10 & u who are fast due to size

[Anonymous]

If you look at the NVSL list of top 9-10 boys in the 50 free over the last 15-20 years you'll see names like J. T. Ewing (national level recruit, now at NC State), Andrew Seliskar (future male high school swimmer of the year), Noah Dyer (top 5 in VA in his high school class, swimming at UVA), and Anthony Grimm (top high school recruit in his class, now at UVA) in the top 10. Some of the others in the top 10 didn't develop into national level swimmers, but still went on to swim in college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you look at the NVSL list of top 9-10 boys in the 50 free over the last 15-20 years you'll see names like J. T. Ewing (national level recruit, now at NC State), Andrew Seliskar (future male high school swimmer of the year), Noah Dyer (top 5 in VA in his high school class, swimming at UVA), and Anthony Grimm (top high school recruit in his class, now at UVA) in the top 10. Some of the others in the top 10 didn't develop into national level swimmers, but still went on to swim in college.

James Murphy from that list was an All-American swimmer at Stanford too.

[Anonymous]

Yes, the kids who are at the very top of PVS or NVSL will likely end up high level D1 swimmers. But even within D1 there are levels… for example UVA vs. GMU. Some of the great swimmers at 9-10 absolutely will flame out. Others will still do relatively well but not stay on the trajectory one would have expected. And then others who are in that second tier can break into the top tier as they hit the teens years because puberty is favorable to them and they work hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, the kids who are at the very top of PVS or NVSL will likely end up high level D1 swimmers. But even within D1 there are levels… for example UVA vs. GMU. Some of the great swimmers at 9-10 absolutely will flame out. Others will still do relatively well but not stay on the trajectory one would have expected. And then others who are in that second tier can break into the top tier as they hit the teens years because puberty is favorable to them and they work hard.

Sure, but if you look at the 25 fastest boys IMers, for example, in NVSL recorded history all of them, including several names mentioned earlier, were already at or close to all-star level times as 10 year olds, or they moved into the area later.

[Anonymous]

This is all anecdotal. There are cases of kids staying fast, there are kids faced with slowing down. There are fast tall kids, slow tall kids, fast short kids, slow short kids. All of it except a magic formula that can predict racing times.

Not a knock on OP, who seems to be trying to protect their kid, but the whole conversation seems unhelpful, and people strangely delight in other kid's not growing, or a growth spurt in their own kid. It also feels kind of gross to me to be commenting on kids' bodies so much. But it definitely happens a lot in swim.

Go look at college swim pages, you will find kids of all heights. Not all college swimmers are huge, though height is a definite advantage. And remember, few scholarships exist in swimming. So hopefully your kid is swimming because they really enjoy it. No one should be spending that much time in the water otherwise. (and college is not the be all, end all: high school swim is great too.)

[Anonymous]

I think that you will see all kinds of things happen in swim (or any sport). I think that you have kids that continue on a solid trajectory, kids that improve, and kids that decline.

I have seen it more pronounced with female swimmers because puberty can be brutal with female body changes and body dynamics. Looking at our Club, a lot of the top performing males continue on that path. The females seem more of a split. Some stayed at the top, a lot dropped in placement, and there were some swimmers that were B swimmers at 12 that something happened to make them a top performing high school/college swimmer. Who knows.

[Anonymous]

Also, swim scholarships are a joke if that is a goal.

If a team has 8 full scholarships they often divide that full scholarship amongst three swimmers - so you get a 1/3 scholarship. Not great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Also, swim scholarships are a joke if that is a goal.

If a team has 8 full scholarships they often divide that full scholarship amongst three swimmers - so you get a 1/3 scholarship. Not great.

And how many schools actually have 8 funded scholarships? Especially for the boys.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Also, swim scholarships are a joke if that is a goal.

If a team has 8 full scholarships they often divide that full scholarship amongst three swimmers - so you get a 1/3 scholarship. Not great.

And how many schools actually have 8 funded scholarships? Especially for the boys.

https://scholarshipstats.com/swimming

All the depressing numbers here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had a coach explain to me once that kids who just power their way through the water without caring about technique when they are young have a tougher time later because they are behind on technique later. He said many quit at that point because success now requires work.

I have definitely witnessed this - the most incredibly talented kid on our team is a tiny 9 year old boy. His form is just amazing - it's like he skims across the water. Who know what will happen later on, but I'm betting on him.

[Anonymous]

Kids who are big for their age but unlikely to end up big tend to not stay fast, IME. I literally can't think of a single exception...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can go to the PVS site and look up the top 10&u times from 6, 8, 10 years ago and track how those same names fared over time. I scanned the 2014-2015 list of top 10&u times and noted a lot of the familiar names; kids who stayed at the top of the pack locally as they aged up and were highly ranked college recruits (e.g., Katherine Helms, Sophie Duncan, Erin Gemmell, J. T. Ewing, Aiken Do, Andrew Bolz, Landon Gentry). People don't like to admit it, but sometimes the fastest kids at 10&u are the fastest 18 year olds too.

OK, but most of those kids you named (maybe w/ one exception) were not particularly big at 10, so they are not pertinent to the OP's question. In fact, I don't think any of those boys is particularly big even now. So those kids were not fast as 10 and unders because of their size. They were fast because of their technique, hard work, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can go to the PVS site and look up the top 10&u times from 6, 8, 10 years ago and track how those same names fared over time. I scanned the 2014-2015 list of top 10&u times and noted a lot of the familiar names; kids who stayed at the top of the pack locally as they aged up and were highly ranked college recruits (e.g., Katherine Helms, Sophie Duncan, Erin Gemmell, J. T. Ewing, Aiken Do, Andrew Bolz, Landon Gentry). People don't like to admit it, but sometimes the fastest kids at 10&u are the fastest 18 year olds too.

OK, but most of those kids you named (maybe w/ one exception) were not particularly big at 10, so they are not pertinent to the OP's question. In fact, I don't think any of those boys is particularly big even now. So those kids were not fast as 10 and unders because of their size. They were fast because of their technique, hard work, etc.

Maybe the OP should define a lot of success. I haven't seen any young kids rising to the top of the PVS top times list or winning summer league all-star meets just because they are bigger than their peers.