…the Real Showstoppers

[Cheermom1969]

Looking at some of the pics, is this the team with the hater shades that was talked about on another thread?

 

[AlwaysLearning]

Looking at some of the pics, is this the team with the hater shades that was talked about on another thread?

I believe that is the one.

 

[Cheermom1969]

I believe that is the one.

Well this is all making more sense to me.

 

[Cheer Dad]

Looking at some of the pics, is this the team with the hater shades that was talked about on another thread?

Yes, the same.


The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android Hater Shades, trying to be relevant since 2009.

 

[Emily]

Well, there's that.

I wonder how they did that season. I'm assuming they dropped to Y2 with squad tucks because their level 3 stunting wasn't competitive.

But that's an assumption and I know what they say about those...

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

Just jumping off this post: the article says that 75% of the team (so 15 out of 20 kids) were new to the team this year and not on the Y3 team. So, the majority of the kids was NOT on the level 3 team.

I have to say though that I don't understand why 5 kids (=25% of the Y2 team) were dropped down a level (from Y3 to Y2) when the team was incredibly successul (so those 5 kids probably had majority if not all level 3 skills) the season before.

 

[oncecoolcoachnowmom]

I'm still stuck on "no tuck, not tryout"...

I feel like lots of people might say things like that in a moment of SM frustration. Most of us don't put it in an "article" as a proud moment. Most of us file it in confessions and hope for an intervention.

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

I've heard "We're not doing this if you can't get your full. Not paying for another year of Level 4." I also don't think she would have said it if she'd known that I could hear her, but there's that.

 

[Mamarazzi]

Whoa. I'm not even sure if I know the people posting on this thread right now.

First, Lisa stated in the opening of the article that she didn't write it. Another parent did. She herself didn't want to come across as "braggy," so she let another parent do it.
What I got from this article was that a new team, one going through a re-building year, and an athlete coming from a lackluster year, worked their bootys off to gain skills. Not because they were told they had to compete "up" a level, but because they wanted to be better.
They could've been complacent, but they CHOSE success. I get that some are pretty high on their 1st place horse, but jeez. Not everyone lives with that expectation or has that chance. The article was very obviously a nod to the team that "shouldn't" have won. And then they did.

Congrats to Showstoppers for doing werk!

 

[Cheermom1969]

I was going to re-read the article but it seems to have been removed? I can't find it... help.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

I was going to re-read the article but it seems to have been removed? I can't find it... help.

I tried to post this earlier but I was in the subway with no signal. Now I don't feel like typing it all out again.

(But I do feel like it said she didn't want to write it, but decided to go ahead after talking to other moms? The parts written by other people were clearly marked I thought. But it's gone now, so we'll never know...)

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[Mamarazzi]

That actually bothers me a little.
I'm sure Lisa probably went "Dang. That didn't have the desired effect," so she removed it, but honey, stand behind your stuff!

 

[CheerBank]

Whoa. I'm not even sure if I know the people posting on this thread right now.

First, Lisa stated in the opening of the article that she didn't write it. Another parent did. She herself didn't want to come across as "braggy," so she let another parent do it.
What I got from this article was that a new team, one going through a re-building year, and an athlete coming from a lackluster year, worked their bootys off to gain skills. Not because they were told they had to compete "up" a level, but because they wanted to be better.
They could've been complacent, but they CHOSE success. I get that some are pretty high on their 1st place horse, but jeez. Not everyone lives with that expectation or has that chance. The article was very obviously a nod to the team that "shouldn't" have won. And then they did.

Congrats to Showstoppers for doing werk!

I think we are just reading it from different perspectives. And that is fine.
No one is taking away from this team doing well this past season. Kudos to the kids for all working hard and achieving great goals.
I never viewed this team as a cheer equivalent to "The Little Engine That Could" but more "The Little Engine That Should". Showstoppers was a NCA-winning Y3 team the season before last and had a few girls crossing over to higher junior and senior teams. They maintained 25% of that team plus had kids coming on from the Jr2 team who I highly doubt had no experience working level 3 skills ( we all know our kids, regardless of the level they are competing on, are working higher level skills throughout the season to be ready for the following season in hopes of moving up). There were kids on Showstoppers this season who crossed over to the Jr3 as well as to their 4.2, plus the author told us herself that by the end of the summer they had 19 out of 20 girls throwing tucks.
That they competed as Y2 instead of Y3 again - that is their coach's decision on what is best for his gym, and they were obviously quite successful at that this past season. Do I agree with it? Not really, but I am not a coach nor part of this gym so it is not like anyone really cares about my opinion on the whole thing.
I took issue to this article portraying them as a team that "shouldn't" have won, as you stated. Because it seems very much to me that they were in fact a team that should very much have won. And they did, more power to them, because we know that sometimes this scenario backfires on a coach and they still do not have a successful season.
I also found it ironic that the author of this article who told her daughter "no tuck, no tryout because they didn't want another season of disappointment"(paraphrasing because I do not have article to reference any more) was then perfectly fine with her daughter competing all season again on a Level 2 team, and interesting that the parents of the 5 or so kids from the original Y3 Showstoppers were fine with their athletes essentially competing down a level for the season.

