Why would 4.2 fall into the same catagory as level 4, as a 4.2 team won grand champions at Ontario's this past weekend.
Congratulations to the team, but why would 4.2 fall into the same category when it came to getting judged as level 4, when they are ultimately to levels below when it comes to tumbling.
It does not make sense to me, please explain! I know that the stunts are the same level, but they are many aspects to the routine that are NOT the same in any way, and that should not even be comparable to the tumbling that a level 4 team would be doing, as compared to a 4.2 tumbling.

Well when you get your answer maybe we can get the answer to why small senior 5 (worlds) had different score sheets then the other divisions in the "Roads to Worlds" groups. But then again when you have one of the owners of 3 bid winners standing on the judges panel during their performances might be one answer....ummmm

Now we are accusing Cheer Evolution of not giving the Ladykats a fair shake??? LOL Anyone who thinks they legitimately deserved a bid obviously did not watch the other teams. Sure they had a couple kick doubles and leg position (areabasque)? doubles but they were nowhere close to the level of the other teams that won bids. Tumbling being worth 45% and they had 1??? Full in a line????? Pretty sure the decision to not give a bid was justified.

but this also relates to have a 4.2 team won a level 4 grand champion title, yet they have absolutely NO level 4 tumbling, nor even anything close to level 4 tumbling. So how is it that cheer evolution didnt give a bid to the lady kats, (yes! i know, maybe they didnt deserve a bid, just listen!), yet they had skills to match the level of what they were performing at, yet cheer evolution feels its okay to hand out a level 4 grand champion banner to a team with absolutely no tumbling remotely close to the level at which they "won" at.
To myself, there is a huge difference between level two tumbling and level four tumbling, and the fact that cheer evolution isnt recognizing and even comparing the tumbling at those two levels, that is a litte insane.

its pretty bad when owners of a company can control any outcome they want....why waste some of these kids time and energy when they know who will get the bids even before you perform...oh wait its called greed and all they want is your money...if they really cared the outcomes would have been decided by you the athelete and not by who owns what

also to add how the hell did the alberta team get a bid they were awful...hope they didnt pay too much to get in

I agree 4.2 should not have won Level 4's grand champs banner, should have their own IMO. I also agree on PCC. But not on the owners picking the bids... sure CF and UCC owners are also owners of Cheer Evolution... Everyone knows this. Teams other then those 2 also won bids... Cobras won 1 of the 3 Partial Bids and BW won an at large bid as well. But this 'owners standing over the judges shoulder' implying they are telling the judges what to score is retarded. Obviously when you own a company you are involved and working the event. I will say I don;t think all 12 should have been awarded, but hey atleast they did the 12 best there were.

Listen perception is everything. When you own the company and have teams competing at least show some sort of intergrity and have another member of your team (not owners) be on the judging panel when your teams compete. No one is questioning the bid Lady Kats didn't receive, they are improving however the question is the score sheets and why are they different? If everyone is going for a bid it should be equal across the board. This is when USASF needs to be involved for the integrity of the sport and the bids being given out. There seems to be alot of questions around scoring, performance etc and possibly the use of videos to be sent to USASF for review and hopefully CCE won't be the only company to award bids in the future in Ontario.

j disagree with what you have said her as a spectater and seeing alot of dissappointment from lots of teams was disheartening...owners if they have integrity should make sure teams want to come back to their events instaed of questioning what is going on....the word in the stands was all the bids were giving out before the competition...teams knew who was getting a bid but you still lead everyone else to believe everything was fair and square...if this is how they choose to give out bids then dont make these young ladies or gentlemen believe they have a shot

I highly doubt teams knew a head of time. I was in the coaches lounge when one gym walked in with their bid in hand. They seemed pretty excited for someone that 'knew' they were getting a bid.

it just seems funny that the three owners were the majority winners of this competition and think about this the team from alberta performed awful and still received a bid..if your team was struggling like they were would you fly all the way here if you didnt know you were getting a bid...they had to have been promised one to come all that way..think about it

Hi,

I was the one who coordinated the judging panels for the event this weekend. The judges were selected by me, and placed on panels by me. The owners of CCE have made a clear and concerted effort to stand back from the judging process, to show that all teams are being judged fairly and equally by the panels.

The panel of judges for the World's qualifiers were World's judges from previous years. They were all US judges, who have no affiliation with any of the programs that competed this weekend. At the end of the runs on Sunday, this panel of judges met together and gave their recommendations of who should be given bids, based on whether they felt that the team would be able to represent and be competitive in the competition. The CCE owners were not the ones "picking who got bids".

The scoresheets used for the World's Qualifiers were the USASF/IASF World's Scoresheets, in conjunction with the USASF/ISAF skill grids. So, the teams got judged the same way they will at World's, by the same judges they will at World's. To me, this seemed like an ideal situation.

Moving forward, I am more than open to any suggestion as to how the judging process at CCE events can be improved. My email is on this post, please don't hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns moving forward.

