Age Group changes.

[davepaver]

For anyone interested, the proposed hurdles and throwing wights for the "new" Age Groups is on the UKA website, under Competitions and Competition Review.
I am actively opposing the change in Age Groups, and will be pleased to hear from anyone supporting this view. davepaver@hotmail.com

I give below my reasons for opposing the UKA decision to change the Age Groups. Clubs received a letter from UKA, on about 18 December. This letter would not offer “keep the current age groups” as one of the options – even though I know that many clubs had written to UKA stating a preference for this.
If your club supports my view that current Age Groups should be kept (or should at least be offered as an option)
I ask that you do not respond to the UKA letter at the moment. Please let me know of your view, and I will keep you informed of any developments, and perhaps who to “target” with your letter when the time is right.
I organized the clubs opposition to Age Group changes by BAF in 1997 and the ECCA in about 2002 – in both cases a vote was held with 85% supporting the current Age Groups.

The proposal that Age Groups shall be Under 14, 16, 18
In Cross Country and Road this will maintain the current situation (as calculation is will be at the end of the Competition Year rather than at the start) except for the older end of Under 18 and 20 as described below.
In Track & Field the new Age Groups will be a Year out of line with those used in English Schools events.
This will cause particular problems for hurdles, but also throwing weights and event eligibility (ie athletes will be able to do triple jump / hammer / 400m / steeplechase in some competitions but then be deemed too young to do the same event safely in other competitions.). Proposed hurdles / throwing weights / event eligibility are on the UKA website (Competitions). Athletes in School Year 11 will be Under 18s so doing the
100m (female) / 110m hurdles, with the girls doing 400m rather than the 300m which seems a very successful distance for them. Year 7 Girls (currently U13) will do 75m at 76cm. They will not cope with this.
The current system has School Year 7 at the “older” end of their Under 13 Age Group and this is a particular advantage to the sport, as it is at this age that many youngsters come into the sport having had their first opportunity at their new Secondary School. It means that newcomers are competing against similar athletes, not against those who have had a years experience in the sport. It also means that they are competing with the “easier” hurdles and throwing weights of the current Under 13 Age Group.
The Competition Review points out the “advantage” that the new Age Groups will take the “top year” out of the main exam years (ie GCSE and A level). However if they get their wish over the top end of the Under 18 Age Group, one third of athletes – born Sept to Dec - will still have their “top year” in Year 11 and Year 13 so there is no advantage to them. In any case, these exams finish in mid June for most people, after which the athletes are free of all academic pressure. Perhaps a better idea would be to spread out the season more. With Year 12 having AS exams, and their term continuing an extra month, they are in no “easier” a position than Year 11, indeed some would say a worse position with exam pressure.
So I do not feel that the “advantage” claimed by the Competition Review is valid, and I do not feel that changing T&F to Under 14, 16, 18 brings any advantages to overturn the disadvantage of being a year out of step with English Schools Age Groups.

The proposal that the older end of the Under 18 Age Group should be 31 December.
This was a late change to the document, and is clearly there to help selection of teams for International Under 18 Competition – of which there is relatively little, and even less in Cross Country, which the new rule will also apply to. To benefit this minority of cases, one third of athletes in School Year 12 (Lower Sixth to some readers) will be moved into the Age Group above for all disciplines.

The Under 18 T&F Championships are in August, so I assume will not be a Trial for any European / World Youth event. Under 18 teams will presumably be picked after the Under 20 Championships in June.
So even less benefit from making the Under 18 qualification date 31 December.
I suggest that the disadvantage to one third of a Year Group far outweigh any advantage to National selection processes.

The proposal that the older end of the Under 20 Age Group should be 31 December as IAAF Rules.
It already is for T&F, and I can accept it. But I do think that the current UKA Rules for Under 20 Cross Country and Road have much to commend them. In the last Age Group “campaign” over ECCA Age Groups, there was a big majority of clubs (over 80%) in favour of using the current UKA Under 20 rule as opposed to the IAAF rule for Cross Country. Of course if the qualifying date for Cross Country is to be 31 Aug at the end of the Competition Year this Age Group would need to be called Under 21 to keep parity with the current situation.

