In advance of a planning meeting this weekend, I’m doodling. Comparing the long established USA Jr Olympic / NCCA super program vs what we’re using right now in Saskatchewan, Canada.
I’d say the Canadian Elite stream process is pretty good. I particularly like the Aspire through Novice programs.
But the older Canadian Provincial Stream girls in Saskatchewan would be far happier if they were suddenly transported to the USA. They get dead-ended at P5 … or must make a BIG jump to (near) FIG rules in National Open.
What is the goal of National Open in the Canadian system? Why do those gymnasts need to compete FIG?
A 10 level program leading up near seamlessly to College NCAA rules is ideal for those girls who have no aspirations to try out for international gymnastics.
The Level 10 / NCAA rules seem realistic for those little girls who love the sport enough to continue after they’ve grown to womanhood.
Leave a comment if you’ve an opinion. Or if you find my doodle far too simplistic.
18 comments ↓
This topic is long overdue for discussion! I completely agree that it’s time to get rid of the old National Open format and mirror it like the L10 in the US. Those girls are well prepared in advance for the NCAA and it is also very well respected and has some of the best talent in the country; girls that may never even have competed in elite. National Open in Canada doesn’t get the respect it deserves nor do those girls get any recognition for achievements; GCG doesn’t even give them a mention, yet they fall under the national program. Some clubs (such as Omega, and you can trust me on this) look down and ridicule Open athletes as being inferior and bad gymnasts.
It is time to celebrate Open gymnasts and give them a program that works for them, not against them.
I agree Rick! The sport is so hard why are we making gymnasts who will never nor want to compete international do FIG rules? The sport in Sask and Canada would have more kids in the sport and would be able to keep them longer and be able to develope gymnastics for life.
I agree about the National Open question. Having seen a handful of National Open meets in Ontario, I was often shaking my head or picking my jaw up off the floor wondering what the heck was going on; the gymnastics was a little painful to watch.
Perhaps a rework of requirements (away from FIG) would improve it and make a goal of NCAA a more natural next step for those gymnasts.
I don’t see any point in having Open girls compete FIG or near-FIG rules and I wish we could go to an American style L10 system. Many Open girls aspire to compete NCAA and having to compete a different system only hinders their chances as they work unnecessary difficulty sometimes at the expense of form and injury.
I think that many NCAA coaches are clue-ing in to the Open category, at least those ones who are not fixated on needing to fill their teams with foreign Elites. It is difficult to compete Open as many HP girls find out when they drop down into the Open category. Skills seem to be sometimes judged more severely in Open….for instance, leaps. I can’t tell you how many times I have watched questionable leaps credited in HP that would be dinged in the Open category. There seems to be an assumption that if you are competing Elite, you have those skills so you get credit….not always mind you, but it does sometimes seem that way.
There are fewer Open girls competing each year and there must be a reason for that. It used to be a big thing to qualify through to finals, but now almost everyone makes it.
I also find it grossly unfair when HP girls compete in the Open category. Because of the modified FIG scoring, they have an unfair advantage.
I would love to see the level 10/NCAA rules applied to the Canadian Stream. It would be much easier for a gymnast to try to gain a scholorship with shorter routines that have the elements that aim to a similar level 10 USAG.
I agree that we need a system that encourages gymnasts to the next level.
However, the Open athletes that do not meet the Lv 10/NCAA standards DO need an avenue to compete, however “painful” they are to watch. Personally I love to watch the older athletes that are continuing on with competition, at any level. (^I also don’t think it’s productive to insult gymnastics at any level)
Note that the Open category exists for all National program disciplines in Canada — MAG, T&T, RG (called Level 9), as well as WAG. It is primarily a category for gymnasts who are neither provincial nor High Performance level to participate at a national level. Only in WAG are some national gymnasts recruited to American colleges.
National level competitions are available throughout the season including Easterns, Westerns, and Canadian Championships. For WAG, there is also National Stream Cup, Gymnix, and Canada Games (which uses Open rules). All but Gymnix provide the opportunity to compete on provincial teams. At Gymnix this year, there were so many Open entries they had to split the competition across two days. In Quebec, National Open gymnasts compete in three qualifiers and compete two days at Quebec Championships. I am not understanding what kind of “respect” the category is in need of deserving.
I judged four sessions of National Open at last week’s Canadian Championships. I like judging the Open model because it is primarily FIG and bonus is simple. I found that gymnasts performing efficient routines with manageable difficulty would score the best. I was delighted to see a few gymnasts try extra stuff on beam in Open 16+ finals that they didn’t do in the team competition, such as Arabians, mounts with value, connections, and D dismounts.
I think if I had to learn another Code like NCAA as well as FIG that I would not want to be a national judge and go for a brevet. The confusion would lead to inevitable mistakes. National judges of WAG in Canada are already the most tested judges in the world with exams and assessments every two years. We would lose judges if we have to know two different Codes.
Grace – you are thinking about this from your own point of view and not about what is best for the athletes. Open category is a confusing, dead-end competition for the vast majority of girls which is why the category continues to shrink each year. If GCG cared one fig for these girls, they would consider going to the Level 10 approach to best prepare them for NCAA.
