Olympics watched so far

[dar512]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Obviously the younger girls do it better, but the point is why spend so much time and energy learning a skill that you are destined to lose before you're even done being a teenager? Meanwhile you're at risk for stunted growth, a fallen uterus, and horrific arthritis, to name a few.

You could say the same of any of the Olympic sports. They all risk their bodies to be able to say they are the best at what they do.

Personally, I enjoy watching both the men's and women's gymnastics. There seems to be some presumption in this thread the the (mostly) teens in the women's gymnastics are not there from their own desire to compete. That may be true in a few cases, but they seem pretty competitive to me.

My girls have been in gymnastics since they were little. They do it because they enjoy it.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by dar512

There seems to be some presumption in this thread the the (mostly) teens in the women's gymnastics are not there from their own desire to compete. That may be true in a few cases, but they seem pretty competitive to me.

Ever heard the phrase "stage mother?"

There's a difference between competing and competing at an elite level. I played Little League baseball from 8 until 13, then gave it up when it became clear that the talent level had passed me by and it wasn't fun any more. So far, so good. But could my parents have guided me into "training" at a very young age, attempting to prepare me for a sports career, helping to mold my priorities towards what they felt would be best for me (i.e. spending hours in the batting cage or on the mound instead of out doing kid things)? Certainly, and I would've been too young to argue much.

99.9% of parents whose children participate in sports aren't stage mothers/fathers, so to speak... but every youth organization has its horror stories to tell about the parents who are nuts, and who will let nothing stand between them and Junior's budding sports career.

Nobody's saying that there are lots of Olympians who don't really want to be there, or would give it up if they weren't being held at gunpoint; far from it. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of Olympians in other sports are _adults_, who can make conscious decisions about their training, desires and choices. If you wait until an aspiring gymnast is early-teens to begin training strenuously, it's far too late by contemporary standards, because she'll be competing with gymnasts who've already been doing triple backflips for years. Plus, your daughter might've eaten a cheeseburger at some point and thus not meet the aesthetic ideal necessary for competitive judges to take her seriously.

Should young girls be prohibited from participating in informal gymnastics? Of course not. But the age ranges for competition should be increased dramatically, and the judges' expectations should be revised to focus on what actual, mature bodies are capable of. Nations should not be trotting out parades of sixteen-year-old eighty-pound waifs with the eyes of the world and the expectations of their countries upon them.

[dar512]

Originally Posted by vsp

Ever heard the phrase "stage mother?"

There's a difference between competing and competing at an elite level. I played Little League baseball from 8 until 13, then gave it up when it became clear that the talent level had passed me by and it wasn't fun any more. So far, so good. But could my parents have guided me into "training" at a very young age, attempting to prepare me for a sports career, helping to mold my priorities towards what they felt would be best for me (i.e. spending hours in the batting cage or on the mound instead of out doing kid things)? Certainly, and I would've been too young to argue much.

99.9% of parents whose children participate in sports aren't stage mothers/fathers, so to speak... but every youth organization has its horror stories to tell about the parents who are nuts, and who will let nothing stand between them and Junior's budding sports career.

Nobody's saying that there are lots of Olympians who don't really want to be there, or would give it up if they weren't being held at gunpoint; far from it. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of Olympians in other sports are _adults_, who can make conscious decisions about their training, desires and choices. If you wait until an aspiring gymnast is early-teens to begin training strenuously, it's far too late by contemporary standards, because she'll be competing with gymnasts who've already been doing triple backflips for years. Plus, your daughter might've eaten a cheeseburger at some point and thus not meet the aesthetic ideal necessary for competitive judges to take her seriously.

Should young girls be prohibited from participating in informal gymnastics? Of course not. But the age ranges for competition should be increased dramatically, and the judges' expectations should be revised to focus on what actual, mature bodies are capable of. Nations should not be trotting out parades of sixteen-year-old eighty-pound waifs with the eyes of the world and the expectations of their countries upon them.

Let's see. Hmm - a lot of ideas in there.

- Yes, I know about stage mothers. I don't know, but am willing to suppose that this occurs for some of the gymnasts.

- According to the nbcolympics web site the current ages for the us team are 25, 26, 18, 18, 16, 16. That sounds, to me, old enough that they could make the decision themselves.

- Young, small-chested girls are on the gymnastics team because young, small-chested girls have the balance, coordination and stamina to do the best at the routines that make up the competition. It's the same reason all basketball players are tall.

- On the other hand I don't think kids should be forced into it.

