All-Star Not A Rule... But Request It From Event Producers: Combine Large And Small Gym

[King]

Wonderful idea brought up during the debate was that divisions would never be split by large and small gym. Instead any division with a gym that qualifies as a small gym there would be two 1st places issued: one for large gym and one for small. Gyms would compete all against eachother and see how the score stacks up, but could win for their division. This is very similar to marathons. Evenone races together, and there is one overall winner, but you might go ahead and win your age group.

Less dividing of teams but still recognition for a small gym and their placement.

 

[King]

Oh, you need to let your event producers know this is a great!!!!! Idea.

 

[glittergirl]

I really like this idea. It makes sense to have one overall winner, while still recognizing the small gym winner. There's still competition, but it allows small gyms to do well too. I would love to see this happen!

 

[King]

And small gyms HAVE won overall before.

 

[rvnblue]

I reallllllly like this!

 

[NJ Coach]

I don't have a problem with this, but I did agree with Theapia about announcing the second first place winner in their actual place along with announcing them the winner of small or large gym. Yes, when you get the score breakdown, you'll see where you line up against the others but someone isn't in their true place.

 

[Deleted member 382]

I may change my opinion once I listen to the meeting, but I still think there should be some criteria on when this is offered. In some areas of the country there maybe enough small and large gyms for this to make sense, but I don't like the idea of either a small or large gym winning simply for showing up. I have been to several local competitions lately where there are 2 teams in a division (combining small and large) and now they are both going to win?

 

[hopskipandjump]

I may change my opinion once I listen to the meeting, but I still think there should be some criteria on when this is offered. In some areas of the country there maybe enough small and large gyms for this to make sense, but I don't like the idea of either a small or large gym winning simply for showing up. I have been to several local competitions lately where there are 2 teams in a division (combining small and large) and now they are both going to win?

I think, but maybe I am wrong, that everybody KNOWS who really won. I do. And so do my kids. (And I have a really small gym, but I like beating big gyms).

 

[King]

I may change my opinion once I listen to the meeting, but I still think there should be some criteria on when this is offered. In some areas of the country there maybe enough small and large gyms for this to make sense, but I don't like the idea of either a small or large gym winning simply for showing up. I have been to several local competitions lately where there are 2 teams in a division (combining small and large) and now they are both going to win?

Sure. BUT you will know who got the higher score. It is all about creating a sense of accomplishment.

In fact the Small gym is at an advantage with this way. To a large gym they don't care if they won the large gym divsion but lost to a small gym. They want to win it all.

To a small gym they want to feel like they are on an even playing field. So they get to compete against their peers in a level playing field while ALSO taking a no risk shot at first against the large gyms.

 

[Mrs.CheerExtreme]

Well if there are only a few people in the division (as in 2 or 3) they shouldn't do this and when there is a higher number of competitors in each division then they should do this, that way its not like everybody wins and then the judges will actually have to use their mighty judging skills and use ratios to judge the teams. It would definitely level the playing field...as long as people don't get scared and drop down levels.

 

[pinksparklybow]

I was watching this discussion yesterday and had a clarification question - would it be more clear to have 2 "first places" or third, second, first then "small gym high point" and "large gym high point"....thoughts? I think this would clear up some of the confusion of the "first" place team (small or large) when they actually came in lower than second.

 

[King]

Well if there are only a few people in the division (as in 2 or 3) they shouldn't do this and when there is a higher number of competitors in each division then they should do this, that way its not like everybody wins and then the judges will actually have to use their mighty judging skills and use ratios to judge the teams. It would definitely level the playing field...as long as people don't get scared and drop down levels.

To quote Kevin Brubaker (again badly): If you want a National Championship jacket send me your address and ill send you one.

Event producers have no problem giving away trophies, and that is perfectly awesome. Let us create the system to ALWAYS encourage small gyms to go to a competition. No if 4 teams are there then you can offer a small gym award. Every division will have a small gym and large gym winner if they exist in the division. At the end of the day the kids will know the score, who won overall. Small gyms can be very happy cause they can say they got first for small gym, and 10th overall. Kinda like how I was excited, when I ran a half marathon, that even though I finished 4,000th for the race, I finished 300th for my age group (and 1st for my weight class). But we ALL competed at the same time, together.

 

[hopskipandjump]

Sure. BUT you will know who got the higher score. It is all about creating a sense of accomplishment.

In fact the Small gym is at an advantage with this way. To a large gym they don't care if they won the large gym divsion but lost to a small gym. They want to win it all.

To a small gym they want to feel like they are on an even playing field. So they get to compete against their peers in a level playing field while ALSO taking a no risk shot at first against the large gyms.

Kingston, I feel kind of passionately about this topic because as I stated above, I co-own a small gym. By current definition, that would be 75 and under athletes. I know for a fact that several times last year, and in particular, season ending competitions, that 75 and under athletes rule was not followed or should I say, confirmed by event producers. It irks me to the max that people use this division to claim a title because they thinks its easier. I often think "ugh" when I see some of the small gyms I have to face in my divisions. In my opinion there is a higher percentage of lower level teams from small gyms and hey, ever looked at a Mini 1 division??? PACKED. So, if we separate the gyms out, it would be really great if gyms followed the rules and event producers confirmed them. And in the meantime, I will continue to encourage and work with our teams to be able to beat everyone, regardless of gym size.

 

[King]

I was watching this discussion yesterday and had a clarification question - would it be more clear to have 2 "first places" or third, second, first then "small gym high point" and "large gym high point"....thoughts? I think this would clear up some of the confusion of the "first" place team (small or large) when they actually came in lower than second.

You get a list of scores at the end of the of the day. Youll see where you actually placed. And, technically, all teams will score one place higher.

 

[King]

Kingston, I feel kind of passionately about this topic because as I stated above, I co-own a small gym. By current definition, that would be 75 and under athletes. I know for a fact that several times last year, and in particular, season ending competitions, that 75 and under athletes rule was not followed or should I say, confirmed by event producers. It irks me to the max that people use this division to claim a title because they thinks its easier. I often think "ugh" when I see some of the small gyms I have to face in my divisions. In my opinion there is a higher percentage of lower level teams from small gyms and hey, ever looked at a Mini 1 division??? PACKED. So, if we separate the gyms out, it would be really great if gyms followed the rules and event producers confirmed them. And in the meantime, I will continue to encourage and work with our teams to be able to beat everyone, regardless of gym size.

I take that you like this idea?