How much did size (height/strength) impact kids athletic chances in middle school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

I think it really depends on the sport and the position in the sport.

My observation is that for some reason sports that smaller kids can excel at aren't as popular as you would expect given how many smaller kids there are.

Soccer, baseball, cricket for example. Baseball height can be an advantage for a couple positions pitcher or first base, otherwise it's not good. Football, height doesn't really matter, except for QB and tight end maybe defensive end.

Being tall myself. It's only really an advantage in swimming and ball sports that involve throwing, maybe some racket sports where reach comes into play.

That leaves all kinds of sports open, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, soccer, baseball, what about cycling.

I can't wait until people figure out cricket is an international money sport.

You are an idiot. Lets talk about the sports you list and their most dominant players:

Gymnastics: Fine. Its highly specialized. Shorter can be better.
Weightlifting: Hafthor Bjornson: 6'9
Olympic Lifting: Lasha Talakhadze: 6'6
Track and Field: Usain Bolt: 6'5
Soccer: Choices are endless, but lets say retired and current: Ronaldo: 6'2. current, Erling Haaland, 6'4
Baseball: Aaron Judge (plays RF btw, not a pitcher): 6'7

All of these guys are absolute giants. Height matters immensely. As does overall size, which is a compounded function of height.

NHL: Average size is 6'1.5, but 5'10 and over is big enough (Quinn Hughes is 5'10, Jack Hughes is 5'11, Connor McDavid is 6'1, Auston Matthews is 6'3)
NLL (Lacrosse) or D1 lacrosse looks very similar, with an average height of 6'1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

I think it really depends on the sport and the position in the sport.

My observation is that for some reason sports that smaller kids can excel at aren't as popular as you would expect given how many smaller kids there are.

Soccer, baseball, cricket for example. Baseball height can be an advantage for a couple positions pitcher or first base, otherwise it's not good. Football, height doesn't really matter, except for QB and tight end maybe defensive end.

Being tall myself. It's only really an advantage in swimming and ball sports that involve throwing, maybe some racket sports where reach comes into play.

That leaves all kinds of sports open, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, soccer, baseball, what about cycling.

I can't wait until people figure out cricket is an international money sport.

You are an idiot. Lets talk about the sports you list and their most dominant players:

Gymnastics: Fine. Its highly specialized. Shorter can be better.
Weightlifting: Hafthor Bjornson: 6'9
Olympic Lifting: Lasha Talakhadze: 6'6
Track and Field: Usain Bolt: 6'5
Soccer: Choices are endless, but lets say retired and current: Ronaldo: 6'2. current, Erling Haaland, 6'4
Baseball: Aaron Judge (plays RF btw, not a pitcher): 6'7

All of these guys are absolute giants. Height matters immensely. As does overall size, which is a compounded function of height.

NHL: Average size is 6'1.5, but 5'10 and over is big enough (Quinn Hughes is 5'10, Jack Hughes is 5'11, Connor McDavid is 6'1, Auston Matthews is 6'3)
NLL (Lacrosse) or D1 lacrosse looks very similar, with an average height of 6'1.

An average size of 6.1.5 is pretty big. For every 5.11 guy there is a 6.4. And the greatest ever is Ovechkin, who is 6.3 and 240.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

I think it really depends on the sport and the position in the sport.

My observation is that for some reason sports that smaller kids can excel at aren't as popular as you would expect given how many smaller kids there are.

Soccer, baseball, cricket for example. Baseball height can be an advantage for a couple positions pitcher or first base, otherwise it's not good. Football, height doesn't really matter, except for QB and tight end maybe defensive end.

Being tall myself. It's only really an advantage in swimming and ball sports that involve throwing, maybe some racket sports where reach comes into play.

That leaves all kinds of sports open, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, soccer, baseball, what about cycling.

I can't wait until people figure out cricket is an international money sport.

You are an idiot. Lets talk about the sports you list and their most dominant players:

Gymnastics: Fine. Its highly specialized. Shorter can be better.
Weightlifting: Hafthor Bjornson: 6'9
Olympic Lifting: Lasha Talakhadze: 6'6
Track and Field: Usain Bolt: 6'5
Soccer: Choices are endless, but lets say retired and current: Ronaldo: 6'2. current, Erling Haaland, 6'4
Baseball: Aaron Judge (plays RF btw, not a pitcher): 6'7

All of these guys are absolute giants. Height matters immensely. As does overall size, which is a compounded function of height.

I think we have a perspective issue; I am taller than all of those except Bjornson.

I agree in that there is an ideal athletic height for speed and strength. It is not an absolute function of height. You can go look at height distributions in the track and field. No short folks are not the fastest. Though they would rather run than play through contact. For reference in soccer taller means faster, in basketball shorter means faster, but they are both talking about people who are 6'2".

