Small/late growing kids and athletics

[Anonymous]

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)

I get your point, but when they are little, and ask if they can play basketball with their friends, what parent wouldn't say "I'm sorry. You're in the 40th percentile for height. We're enrolling you in an indoor tennis camp instead."

Of course you let them play basketball

Well it sounds like that is what one mom to an aspiring gymnast did.

Ha. That's me. She wanted to pursue gymanstics seriously as in multiple practices a week. A club team. Yes, I said no to that. She kept doing her once a week class. The people posting in this thread are talking about kids trying to play these sports competitively and though people aren't specifying there are references that many are clearly playing on travel/club teams pre-puberty and then having a hard time continuing at the level they were playing at. Play a sport more intensely starts to take over a kid's extracurricular time and really becomes part of their identity.

So no I wouldn't have my 5th percentile son channel all his energy into basketball. Play on the rec team. It's 2x a week 3 months a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For parents of late bloomers - when puberty did come, did it come quickly? My son is still not quite at Tanner stage 2 according to the doctor and he is 14. It’s brutal waiting. The doctor said it’s coming, but I am really hoping when it does hit it really hits. I assume the growth spurt is still at least a year away from when the doctor says he is actually at Tanner stage 2.

It really depends on the kid. The order of the stages are dependable, but the length of time between each is quite variable.

But my son was late to start (and followed by an endocrinologist) and I do think he moved through the stages pretty quickly once he started.

[Anonymous]

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)

I get your point, but when they are little, and ask if they can play basketball with their friends, what parent wouldn't say "I'm sorry. You're in the 40th percentile for height. We're enrolling you in an indoor tennis camp instead."

Of course you let them play basketball

Well it sounds like that is what one mom to an aspiring gymnast did.

Ha. That's me. She wanted to pursue gymanstics seriously as in multiple practices a week. A club team. Yes, I said no to that. She kept doing her once a week class. The people posting in this thread are talking about kids trying to play these sports competitively and though people aren't specifying there are references that many are clearly playing on travel/club teams pre-puberty and then having a hard time continuing at the level they were playing at. Play a sport more intensely starts to take over a kid's extracurricular time and really becomes part of their identity.

So no I wouldn't have my 5th percentile son channel all his energy into basketball. Play on the rec team. It's 2x a week 3 months a year.

Very sensible approach. My DH had his heart absolutely broken by basketball. He was always one of the best players at the high level camps he attended through MS, including ones that had players who became veteran NBA guys. But he topped out at 5’9”. Basketball is fabulous, and even rec basketball can help with footwork for other sports, but we definitely pushed soccer for our not likely to be tall kids, one of whom is playing D1 now.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

What if your small kid has a dying passion for one of those sports in elements school and hates all the ones you try to push on him?

I’d go with letting him do what he loves for as long as he can.

[Anonymous]

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.

What if your small kid has a dying passion for one of those sports in elements school and hates all the ones you try to push on him?

I’d go with letting him do what he loves for as long as he can.

If they aren’t enrolled in the first place, then they are unlikely to have a “dying passion” for that sport, other than wanting to do it because their best buddies do it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For parents of late bloomers - when puberty did come, did it come quickly? My son is still not quite at Tanner stage 2 according to the doctor and he is 14. It’s brutal waiting. The doctor said it’s coming, but I am really hoping when it does hit it really hits. I assume the growth spurt is still at least a year away from when the doctor says he is actually at Tanner stage 2.

Hasn't hit for my child the same age but a friend just told me her child didn't start growing until 15-16. Is now average, 5'9''-5'10'' and I'd be happy for that.

[Anonymous]

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.

That is so easy to say though. You just don't know until you are there.

[Anonymous]

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.

That is so easy to say though. You just don't know until you are there.

All the more reason to start off in individual sports. No one’s 5 yr old has an intense passion to play football. This is parent generated. You can always join in the contact team sports at a later time if you have a size advantage

[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.

What if your small kid has a dying passion for one of those sports in elements school and hates all the ones you try to push on him?

I’d go with letting him do what he loves for as long as he can.

If they aren’t enrolled in the first place, then they are unlikely to have a “dying passion” for that sport, other than wanting to do it because their best buddies do it

Kids pick up sports at recess, in PE, camps, siblings, etc. It’s not like their only exposure comes from parents enrolling them in something they’ve never seen before.

[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.

That is so easy to say though. You just don't know until you are there.

All the more reason to start off in individual sports. No one’s 5 yr old has an intense passion to play football. This is parent generated. You can always join in the contact team sports at a later time if you have a size advantage

Football is a sport that does not require a lot of skill training. You can show up in 9th grade with no prior playing and make the team if you are athletic.

[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.

That is so easy to say though. You just don't know until you are there.

All the more reason to start off in individual sports. No one’s 5 yr old has an intense passion to play football. This is parent generated. You can always join in the contact team sports at a later time if you have a size advantage

I mean, this is so cynical.

[Anonymous]

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.

If they’re fast and strong, they can play football. The ideal running back is short, quick, fast and strong

[Anonymous]

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.

If they’re fast and strong, they can play football. The ideal running back is short, quick, fast and strong

No sane parent in their right mind would put their kid in American football today.

Two friends are retired from the NFL and they wouldn’t let their kids play. One is a baseball player and the other plays basketball.

[Anonymous]

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.