From: claypool@myria.cs.umn.edu (Mark Claypool)
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics
Subject: Re: Age-rule (Was Re: Kim Zmeskal)
Keywords: gymnastics
Date: 16 Aug 92 04:51:10 GMT
Organization: University of Minnesota

> I'm wondering if the age limit (currently 14) should again be raised.
> So should the age rule be raised?  

If there were no age limits at all, the athletes would gravitate
towards the *best* physical age.  Best is defined by both physical
characteristics, mental strength and physical training.  This varies
greatly from sport to sport.

For contests of endurance, the best age seems to be in the late
twenties.  At this age, the minimal training has long since been
completed.  Athletes have had time to trim their bodies into lean,
mean, endurance machines.  But most importantly, they have had time to
develop the mental toughness required for an endurance contest.

For men's tennis, the best age seems to be around 20.  At this age,
tennis players have the right blend of physical ability, mental
toughness and physical training.  

For women's gymnastics, the best age seems to be around 14 or 15.  At
this age, mental toughness, which increases with age and experience,
seems to be adequate.  If the gymnast has started early enough, she
will have had enough years of physical training.  But most
importantly, 15 year old girls are at the physical ideal in terms of
strength to size.

> Svetlana Bolginskia did remarkably well ...  and she is nineteen...
> Older gymasts *can* compete.  

For all sports, there will be successful athletes around the mean.
How close they are (the size of the standard deviation) depends on the
sport.

So the real question of "no age limit" or "age limit where?" depends on
what you want.  If you want the best human performances possible, have
no age limits.  The best in the world will gravitate toward some mean
age.

> It seems that the girls (in this case) spend so much time
> training and so on that they have little time for anything else.
> But will the age rule just mean another year or so of training that robs
> the kids of a little more of a childhood?

In the above case, raising the age limits simply forces the athletes
to wait longer.  It does not *rob* them of their childhood.  Likewise,
lowering the age limit does not get gymnasts out sooner; it just gets
them in earlier.  In order to have them "get it over with and get on
with their life" you need to have an upper age limit.  It would not be
popular.

The is another argument for an age limit which pertains to a point I
brought up earlier: the age at which one must start in order to be a
world-class competitor.  If an athlete peaks at, say 15, and requires
9 years of physical training to compete in a sport, she/he must start
training at 6.  No problem.  6 year olds can encounter the sport, fall
in love with it and be determined to become world-class.

But what about those who don't encounter the sport at 6?  If the same
6 year-old didn't watch gymnastics until she was 11, she would be
doomed.  It's not that she would love the sport any less or not train
as hard; it's just that she would have started too late.  Now, make a
minimum age limit of 20 and assume 9 years is the maximum benefit from
training; the 11 year old can still become world class!

I realize there are some problems.  "Why not make the age limit 30?
Or 40?"  By my argument above there is no reason.  It just seems a
shame that athletes who could have been, and wanted to be, the best in
the world were not, simply because they didn't start when they were
young enough.  But I don't think the age limit is a solution.



--

--------------------------------------------   /|  /|  /     /-----/   ___
Mark Claypool (claypool@cs.umn.edu 624-7807)  / | / | /     /         / | \
-------------------------------------------- /  |/  |/_____/-----/    \/_\/
Newsgroups: rec.sport.olympics