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.

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly incorrect. Tall athletes are universally more advantaged in sports. It's simple physics. Their levers are longer.

Whether a certain individual (you for example) were able to take advantage of those levers is another question. But in the large sample set, someone will.

Just ask Aaron judge why he is so good as a short person playing baseball. Oh wait...

Long levers only help in ball sports involving throwing or rackets and swimming. Anything involving contact, speed or agility. Tall helps in being overall big. It's kind of like spinning vs cycling. I started spinning and push huge amounts of watts(power), but it doesn't help that much to climb hills on a real bike. Football height really isn't all that much of an advantage, except the noted tight end, defensive end or QB roles. My schools back-to-back state champ football center was all of 5'6" he was a set or two from making the Olympic weightlifting squad. The bar only had to go four inches when he bench pressed. Agility long levers mean high rotational inertial. Physics means you can't rotate as much, so gymnastics not so much.

Quickness and reactions are relative for example tall people do well at ping pong, they don't have to move their feet as much despite have lower eye to hand reflexes. Tall players do well at sports where a small local space is important. In baseball first base is a good example, they provide a larger target to keep their foot on base and catch the ball. Kneeling down and being catcher not so much. Soccer longer arms mean more goal coverage, and better throws eg goalie.

A 5'6" football center is certainly not the norm. Also, catchers are often tall and explosive / threatening.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly incorrect. Tall athletes are universally more advantaged in sports. It's simple physics. Their levers are longer.

Whether a certain individual (you for example) were able to take advantage of those levers is another question. But in the large sample set, someone will.

Just ask Aaron judge why he is so good as a short person playing baseball. Oh wait...

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.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly incorrect. Tall athletes are universally more advantaged in sports. It's simple physics. Their levers are longer.

Whether a certain individual (you for example) were able to take advantage of those levers is another question. But in the large sample set, someone will.

Just ask Aaron judge why he is so good as a short person playing baseball. Oh wait...

Long levers only help in ball sports involving throwing or rackets and swimming. Anything involving contact, speed or agility. Tall helps in being overall big. It's kind of like spinning vs cycling. I started spinning and push huge amounts of watts(power), but it doesn't help that much to climb hills on a real bike. Football height really isn't all that much of an advantage, except the noted tight end, defensive end or QB roles. My schools back-to-back state champ football center was all of 5'6" he was a set or two from making the Olympic weightlifting squad. The bar only had to go four inches when he bench pressed. Agility long levers mean high rotational inertial. Physics means you can't rotate as much, so gymnastics not so much.

Quickness and reactions are relative for example tall people do well at ping pong, they don't have to move their feet as much despite have lower eye to hand reflexes. Tall players do well at sports where a small local space is important. In baseball first base is a good example, they provide a larger target to keep their foot on base and catch the ball. Kneeling down and being catcher not so much. Soccer longer arms mean more goal coverage, and better throws eg goalie.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly incorrect. Tall athletes are universally more advantaged in sports. It's simple physics. Their levers are longer.

Whether a certain individual (you for example) were able to take advantage of those levers is another question. But in the large sample set, someone will.

Just ask Aaron judge why he is so good as a short person playing baseball. Oh wait...

Long levers only help in ball sports involving throwing or rackets and swimming. Anything involving contact, speed or agility. Tall helps in being overall big. It's kind of like spinning vs cycling. I started spinning and push huge amounts of watts(power), but it doesn't help that much to climb hills on a real bike. Football height really isn't all that much of an advantage, except the noted tight end, defensive end or QB roles. My schools back-to-back state champ football center was all of 5'6" he was a set or two from making the Olympic weightlifting squad. The bar only had to go four inches when he bench pressed. Agility long levers mean high rotational inertial. Physics means you can't rotate as much, so gymnastics not so much.

Quickness and reactions are relative for example tall people do well at ping pong, they don't have to move their feet as much despite have lower eye to hand reflexes. Tall players do well at sports where a small local space is important. In baseball first base is a good example, they provide a larger target to keep their foot on base and catch the ball. Kneeling down and being catcher not so much. Soccer longer arms mean more goal coverage, and better throws eg goalie.

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.

I'm sorry, but this is wildly incorrect. Tall athletes are universally more advantaged in sports. It's simple physics. Their levers are longer.

Whether a certain individual (you for example) were able to take advantage of those levers is another question. But in the large sample set, someone will.

Just ask Aaron judge why he is so good as a short person playing baseball. Oh wait...

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive sports are less competitive.

^This. Golf and tennis are expensive sports and much less competition in them, unless you live in wealthy areas.

If you can make the golf or tennis team at Justice HS with little to no skills vs McLean/Langley HS. It is because parents of kids attending Jusitice HS can't afford private golf or tennis lessons. It is that simple.

Tennis is really not that expensive. There are tons of kids playing tennis are they all UMC or wealthy? Give me a break

I agree. My daughter is a casual, for fun player. She takes a private lesson weekly and spends time on public courts with friends playing. Some of her friends never took any lessons they just like to play. Also most Ys and town park and rec have group lessons at affordable prices.

Have you checked how much it cost to train tennis at JTCC? It is not affordable for many families.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Expensive sports are less competitive.

^This. Golf and tennis are expensive sports and much less competition in them, unless you live in wealthy areas.

If you can make the golf or tennis team at Justice HS with little to no skills vs McLean/Langley HS. It is because parents of kids attending Jusitice HS can't afford private golf or tennis lessons. It is that simple.

Tennis is really not that expensive. There are tons of kids playing tennis are they all UMC or wealthy? Give me a break

I agree. My daughter is a casual, for fun player. She takes a private lesson weekly and spends time on public courts with friends playing. Some of her friends never took any lessons they just like to play. Also most Ys and town park and rec have group lessons at affordable prices.