Mainly the change has been viewed from the Track and Field position, but it will apply to cross country as well.
This will mean
* the loss of the current UKA Under 20 definition (as used at the National, Area Champs, Mansfield Relays)
leading to a narrower Under 20 Age Band,
* runners becoming Seniors 1 or 2 years earlier,
* Under 18 and Under 20 athletes moving up an Age Group at 1 Jan (affecting Leagues split both sides of 1 Jan)
* the Under 18 National and Area Champs having a narrower Age Band than at present hence fewer runners,
* all trophies needing replacing / reengraving

I feel the changes are being proposed to help selection of teams for International Under 18 and 20 Competition.
Under the current Age Groups I suggest the UK already does very well in producing talented athletes in these Age Groups, both recent Juniors and current Under 18s. There is no need to change, when the change will have such adverse effects on general junior athletics. I note some of the people who have contacted me opposing the new Age Groups are coaches with a record of producing leading athletes in the Under 18 / 20 Age Groups.

I can see no way that the new Age Groups will improve recruitment, retention or standards in young athletes.
If they have any effect, I think it will be to hinder recruitment.
They will certainly not be “clearer” to those within or outside the sport. To take UKA Age Groups out of step with Schools Age Groups for T&F will be most confusing and disruptive.

If you have any questions please contact me,
Thank you
Dave Paver

[Dennis]

In Track & Field the new Age Groups will be a Year out of line with those used in English Schools events

If this is to be the case then I can't see how anyone can support the proposed changes. Having schools and clubs out of line is totally absurd.

[fangio]

Really? Absurd, I see so the fact that the Senior age group for schools allowed for a 3 year age group as opposed to a 2 year age group was absurd.

I always thougt it od dthat I woudl run a Junior race in the top year, but only some of the runners were actually juniors, some of us were seniors really, but since the UK age groups called us Juniors still we ran the Junior race. It woudl sem having differnt age groups with the rest of the world is not absurd but different with a national schools organisation is absurd.

[Dennis]

Yes there are some "quirks" with the English Schools "Senior" age group but I was really referring to the younger age groups where consistency of throwing implements and hurdle heights are more important.

[fangio]

Dennis

This is the thing, there have always been quirks, and wil contniue to be when dual systems run. The question for UKA s what is best for the sport.

I know some dismiss hte exam pressure point out of hand, but have they actually spoken to theguys who went through it alst year? My wife is a head of Science in a large secondary school. There are the bright sportsmen who can do both and the not so bright who need to concentrate on their studies a bit more in the exam yers if htey are goign to scuceed. Are we really saying that we shoudl continue to have a system which says to our less academically gifted atheltes you cn train or study, train and you might win a UK title as a Junior/U17, but your grades may suffer which willeffect the rest of your life, whilst the more academically gifted can afford to study less, knowing that this will not be thei rfinal run at education because they are going on to A levels/Uni.

The argmetn about AS levels being just as hard is not rue. there is a lot less work in year 12 than 13. My wife physically laughed when I suggested to her that year 12 was as hard as year 13.

As for the 3 month people "losing out. Well to be frank (and I was in that category) we had it easy being the oldest in our year group for so many years, tough.

Yes it would be a big change, yes it would bring a bout a different set of anomalies to the current anomalies.

I see people saying it should be dismissed because the weights change at a different age or the height and sitance for hurdles changes, get over it. You run the distance and the height that is put in front of you. I'm 5'6" and have always been short for my age. I didn't get lower hurdles because of my height, I got the same as everyone else, and I had to learn to get over them with a thing called technique. If you raised them and put them further apart 1 year earlier I would have had to modify my technique 1 year earlier. Big deal. When I started Steeplechasing as a Boy I had to hurdle senior height barriers, so I can't see how the "it will change the heights/weights" argument is valid. Or does everyone think that senior bariers in teh Steeplechase are too dangerous for the youngest steeplechasers after decades of them being used.

maybe it's my XC and steeplechase background but I just get on with whatever is put in front of me.

What do we lose, well some of the age group records will change, although if the schools are running the old age groups everyone will get a crack at those as well still. There will be anomlies, well we both know there already are both internally in the UK and with the rest of the world.

To me, if the sport can help at a time when kids come under pressure froim their parents and their chools to do well academically, without them having to put their best opportunity for a national title to the back of the queue it will help retention. That is my overriding consideration rather than one year of pain, altering a few records and some athetles having to change their technique to fit new heights/weights a year earlier.

Anyway Dennis I hope you can see where I ma coming from.

[Dennis]

I hope you can see where I am coming from. It is all very well putting all these arguments forward but if at the end of the day UKA and the English Schools cannot match their (early teens) age groups we are going to end up with a mess and many people will not support this.

