Why the change?

The existing system has been used for 14 years, while competitor numbers have increased, and substantial youth international success has occurred.

The system needs change because:
It Ignores LTAD. Trampolinists enter at all ages, but the system of routines and qualifying marks has meant the young can quickly be exposed to the national competition circuit and pressure with limited preparation and while still in their learning to train stage.

Fixture Congestion. The number of weekends used by competitions has had an impact on other beneficial activities in trampolining, like regional and squad activities, club training, friendly competitions and synchro. It also impacts on family life for coaches and family, school and social lives of competitors.

Big Pressure on Small Athletes. Exposure to pressure is needed to develop mental toughness. However, the current scheme means younger performers face this pressure early in their career, while still in the learning to train stage. Events such as transition between age groups (with changes in qualifying marks, routines and judging) can have a major impact, yet are based entirely on chronological age. The early introduction to ‘high' grades for younger competitors can be followed by years of fighting to avoid downgrading at the end of each year as the requirements become more onerous. The separation of Grade 1 events from Grade 2 events from regional events means downgrading has a major impact on performers' social lives and self-image as well as their trampolining.

Youth Success, Senior Drop-Outs
The UK's elite youth compete for National Champion Titles from age nine; exposure of young athletes to intense competitive pressure has led to major successes in the Youth International team, but has also seen many young stars drop out as they find this early success become more difficult to repeat. As explained by David Ross at the 2006 Technical Conference, many countries enjoying sustained senior international success today do not emphasise developing competition form until a performer's late teens. Many successful countries use competition systems which make no attempt to accelerate younger performers' entry to national competition at all. Interestingly, Britain has a proud tradition of senior international success. Nearly all of these successes were achieved by performers who started on the ‘Open' circuit, where no distinction was made for age at all.

Emphasis on FIG Competitive Form at all Stages of Development
The existing competition scheme makes development dependent on competition marks, which depend on development of FIG-defined competitive form. It is not just other countries that avoid this emphasis in the early years of a trampolinist's career: our own National Technical Priorities, developed by the National Squad Performance Directors seek a return to fundamentals of jumping skills over form, until they are thoroughly ingrained. In particular, the emphasis on kick-outs and remaining straight into the bed is considered to be unhelpful. After a competition, performers receive only a generalised, overall subjective mark to chart their progress. China and other countries provide specific, objective feedback measures such as routine time instead of, or as well as, the overall subjective mark.

Competitive Season Only Provided for Grade One Competitors
The scheme provides an off-season for grade one competitors only. All other competitors are expected to prepare for competitions throughout the year, with no variation for holiday, skill development, strength development, etc.

Natural Judging Variation Affects Performer Development
The reliance on absolute qualifying marks expects judges to be as uniform as robots! In reality, qualification rates vary substantially between regions and also between events in the national circuit.