the athletes we would certainly have gone larger. But we had 4 level 5 teams this year in Greenville and our talent is spread out
 
Every single gym in the top 10 in medium coed has the capability of doing this and chose not to. Even if the intention wasn't just to max out ratios as much as possible, Beatles were not the only team that was able to do this.
And I completely understand (and took notice of that). It's just that Beatles are coming under fire because it wasn't one or two athletes....which to me is splitting hairs. You can't call out one team and not another for doing the same thing. I guess it was just more noticeable on Beatles. (Again, not that they were in the wrong.) As I said above, not every gym is capable of fielding multiple teams with the numbers maxed out.
 
And I completely understand (and took notice of that). It's just that Beatles are coming under fire because it wasn't one or two athletes....which to me is splitting hairs. You can't call out one team and not another for doing the same thing. I guess it was just more noticeable on Beatles. (Again, not that they were in the wrong.)

Yeah I don't remember this much backlash when Panthers put 35 on the team, which in my opinion is as much of an advantage in stunting as Beatles adding 1 or 2 athletes helped them in tumbling is.
 
ill agree i dont understand how SS placed 4th, but i also dont understand all the uproar over orange not winning. they had two stunt falls, i get people argue execution all the time with them, but execution can only carry you so far. after watching all the videos over of large senior, i expected F5 to be top 3, but yes im surprised they won.

curious on how you thought the placements should have gone?

Hmmm... Since clean seemed to matter so much this year:
1. Stars
2. F5
3. Orange
4. Panthers
5. SE

Panthers and SE both needed to hit because their stunt sequences were not at the level of Stars and Orange. Panthers tumble, but so do Stars and Rays. Plus, if you're doing less stunt groups, you need to hit your stunts. It's the risk you take. Of course, F5 simply hit their routine, so...yeah!

Eta.. Not mad at all that F5 won at all! We could reverse 1+2 and I would be just as happy!
 
Last edited:
Then maybe the USASF should change the medium division size to 28-30 members would that make you happy?
I definitely don't have a problem with not maxing out your numbers. I'm saying it more from a perspective of an uneducated eye looking in. You seem to have had the number of athletes to fill out those numbers and max out, unlike smaller programs who I believe the rule was made for. The programs actually with 23 worlds eligible athletes only, and six have layouts. Your program appears to have about 40-50 level 5 athletes with great talent, which is definitely more than the requirement for medium coed.
I have liked every Beatles routine since 2009 - they've been a solid team for years and good for them for medalling again.
 
Last edited:
Back