All-Star Flyers

[cheerisloving]

And some girls are just small??? Up until college I always had itty bitty flyers and all of them were older than me by a good 3-4 years. In HS I was in 5'1-5'2 but we had girls on our team that were really small, so I didn't fly. My friend is 18 and stands at 4'5 and has been mistaken for a child multiple times. That 'fetus' very well could be the oldest girl on the team just saying.

And the idea that the smaller the flyer the less they try, can be true with someone with little experience but that's not fair to a lot of this smaller girls who have great technique and do their job.

 

[Keep_Believing]

If you take all of the best bases on a team and put them together, nearly anyone could fly on that group. Of course, then all of your other groups (and the team's score) suffer immensely.

One can argue all day long about what is "fair" regarding who gets to fly. Unfortunately for some, physics doesn't care one bit about what is "fair". (For that matter, neither does the scoresheet.) Regardless of how you think it "ought" to be, the reality is that being incredibly small is a MASSIVE advantage when it comes to flying. It isn't the only thing, but it is pretty far ahead of the next most important thing. It is like speed for a wide receiver, or height for a center in basketball.

Why is that obvious truth hard for the majority of people to accept? People get very offended/offensive when this point is brought up.

 

[Quotation]

i think the real issue is being overlooked here. a lot of the comments are about how it makes sense to have the smaller girls flying and the bigger girls basing, which is true, it wouldn't make sense to have the small girls basing people that are heavier than them. the issue is when girls that are technically too young for a senior team are placed there just to fly, especially when there is an appropriate level youth or junior team that they could be placed on.

for example: let's say there are two girls, girl A is 15 and has been a flyer for three years, while girl B is 10 and has been basing for two years and flying for one. both have level 4 skills and the gym has a junior and a senior 4. logically girl A would fly on s4 and girl B would either base or fly on j4, but instead both girls are placed on s4 with girl A basing and girl B flying, despite girl A having more experience as a flyer.

this scenario is hardly fair to anyone, girl A is taken out of a position she has lots of experience in and is expected to learn how to base so that girl B is guaranteed a flying position, and girl B is placed on a team with people much older than her, who she likely won't bond with as well as she would on a junior team.

and even if the gym only has a j3 and a s4, I still think that kids should be placed in their appropriate age groups, otherwise is there even any reason to have age groups?

 

[SL&AM]

i think the real issue is being overlooked here. a lot of the comments are about how it makes sense to have the smaller girls flying and the bigger girls basing, which is true, it wouldn't make sense to have the small girls basing people that are heavier than them. the issue is when girls that are technically too young for a senior team are placed there just to fly, especially when there is an appropriate level youth or junior team that they could be placed on.

for example: let's say there are two girls, girl A is 15 and has been a flyer for three years, while girl B is 10 and has been basing for two years and flying for one. both have level 4 skills and the gym has a junior and a senior 4. logically girl A would fly on s4 and girl B would either base or fly on j4, but instead both girls are placed on s4 with girl A basing and girl B flying, despite girl A having more experience as a flyer.

this scenario is hardly fair to anyone, girl A is taken out of a position she has lots of experience in and is expected to learn how to base so that girl B is guaranteed a flying position, and girl B is placed on a team with people much older than her, who she likely won't bond with as well as she would on a junior team.

and even if the gym only has a j3 and a s4, I still think that kids should be placed in their appropriate age groups, otherwise is there even any reason to have age groups?

But, per the current age grid, the 10 year old is on an age appropriate team since she can be on a Senior level 4 team.

 

[justcheering]

But, per the current age grid, the 10 year old is on an age appropriate team since she can be on a Senior level 4 team.

I still find that minimum age to be much too low..10/11 year olds on a team with 18/possibly 19 year olds? It just seems like waayyy too big of an age gap and maturity difference

Edit: I know that's not the point of the thread but it just makes me shake my head like crazy lol

 

[Eyes On The Prize]

I really don't believe that "fair" is a word that belongs in this discussion. Fairness doesn't win titles. Strategy wins titles. There is no room for fairness in strategy.

As a team activity, you do what is good for the team, not what is fair to the individual athlete.

 

[dat.jpp]

Remember back in 2010 when Tribe Cheer had a "big" point flyer on the team Renegades?

 

[cheer25mom]

i think the real issue is being overlooked here. a lot of the comments are about how it makes sense to have the smaller girls flying and the bigger girls basing, which is true, it wouldn't make sense to have the small girls basing people that are heavier than them. the issue is when girls that are technically too young for a senior team are placed there just to fly, especially when there is an appropriate level youth or junior team that they could be placed on.

for example: let's say there are two girls, girl A is 15 and has been a flyer for three years, while girl B is 10 and has been basing for two years and flying for one. both have level 4 skills and the gym has a junior and a senior 4. logically girl A would fly on s4 and girl B would either base or fly on j4, but instead both girls are placed on s4 with girl A basing and girl B flying, despite girl A having more experience as a flyer.

this scenario is hardly fair to anyone, girl A is taken out of a position she has lots of experience in and is expected to learn how to base so that girl B is guaranteed a flying position, and girl B is placed on a team with people much older than her, who she likely won't bond with as well as she would on a junior team.

and even if the gym only has a j3 and a s4, I still think that kids should be placed in their appropriate age groups, otherwise is there even any reason to have age groups?

