Anonymous wrote:It definitely is easier for the girls...sorry but true. Once they hit 15-16 it evens out to a level playing field again

It's a championship meet, designed to race the fastest swimmers in the LSC against each other. So if the cut times are designed to have a certain number of participants for boys and girls per event, then how is it easier for a girl to get in? This logic would only apply if there are far fewer girls than boys in the LSC.

I randomly chose the Midwestern's lsc age group championships from last year to see the distribution of times. I don't know how big the lsc is or how tall any particular kid is.

100 back:
1st place: 52.73 (AAAA time)
8th place: 1:03.80 (BB time)

200 breast:
1st place: 2:18.65. (AA time)
8th place: 2:39.32. (BB time)

400 IM:
1st place: 4:19.51. (AAA time)
8th place: 5:03.38. (BB time)

PVS is an unfortunate location for a swimmer late to puberty. It is such a a large lsc that it's much easier to find enough really fast 13-14 boys. For PV 14 and under champs, there were 52 13-14 boys entered in the 200 breast. The slowest competitor went 2:32.73 which would have put him in A finals in the midwestern championship meet.

It definitely is easier for the girls...sorry but true. Once they hit 15-16 it evens out to a level playing field again

Anonymous wrote:But the time standards are normed for the percentage of kids that can hit particular times. If male and female swimmers were by and large still the same size and strength with just a few outliers when they are 13-14 you would expect the standards would be closer the way they are at 11-12. The AA 100 yard fly standard for a 13-14 girl is a little over 5 seconds slower than what it takes to get a AA for a 13-14 year old boy. The difference is over 6 seconds at the B standard. This doesn’t seem to be bearing out the idea that most 13-14 male swimmers are the same size and strength as the 13-14 year old girls.

+1
I don’t minimize that it’s frustrating for pre-pubescent 13-14 boys. But that doesn’t make the cuts “unreasonable”. The cuts are designed to yield a level of Champs qualifiers, which they are.
And the subtle implication from some posters that the system is somehow unfair to boys and goes easy on girls really fires me up and is inaccurate.

But the time standards are normed for the percentage of kids that can hit particular times. If male and female swimmers were by and large still the same size and strength with just a few outliers when they are 13-14 you would expect the standards would be closer the way they are at 11-12. The AA 100 yard fly standard for a 13-14 girl is a little over 5 seconds slower than what it takes to get a AA for a 13-14 year old boy. The difference is over 6 seconds at the B standard. This doesn’t seem to be bearing out the idea that most 13-14 male swimmers are the same size and strength as the 13-14 year old girls.

Not to mention, most meets are 13 and up so those giant 13–14-year-olds, are most likely 15–16-year-olds. The cuts are just unreasonable.

Look at the meet results so far this year how many 13-14 year old boys are swimming 5:13 for the 500 free (versus 5:28 for the girls)? It is like that for almost every distance.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Per the CDC: avg height of 13 year old boy is 61.4 inches. Avg height of 13 year old girl is 61.8 inches. So it is absolutely true that a lot of 13-14 boys are the same height as girls.

I wasn’t talking about the general population, we are talking about swimming. I’ve been around the sport for a minute and it quite frankly is always pretty obvious how much bigger the 13-14 boys are (height, muscle mass, etc.) It is a big part of why the cut times and time standards for boys and girls diverge so sharply at that age group. Prior to that point, the standards and cuts are generally pretty close. In the open meets so far this year they have been running the 12 and under events combined gender and the top girls are still able to hang with and beat the top boys. That just isn’t the case once you get to the 13-14 age group.

Umm, we’re definitely talking about the general population. Did you think all swimmers are early to puberty? Just because you’ve seen physically mature/bigger 13-14 boys at meets does not in any way mean that MOST 13-14 boys have gone through puberty and are bigger than the girls. If it’s a meet with cut times, obviously the boys are going to be bigger because the ones who have hit puberty are the only ones able to make the cuts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Per the CDC: avg height of 13 year old boy is 61.4 inches. Avg height of 13 year old girl is 61.8 inches. So it is absolutely true that a lot of 13-14 boys are the same height as girls.

I wasn’t talking about the general population, we are talking about swimming. I’ve been around the sport for a minute and it quite frankly is always pretty obvious how much bigger the 13-14 boys are (height, muscle mass, etc.) It is a big part of why the cut times and time standards for boys and girls diverge so sharply at that age group. Prior to that point, the standards and cuts are generally pretty close. In the open meets so far this year they have been running the 12 and under events combined gender and the top girls are still able to hang with and beat the top boys. That just isn’t the case once you get to the 13-14 age group.

“I wasn’t talking about the general population, we are talking about swimming”.

Are you talking about swimming, or swimming at a high level (champs meets and up)? Because the 13-14 boys are not always so much bigger. At the champs meets, of course. But at open meets there is a much more even distribution of sizes- boys and girls.

Kids late to puberty have a disadvantage for a while, but it's an opportunity to focus on technique and a good work ethic that pays off eventually. I have a girl who was late to puberty, so I can commiserate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Per the CDC: avg height of 13 year old boy is 61.4 inches. Avg height of 13 year old girl is 61.8 inches. So it is absolutely true that a lot of 13-14 boys are the same height as girls.

I wasn’t talking about the general population, we are talking about swimming. I’ve been around the sport for a minute and it quite frankly is always pretty obvious how much bigger the 13-14 boys are (height, muscle mass, etc.) It is a big part of why the cut times and time standards for boys and girls diverge so sharply at that age group. Prior to that point, the standards and cuts are generally pretty close. In the open meets so far this year they have been running the 12 and under events combined gender and the top girls are still able to hang with and beat the top boys. That just isn’t the case once you get to the 13-14 age group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Per the CDC: avg height of 13 year old boy is 61.4 inches. Avg height of 13 year old girl is 61.8 inches. So it is absolutely true that a lot of 13-14 boys are the same height as girls.

+1 keyword here is average. I'm sure at any given meet, we might observe kids at the average, above, or below.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Per the CDC: avg height of 13 year old boy is 61.4 inches. Avg height of 13 year old girl is 61.8 inches. So it is absolutely true that a lot of 13-14 boys are the same height as girls.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They seem too different. It would make more sense to me once a boy hits 15…not 13. At 13-14 a lot of the boys and girls are still the same size…

This is not true at all.

Yes. It absolutely is.

It is not true that “a lot” of 13-14 boys are the same size as 13-14 girls. Yes, the late bloomer boys may be but that’s why they are called “late bloomers” because most boys have started to shoot up at that age and are bigger than the girls.

Anonymous wrote:It’s definitely a disadvantage for boys who are not early to puberty. It almost seems like there should be separate 13 and 14 year old times, at least on the boys’ side. The girls’ times barely get faster after 11-12.

Because girls hit puberty around 11 - so you see the huge drops for them around 11-12. Meanwhile all my kids are late bloomers so my girl struggled at 11-12 and was barely keeping up with all her friends making huge drops. She just hit puberty at 14, and holy moly she is coming out of the cheap seats and killing it.

Anonymous wrote:For my 13-14 boy it was soul sucking but thankfully he is 16 now and he is back making cuts again and is improving faster than most kids because he is still growing pretty quickly. Hang in there!

Thank you for this. My boy is barely hanging in there. His friends have started turning into men and he looks like a twerp. His coaches have faith that he, too, will eventually grow.