[fangio]

Dennis

We'll end up with different events in differnt competitions. So what?

We had the Girobank YAL which was mixed and as such had a limited number of events, there was no chase for a start. So I coudln't run cahse at that. But Boys League did have a chase so I could run it there. Did that constitue a mess?

The Mens League currently alternates between 3000/5000 and 2k/3k chase, does that constitute a mess?

In addition I don't see the problem with a dual system. You will always be top of age group for one or the other, you don't have that dip year where you are bottom of the age group and notvery likely to win anything. Again this reduces the pressure as if you ease off for exams or because of injury or whatever reason, you still have somethign to aim for as a top of age group next year. With the croded fixture list as it is only qualifying for one or the other would also reduce the pressure in the year. Do you not think that would be a benefit, to all of our young athetes?

[Dennis]

You might not mind this type of system but I suspect that you will find many objecting.

The best system would be for one year age groups rather than two years and indeed some schools leagues in our areas can handle this. But gearing is probably impossible.

[fangio]

Dennis

If you think one year age groups are the "best" system, but unworkable, then surely 2 year age groups, with one competition where you are top year, and the other bottom year is much closer to this.

BTW 1 year age groups would do nothing to reduce the number of comeptitions a young athelte might compete when they are top of year in both schools and UKA.

[sleepingintheblox]

Fangio
You make some interesting points but your pro change view is not supported by the vast majority of the athletes, coaches and team managers who deal with young athletes on a regular basis. A dual system for young athletes would be confusing for all, detrimental to technique for throwers and blatently dangerous for hurdlers who would have to deal with different heights and/or spacings. Talk to top young hurdlers who have to adapt to the English Schools Cup specifications!

The point about retention is also important. We recruit a high proportion of athletes in Year 7 which currently is at the top of the U13 age group. This makes their initial experience of athletics likely to be positive and enjoyable. Changing to Under 14s will mean the bulk of young athletes who come along to their local track to try athletics being forced to compete against athletes a year older, stronger and more experienced. My considerable experience of young people tells me that many will give up and return to their play stations!

The point about the GCSE years, on the face of it, seems to make sense but in fact having the top year of the U17 age group in the GCSE year probably helps retention. The temptation to take a year out and focus on exams because being a first year U18 is not a key athletics year will lead to many never returning. Again trust me on this I know the way they, and their parents, think! It is a constant battle to retain our best young talent against the tide of other, easier leisure pursuits, education, part time work, girl/boyfriends etc. Lets not make it too easy for them.!!

And finally, as I've stated before, I am not comfortable with this blase "one year of pain" argument. Denying two year groups of the opportunity to compete at the top end of an age group is just not justified. I coach over 50 young athletes. Having 20 'losers' purely because of the school year they happen to be born in flies in the face of everything I try to instill in the young people I am fortunate enough to look after.

The system really isn't broke, so don't fix it!

[fangio]

Sleeping

Thanks for speaking for others, or have you actually surveyed everyone who works with young athletes on a regular basis? I know ABAC claim that the vast majority don't want change but they haven't asked everyone either, they have asked some people they know, which given they are anti-UKA themselves doesn't really make the sample independent. Apologies i fyou have spoken to absolutely everyone who works with Young Ahtletes and all fo the atheltes themselves, otherwise, please stop talkign for others who's opinions you don't know, it only cheapens your argument.

You are always going to come accross older stronger athletes. If you are bottom year when you start athletics then the focus can be on learnign andparticipation, rather than coming in as a top year and being expected to win. My considerable experience tells me that learning and participation in your first year is a better aim. Let's face it we bring them in as top years they win, next year they move up, they don't. It's then they decide athletics isn't for them as they lost the instant gratification of the first year. I think you may aid short term retention by having them enter as top years, but I don't think it helps long term.

The phrases "My considerable experience" and "trust me on this I know the way they, and their parents, think" implies that I don't know and don't have similar experience, which leads me to a different conclusion. Please don't be so patronising when you have no idea what my knowledge expertise and experiences are, I am putting forward reasoned arguments, your counter is that actually instead of following logic I should just trust you, sory but try following my argument and then criticise it rather than getting all pompous and saying you know best regardless of the actual considerations.

You are basically saying that our athletes should not concentrate on their exams but should focus on athletics. Fine for the very best who will go on to earn a living from the sport, but basically your disregard for their exam results and the possible effects on their future is shocking and I woudl say disgusting. there is more to life than athletics, and the fact that you woudl rather have your athletes competing in their exam years full tilt than ensureing their futures is disgusting.

