All-Star Worlds 2023

[DancerDude0118]

I really wish we’d scrap the “International” in the name and just go with plain “Open”.

So:
L6 Open Global All-Girl
L6 Open Global Coed
L6 Open All-Girl
L6 Open Large Coed
L6 Open Small Coed
L7 Open All-Girl
L7 Open Large Coed
L7 Open Small Coed

This matches the Senior divisions in terms of division naming system.

Not having “International” doesn’t make it any less international, it’s not as if the senior divisions are exclusive to U.S.-based teams.

 

[DancerDude0118]

With open gone and the age now being 18 and up, maybe they are combining Revs and OO…..

They’re different locations, but with the elimination of the “Senior Open” divisions, I suspect more condensed open aged divisions moving forward.

I’m all for condensing divisions, but I just wish they would change the 3-per-country rule. It’s why teams like Wildcats, Anacondas etc. moved to the senior open divisions.

 

[luv2cheer92]

With open gone and the age now being 18 and up, maybe they are combining Revs and OO…..

The gyms are 4 hours apart, that would be pretty tough to combine

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

Things that happened that I liked to see this weekend:

A win for F5!
Win from KC Cheer.
Aqua!
SE.

Things that weren’t wins but still impressive:

2 hits from Gens.
Strong day 2 hit from Panthers.

Not gold but still impressive:

Globing first year teams like Coex, Cougars, WE Bombshells. Also Top 5 from Neon Rays!

 

[caffeineandglitter]

With open gone and the age now being 18 and up, maybe they are combining Revs and OO…..

EDIT: ah did not see other posters commenting that yes, revs and OO are at different locations

 

[wishfulthinking]

Thoughts:

I actually don't mind the level 5 non-US divisions. Some of the teams that I saw competing were very good!

I really dislike the U18 NT divisions. Why do we need this?

 

[luv2cheer92]

Thoughts:

I actually don't mind the level 5 non-US divisions. Some of the teams that I saw competing were very good!

I really dislike the U18 NT divisions. Why do we need this?

Agree on both

 

[Knowcheering]

Thoughts:

I actually don't mind the level 5 non-US divisions. Some of the teams that I saw competing were very good!

I guess there are pros and cons. I saw an Australian athlete accuse some of the Canadian teams of “hiding in Level 5” when they could really compete Level 6. Giving out Level 5 World titles might discourage non-US teams from pushing themselves to work towards Level 6. If you can get the same exact title either way, why bother doing the harder level? Why can’t Level 5 teams compete at Summit instead of everyone getting to be World Champion? Also for how many years are we really going to claim that Canada is so far behind the US in cheer that they *need* easier Level 5 divisions at Worlds?

I really dislike the U18 NT divisions. Why do we need this?

Agreed. We don’t need U18 NT divisions at all, I think those 2 divisions were the weakest of Worlds with a very small number of entrants. I’m wondering if they thought more NT divisions would make the International NT divisions less gigantic, but it didn’t— those divisions remained gigantic and the U18 divisions were very weak comparatively. There are athletes who work their whole cheer careers to get a Worlds globe, and then you see these U18 NT athletes getting handed easy globes and it just feels bizarre.

 

[Belinda]

Imo the USA should do away with the aging out of seniors at 18 rule.. Sweden has senior divisions as 16+, it's worked perfectly fine. Then we wouldn't need open divisions. Also do away with xs and limited. Make small >19, medium 20-29, large 30-39. If you need a limited division call it xs, >15, and stick to what it was meant for in the beginning. There's alot of talk about what should and should not be done with the international divisions and international community when there's still alot that can be done with the us age grid/divisions.

Eta: also I know the 3 per rule will always be debated no matter what. But let's be honest, all sports has this. Gymnastics is 2 per country in finals, swimming is 2 per country in finals, figure skating has 2-3 per country period, etc etc, team sports are normally 1 team per country.

 

[BlueCat]

Imo the USA should do away with the aging out of seniors at 18 rule.. Sweden has senior divisions as 16+, it's worked perfectly fine. Then we wouldn't need open divisions. Also do away with xs and limited. Make small >19, medium 20-29, large 30-39. If you need a limited division call it xs, >15, and stick to what it was meant for in the beginning. There's alot of talk about what should and should not be done with the international divisions and international community when there's still alot that can be done with the us age grid/divisions.

Eta: also I know the 3 per rule will always be debated no matter what. But let's be honest, all sports has this. Gymnastics is 2 per country in finals, swimming is 2 per country in finals, figure skating has 2-3 per country period, etc etc, team sports are normally 1 team per country.

I understand that no one is likely going to change their opinion, but I will throw in my 2 cents anyway.

Those sports you mention have those limitations - when you represent your country. The kids on Top Gun Large Coed (or any other team) aren't representing the United States - they are representing their private club. Athletes on club teams aren't necessarily even citizens of the same country as their gym.