Stop thinking about yourself. Think about the athletes. I would suggest that your delight in seeing a few of these girls compete double Arabians and difficult mounts is short-sighted and insular. These skills are not helpful for this competition category as there is no real reward for the competition of such skills. NCAA looks for cleanly executed skills at a lower level – not tricks poorly executed.
If you are applauding some Open girls for trying these skills, I suggest that you need to think about what is best for these girls competing in their category – not about what you might be interested watching as a judge.
I would much rather watch an American style Level 10 type meet with emphasis on execution and deductions for skills out of category. That way, these girls have a goal and a purpose.
Canada got rid of the NCAA system in the 70′s. They are now trying to buy back in with several sports but it is going to be a long haul culturally and in terms of sports development.
Who cares about what you have to learn in terms of Code, Grace? That’s your job. I care about what is best for the competitors…not what is best for you. I’ve worked beside judges for years now and appreciate all that they do in difficult circumstances – especially in the wacko Canadian system. I know it is difficult. I’m interested in making it simpler…and as far as I can tell, that means adopting the American L10 system. It is better for everyone, but most importantly, for the athletes.
Thanks for all the feedback in this comment thread.
It’s certainly a topic of some interest.
As Grace says, if Open were not close to FIG the judges would need learn another set of rules. In my Province the judges open the rule book to EVERY level — e.g. Level 4 — before the competition. They don’t have it memorized.
I’m not sure ONE MORE set of rules should be the deal breaker.
More important to me is keeping those 14-16yr-old girls in the sport as coaches, judges and athletes. Right now there’s every incentive to QUIT competing once you’ve competed successfully at Level 5. And are not able to qualify to National Open.
… Perhaps a Level 6 could bridge the gap ??
BEST CASE SCENARIO, Canada adopts the USA J.O. Levels 1-10 program. Within 2yrs we’d have a much stronger competitive program. That’s my opinion.
Thanks, Rick…I think you are right here. I’m not sure that another level needs to be introduced. I just think that these girls need to have a goal. They train close to the same number of hours that Elite girls train, so their schooling and lives are disrupted to almost the same degree. Many of them go on to be stars in the NCAA, even though they never competed Elite in Canada. What a bonus for these girls and what a life lesson, to boot! In the end, gymnastic ends for all these girls. It’s what they take from it, and what they learn from it that counts.
I would do anything possible to change the system in Canada to encourage more Novice/Open athletes to stay in the sport and continue to compete.
Well said MP – count me in. I was one of the original WPC members back in the 90′s who implemented the National Cup for this very reason. Let’s work together to bring the Open level back to a place of importance AND make the rules suitable. Honestly, the National Level in general needs to be more user friendly. One thing for sure is the rules are too complex and the fact that meets take as long as they do up in Canada is simply ridiculous. I favor the US meets where the time in between routines in minimal. Makes for a better event all around!
Yes, DANA! Good points! Canadian meets are mind-boringly long because of the points system. I have every sympathy for the judges as they try to find their way through the complex scoring system…but the audiences get up and walk out of the venue because they are bored to tears! It just takes too long!
Everything in this county is about Rec or Elite – nothing in between. Look at the last Canada Winter Games meet in Halifax. Winter Games has always traditionally been an Open meet, but it has been turned into an HP venue now…why? Who decided this?
I remember attending WildRose for the the past few years. I have nothing but praise for Michel/Valerie Arsenault and the parent organizers of this meet – wow! What a incredible accomplishment – and I hope to see them on their feet again next year.
However…even though the organizers did an amazing job of advertizing and managed to fill the venue seats, the couldn’t retain their audience. This was due to the long waits between judging decisions and the confusion surrounding scores. Audiences understand the concept of scoring “10″. WAG Artistic Gymnastics INVENTED this! The convoluted process of scoring different levels of FIG/semi-FIG scoring lost the audience completely and people just left.
What’s the point?…
If we can’t market our sport efficiently to the public, how can we hope to maintain any kind of support?
Yup, exactly right wag watcher . This is a huge part of the problem in Canada… I’m in to work on it!
I know this discussion has focussed mostly on the Open category, but where in this discussion do the proposed changes to the Provincial levels in Ontario fit in? How will this make things at all equal on a National Level?
And why is Ontario one of the only provinces where the CPN program is “almost” non-existent (less than 10 girls per level)?
“Grace – you are thinking about this from your own point of view and not about what is best for the athletes. ”
If judges have a problem, fix their problem and the athletes will benefit. Trying to convince people that they are selfish for stating their problem is only going to create a situation where people keep their problem to themselves which means the problem can not be fixed.
As far as open being a dead end, switching to US level 1 – 10 is not a fix for this since US level 10 is a dead end as well. Athletes who are competing Elite in the US are largely trained for elite from the beginning by coaches who understand the process of making elite.
I don’t know the Ontario program. But would be happy to post an opinion piece on the issues there.
Rick, you might want to add the US pre-elite program to your diagram – I’m not an expert, but I know there are formal channels like TOPS and HOPES – as well as the reality that (as shergymrag says above) coaches begin training athletes for elite from a fairly low level, so there are functionally two parallel tracks.
Thanks KP. I’ll do that next draft.
Leave a Comment