Some atheltes SHOULD reduce thier fous on athletics in the GCSE year. Rather than trying to find ways of forcing them to have to focus on atheltics or miss out the proposed change gives the new bottom year in GCSE year a reason to come back to full training the next year, i.e. they are top year. The current model says if you take time out becasue you need to think of your future beyond athletics don't bother witht he following year too, becasue you will be a bootom year.

As you can tell I thikn that helps retention better, and your phrase seems very much like you couldn't care les about exams, which is certainly not he way parents think. If they had the opition to allow thier children to focus on exams when they are on, and focus on atheltics when they have the best chance of medalling they would. However, it's not being portrayed that way by some.

I doubt that changing the age groups "flies in thte face of everything you try to instill in young people" anymore than selection for international comeptition withouth the athletes comepting in the same competitions thereby barring all bottom years form selection regardless of how good they are in any hurdle or throw, I imaghine the whole possibly concentrating on your exams fliesin the face of wht you instil in them from your comments, it's a good job all 50 will become paid atheltes and will not need their qualifications in future life.

My attuitude about the one year of pain is not blase, I have considered it, and on balance it is just that, one year of pain. For that year, I and others have suggested championships should be single year events. No one misses out on a title shot in the transition.

On the danger issue, I belive that falls into the category of "do your hurdlers run with their eyes closed". I am yet to meet a hurlder who cannot remember their technique from the previous year, yet you think learning a new height/distance means they will forget how to run the old one, I never forgot, or tried to hurdle a barrier that wasn't there and I did all three hurdles disciplines (and still do at a club level). I guess you need to run alongside the athletes when they return after summer reminding them when to jump.

I have made a point in my previous post whcih I realise you would prefer to ignore, as you haven't addressed it at all. The dual system means that an athelte will be top year in one or other in each year. I would imagine that most will concentrate on the one they are top year in, and compete in the other one less seriously. Exceptions would be those whose stride pattern/technique suit the heavier/higher/further apart equipment. I really don't see the confusion aspect, SCHOOLS competition is one set, ALL OTHER comeptition is another. It's not tricky, it's not confusing, it's very very simple.

You say the system isn't broken, unless you actualluy know that it would not work better that it is working to it's best you can't say that truthfully. Given that ther are many drop outs frmo the sport I'd say it isn't working perfectly. The question is then woudl this aid it, I beleive I have put forward reasons why it would.

[BigGut]

The point about retention is also important. We recruit a high proportion of athletes in Year 7 which currently is at the top of the U13 age group. This makes their initial experience of athletics likely to be positive and enjoyable. Changing to Under 14s will mean the bulk of young athletes who come along to their local track to try athletics being forced to compete against athletes a year older, stronger and more experienced. My considerable experience of young people tells me that many will give up and return to their play stations!

I think you have missed a vital point. If tyey are bottom of UKA age group they are top of schools age group. Therefor they will be able to fous on schools comps where they will be the ones who are "a year older and stronger". What is more the athlets who join in year 6 and year 8 will also have competitions where THEY will be top year. In your system half the athletes are bottom of age for ALL competition for a season. In the mixed method EVERYONE has one set where they are top year!

This is how it always was with cross country. As such every year I knew which events were my focus for the season. When I was top of the schools age range the focus was English Schools etc, when I was top of AAA it was the National etc. Makes for a far better balance as not every race in the congested young athletes calendar is of massive focus.

[Geoff]

I cannot understand why some people are so opposed to age group changes. There are good reasons to change and good reasons not to but some appear not to want to listen to either.

I doubt very much whether those against the changes have consulted widely and firmly believe there is support for many of the proposals. There are, however, some problems that seem difficult to overcome - changing cross country age groups part way through the winter for example.

Remember also that UKA is responsible for many disciplines across the whole of the UK. Northern Ireland operate under IAAF age groups (because of the Irish connection), fell running apparently operates under IAAF age groups. UKA is not just England and there isn't just the English Schools. Many sports operate a calendar year age group system without problems.

Why keep raising the issue of English Schools not changing. If the governing body decides to change rules then they should fall into line. How many athletes at the various home countries national schools championships are not coached by UKA coaches and/or belong to a club? How many athletes would there be in events such as hurdles, steeplechase, pole vault, discus, hammer (in fact most events) without the clubs and volunteer coaches? Most of the officials at this meeting are UKA officials. Not many teachers give up 10 hours or more per week to teach athletics without pay. I know I am slightly off the point here but why can't they accept change if that is what the rules say?