Worlds is club vs club and the gym's address shouldn't be relevant to determining who advances. If you want a competition where the country you are from is relevant, the ICU World Championship is literally at the same venue the day before. There, the country limitation makes sense.

Worlds in my mind is more like Wimbledon, The Masters, Boston Marathon, Tour de France, etc.

I would suggest a compromise:
If you are EITHER in the top 10 overall scores OR one of the top 3 scores from your country, you advance to finals.

 

[UCFKnights07]

Imo the USA should do away with the aging out of seniors at 18 rule.. Sweden has senior divisions as 16+, it's worked perfectly fine. Then we wouldn't need open divisions. Also do away with xs and limited. Make small >19, medium 20-29, large 30-39. If you need a limited division call it xs, >15, and stick to what it was meant for in the beginning. There's alot of talk about what should and should not be done with the international divisions and international community when there's still alot that can be done with the us age grid/divisions.

Eta: also I know the 3 per rule will always be debated no matter what. But let's be honest, all sports has this. Gymnastics is 2 per country in finals, swimming is 2 per country in finals, figure skating has 2-3 per country period, etc etc, team sports are normally 1 team per country.

I have actually really grown to like the x small divisions, I'd hate to see it go away and go back to being just small.
Gives the smaller gyms to field more competitve teams with the talent they have in their home gyms, also gives the gyms incentive to come to worlds and be able to make it past the day one cutoff, and possible have more of a chance to globe in the top 3.
I was and still am that the division could be over run with big name gyms just entering into that division for the sake of an "easy" globe.
Idk I am a fan now of it, if I wasn't before.

 

[Belinda]

I understand that no one is likely going to change their opinion, but I will throw in my 2 cents anyway.

Those sports you mention have those limitations - when you represent your country. The kids on Top Gun Large Coed (or any other team) aren't representing the United States - they are representing their private club. Athletes on club teams aren't necessarily even citizens of the same country as their gym.

Worlds is club vs club and the gym's address shouldn't be relevant to determining who advances. If you want a competition where the country you are from is relevant, the ICU World Championship is literally at the same venue the day before. There, the country limitation makes sense.

Worlds in my mind is more like Wimbledon, The Masters, Boston Marathon, Tour de France, etc.

I would suggest a compromise:
If you are EITHER in the top 10 overall scores OR one of the top 3 scores from your country, you advance to finals.

I could also get on board with top 10 + 3 per country. But if it's not intended to be a world championship, whether club or national team, then I'd also be for a name change and not call national or international champions world champions. But then again, I'm not a fan of the NFL calling the super bowl champions world champions either. I don't think there will ever be a perfect solution, but this thing with changing what divisions are offered every other year because there's an outrage is getting tiring.

 

[Belinda]

I have actually really grown to like the x small divisions, I'd hate to see it go away and go back to being just small.
Gives the smaller gyms to field more competitve teams with the talent they have in their home gyms, also gives the gyms incentive to come to worlds and be able to make it past the day one cutoff, and possible have more of a chance to globe in the top 3.
I was and still am that the division could be over run with big name gyms just entering into that division for the sake of an "easy" globe.
Idk I am a fan now of it, if I wasn't before.

I'm not saying do away with options for small gyms, but to have limited xs, limited xs coed, xs, xs coed, limited small, limited coed, senior small, small coed... Just seem excessive to me. Especially when you have large senior and coed with 3-4 teams each. If people wanna talk easy globes.. All you have to do in large coed is literally show up and you have a globe.. In my scenario any d2 is allowed in either xs (>15 and only d2) or small (>19), and d1 teams can enter small. Since there's such an uneven distribution of teams xs/s to medium/large, I just think it might be time to "combine" medium and large, change the numbers around a little to fit the current landscape. Instead of adding divisions.

 

[UCFKnights07]

I'm not saying do away with options for small gyms, but to have limited xs, limited xs coed, xs, xs coed, limited small, limited coed, senior small, small coed... Just seem excessive to me. Especially when you have large senior and coed with 3-4 teams each. If people wanna talk easy globes.. All you have to do in large coed is literally show up and you have a globe.. In my scenario any d2 is allowed in either xs (>15 and only d2) or small (>19), and d1 teams can enter small. Since there's such an uneven distribution of teams xs/s to medium/large, I just think it might be time to "combine" medium and large, change the numbers around a little to fit the current landscape. Instead of adding divisions.

I think I always forget the rules behind the limited divisions...
I also noticed that some of the international divisions had no teams in it at all...

 

[luv2cheer92]

I think I always forget the rules behind the limited divisions...
I also noticed that some of the international divisions had no teams in it at all...

There was one division without teams. U18 large coed 5, so a non-US division

And limited is reserved for programs with one Worlds team, size of gym doesn't matter. There have been some fairly large gyms in those divisions