Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

Hell no. My oldest was 5'2" at 14 and 5'10" at 16. And now I think he just passed 5'11" at 17. The thing is, there is a definite history in late growth in my family. My brother was 5'10" when he left HS and 6'3" when he finished college. He was so, so skinny in MS and part of HS, he was a D1 soccer player, and pro post-college.

My oldest that is the 5'11" Junior is a Fall bday so older for his grade, turned 17 September of Junior year so that helped.

I did take my younger son to an endocrinologist at age 3.5-4 years old because he barely grew. He also was a very picky eater, never hunger. They did the wait and see, measured him every 3 months for 9 months and declared nothing wrong. Though he went from 75% height to 20% for a long time. I think he reached 30-40%height in middle school.

He is now a Freshmen and almost 15 (April) and I think maybe 5'5", but painfully skinny. And still has a baby face. He was still losing baby teeth (molars) this Fall. When he's on the field he looks really small, partly because of how skinny he is. I sometimes wonder if something is wrong, but I remember how skinny my brother was and how even on my husband's side there were late growers.

The funny thing is, he is now taller than his brother was at his age, and his brother already had his voice change by then and feet were huge so it could be the one I have been worried about ends up the taller one at the end of it.

Last year and this year have been really hard for him with getting passed over for the big guys, but when he's in the game he's actually better (team has no turnovers, midfield runs smoothly efficiently, he directs the rest of the team, has the insightful through balls, etc), but so many coaches just see the giant players with no efficiency and touch plowing through people but losing the ball and that's what they seem to prefer. The starting line up and subs always reflects that. Then, after being down 3-0 the little guys finally get subbed in and no more goals are let up and there's connection and passing and smart runs. Oh well... I guess they like to lose.

5'5'' as a freshman is not particularly short. My child is that height and is in the middle of his friends and the doctor says 50th percentile.

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

What are you trying to say? That children who are short, have short grandparents, and are not 5'7'' at 13 didn't "flight" as much as yours like it's under their control? What's wrong with you exactly? What an obnoxious, insensitive thing to post on this thread.

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.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Actually no. The point of sports is to have fun, stay active, and be able to see the progress of hard work. None of this can be accomplished is your child is small and benched all the time or picked over because of that. The fun is zapped and they end up quitting.

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.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

This conversation keeps being taken out of context of the point of the original post.

Everyone should try and enjoy all the sports. For the rest of their lives. Yay sports for everyone.

Should a short child pursue a sport that requires height (having it or not having it) at a very competitive level to the exclusion of other activities (this is key to me and this is what these club teams require) and then be crushed with disappointment when the inevitable reckoning comes when they can no longer compete at that level? Seems a bit more avoidable. But a parenting choice for sure.

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.

I think you're missing the point of sports.

Anonymous wrote:To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

Hell no. My oldest was 5'2" at 14 and 5'10" at 16. And now I think he just passed 5'11" at 17. The thing is, there is a definite history in late growth in my family. My brother was 5'10" when he left HS and 6'3" when he finished college. He was so, so skinny in MS and part of HS, he was a D1 soccer player, and pro post-college.

My oldest that is the 5'11" Junior is a Fall bday so older for his grade, turned 17 September of Junior year so that helped.

I did take my younger son to an endocrinologist at age 3.5-4 years old because he barely grew. He also was a very picky eater, never hunger. They did the wait and see, measured him every 3 months for 9 months and declared nothing wrong. Though he went from 75% height to 20% for a long time. I think he reached 30-40%height in middle school.

He is now a Freshmen and almost 15 (April) and I think maybe 5'5", but painfully skinny. And still has a baby face. He was still losing baby teeth (molars) this Fall. When he's on the field he looks really small, partly because of how skinny he is. I sometimes wonder if something is wrong, but I remember how skinny my brother was and how even on my husband's side there were late growers.

The funny thing is, he is now taller than his brother was at his age, and his brother already had his voice change by then and feet were huge so it could be the one I have been worried about ends up the taller one at the end of it.

Last year and this year have been really hard for him with getting passed over for the big guys, but when he's in the game he's actually better (team has no turnovers, midfield runs smoothly efficiently, he directs the rest of the team, has the insightful through balls, etc), but so many coaches just see the giant players with no efficiency and touch plowing through people but losing the ball and that's what they seem to prefer. The starting line up and subs always reflects that. Then, after being down 3-0 the little guys finally get subbed in and no more goals are let up and there's connection and passing and smart runs. Oh well... I guess they like to lose.

To all these moms where your sons were 5’1 at 14 and shot up to 6’ or taller did you use growth hormone injections? Just curious? My son is 5’7 at 13, and he’s fighting parental grandparents genes at 4’9 and 5’5. Am interested did they grow naturally, or did you intervene.

