When will track and field move to a date of birth, rather than a year of birth system for age group?

Considering a 17 and an 18 year olds do pretty well in the Olympics, whats the point?

I'm not sure just what kind of equalization you are expecting... 365 days is 365 days no matter how you slice it. Doesn't matter if the cut-off is at the end of the year or in the middle of the year.

365 days is 365 days.

Under your proposal, someone who turns 19 today would be in the same age group as someone who turns 20 tomorrow if they raced today.

Under the current system, they would be a year apart.

So my birthday is in July. When I competed in USATF junior Olympic qualifying meets, the age demarc point was age on Dec. 31st of that year.

Well, I competed in the Show Me State Games which had the age demarc as you suggested, age during competition. So from year to year, as weekends and dates vary, the weekend of the meet jumped from before my birthday, to after my birthday. So I had three years in the same two year age group. Which wouldn't have been a problem for most events, except I was largely competing in the short hurdles. So I had to compete in the 80 meter hurdles for that meet, but 100m hurdles for USATF.

Anyways, best to keep the age demarc point where it is.

It probably has more to do with seasons. I can be 1/2 a year older than someone, but because of the way seasons run we've both trained for 3 seasons. If you change it then you could have someone go up against another person who's trained for another year than you. Although people don't always start at the same time, but it would still have a big effect for age groups up to junior, and first year seniors too

The point is that at one point during the year, no matter when your birth date is, you will get to be the oldest of your age category. The dec 31st child never has that opportunity now. The Jan 1 child is always the oldest of his category.

It's very fair...

Look a season that completes in August.

Those born Sep 1 will always be the oldest at the peak of the season if you go by birthdays.

* wrote:

Look a season that completes in August.

Those born Sep 1 will always be the oldest at the peak of the season if you go by birthdays.

Track is pretty much a year round thing.

In the fall you have XC

In the winter you have indoor

Then you have the spring and then summer

So you get to be the oldest sometime I there rather than never....

Uukhjhkjhkjhj wrote:

The point is that at one point during the year, no matter when your birth date is, you will get to be the oldest of your age category. The dec 31st child never has that opportunity now. The Jan 1 child is always the oldest of his category.

It's very fair...

If you're that worried about it, try to get pregnant in March rather than in the fall or summer.

watchout wrote:

[quote]Uukhjhkjhkjhj wrote:

If you're that worried about it, try to get pregnant in March rather than in the fall or summer.

Good solution. All kids should be born on the same day...

Now that's good thinking...

You must be very young. In the 1970s age-group was based on the date of birth. It was changed in the late 70s.

So if your birthday in in May and the Track Nationals are in June. That means you will be racing against younger kids before the Nationals, and have a tougher standard to make nationals racing against younger kids.

On top of that, the kid needs to race against kids he never raced before.

Completely agree. Kids born in late Dec are hurt by usatf rules...and other sports too that use Dec 31.

A kid born late Dec would compete for example, in bantam (9~10) as an 8.5 and 9.5 yo against some kids turning 11 in Jan.

For track a better cutoff would be Sept 1. For cc leave it Dec 31.

8.5 v 10.5 isn't fair. It does even out later but up through 13/14 some kids really get the short end of the stick.

watchout wrote:

I'm not sure just what kind of equalization you are expecting... 365 days is 365 days no matter how you slice it. Doesn't matter if the cut-off is at the end of the year or in the middle of the year.

You don't get it.

Going by year, the SAME PERSON (born in Dec) will ALWAYS be the youngest, and the SAME PERSON (born in Jan) will ALWAYS be the oldest in a competition.

Going by birth date, if you're born in Jan you will be among the oldest for XC, but then you will among the youngest for track.

This is how it goes is swimming. Right before turning 13, big 12 year-olds are dominating the 11-12 age group, but then they have to do their time as the little 13 year-olds in 13-14. The difference is that going by birthday EVERYONE has some time as the oldest and EVERYONE has some time as the youngest, not the same people getting an advantage ALL THE TIME.

Get it now?

Yeah, most of these people aren't understanding the point. It's true that someone is always going to be just under a year older than someone else in the same age group, but currently those born early in the year will always be advantaged and those born at the end of the year will always be disadvantaged. Changing it to age at the time of competition will make it so everyone will be on the younger AND older end of the age group at some point if they enter competitions year round. It would be much more fair. People born early in the year would not dominate age group competitions year round.

Being born in December, I was hurt by that rule as a kid, having to compete against guys that are almost one year older. And it's difficult to tell yourself as a kid "stay patient, your time will come"...

When you go to high school though there are no cut offs. Im a march 1995 birthday and I swear that 95% of the runners that beat me are 1994s or even held back (born before September 1st 1994). I still find that a year makes almost as big a difference as a 17 year old racing against 18 years old as it did back when I was 11 racing 12 year olds. If you are good enough though college is where it evens out completely. Some of the kids that are older than me are slowing down in regard to their rate of improvement. I guess I shouldn't complain to much though since I have had a lot of success on the track anyways (4:22, 1:56) going into senior year, but it gets annoying running against overage runners.

Decemberchild wrote:

Being born in December, I was hurt by that rule as a kid, having to compete against guys that are almost one year older. And it's difficult to tell yourself as a kid "stay patient, your time will come"...

Being born in November, I never felt disadvantaged by that rule.

... just race.

Decemberchild wrote:

Being born in December, I was hurt by that rule as a kid, having to compete against guys that are almost one year older. And it's difficult to tell yourself as a kid "stay patient, your time will come"...

Being born in November, I never felt disadvantaged by that rule.

watchout wrote:

... just race.

Foolish response. It's not that simple.

It's been well-reported than something like 80% of NHL drafts are born in Jan-March. This is because they are advantaged, stand out and get more attention year after year - it's a positive loop. Same goes for soccer in Europe.

In non-team sports, age on first day of the meet makes far more sense.