- What would happen, if the age limit was raised? Most early teen girls haven't developed yet and are naturally skinny and flat. If you raise the age limit, won't girls that could have competed naturally at a young age be forced to have surgery and starve themselves if they want to compete? I don't know that this is the answer either.

[vsp]

Originally Posted by dar512

Let's see. Hmm - a lot of ideas in there.
- According to the nbcolympics web site the current ages for the us team are 25, 26, 18, 18, 16, 16. That sounds, to me, old enough that they could make the decision themselves.

That's how the team is now, after the age restriction was imposed a few years ago. Wasn't that long ago that I remember a fourteen-year-old on the US squad. It's a step in the right direction.

- Young, small-chested girls are on the gymnastics team because young, small-chested girls have the balance, coordination and stamina to do the best at the routines that make up the competition. It's the same reason all basketball players are tall.

- What would happen, if the age limit was raised? Most early teen girls haven't developed yet and are naturally skinny and flat. If you raise the age limit, won't girls that could have competed naturally at a young age be forced to have surgery and starve themselves if they want to compete? I don't know that this is the answer either.

Hardly. The average pro basketball player is certainly taller than the average everyday person, just as an average gymnast is more agile and flexible than an average everyday person. This doesn't suggest that either basketball players or gymnasts do or should all fit into the same physical mold. The NBA had room for Muggsy Bogues, Manute Bol, Charles Barkley and John Stockton, as each filled a different role on their teams.

Gymnastics is more of an individual sport than basketball, obviously, but a similar principle applies. If the standards by which gymnasts are judged are rigidly set in such a way that only prepubescent pixies can attain them, which should change -- the standards or the gymnasts? Changing the standards (or, in some cases, the preconceived notions of judges about how gymnasts should appear) would seem to be the saner route, IMHO.

There are athletic feats that 14-year-old, 4'7, 80-pound gymnasts are capable of that an 19-year-old or 22-year-old gymnast, having matured a bit more and added some height, weight and muscle to their frames, cannot do. There are athletic feats that the older, bigger, stronger girls are capable of that the less physically mature girls are not. All of these girls can be as physically fit and toned as their age, build, diet and exercise regimens can make them. Should elite gymnastics admit one group but not the other?

Figure skating has these adaptations built into judging, to some extent. If one is sufficiently technically skilled, one doesn't have to be an aesthetic delight to watch, and vice versa. The champions tend to be a blend of both, but many Olympics have pitted someone who attempts groundbreaking jump combinations against someone performs less spectacular jumps but is more elegant in style. (Like any sport that's primarily ranked via subjective judging, it's severely flawed, and some forms of it are more reasonable than others.)

If girls need to have surgery and starve themselves in order to compete in a sport, the sport needs to be changed radically. If only participants of a particular body type (an unhealthy one, at that) have any chance of succeeding in a sport, the sport needs to be changed radically. Them's the breaks.

[Cyber Wolf]

Originally Posted by vsp

There are athletic feats that 14-year-old, 4'7, 80-pound gymnasts are capable of that an 19-year-old or 22-year-old gymnast, having matured a bit more and added some height, weight and muscle to their frames, cannot do. There are athletic feats that the older, bigger, stronger girls are capable of that the less physically mature girls are not. All of these girls can be as physically fit and toned as their age, build, diet and exercise regimens can make them. Should elite gymnastics admit one group but not the other?

I said before, I know next to nothing about the world of gymnastics, but I wonder if it's possible or if there exists a way to standardize age groups? You can have the younger set 13-15 year olds or so doing their thing with stuff based on speed, agility, whatever else they look for then have an older set, 16-18 or 16-20 years old, whatever, where the focus is more on strength and endurance. I'm sure there's elite quality in all of these ages if they look for the right stuff.

[lookout123]

Mrs lookout and i have been watching gymnastics because my wife was a gymnast until college when real life and the breastessessess took over. she still loves it even though her knees, ankles, and wrists are shot at 33.
we were talking about the age thing last night and the way i see it is that a "generation" of american female gymnasts missed their shot at the olympics.

the girls from the '96 games were so popular that they brought a number of them back for 2000. the girls competing this time around were too young for 2000 - so where did all the girls of the "right age" from 2000 go? but anyway - in 2000 there were a number of the top girls who were 19-24, not from just america either. i think the one russian (or ukranian, whatever) svetlana ob..... was 23-24 and she just rocked. but for 2004 they've got all the pre-pubescents back. bummer.