I'd like to wish my best to all the teams for the rest of the season!

Ian Pudge.

Honestly.... PCC was PROMISED a bid??? Right, get over it! Ladykats, Super Cheer, Hawks and CCA weren't up to par with their competition and weren't given a bid. I am sorry this upsets you. 3 CEE Owners were given most of the bids eh? Ok, so the owners of Sharks (2 bids), Cobras (3 bids), PCC (1 bid) and Black Widow (1 bid) add to 7 bids. So the CEE owners' teams received LESS THEN HALF of the bids awarded. SO hows does that mean they came out on top. Just seems like sour grapes from a person most likely involved with 1 of the teams that wasn't given a bid.

Ian, very well said!

Hi

I am one of the owners of PCT and we absolutely did not know that we'd be receiving bids. After day 1, we assumed that we'd get two (as we had the 2nd and 6th highest scores). What was unclear was if we'd get that 3rd bid that we soooooo wanted. We were prepared for either scenerio as we'd been told numerous times that the scores along with recommendations from the judging panel would be taken into account. In the end, the top 12 teams took the bids. The PCT teams and the coaches had no fore-warning about the number of bids we'd receive and we are thrilled to be able to take 3 teams to Worlds this year.

As for the Level 4 Grands. I absolutely agree. We have a 4.2 team at our gym and I don't think it would be appropriate to have Level 4 and Level 4.2 (essentially) compete against each other. I don't have a solution, but this isn't an apples to apples comparison.

I was amazed that a 4.2 team would even be considered for level 4 grand champions. The whole purpose of Grand Champions is to be able to compare scores across multiple divisions that are performing the same skills and determine who is best. There is no way to equate standing handsprings with tucks, and certainly no way to compare series handsprings, with series hs tucks/layouts etc. I can only hope that this was a one time mistake with a rushed awards ceremony and someone from CE not putting any thought into the process. BW has always had a strong AG Level 4 team and yet we haven't won a Level 4 Grand Championship to to this point. To say we were disappointed to see a team that isn't even Level 4 win it would be an understatement.

I have emailed Doug two days ago and will be happy to provide his answer when I receive it.

I know that everyone was disappointed to see a level 4.2 team win level 4 grand champions but if you look at CCEs policies regarding grand champions it clearly states that level 4.2 is included with level 4
http://canadiancheer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Cheer-Evolution-Competition-guidelines-2010-11.pdf
page 5
also, yes the teams tumbling is level 2 but all other aspects of the routine are level 4 (stunting, jumps, baskets, pyramid), unfortunately detailed results were not posted online so i cant compare the routine in the other categories
but that is how the routine is judged, level 4 teams - level 4 tumbling,
4.2 - level 2 tumbling

but if you compare the routines without tumbling I'd say that it was fair to award grand champions to a level 4.2 team, but I do understand where the other teams are coming from. but if 4.2 isn't included in level 4? then where should they be included or are they just ineligible for grand champion period. because if you ask me, putting them against level 2 is equally unfair.

There is simply no way to compare level 4.2 with 4 or any other level. I coach a level 4 team and put an INCREDIBLE amount of time and effort in to maximizing our Level 4 Standing and Running Tumbling. If my level 4 team decided to drop down to level 4.2 I would never have to work on tumbling again. Imagine how fantastic my stunts, pyramids, dance etc would look with an extra 2-3 hours a week of practice on those elements? On top of that, have your athletes throw standing tucks, hs into tucks, layouts and more in running tumbling and tell me how tired they are going to be compared to the team that just did a hs clap hs? The level 4 routine is either going to have to account for the extra tumbling or the level 4 athletes are going to be in much better shape/condition than the 4.2 athlete.

On another note, I can take an athlete off the street and have them Level 4 stunting in a day (for bases) and a month (for tops). That same athlete will most likely NEVER be a level 4 tumbler and if they are it could take years.

4.2 is a made up division so that more athletes and gyms can feel like winners. I'm ok with it existing, but I'm not ok with it being compared to Level 4. CE offered about 4 different 4.2 divisions at nationals last year so just make a 4.2 Grand Champion and be done with it.

"4.2 is a made up division so that more athletes and gyms can feel like winners."

Wow, really? That's as stupid as saying that level 4 is a division that is made up for the losers who aren't good enough to make a level 5 Worlds team... Give a break!

You're right -- any given athlete could take YEARS to build up level 4 tumbling skills, but can learn to stunt well much sooner, with the right coaching. My gym is brand new, from a small town that NEVER had a legitimate gymnastics program until THIS year. We have TWO former gymnasts in the program, and the rest were taught from scratch. 4.2 is a perfect fit for my team, not because we have the strong desire to "feel like winners", but because we have worked very hard to teach our kids good technique when it comes to stunting, and they are absolutely ready to stunt beyond level 2, but haven't had the time to build up a full team of athletes with level 3 or 4 tumbling.