 

[Just-a-Mom]

I think we are just reading it from different perspectives. And that is fine.
No one is taking away from this team doing well this past season. Kuddos to the kids for all working hard and achieving great goals.
I never viewed this team as a cheer equivalent to "The Little Engine That Could" but more "The Little Engine That Should". Showstoppers was a NCA-winning Y3 team the season before last and had a few girls crossing over to higher junior and senior teams. They maintained 25% of that team plus had kids coming on from the Jr2 team who I highly doubt had no experience working level 3 skills ( we all know our kids, regardless of the level they are competing on, are working higher level skills throughout the season to be ready for the following season in hopes of moving up). There were kids on Showstoppers this season who crossed over to the Jr3 as well as to their 4.2, plus the author told us herself that by the end of the summer they had 19 out of 20 girls throwing tucks.
That they competed as Y2 instead of Y3 again - that is their coach's decision on what is best for his gym, and they were obviously quite successful at that this past season. Do I agree with it? Not really, but I am not a coach nor part of this gym so it is not like anyone really cares about my opinion on the whole thing.
I took issue to this article portraying them as a team that "shouldn't" have won, as you stated. Because it seems very much to me that they were in fact a team that should very much have won. And they did, more power to them, because we know that sometimes this scenario backfires on a coach and they still do not have a successful season.
I also found it ironic that the author of this article who told her daughter "no tuck, no tryout because they didn't want another season of disappointment"(paraphrasing because I do not have article to reference any more) was then perfectly fine with her daughter competing all season again on a Level 2 team, and interesting that the parents of the 5 or so kids from the original Y3 Showstoppers were fine with their athletes essentially competing down a level for the season.

This is basically what I typed out on the subway last night. So, thanks for saying it for me.

I've never thought of Showstoppers as a team that shouldn't win - they always do really well, every season. And as you said, assembling a team out of Y3 and J2 kids from last season (that 19/20 have tucks before competition season even starts) and competing them at Y2 hardly qualifies as "rebuilding" or a team that "shouldn't" win - I have a totally different word for this.

I'll just leave it at this: this has not exactly been a banner year for public opinion for this team. Obviously I'm only going on what I see here and on twitter, but it looks like their parents could use some nacp and sportsmanship help.

@Mamarazzi I know you're reading it as her friend (or acquaintance) so obviously your views on it are different - and that's ok. I'm reading it as someone who's never met her, and I see "no tuck, no tryout" and that does not sit well with me.

The Fierce Board App! || iPhone || Android

 

[AlwaysLearning]

I had never heard of this team until this week. Yes I live in a bubble. :grin: So I am just going off of what I've read.

I took the article as a collection of "shameless brags" from a couple of parents. It's sad that the writer didn't feel good enough about her piece to keep it up.

The only real exception I took was the "no tuck/no tryouts" comment. Yes the parent did say they went to tryouts without a tuck bc of how hard CP was working, but the comment did not come across to me as a perceived parent fail moment.

The rest we'll never know (unless there's a backstory that I'm oblivious to). Isn't our view of an ideal team to be one who is working L3 skills while competing L2? I thought the reason behind that was to put solid skills on the mat to help prevent injuries from kids performing skills they have no business performing. Most kids I know that get their tuck by the end of summer are not ready to compete it that year. There is a HUGE jump in tumbling connections between L2 & L3 that a team needs to have to be competitive.

Was the team tumbling was solid enough that they should have gone y3? Maybe they didn't have the stunting for L3. Maybe they should have gone L3. Only the coach can answer that. There's a fine line between competing a level below your "skills in progress" and pushing a team up to challenge them.

If I had a team with 99% working L3 skills I would not be shocked that we were winning. I would expect to be very successful throughout the season. Perhaps their actions (sunglass thing) came across in a negative light whether that was the intention or not. I think I read a parent's comment that it was supposed to be a fun prop & not "hater shades".

Either way: Kudos to them for a successful season! It's not easy to take it all the way to the Summit! I know kids that placed in top 10 at worlds that didn't win at the Summit.

 

[Cheermom1969]

As with @AlwaysLearning, I also had never heard of this team. Not that I necessarily should because unless they're in my gym or a famous Level 5 team, I just keep to my cp's team.

This article had that braggy feeling to it and bragging really rubs me the wrong way. So to write an entire article on how hard this team worked and single out certain kids (although I think it was the author's kids spoken about) and then add in the whole "hater shades" thing, well, it just had me rolling my eyes. To me there's a difference between sharing good news about your child and outright bragging.

If someone wants to brag about their kid, cool, get on with your bad self. Doesn't mean I can't dislike it. (oh man, the triple negatives in that sentence)

 

[Mamarazzi]

I have no clue what the whole hater shades thing is about.
Further, @Just-a-Mom , I didn't read it as an acquaintance or friend, since I don't know the author in any way, shape or form.
Obviously y'all have a great deal more knowledge and history with this team than I!