USA Swimming 2024-2028 Motivational Standards

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the 13-14 boys times so much faster when everything else is slower?

The jump to 13-14 is always rough for the boys, but this makes it even rougher.

Every year kids are pushed harder and harder at younger ages, so the boys who mature early are posting these times. By 18, it largely evens out, and college recruiting looks for a trajectory to account for this. The kid who was fast at 14, but shows a slowing pace of improvement will not have an advantage over a kid who shows a giant leap at 16 with continued improvement.

This is true, and definitely makes it harder for the later maturing boys to hang in there through those early teen years. A good club will recognize this though, and continue to develop those athletes that are obviously talented but later to mature physically. That often pays off since these boys tend to end up bigger/taller than the early developers!

But the really fast ones - are the fastest all along.

I mean, not really. Maybe they were the fastest at 10, even 12, but if they don’t hit puberty/growth spurt until 15, they are not going to keep up with 13 and 14 year old grown men. They just aren’t. They might still be good but not “the best” - it’s just physically not possible. But at 15+ they will catch up and often surpass in size and speed.

Google Thomas Heilman.

Thomas Heilman is a perfect example of what you are trying to disprove. He was an early bloomer. Late bloomers at 13-14 could not keep up with him (nor can they now since he is an extremely talented outlier at any age). If he had been late to grow, he would have experienced a dip in success in the early teen years, while still being somewhat successful since he is Olympic-level talented. But you cannot say he still would have been “the best” at 13-14 if he were 5’2 95 lbs like many that age who have not hit puberty. If he had hit his growth spurt at 15 rather than 12, do you think he would be any less talented or successful today?

maybe because coaches wouldn't have invested in him as much, he may not have been as motivated, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the 13-14 boys times so much faster when everything else is slower?

The jump to 13-14 is always rough for the boys, but this makes it even rougher.

Every year kids are pushed harder and harder at younger ages, so the boys who mature early are posting these times. By 18, it largely evens out, and college recruiting looks for a trajectory to account for this. The kid who was fast at 14, but shows a slowing pace of improvement will not have an advantage over a kid who shows a giant leap at 16 with continued improvement.

This is true, and definitely makes it harder for the later maturing boys to hang in there through those early teen years. A good club will recognize this though, and continue to develop those athletes that are obviously talented but later to mature physically. That often pays off since these boys tend to end up bigger/taller than the early developers!

But the really fast ones - are the fastest all along.

I mean, not really. Maybe they were the fastest at 10, even 12, but if they don’t hit puberty/growth spurt until 15, they are not going to keep up with 13 and 14 year old grown men. They just aren’t. They might still be good but not “the best” - it’s just physically not possible. But at 15+ they will catch up and often surpass in size and speed.

Google Thomas Heilman.

Thomas Heilman is a perfect example of what you are trying to disprove. He was an early bloomer. Late bloomers at 13-14 could not keep up with him (nor can they now since he is an extremely talented outlier at any age). If he had been late to grow, he would have experienced a dip in success in the early teen years, while still being somewhat successful since he is Olympic-level talented. But you cannot say he still would have been “the best” at 13-14 if he were 5’2 95 lbs like many that age who have not hit puberty. If he had hit his growth spurt at 15 rather than 12, do you think he would be any less talented or successful today?

maybe because coaches wouldn't have invested in him as much, he may not have been as motivated, etc.

That’s the point though. A good club recognizes talent and doesn’t discount late bloomers - they would miss out on a lot of success if they did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the 13-14 boys times so much faster when everything else is slower?

The jump to 13-14 is always rough for the boys, but this makes it even rougher.

Every year kids are pushed harder and harder at younger ages, so the boys who mature early are posting these times. By 18, it largely evens out, and college recruiting looks for a trajectory to account for this. The kid who was fast at 14, but shows a slowing pace of improvement will not have an advantage over a kid who shows a giant leap at 16 with continued improvement.

This is true, and definitely makes it harder for the later maturing boys to hang in there through those early teen years. A good club will recognize this though, and continue to develop those athletes that are obviously talented but later to mature physically. That often pays off since these boys tend to end up bigger/taller than the early developers!

But the really fast ones - are the fastest all along.

I mean, not really. Maybe they were the fastest at 10, even 12, but if they don’t hit puberty/growth spurt until 15, they are not going to keep up with 13 and 14 year old grown men. They just aren’t. They might still be good but not “the best” - it’s just physically not possible. But at 15+ they will catch up and often surpass in size and speed.

Google Thomas Heilman.

Thomas Heilman is a perfect example of what you are trying to disprove. He was an early bloomer. Late bloomers at 13-14 could not keep up with him (nor can they now since he is an extremely talented outlier at any age). If he had been late to grow, he would have experienced a dip in success in the early teen years, while still being somewhat successful since he is Olympic-level talented. But you cannot say he still would have been “the best” at 13-14 if he were 5’2 95 lbs like many that age who have not hit puberty. If he had hit his growth spurt at 15 rather than 12, do you think he would be any less talented or successful today?

maybe because coaches wouldn't have invested in him as much, he may not have been as motivated, etc.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why are the 13-14 boys times so much faster when everything else is slower?