Honestly, under normal circumstances, I would never reply to a post like this. However, you have done SO much complaining about your results (or lack thereof) on this message board, and you have had absolutely NO regard for other people's feelings when doing so, and you have finally struck a nerve with me. Your posts have made it clear that you have trouble putting yourself in other people's shoes, so I just wanted to let you know that there are plenty of reasons why the 4.2 division is legitimate, and that there are many ways in which it HELPS to grow the sport for gyms that aren't as large as your own.

If I was as caught up in championship titles as you are, I would be one MISERABLE person. Do yourself a favor and GET OVER IT. We're all starting off with a brand new season, and the sky is the limit. I truly wish you the BEST of luck this season, as I hope that helps you find some happiness. Should you win, you can be sure that I will not be going around posting wherever I can about how UNFAIR and WRONG it was that your team got a chance to taste success.

I stand by the comment. Tell me you don't agree with me if they form 5.3, 3.1, etc. We've had a team in 4.2 the past couple of seasons. I like the division and think it's appropriate for certain athletes. That doesn't change the fact that there are too many divisions and this is just another division added so that there are more winners. Regardless of whether I like the division or not, my point was it's not comparable to Level 4. If, God forbid they ever make a 5.3 division I would hope it wouldn't have a chance to win Level 5 Grand Champions either. When you take the tumbling aspect out of the routine/score sheets you have completely different scores and routines.

And again, I stand by post about the results of Level 4. Those opinions were shared by other coaches in the division as well as by a CE official. Not that you're going to care, but I really don't care much about the win. What I do care about, is fair, consistent judging. That's been missing at CE Nationals for the past two seasons.

Thank you for your concern regarding my well being but I'm perfectly alright. I love my teams and I love my gym. My athletes know that and they also know I'd do anything for them.

I will stand by Larry in agreeing that there are way too many division. Although unto itself, 4.2 is fine as would 3.2 or 6.2 but when you look at the overall picture, all the industry has done is thin out the division sizes to 'make more kids feel like winners'. Larry is just writing and putting his name to something that a LOT of coaches and parents have been saying for several years now.
Where the over divisioning of things is most evident, is at small competitions (in both Canada and the US) when there are rarely a 'division' with more than 2 teams in it. Back in the day when there was All Girl and Coed or as it was known: Varsity and Coed, yes, teams might place 13th at a competition but at least they felt like they were in a competition. But today's namby pamby stroking of the egos of the underskilled teams and gyms that feel they need to validate themselves with trophies and banners (al of which say NATIONAL CHAMPION on them), has pushed us to accept the creation a division for every team. Personally, I hate the idea of 6.2 or Open 4. FOr gosh sakes, do we really need to coddle the 23 year olds that join these teams in the twilight of their careers so much so, that we remove tumbling or inversions? Why not take out jumping or even cradling in case the old folks might strain a back muscle. Yup: Level 6.1, that's what we'll call it.
My point? Larry is honest and speaks what many of us are afraid to. And there are many of us out here that quietly say right on.

Well written and stated. I agree with both you and Larry. I competed back in the day when it was co-ed and Varsity. 30+ teams in the Varsity Division at Ontario's, you actually had to compete, and be mindful of things, like smiles, motions, no bobbles, etc. It was a "real" competition in my mind.

Well, I'm going to date myself again and state that I remember a time in which you could compete in Ontario against 60+ teams. That being said, the "actual" competition took place between two or three teams for top place - CCH, Notre Dame, Woodlands, Bishop Mac...and honestly, that is it.

We continually lament about the "lack of competition" but in reality its always been thus in the truest sense of the word. Having the 59th place team in 1989 attempt to do the things that CCH was doing would have been unsafe, and bad for the sport (and it was). The level playing field rules that we have today that restrict teams to stay within the level of their ability is prudent and smart. Having ability-based division works in every other sport in our country so why won't it work at cheer?

In my estimation it does, CE had over 350 teams...my gym (PCT) took 13 teams to this competition and EVERY SINGLE one of our divisions had competition - some deep (10-15 teams) some not deep (2-4 teams). It is not the USASF divisions that are causing the lack of deep divisions - its the proliferation of competitions. Back in the day, we had 3 maybe 4 events in a year. We started competing at Voaden in December and ended in Ontarios in March. Easy, condensed season and every cheer team in the province participated. Now teams travel, we have 10 events to choose from in Ontario (don't get me wrong, I like that) and with that cannot expect to have competitions with divisions of even 10 teams. Its not the reality, and holding fast to the "good old days" is just silly.

As for 4.2, I'm all for it. I think its the perfect division for most of Canada. It allows senior aged girls to do what they are most good at (eg. stunt), without going beyond that illusive backhandspring. Seriously, how many 16 year olds learn to go beyond this skill? Its a realistic division based upon what the country has to offer. Should it be up for Grand Champs vs. Level 4? I don't think so. Should it exist? Absolutely!