Why doesn’t USA Swimming use cut-off dates like every other youth sport?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a D1 swimmer and this conversation is absurd. It will not matter AT ALL by the time it actually counts. All sports have age-related disadvantages and advantages. My daughter has a Jan 2nd bday and plays travel soccer. You could argue she has an advantage every year over kids who are born in December, since they use the calendar year to determine age cut-offs.

THIS.

Just bc it evens out when the kids are 15 (good birthdays) compared to 16 (bad birthdays) doesn’t mean it didn’t have an impact before that.

But it doesn't "even out." Hasn't everyone heard about Malcom Gladwell and relative age/ Matthew effect at this point? Researchers have looked at this as applied to swimming and found that the theory holds for swimming too (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8535716/). In other words, those with advantageous birthdays are seen as better when they are young, and they get more and better opportunities while they are young. Those opportunities accumulate over time so they end up better when they are older. That's why you see those with May birthdays widely overrepresented at meets like Sectionals, at which point you would expect things to "even out." (https://swimswam.com/brett-leader-looks-relative-age-age-group-swimming/

You realize that two of the very best male swimmers in PVS age up within a few months of the spring champs meets right? One, who just turned 17, is committed to swim at UVA, and the other slightly older one is committed to swim at NC State. Good thing they weren't dissuaded by a few anecdotes on this board.

There are always anecdotal exceptions to the general trends. Doesn't mean there isn't a bias.

This x1000. We don’t need to hear a few blips where the general rule doesn’t apply. In general, it applies.

The article linked above stated the following, "In individual sports, the body of scientific literature is even smaller, and results suggest that RAEs are less consistent in individual sports than in team sports." So what general rule you saying applies here?

Did you miss the sentence two sentences after the one you quoted: "Swimming is a sport in which the greatest prevalence of the RAE has been observed, with a high perceived precocity in elite competition."

No, I just dismissed it because when you read the cited study, it concludes the following:

"With few exceptions, by 15–16 years RAEs had typically dissipated; and by 17–18 years, descriptive and significant inverse RAEs emerged, reflecting overrepresentation of relatively younger swimmers."

"Performance advantages associated with relative age (and thereby likely growth and maturation) are transient."

You mean like when you select one study that supports your prior, while ignoring the other cited studies as well as the conclusion of the survey of many studies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was a D1 swimmer and this conversation is absurd. It will not matter AT ALL by the time it actually counts. All sports have age-related disadvantages and advantages. My daughter has a Jan 2nd bday and plays travel soccer. You could argue she has an advantage every year over kids who are born in December, since they use the calendar year to determine age cut-offs.

THIS.

Just bc it evens out when the kids are 15 (good birthdays) compared to 16 (bad birthdays) doesn’t mean it didn’t have an impact before that.

But it doesn't "even out." Hasn't everyone heard about Malcom Gladwell and relative age/ Matthew effect at this point? Researchers have looked at this as applied to swimming and found that the theory holds for swimming too (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8535716/). In other words, those with advantageous birthdays are seen as better when they are young, and they get more and better opportunities while they are young. Those opportunities accumulate over time so they end up better when they are older. That's why you see those with May birthdays widely overrepresented at meets like Sectionals, at which point you would expect things to "even out." (https://swimswam.com/brett-leader-looks-relative-age-age-group-swimming/

You realize that two of the very best male swimmers in PVS age up within a few months of the spring champs meets right? One, who just turned 17, is committed to swim at UVA, and the other slightly older one is committed to swim at NC State. Good thing they weren't dissuaded by a few anecdotes on this board.

There are always anecdotal exceptions to the general trends. Doesn't mean there isn't a bias.

This x1000. We don’t need to hear a few blips where the general rule doesn’t apply. In general, it applies.

The article linked above stated the following, "In individual sports, the body of scientific literature is even smaller, and results suggest that RAEs are less consistent in individual sports than in team sports." So what general rule you saying applies here?

Did you miss the sentence two sentences after the one you quoted: "Swimming is a sport in which the greatest prevalence of the RAE has been observed, with a high perceived precocity in elite competition."

No, I just dismissed it because when you read the cited study, it concludes the following:

"With few exceptions, by 15–16 years RAEs had typically dissipated; and by 17–18 years, descriptive and significant inverse RAEs emerged, reflecting overrepresentation of relatively younger swimmers."

"Performance advantages associated with relative age (and thereby likely growth and maturation) are transient."

You mean like when you select one study that supports your prior, while ignoring the other cited studies as well as the conclusion of the survey of many studies?

No. More like ignoring statements that don’t accurately summarize a study purportedly supporting a biased claim. Give it up. The actual scientific study you pointed everyone to says exactly the opposite of what you’re claiming as fact or a general “rule.”