Just to clarify my stance on schools athletics. I am a big supporter of athletics in schools and want to see a far closer working relationship between our governing bodies and the 4 national schools associations. On this matter we must agree to abide by the rules of UKA - whatever is decided.

A lot of this is about sports politics. There are several things I don't agree with and have made people aware of them but at the end of the day I try to see both side of a debate and make a rational decision.

There will inevitably be some compromise. Option A being proposed by UKA is a compromise with the only real objection (in my view) being whether it should apply to cross country. Surely we can work this out.

[Dennis]

Interesting quote from elsewhere which is perhaps cynical but nonetheless a good point

"Decades of records, championship bests, standards etc will disappear. We should not under estimate the importance of the history and tradition of our sport."
As people have pointed out it does seem to be a bit of a no brainer doesnt it?
But the above quote is what this is really all about I suspect.
UKA have in mind to wipe out all this and in effect wipe the slate clean so they can have tons of new records and chaampionship bests to boast about that they can use to make claims that seem to the unititiated to suggest progress.

[fangio]

Dennis

It is entirely cynical, and very much a side issue. It is extremely doubtful that UKA are motivated by this, and typical of the extreme anti-UKA stance of the site you picked it up from. On that particular site only one viewpoint is allowed, that being that anything UKA does is for political reasons and harmful to the sport. I trust from the posts I have made above you can see that the proposed changes are not just political, and do have more good points to receommend them than anyone on the other site will mention.

The quote is only really interesting in the extent the poster will go to to portray the change as deliberately harmful.

[Dennis]

The quote is only really interesting in the extent the poster will go to to portray the change as deliberately harmful.

Perhaps but it is symptomatic of the failure of UKA to carry people with them. If as Dave Paver suggests above, 85% voted against changes on two previous occasions then I doubt if they would get these changes through if they were actually voted on.

[BigGut]

Dennis,

The only way to carry some of the main protaganists is if you give them EXACTLY what they want, which since it is based on personal interest is impossible, they all have diferent personal interests.

I find it classic that the guy that runs AD is currently complaining about people having the wrong county allocated on Athletics Data and TPoT. The only way to eradicate this is to hold information about county agianst each athletes registration and yet he is vehemently opposed to registration and said there was no possible positive benefit.

The same person repeatedly and incorrectly said that the registration scheme broke the Data Protection Act. He was informed it was untrue, but instead of being interetsed in the facts chose to see the truth as UKA propaganda.

Please tell me how you can possibly bring someone like this with you when all they are intent on doing is attacking UKA and on misinformaing as many people as possible in order to prevent them from working with the governing body as well?

[Dennis]

The guy who runs AD is only one person, what about the rest of the "85%" against?

[fangio]

Dennis

The previous vote was on previous proposals not these ones. Saying that a different set of proposals were voted down dos nto mena that this time around that the proposals have the same votes eitehr way.

As to the admin of AD being one man, actually he is at least 5, usernames that is. It is unlikely that you will see a balanced view from his site, or get a realistic picture of the strength of opposition, as I say differ from his view and he bans you.

[BigGut]

He is just an example.

There are many people who fight for fightings sake and they are evangelical in their hatred. As such they persaude many others through persistant misinformation and detract from the real issues.

Personally I do not think anybody should take any notice of an opinion which is purely based on "that is how it has always been" because it doesn't actually look at the merits of changes, or the merits of not changing. If we discount those people and purely look at those who have actually considered the effects and formed THEIR OWN opinion, rather than jumping on a bandwagon then I suspect the figures would be nowhere near 85%.

If people are consulted and despite their opposition cannot come up well thought out reasons why changes cannot work then what is their opposition worth? Same goes for people supporting them! It's like people voting for a PM because he looks nice. I want to see the sport doing what is best for the sport. If the arguments against the proposals are persuasive enough then they shouldn't go ahead. If they are not as persausive as the arguments for them then they should. If the discussion finds a middle way where the benefits can be maximised even better.

I think the merits of the arguments not how many people are prepared to, largely blindly, follow them is what should count.

[Dennis]

Personally I do not think anybody should take any notice of an opinion which is purely based on "that is how it has always been" because it doesn't actually look at the merits of changes

I don't think that is the case, those taking this stance have justifiable reasons. The trouble is, both sides have good arguments and I don't see an easy way of reconciling them.