There are also ideal heights for ball-based throwing sports, and it tends to be a little taller than the athletic speed group, eg the pitchers in baseball can be taller.

The agility gymnastics/extreme sports/diving/ski jumping with flips and tricks group tends to be shorter... rotational inertia and gravity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

I think it really depends on the sport and the position in the sport.

My observation is that for some reason sports that smaller kids can excel at aren't as popular as you would expect given how many smaller kids there are.

Soccer, baseball, cricket for example. Baseball height can be an advantage for a couple positions pitcher or first base, otherwise it's not good. Football, height doesn't really matter, except for QB and tight end maybe defensive end.

Being tall myself. It's only really an advantage in swimming and ball sports that involve throwing, maybe some racket sports where reach comes into play.

That leaves all kinds of sports open, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, soccer, baseball, what about cycling.

I can't wait until people figure out cricket is an international money sport.

You are an idiot. Lets talk about the sports you list and their most dominant players:

Gymnastics: Fine. Its highly specialized. Shorter can be better.
Weightlifting: Hafthor Bjornson: 6'9
Olympic Lifting: Lasha Talakhadze: 6'6
Track and Field: Usain Bolt: 6'5
Soccer: Choices are endless, but lets say retired and current: Ronaldo: 6'2. current, Erling Haaland, 6'4
Baseball: Aaron Judge (plays RF btw, not a pitcher): 6'7

All of these guys are absolute giants. Height matters immensely. As does overall size, which is a compounded function of height.

NHL: Average size is 6'1.5, but 5'10 and over is big enough (Quinn Hughes is 5'10, Jack Hughes is 5'11, Connor McDavid is 6'1, Auston Matthews is 6'3)
NLL (Lacrosse) or D1 lacrosse looks very similar, with an average height of 6'1.

An average size of 6.1.5 is pretty big. For every 5.11 guy there is a 6.4. And the greatest ever is Ovechkin, who is 6.3 and 240.

I agree, but it's nice to see players like Quinn and Jack Hughes giving hope to smaller kids (recognizing that 5'10 is SMALL in hockey, whether NCAA or pro). The craziest hockey parents on our teams growing up were on the small side, and while I'll always cheer for their talented, driven kids, a part of me feels like they've set their kids up for failure by going all in on hockey and spending so much time and missing so much school for it. We have a kid in the 95% for height who loves gymnastics, and I'm limiting her to a few days a week of rec gymnastics and encouraging her to play other sports, too, which she's starting to enjoy as much as gymnastics because her size is an advantage instead of a disadvantage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We have really tough try out teams by this age. I’m curious what impact size had on kids ability to stand out.

I think it really depends on the sport and the position in the sport.

My observation is that for some reason sports that smaller kids can excel at aren't as popular as you would expect given how many smaller kids there are.

Soccer, baseball, cricket for example. Baseball height can be an advantage for a couple positions pitcher or first base, otherwise it's not good. Football, height doesn't really matter, except for QB and tight end maybe defensive end.

Being tall myself. It's only really an advantage in swimming and ball sports that involve throwing, maybe some racket sports where reach comes into play.

That leaves all kinds of sports open, gymnastics, weightlifting, track and field, soccer, baseball, what about cycling.

I can't wait until people figure out cricket is an international money sport.

You are an idiot. Lets talk about the sports you list and their most dominant players:

Gymnastics: Fine. Its highly specialized. Shorter can be better.
Weightlifting: Hafthor Bjornson: 6'9
Olympic Lifting: Lasha Talakhadze: 6'6
Track and Field: Usain Bolt: 6'5
Soccer: Choices are endless, but lets say retired and current: Ronaldo: 6'2. current, Erling Haaland, 6'4
Baseball: Aaron Judge (plays RF btw, not a pitcher): 6'7

All of these guys are absolute giants. Height matters immensely. As does overall size, which is a compounded function of height.

NHL: Average size is 6'1.5, but 5'10 and over is big enough (Quinn Hughes is 5'10, Jack Hughes is 5'11, Connor McDavid is 6'1, Auston Matthews is 6'3)
NLL (Lacrosse) or D1 lacrosse looks very similar, with an average height of 6'1.

An average size of 6.1.5 is pretty big. For every 5.11 guy there is a 6.4. And the greatest ever is Ovechkin, who is 6.3 and 240.

Brad Marchand, captain Boston Bruins is 5’9”, Jared Spurgeon, Minnesota is 5’9”, Cole Caufield Montreal 5’7”. There are others too and their skills and abilities make their height a non-issue.

I went to a D3 school where they had a good hockey team but they were all about average 5’10”. The D1 players had the height.