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.

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

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.

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I guess the question is what is the goal. If it's to compete at a high level, then I think moving off of a sport is a good idea. If it's to exercise and have fun, then I don't see the problem with letting them continue. My daughter was always around 99% percentile for height (which can be it's own problem for girls) and loved gymnastics. We we're blunt with her, but let her continue. Eventually she go more serious about soccer, but she credits gymnastics with teaching her more about body control than any goalie coach that she's worked with

Exactly.

I agree but someone moved to post on DCUM about not enough playing time and not getting started and frustration is not someone where the goal is to exercise and have fun.

I do understand the distinction between late growing and just short. Two different issues.

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I guess the question is what is the goal. If it's to compete at a high level, then I think moving off of a sport is a good idea. If it's to exercise and have fun, then I don't see the problem with letting them continue. My daughter was always around 99% percentile for height (which can be it's own problem for girls) and loved gymnastics. We we're blunt with her, but let her continue. Eventually she go more serious about soccer, but she credits gymnastics with teaching her more about body control than any goalie coach that she's worked with

Exactly.

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.

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I am not in the DMV.

Again, my kids wanted to play basketball. I wasn't going to say no. Especially when he is really good at it. We encouraged and pushed other sports too. They were aware of a possible height issue, but not later growth. You can't predict that and that is the main issue with my 8th grader right now. Plus, my oldest ended up being over 6' after being on the smaller side when younger.

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I agree with you, particularly about gymnastics and basketball. One thing I will say, though, is kids’ growth isn’t always totally predictable. My own DD was tiny (30th for height, barely on charts for weight) through elementary school. At 14, she is 5’6” and still growing- not yet mature or started period yet. Now that isn’t super tall either, but she is above average already and not done growing. She didn’t end up tiny as we would’ve predicted all through childhood.

Her brothers were both on the tall side though elementary (70th-80th percentile) and like her, were late to puberty. Falling WAY behind in size in middle school and not catching up until 9th-10th grade for the older one. I’m sure the younger one will be the same. Many of the “big boys” in middle school haven’t grown further and are ended up on the short side. . Others have kept growing and will indeed be very big! There is no real way to know until they are all through puberty.

I think height/size can only predicted at the extremes (both parents super short or both super tall)- and even then, there are outliers.

ETA: DD’s best friend was always the tallest girl in class and DD was always the shortest. It was always kind of funny. Her always tall best friend hit 5’7” early- by age 11 or so, and hasn’t grown further. At 11, my DD was 4’9”. Nearly a foot shorter. At 14 they are almost the same height- one inch apart!

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I guess the question is what is the goal. If it's to compete at a high level, then I think moving off of a sport is a good idea. If it's to exercise and have fun, then I don't see the problem with letting them continue. My daughter was always around 99% percentile for height (which can be it's own problem for girls) and loved gymnastics. We we're blunt with her, but let her continue. Eventually she go more serious about soccer, but she credits gymnastics with teaching her more about body control than any goalie coach that she's worked with

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

I agree with you, particularly about gymnastics and basketball. One thing I will say, though, is kids’ growth isn’t always totally predictable. My own DD was tiny (30th for height, barely on charts for weight) through elementary school. At 14, she is 5’6” and still growing- not yet mature or started period yet. Now that isn’t super tall either, but she is above average already and not done growing. She didn’t end up tiny as we would’ve predicted all through childhood.

Her brothers were both on the tall side though elementary (70th-80th percentile) and like her, were late to puberty. Falling WAY behind in size in middle school and not catching up until 9th-10th grade for the older one. I’m sure the younger one will be the same. Many of the “big boys” in middle school haven’t grown further and are ended up on the short side. . Others have kept growing and will indeed be very big! There is no real way to know until they are all through puberty.

I think height/size can only predicted at the extremes (both parents super short or both super tall)- and even then, there are outliers.

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 wonder this too. My daughter who is tall liked gymnastics as a younger kid and asked to do it more seriously and I said no. She's too tall and it wasn't going to end well. I see OP responded to this question. I don't know, I would be more blunt with the kid and more directive if it's going to be crushing them to the level you're writing a DCUM post about it in the end. Basketball is pretty clearly not going to work out for a short male and the DMV is known for being an extremely competitive boys basketball environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just an FYI things aren’t always better on the other side. DS had his growth spurt early- 5-6th grade. He was so terribly in coordinated at the time. Many here are mentioning basketball, DS was always told to stand under the basket and the shorter, faster, more coordinated kids got much more ‘ball time’ in ES and MS.

Now in HS, he is just over the average height. But, he was abnormally tall in MS and it impacted him in negative ways as well.

How tall was he in middle,school.

Not this poster but not hard to surmise he was around 5-9 tp 5-10. Average white male height is 5-10 and average black male height is 5-9.

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)

OP here. We did it all and starting young - baseball, soccer, football, basketball, swimming. Golf and tennis was of no interest bc they really loved the more rough and tumble and team sports. It was clear to us that the younger two were going to be on the small side and we heavily encouraged the sports that are easier but they, of course, freaking loved basketball. I was hoping they would want to stay in soccer but by the time they were 9/10 they were not interested at all. My middle was really into baseball until middle school but decided it was too boring around 7th grade and 8th grade he quit after us pushing it for a year. He was good but he lost his starting spot at 1st base and was tired of working extra hard to keep up as his teammates were bigger now.

My oldest in college is doing golf now and I think I have talked my middle into taking lessons. Youngest wants nothing to do with tennis or golf at this point and never has. It may change though.

So, we can 'pick' all we want and try to guide them, but the kids are going to enjoy what they enjoy.

They all loathed swimming for sport, haha.

Wrestling, wrestling, wrestling, wrestling.

Being small can actually be an advantage.

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)