I have a 12 year old who is basing on a senior team and has bonded just fine. The "fair" scenario is the one that puts each team in the best position to win, period. Maybe the 10 year old would have been odd man out for stunts on the junior team and would have been a nugget! I don't think it's fair at all to hold a child back because a bigger kid doesn't want to loose their spot, nor do I think flying decisions should be based solely on size. The best person for the job should get it, regardless of size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SL&AM]

I still find that minimum age to be much too low..10/11 year olds on a team with 18/possibly 19 year olds? It just seems like waayyy too big of an age gap and maturity difference

Edit: I know that's not the point of the thread but it just makes me shake my head like crazy lol

I really don't get it either if we're being honest, but for right now, it is what it is. I'd love to see button ages added to every division and senior go up to 12/14 but it likely won't happen---but for now, a 10 year old on a senior team is 'age appropriate' per USASF.

 

[Quotation]

But, per the current age grid, the 10 year old is on an age appropriate team since she can be on a Senior level 4 team.

as I stated in the second half of that sentence, if we can place kids on teams regardless of age then why do we even have different age divisions? While technically yes the 10 year old would be allowed on a senior team, she is still not what I, or most people for that matter, would consider to be "senior aged". I strongly believe that there should be rules to enforce a bottom age for all divisions, but since there isn't it then falls to the coaches and gym owners to place kids on a team with other kids that are at a similar point in life. Too often people overlook the real reason for youth sports, it's not about the titles and the trophies, it's about encouraging healthy mental and social development so as to better prepare children for adulthood. We can get hung up about technicalities all day if we want, but in the end I think most of us can agree that a ten year old child doesn't belong on a senior aged team with people that are entering adulthood.

 

[Cheer0825]

as I stated in the second half of that sentence, if we can place kids on teams regardless of age then why do we even have different age divisions? While technically yes the 10 year old would be allowed on a senior team, she is still not what I, or most people for that matter, would consider to be "senior aged". I strongly believe that there should be rules to enforce a bottom age for all divisions, but since there isn't it then falls to the coaches and gym owners to place kids on a team with other kids that are at a similar point in life. Too often people overlook the real reason for youth sports, it's not about the titles and the trophies, it's about encouraging healthy mental and social development so as to better prepare children for adulthood. We can get hung up about technicalities all day if we want, but in the end I think most of us can agree that a ten year old child doesn't belong on a senior aged team with people that are entering adulthood.

There are rules enforcing a minimum and maximum age for each division. You can debate whether or not these age grids are divided well but they do exist.

 

[Quotation]

I have a 12 year old who is basing on a senior team and has bonded just fine. The "fair" scenario is the one that puts each team in the best position to win, period. Maybe the 10 year old would have been odd man out for stunts on the junior team and would have been a nugget! I don't think it's fair at all to hold a child back because a bigger kid doesn't want to loose their spot, nor do I think flying decisions should be based solely on size. The best person for the job should get it, regardless of size.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My example was by no means meant to be inclusive to every possible scenario regarding availability of positions on whatever team or the individual maturity of one particular child and their ability to get along with their teammates. The point i'm trying to make is that junior or youth aged kids shouldn't be pulled up to senior teams to fly before they're ready, when there are senior girls who could do those positions just as well, if not better. of course there are going to be exceptions to every possible scenario that anyone could come up with, but those few exceptions do not invalidate the main point.

 

[Quotation]

There are rules enforcing a minimum and maximum age for each division. You can debate whether or not these age grids are divided well but they do exist.

bottom ages only exist for senior and open teams, and the bottom age for a senior team is still youth age. The only reason for the bottom age to be so low is for small gyms who don't have enough athletes from one age group to form a team. Everyone can agree that a team of all ten year olds should be competing in a youth division, but if we add one fifteen year old does it suddenly become senior? what about if there are two fifteen year olds? three? where do we draw the line between what is a youth and what is a junior or senior team? The point of my entire argument is that the age divisions are poorly divided, which leads to athletes being placed on a team that they shouldn't be on with kids that are much older than them.

(although if anyone wants to hear my ideas for how age grids should be divided i've got a couple extra hours to kill, we can argue it out on here, or even make a new thread! )

 

[Cheer0825]

bottom ages only exist for senior and open teams, and the bottom age for a senior team is still youth age. The only reason for the bottom age to be so low is for small gyms who don't have enough athletes from one age group to form a team. Everyone can agree that a team of all ten year olds should be competing in a youth division, but if we add one fifteen year old does it suddenly become senior? what about if there are two fifteen year olds? three? where do we draw the line between what is a youth and what is a junior or senior team? The point of my entire argument is that the age divisions are poorly divided, which leads to athletes being placed on a team that they shouldn't be on with kids that are much older than them.

(although if anyone wants to hear my ideas for how age grids should be divided i've got a couple extra hours to kill, we can argue it out on here, or even make a new thread! )

I was just clarifying that minimum ages are enforced even though I totally agree that they are not divided in the best way.

 

[SL&AM]

(although if anyone wants to hear my ideas for how age grids should be divided i've got a couple extra hours to kill, we can argue it out on here, or even make a new thread! )

I'd like to hear how you'd change the age grid.