The late developers face intensive and complex challenges.
A BAE of 4 years between two boys is not uncommon. I.e. puberty at 12 and puberty at 16.
This means at 20 one is essentially full-adult whilst the other is still actively developing physically.
The challenges for a late developer are immense.
Both physically and mentally/emotionally.
I know this, as I have a son, 14; who is a late developer. He is about 4 years behind the kids who hit puberty at 12.
Literally men against boys.
He was a high level multi sport kid until recently. Now getting crushed and relegated. Huge challenge is to keep him active and engaged in sports; preserve his psyche, dignity and esteem.
The idea of weight categories is interesting.
Except, the flaw is that kids want to play sport with their friends. They are, often, not there just to compete. There significant emotional impact related to asking a 14 year old to join a group of 12 or 11 year olds.
And I'm going to comment again given my subsequent thoughts, insight and interest on this subject.
My take is the following.
There are 2 key stages to adulthood (Boys)...
1. Age 0 to +-12 (pre-puberty) - on average.
2. Age about 12+ (Puberty to full Adult) - on average.
RAE is relevant to 1, and has a decreasing impact as the child ages to point of puberty onset.
Thereafter you're dealing with early, average and late developers. (RAE is no longer of consequence)
BAE (Biological Age Effect) is relevant to 2, and is the more important or critical factor in identifying sporting-talent and potential and predicting success at elite level - I'd argue.
My view is that the Boys who hit puberty early to average hold key advantages in sport (and almost everything else in life). A late developer is extremely disadvantaged and likely never actually catches up.
The early developer obviously benefits from the size,speed, strength advantages boost and therefore dominates and easily out-performs the late developer in most sports. Examples of these man-childs are in tennis - Federer, Nadal and Alcara;
The article I wrote before this one was about how the RAE eventually disappeared if athletes could stick around long enough. In that study, they found that those with disadvantageous birthdays got more playing minutes than others. I know that the RAE and growth and maturity are not the same thing, but I'm not sure I would agree that the late maturing athlete doesn't catch up with the early maturing one eventually.
In your example (12 years +) the "catching up" part might not occur until the athlete has passed the point where they would cease participation anyway. Graduation from high school is a natural time to leave organized sport and a lot of those leaving would be late maturers. Early maturers might stick around and continue on into college. If it occurs this way then I think that would prove your point.
I think it would be hard to prove my point since late developers would be facing other social pressures to drop out other than simple non-performance. Maybe they could catch up physically (I think they could--some do) but realistically we may never know.
(continuing from above comment)
The late developers face intensive and complex challenges.
A BAE of 4 years between two boys is not uncommon. I.e. puberty at 12 and puberty at 16.
This means at 20 one is essentially full-adult whilst the other is still actively developing physically.
The challenges for a late developer are immense.
Both physically and mentally/emotionally.
I know this, as I have a son, 14; who is a late developer. He is about 4 years behind the kids who hit puberty at 12.
Literally men against boys.
He was a high level multi sport kid until recently. Now getting crushed and relegated. Huge challenge is to keep him active and engaged in sports; preserve his psyche, dignity and esteem.
The idea of weight categories is interesting.
Except, the flaw is that kids want to play sport with their friends. They are, often, not there just to compete. There significant emotional impact related to asking a 14 year old to join a group of 12 or 11 year olds.
I'll leave it there.
Nice one Bill...
And I'm going to comment again given my subsequent thoughts, insight and interest on this subject.
My take is the following.
There are 2 key stages to adulthood (Boys)...
1. Age 0 to +-12 (pre-puberty) - on average.
2. Age about 12+ (Puberty to full Adult) - on average.
RAE is relevant to 1, and has a decreasing impact as the child ages to point of puberty onset.
Thereafter you're dealing with early, average and late developers. (RAE is no longer of consequence)
BAE (Biological Age Effect) is relevant to 2, and is the more important or critical factor in identifying sporting-talent and potential and predicting success at elite level - I'd argue.
My view is that the Boys who hit puberty early to average hold key advantages in sport (and almost everything else in life). A late developer is extremely disadvantaged and likely never actually catches up.
The early developer obviously benefits from the size,speed, strength advantages boost and therefore dominates and easily out-performs the late developer in most sports. Examples of these man-childs are in tennis - Federer, Nadal and Alcara;
The article I wrote before this one was about how the RAE eventually disappeared if athletes could stick around long enough. In that study, they found that those with disadvantageous birthdays got more playing minutes than others. I know that the RAE and growth and maturity are not the same thing, but I'm not sure I would agree that the late maturing athlete doesn't catch up with the early maturing one eventually.
In your example (12 years +) the "catching up" part might not occur until the athlete has passed the point where they would cease participation anyway. Graduation from high school is a natural time to leave organized sport and a lot of those leaving would be late maturers. Early maturers might stick around and continue on into college. If it occurs this way then I think that would prove your point.
I think it would be hard to prove my point since late developers would be facing other social pressures to drop out other than simple non-performance. Maybe they could catch up physically (I think they could--some do) but realistically we may never know.