[BigGut]

Dennis,

I agree that many opposing the changes and supporting them have positive arguments. My point is I don't think solving it by a show of hands is the way forward. We need to look at the merit of what everyone is saying as it is all to easy to raise a rabble behind an idea and attack a proposal. To be honest I seriously believe that change is needed, but quite how I am still undecided.

I am probably pro change in general, not just on this issue. For me far too often we stagnate because people hold on to tradition rather than doing what is best. It's like the argument that we will lose the records and historic champions. Well we did that when we went from imperial to metric. It doesn't lessen the value of Mc Donald Douglas's 7 post war victories because they were over 100 yards instead of 100m. Neither will it devalue a national title because it is U18 not U17.

When I see arguments like this put forward it makes me wonder why people bother to be involved in athletics. We should be considering the costs and benefits for athletes NOW and in the future not whether it will need an asterix at the bottom of the page to explain that in 200? age groups changed.

Argumnets as petty as this one when we are talking about the development of young athletes, pro or anti, genuinely anger me!

[Dennis]

It's like the argument that we will lose the records and historic champions. Well we did that when we went from imperial to metric.

That was 40 odd years ago and we didn't have the facilities to reproduce and have available records and rankings (via the internet) that we have now. If someone did a good performance they wouldn't see it in the rankings until AW printed them at the end of the season. Now they would be in the rankings and all time lists within a couple of weeks.

[fangio]

Please someone correct me if I am wrong, but as regards records the only events that it will chance are the hurdles, or the throws where the impliment weight changes. Then it is a case of (and as Dennis points out we now have technology to help us) going through the annual lists (they include DOB in the books you know) and picking out those whose performances were with the right weight for their age.

We would need an asterix or a note like that for the javelin or multi-events after the javelin change. All previous atheltes woudl have thrown the new weight or hurdled the new height for on eof the 2 years so there woudl be a target to aim at although I accept tha they woudl have been 1st years, and not 2nd years when they did this. however, the ESSA woudl continue to use the old heghts and weights etc, giving everyone the chance to tilt at the old recordds stil if they wanted to.

[BigGut]

Dennis,

What I mean is that people are actually having the gall to argue that we shouldn't change because we will lose the title of U17 champion etc which has always stood and because the record books will need to be changed. To me that should not even be considered when we are talking about the development of our future athletes. It's a facile argument but it is one that many opposing the chnges have come out with.

If 85% of the population opposed the changes on these grounds I would wholeheartedly say ignore them, since they are blatantly putting tradition before the development of the sport.

Equally if people supported the proposals on such idiotic grounds I would say ignore them too!

[Dennis]

If 85% of the population opposed the changes on these grounds I would wholeheartedly say ignore them, since they are blatantly putting tradition before the development of the sport.

I don't think the records and rankings are the prime reason for voting against, rewriting all times lists is just a nuisance. Arguments like "the majority of our youngsters join in the top of the current under 13 age group" and "keeping T&F schools and club age groups in line" are.

[BigGut]

"the majority of our youngsters join in the top of the current under 13 age group"

If the age bands for schools and clubs were diferent then ALL young athletes would always have a competition where they were top of the age gruop. Equally maybe the majority join precisely BECAUSE they are top of the age group at U13. Maybe the age bands cause the effect!

[Dennis]

Equally maybe the majority join precisely BECAUSE they are top of the age group at U13. Maybe the age bands cause the effect!

The more likely reason is that this is the first year of secondary school and probably the first year for some that they get involved in athletics at school. In our area which has middle schools we get more joining in year 8 which is the first year of their secondary education.

[BigGut]

Possibly so Dennis.

In our area we have a, what was, Middles Schools cross country league so we get a fair few earlier here too. So it appears that the issue is when kids are exposed not what the competition banding is that is important.

That particular competition has a two year age band and the kids have their first season at the bottom of the age group. Despite that they virtually all come back the next year. So I really don't think having your first year at the the bottom of the age group is really that much of a factor. It seems to me that people are making far too much of it!

[fangio]

Seems to me that the arguemnt is a bit the wrong way around as weel. You join at the top year, and are beaten by athletes you know are a year younger than you, and have been competing for years, you can't use the excuse that they are older, because they are not, queue quick exit from the sport. Whereas come in as a bottom year, no pressure the older kids are expected to win, you have a year of expecting not to win in which to get used to training/comepting.