The jump to 13-14 is always rough for the boys, but this makes it even rougher.

Every year kids are pushed harder and harder at younger ages, so the boys who mature early are posting these times. By 18, it largely evens out, and college recruiting looks for a trajectory to account for this. The kid who was fast at 14, but shows a slowing pace of improvement will not have an advantage over a kid who shows a giant leap at 16 with continued improvement.

This is true, and definitely makes it harder for the later maturing boys to hang in there through those early teen years. A good club will recognize this though, and continue to develop those athletes that are obviously talented but later to mature physically. That often pays off since these boys tend to end up bigger/taller than the early developers!

But the really fast ones - are the fastest all along.

I mean, not really. Maybe they were the fastest at 10, even 12, but if they don’t hit puberty/growth spurt until 15, they are not going to keep up with 13 and 14 year old grown men. They just aren’t. They might still be good but not “the best” - it’s just physically not possible. But at 15+ they will catch up and often surpass in size and speed.

Google Thomas Heilman.

Thomas Heilman is a perfect example of what you are trying to disprove. He was an early bloomer. Late bloomers at 13-14 could not keep up with him (nor can they now since he is an extremely talented outlier at any age). If he had been late to grow, he would have experienced a dip in success in the early teen years, while still being somewhat successful since he is Olympic-level talented. But you cannot say he still would have been “the best” at 13-14 if he were 5’2 95 lbs like many that age who have not hit puberty. If he had hit his growth spurt at 15 rather than 12, do you think he would be any less talented or successful today?

maybe because coaches wouldn't have invested in him as much, he may not have been as motivated, etc.

Also he might not have been the success if he had been in a slump for a few years. Most can’t overcome that at that age.

[Anonymous]

You can’t look to the extreme outliers like Thomas Heilman and generalize that to the population at large. He has always been successful and never experienced a slump due to early physical maturity. There are outliers like him - the boys who shoot up early to 6’+ and stay on top all throughout, but there is a much larger group of boys who hit early puberty at 11-12 and shoot up to 5’8 or 5’9, temporarily towering over their peers but then staying that size while their peers who mature later soar past them. The point is that the 13-14 time standards for boys are achieved by those who mature early, but the good news is that clubs and colleges recognize this and work through it, and no college coach gives a hoot how fast a boy was at 13 or 14 years old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can’t look to the extreme outliers like Thomas Heilman and generalize that to the population at large. He has always been successful and never experienced a slump due to early physical maturity. There are outliers like him - the boys who shoot up early to 6’+ and stay on top all throughout, but there is a much larger group of boys who hit early puberty at 11-12 and shoot up to 5’8 or 5’9, temporarily towering over their peers but then staying that size while their peers who mature later soar past them. The point is that the 13-14 time standards for boys are achieved by those who mature early, but the good news is that clubs and colleges recognize this and work through it, and no college coach gives a hoot how fast a boy was at 13 or 14 years old.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Like others, I welcome the slightly slower times for 11-12 girls. I always thought the times for 2020-2024 were pretty fast and hard to make unless your child is 12 already (seemed like 75% of the kids making A and AA times were 12 already, with some near 13). There were certainly some fast 11 year olds, but only a few were in the top 10-20 swimmers in larger meets.

My DD is an 11-12 swimmer and that group was really fast last season. There were a couple NCAP, RMSC and Machine 11 year olds that made finals at JOs last year, but by and large the finalists were 12. The 11 year olds that did make finals last year are all excellent and will likely win multiple events and final in others this year.

True. My kid felt the same, but maybe a little humbling can drive harder work in practice.

"Don't practice until you get it right. Practice until you can't get it wrong." - Katie Ledecky

"Practice like you're not good enough to win. Race like you're too good to lose." - Katie Ledecky

"The only thing that I can control is how hard I work and how well I prepare." - Katie Ledecky

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What do the asterisks mean?

Asterisks means they changed, but a better view to see the actual changes and whether the cuts are faster or slower is to visit: https://www.myswimio.com/usatimestandards.php

You can flip a switch and see the changes in the cuts, with red=slower and green=faster

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the standards are in effect as soon as they're published.

This site has posted the changes in times. https://www.myswimio.com/usatimestandards.php

The page also optionally shows the direction of the change, with red=slower and green=faster.

[Anonymous]

No one can be a late bloomer cause Thomas Heilman had AAAA times at 9-10

[Anonymous]

Also if you don’t have AA times at 9-10, good luck at getting into Select. And if you aren’t in select, good luck at winning JOs as your swimming peak at 13-14

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are the notable shifts?

hopefully someone can throw these times into a db and compare them to previous, and tell us

Someone did here: https://www.myswimio.com/usatimestandards.php

Just change the slider from "Current Times Only" to "Display with Changes"