Reply to Arlington proposing to close county gymnastics program

Forum Index » Sports General Discussion

Reply to "Arlington proposing to close county gymnastics program"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Most of the residents who benefit from the Barcroft facility AREN'T competitive gymnasts.  Yes, the Aerials and the Tigers will be devastated at the loss of the facility, but the impact to the greater community is even larger.  Most partipants are children who are interested in rec gymnastics, no different than the rec bball or rec swimming.  Learning gymnastics at a young age is wonderful for building strength, developing balance and coordination, promoting fitness, teaching discipline and mental toughness and boosting confidence.  Most participants eventually move on to other sports, but the foundation formed in gymnastics can help them throughout life.  Stop treating it like it's some boogeyman.  You don't need to be a college level gymnast to teach rec classes.  Please get real. Let's also not forget that it is one of the only adaptive gymnastics programs out there and those families won't have other places to turn. [/quote]

But then they could do that without the a full-fledged competitive gymnastics facility.

You could build a truly recreational gymnastics program that focused on tumbling, flexibility, strength, and body awareness. No vault, no bars except maybe a low bar for learning things like hip circles and doing pull ups and kip ups, no high beam, no rings, no pommel. Instead, you focus on fundamental skills and progressions. Cartwheels, walk-overs, rolls and building up to hand springs and back tucks for more advanced students.

Facility could have bonded foam flexi-rolls instead of a spring floor, some deeper foam mats for the slightly bigger tumbling tricks, a trampoline, low beams, a low bar. Less expensive, easier to break down and store when not in use, could be more easily moved to different facilities as needed, and lower liability costs since you wouldn't be doing riskier skills on equipment like this.

The program should emphasize exactly what you are talking about -- foundational gymnastics that help with body awareness, flexibility and mobility, balance and coordination, love of sports and physical movement. The program should also be targeted to all ages with programming specifically designed for adult beginners, and people with mobility or joint issues.

If the goal is fitness and not competitive gymnastics, then you don't need a vault, a foam pit, a springboard floor, a full suite of unevent/high/parallel bars, etc. All of which take up a ton of space, require a lot of maintenance, and are primarily used by more advanced gymnasts in a narrow age rage. People who want those things can seek out a private gym for it. If there is truly demand in Arlington County for it, and it's actually a sustainable model with insurance and staffing costs, then private options will become available. It does not make sense for the county to subsidize the competitive gymnastics portion of the program which serves so few kids when they could instead build a truly recreational program geared at fitness for all ages.[/quote]
There's no funding to buy all new equipment.  The gym is fully outfitted already.  This is a ridiculous post.[/quote]

Right.  The 2nd gym buildout was a misstep. They could close that side and convert back to a basketball gym while maintaining the original side.  It would crowd the space more, but since they have a stffing problem, it wouldn't be as bad as before.[/quote] There is still overwhelming demand from Arlington residents and long waitlists. There's no reason to think we can't fill both gyms with kids doing gymnastics. DPR just needs to get their act together.[/quote]

There’s overwhelming demand for gymnastics at the price point DPR was offering. At the price point it would take DPR to not hemorrhage money? Probably a whole lot less. [/quote]

We don't know b/c they won't say.  Also kind of arbitrary to say they have to cover costs when that's not the case for swimming.  There's something suspicious about this proposal.[/quote]

There is not a lot that's suspicious so far.  You don't like it.  Which is fair.

They are going to provide you with all the info you want.  I agree it should have been ready as soon as they suggested this though.  Been through this type of thing before with APS/County.  They are responsive and will answer all the questions.  Whether or not you like the answers is the next part.

It's also fair to say AAC team members should cover full costs.  And to ask to see the cost recovery policy and ask what's supposed to be covered and what's not.

What I think is kind of unfair is to pretty much call everyone incompetent (which is what is implied by saying DPR just needs to get their act together).  [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics