Small/late growing kids and athletics

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here, who posted a long story about my son.

If parents want to guide their kids toward certain sports, that's their decision. However, I'll push back against those who criticize parents for allowing their kids to pursue the sports they love. The discussions here is primarily about late growers who are talented at their sports but have gotten to an age where their size and strength are causing them to be pushed down the pack, which shows in cuts, reduced playing time, and lack of respect from coaches or teammates. This change in status comes at what seems like the worst time, middle school when kids naturally struggle anyway.

Most parents of kids who love sports have given them the opportunity to try many different activities, as noted by many PPs. My own tried soccer, tennis, basketball, golf, flag football, hockey, and gymnastics to find what he loved the most. I couldn't have pushed him away from soccer and basketball if I wanted to (and I didn't want to). If you are talented, you tend to enjoy the sports where you have success. There's nothing wrong with switching to an individual sport from a team sport if an uncontrollable factor like size is getting in the way. But there's also nothing wrong with seeing if you can push if that's important.

In any event, small kids' struggles and parents' pain watching them is less about the sport and more how kids navigate self-doubt, rejection, and sometimes flat-out cruelty. How do these setbacks that impact them as human beings? Does not being one of the best change how they feel about an activity they once loved? After devoting years to this sport at which they excelled, a kid now receiving messages that they aren't that good has to figure out where the sport fits in as a part of their identity. Is it important to keep working and ride the bench, waiting to grow and go through puberty? Is there another way to fill the hole left if the child quits the sport? Does dropping back to a less competitive team make sense? If the kid sticks with the sport, what other aspects of the game can they work on to compensate for lack of size and strength (game IQ, playmaking, lifting weights)? This is how resilience is developed.

In addition to my son, I have a DD who is also an athlete. In sports, I've seen both kids suffer humiliating lows that hurt like hell. But you know what? Even after being playing on a team that lost every game by a wide margin, or being the only athlete on a team that didn't qualify for states, or having your name in the paper for missing the critical play in a game, the world didn't end. They kept going. We still loved them, their their friends still cared about them, and anyone who held failures against them wasn't on their side anyway. For my DD, her low in one sport led her to focus on another one. For my son, his small stature is an integral part of who he is, regardless of what sport he plays. He's the youngest in his grade, and has always been the smallest, so being an underdog is a fact of life. He wrote his college essay about how he has learned to understand his size as a blessing and a curse. You don't have to wind up a pro or a DI scholarship athlete to learn life lessons through sports. The truth is that the more your kid cares about a sport (not you, as a parent, but your kid) the higher the highs and the lower the lows for them. It's ok to hurt. It's ok to get every shot blocked by a six footer. It's ok to move on from a sport when it isn't right anymore. As much as it killed me to watch my kids struggle, on balance, the lows of their athletic experience made them stronger and more determined than the highs. You just have make it through the bad times until they adjust and help them figure out what is important to them.

Thanks for this. There's some wisdom here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My kids had an idea of sports since they could stand up. I kicked the soccer ball at the park with them, hit tennis balls, timed their laps around the park, shot baskets on mini hoop and pitched the wiffle ball. They definitely had natural inclinations and like of certain sports. I could not get my kids interested in a sport they didn’t want to play.

Yep. And most kids are social and prefer to be part of a team as children, not swimming laps alone or running around the track.

My kid is in year round swim. His closest friends are in swim. Way closer than his school friends. It's definitely a team, or more of a family really, and they get very close.

But, height is a definite advantage. It won't eliminate you from competing though. You can see kids times rise and fall due in part to growth spurts. A growth spurt can actually lead to slower times for a while because the kid has to figure out how to work his changed body. Coaches know that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

Hell no. My oldest was 5'2" at 14 and 5'10" at 16. And now I think he just passed 5'11" at 17. The thing is, there is a definite history in late growth in my family. My brother was 5'10" when he left HS and 6'3" when he finished college. He was so, so skinny in MS and part of HS, he was a D1 soccer player, and pro post-college.

My oldest that is the 5'11" Junior is a Fall bday so older for his grade, turned 17 September of Junior year so that helped.

I did take my younger son to an endocrinologist at age 3.5-4 years old because he barely grew. He also was a very picky eater, never hunger. They did the wait and see, measured him every 3 months for 9 months and declared nothing wrong. Though he went from 75% height to 20% for a long time. I think he reached 30-40%height in middle school.

He is now a Freshmen and almost 15 (April) and I think maybe 5'5", but painfully skinny. And still has a baby face. He was still losing baby teeth (molars) this Fall. When he's on the field he looks really small, partly because of how skinny he is. I sometimes wonder if something is wrong, but I remember how skinny my brother was and how even on my husband's side there were late growers.

The funny thing is, he is now taller than his brother was at his age, and his brother already had his voice change by then and feet were huge so it could be the one I have been worried about ends up the taller one at the end of it.

Last year and this year have been really hard for him with getting passed over for the big guys, but when he's in the game he's actually better (team has no turnovers, midfield runs smoothly efficiently, he directs the rest of the team, has the insightful through balls, etc), but so many coaches just see the giant players with no efficiency and touch plowing through people but losing the ball and that's what they seem to prefer. The starting line up and subs always reflects that. Then, after being down 3-0 the little guys finally get subbed in and no more goals are let up and there's connection and passing and smart runs. Oh well... I guess they like to lose.

5'5'' as a freshman is not particularly short. My child is that height and is in the middle of his friends and the doctor says 50th percentile.

Most of them turn 15 freshman year and 5’7” is 50th percentile for 15. And I think the whole point of this thread is the small kids aren’t on the field. So this poster’s kid probably does look small. Reality is there are plenty of big kids to take the spots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

It isn’t about being best or highly competitive. The point of a sport is to actually play and have fun. A sport isn’t fun is when you get to be 11 your coaches won’t play you and you are consistently side lined. And starting new sports in middle school is hard too and can be discouraging. So why go down that path in the first place if you see it coming and can avoid it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

You are gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

It isn’t about being best or highly competitive. The point of a sport is to actually play and have fun. A sport isn’t fun is when you get to be 11 your coaches won’t play you and you are consistently side lined. And starting new sports in middle school is hard too and can be discouraging. So why go down that path in the first place if you see it coming and can avoid it?

Because the had fun when they were 7-10 playing the sport. That's why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

That wasn't the advice from anyone I saw.

The advice I saw was don't let your kid get enmeshed in club/team sports and have it become their whole life where they are playing on a team where the only stated point is to be competitive and win and it seems likely your child will eventually get benched or not make the team. Play rec basketball. My son plays rec basketball both winter and summer. Everyone gets played. You sign up. Fun. He's been with the same team since 3rd grade and the core group of boys is still together in 8th. Varying levels of height and talent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

That wasn't the advice from anyone I saw.

The advice I saw was don't let your kid get enmeshed in club/travel sports and have it become their whole life where they are playing on a team where the only stated point is to be competitive and win and it seems likely your child will eventually get benched or not make the team. Play rec basketball. My son plays rec basketball both winter and summer. Everyone gets played. You sign up. Fun. He's been with the same team since 3rd grade and the core group of boys is still together in 8th. Varying levels of height and talent.

That should have said travel, not team.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

That wasn't the advice from anyone I saw.

The advice I saw was don't let your kid get enmeshed in club/team sports and have it become their whole life where they are playing on a team where the only stated point is to be competitive and win and it seems likely your child will eventually get benched or not make the team. Play rec basketball. My son plays rec basketball both winter and summer. Everyone gets played. You sign up. Fun. He's been with the same team since 3rd grade and the core group of boys is still together in 8th. Varying levels of height and talent.

Back at 01/20/2023 14:52 someone suggested exactly that. That you know where your kid will fall by 7-8 and don't let them pick a sport where size matters. A few even chimed in agreeing, I believe.

FWIW, I think you're doing right. Don't let them get engrossed in the culture, and let them have fun with friends. But its clear from this thread that not everyone agrees

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

Hell no. My oldest was 5'2" at 14 and 5'10" at 16. And now I think he just passed 5'11" at 17. The thing is, there is a definite history in late growth in my family. My brother was 5'10" when he left HS and 6'3" when he finished college. He was so, so skinny in MS and part of HS, he was a D1 soccer player, and pro post-college.

My oldest that is the 5'11" Junior is a Fall bday so older for his grade, turned 17 September of Junior year so that helped.

I did take my younger son to an endocrinologist at age 3.5-4 years old because he barely grew. He also was a very picky eater, never hunger. They did the wait and see, measured him every 3 months for 9 months and declared nothing wrong. Though he went from 75% height to 20% for a long time. I think he reached 30-40%height in middle school.

He is now a Freshmen and almost 15 (April) and I think maybe 5'5", but painfully skinny. And still has a baby face. He was still losing baby teeth (molars) this Fall. When he's on the field he looks really small, partly because of how skinny he is. I sometimes wonder if something is wrong, but I remember how skinny my brother was and how even on my husband's side there were late growers.

The funny thing is, he is now taller than his brother was at his age, and his brother already had his voice change by then and feet were huge so it could be the one I have been worried about ends up the taller one at the end of it.

Last year and this year have been really hard for him with getting passed over for the big guys, but when he's in the game he's actually better (team has no turnovers, midfield runs smoothly efficiently, he directs the rest of the team, has the insightful through balls, etc), but so many coaches just see the giant players with no efficiency and touch plowing through people but losing the ball and that's what they seem to prefer. The starting line up and subs always reflects that. Then, after being down 3-0 the little guys finally get subbed in and no more goals are let up and there's connection and passing and smart runs. Oh well... I guess they like to lose.

5'5'' as a freshman is not particularly short. My child is that height and is in the middle of his friends and the doctor says 50th percentile.

Most of them turn 15 freshman year and 5’7” is 50th percentile for 15. And I think the whole point of this thread is the small kids aren’t on the field. So this poster’s kid probably does look small. Reality is there are plenty of big kids to take the spots.

Yes. And so many people redshirt summer bdays at our school that even though he turns 15 in April. He’s one of the youngest. His physique/build (scrawny) and baby face make 5’5” look very small. I’m 5’5” and look much bigger at a normal weight. He’s underweight, can’t keep weight on.

[Anonymous]

Oh god

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just curious, if your son is <50th percentile still by age 7-8, why wouldn’t you pick sports (or at least one) that don’t rely so heavily on size? Seems like parents could have been a lot more proactive rather than to enroll your small for age kid in sports like football, baseball, and such with no alternative if they do end up staying small or grow very late. Seems like setting them up for failure and frustration. I’m a big advocate for all kids, regardless of size, doing at least individual no cut sport starting young. These tend to be the sports people participate in all their life (swimming, tennis, etc)

Chiming in as the parent of small kids (consistently 5th percentile at 9 and 11) and they have been introduced to a ton of things (soccer, swim, tennis, golf, field hockey, track, rock climbing, gymnastics). Some things are a hit, and some just aren't. They love what they love.

Well, but they end up loving what they are good at. And they aren’t going to get good if they don’t stick with it. If I knew
I had a small kid, football, baseball, basketball wouldn’t be options.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

Well, you can accomplish all of those things without setting foot on field or the court. But my comment was more about the parents that limit their kid's options in ES, because they expect them to be small when they get to HS. That is 100% missing the point of sports

The people that are suggesting not to enroll your young child in a sport because they are small and won't have HS or college options in that sports are missing the point of sports.

Sports are not always about "how to proceed to the next level of competition"

It's ok to play basketball or baseball or ::GASP:: even FOOTBALL!, for the sole reason that your kid has fun doing it

Sure but the point of this thread is the kid is miserable and the parents feel bad. Are you reading the thread? Kids crying and quitting the sport.

Definitely kids that will not care at all about what level they play the sport should play and enjoy.

Of course I'm reading the thread.

But like any thread (digital or otherwise) it often twists and turns and becomes entwined.

There's been a sub-thread within this one about parents not letting their kids do a certain sport because they expect their kid to have sufficient size to compete in that sport when they reach high school.

Those are the parents that are missing the point of sports. Not letting your 7 or 8 year old play basketball because Dad is only 5'5 is missing the point of sports.

But, consistent with many things here in the DMV, if its not an option to be 'the best of the best' many people don't see the point in doing it

It isn’t about being best or highly competitive. The point of a sport is to actually play and have fun. A sport isn’t fun is when you get to be 11 your coaches won’t play you and you are consistently side lined. And starting new sports in middle school is hard too and can be discouraging. So why go down that path in the first place if you see it coming and can avoid it?

Because the had fun when they were 7-10 playing the sport. That's why

And this only matters to mom and dad. Once the kids are high school aged they won’t care at all about what sport they played at 7, they will just remember getting cut at 13 and regret not doing something they’d succeed at.