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?

Anonymous wrote:What do the asterisks mean?

Those are times that changed from the 20-24 standards. I wish they had also differentiated the times that got faster and the times that got slower.

What do the asterisks mean?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The 10u times are really slow. If they change all the QTs to match, there are going to be some huge meets for the younger ages!!

I feel the same way. DC all of a sudden has JO times for multiple events if they are cut off in the same place as last year. Not that DC will complain, but it is an interesting change!

As far as I can tell, JO times are not set by reference to the motivational times. They appear to set them to try to get a manageable size meet.

Anonymous wrote:The 10u times are really slow. If they change all the QTs to match, there are going to be some huge meets for the younger ages!!

I feel the same way. DC all of a sudden has JO times for multiple events if they are cut off in the same place as last year. Not that DC will complain, but it is an interesting change!

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!

The 10u times are really slow. If they change all the QTs to match, there are going to be some huge meets for the younger ages!!

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.

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.

I’ll be curious to see what, if any, impact the changes have on cut times for meets like JOs/Zones/NCSAs. For example the 11-12 LC Zones cut times this year were generally around or a little faster than AAA, with the 11-12 time standards getting slower the cut times from this year would now be pushing AAAA, which seems too restrictive.