PP here, who posted a long story about my son.

If parents want to guide their kids toward certain sports, that's their decision. However, I'll push back against those who criticize parents for allowing their kids to pursue the sports they love. The discussions here is primarily about late growers who are talented at their sports but have gotten to an age where their size and strength are causing them to be pushed down the pack, which shows in cuts, reduced playing time, and lack of respect from coaches or teammates. This change in status comes at what seems like the worst time, middle school when kids naturally struggle anyway.

Most parents of kids who love sports have given them the opportunity to try many different activities, as noted by many PPs. My own tried soccer, tennis, basketball, golf, flag football, hockey, and gymnastics to find what he loved the most. I couldn't have pushed him away from soccer and basketball if I wanted to (and I didn't want to). If you are talented, you tend to enjoy the sports where you have success. There's nothing wrong with switching to an individual sport from a team sport if an uncontrollable factor like size is getting in the way. But there's also nothing wrong with seeing if you can push if that's important.

In any event, small kids' struggles and parents' pain watching them is less about the sport and more how kids navigate self-doubt, rejection, and sometimes flat-out cruelty. How do these setbacks that impact them as human beings? Does not being one of the best change how they feel about an activity they once loved? After devoting years to this sport at which they excelled, a kid now receiving messages that they aren't that good has to figure out where the sport fits in as a part of their identity. Is it important to keep working and ride the bench, waiting to grow and go through puberty? Is there another way to fill the hole left if the child quits the sport? Does dropping back to a less competitive team make sense? If the kid sticks with the sport, what other aspects of the game can they work on to compensate for lack of size and strength (game IQ, playmaking, lifting weights)? This is how resilience is developed.

In addition to my son, I have a DD who is also an athlete. In sports, I've seen both kids suffer humiliating lows that hurt like hell. But you know what? Even after being playing on a team that lost every game by a wide margin, or being the only athlete on a team that didn't qualify for states, or having your name in the paper for missing the critical play in a game, the world didn't end. They kept going. We still loved them, their their friends still cared about them, and anyone who held failures against them wasn't on their side anyway. For my DD, her low in one sport led her to focus on another one. For my son, his small stature is an integral part of who he is, regardless of what sport he plays. He's the youngest in his grade, and has always been the smallest, so being an underdog is a fact of life. He wrote his college essay about how he has learned to understand his size as a blessing and a curse. You don't have to wind up a pro or a DI scholarship athlete to learn life lessons through sports. The truth is that the more your kid cares about a sport (not you, as a parent, but your kid) the higher the highs and the lower the lows for them. It's ok to hurt. It's ok to get every shot blocked by a six footer. It's ok to move on from a sport when it isn't right anymore. As much as it killed me to watch my kids struggle, on balance, the lows of their athletic experience made them stronger and more determined than the highs. You just have make it through the bad times until they adjust and help them figure out what is important to them.

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)

Don't you think that height is an advantage in competitive swimming?

It is but I think the point is even if you are not the most competitive swimmer it’s time well invested as it’s a lifetime sport.

People are confusing issues in this thread.

Many of the original complaints were about children playing a sport competitively, not casually, and being upset that they could no longer make the level of team they used to be on or they weren't getting playing time anymore. Even that statement tells you these are not rec teams being referenced. No playing time means it's travel or a club.

I think what people are trying to say is if your child is dedicating all their time to a sport and it's very, very important to them and you can see that passion and intensity and identity with the sport developing (and you as the parent are part of this decision making process because you have shelled out a bunch of $ and your time making this happen for your kid because that's what it takes) , channel them away from a sport where height is a major factor for success if they're not going to be content playing the sport more casually at some point.

Also people are confusing short/average height and late growing. Different issues.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. And most kids are social and prefer to be part of a team as children, not swimming laps alone or running around the track.

There are teams in swim obviously your kid doesn't do the sport. Nothing more social than summer swim. Winter swim can be very social too.

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)

Don't you think that height is an advantage in competitive swimming?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. And most kids are social and prefer to be part of a team as children, not swimming laps alone or running around the track.

It's also nuts to write off a sport at age 6 just because a kid might struggle for a few years before puberty or because it's unlikely the kid will make it as pro. At that age, parents shouldn't be envisioning a future in the sport - the kids should be learning and playing for fun. Getting started in rec basketball doesn't meant that the kid has to be playing AAU a few years later.

Plus, you can't go by size alone when making these decisions - it's size and the time of puberty. In soccer, for instance, there are plenty of shorter-than-average players, but many of those on top teams in the youth ranks had mustaches in middle school.

Anonymous wrote: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.

Yep. And most kids are social and prefer to be part of a team as children, not swimming laps alone or running around the track.

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

A running back is short compared to the other players but typically not actually below average height.