Twoboys posted:I don't know -- I almost want to reject this label and notion of late bloomers. Part of the problem is that all kids develop differently. Some get teeth sooner, some walk sooner, some read sooner, some hit 90 mph on the radar gun earlier. The issue is that most never hit 90, clearly. But, also, most give up along the way...
The kids who are taller, stronger, physically more developed SOONER often have an advantage in most sports. So is a late bloomer a late grower? Or is a late bloomer one who consistently improves until they reach "that" level (starting, hitting certain measurables, not riding the pine, not getting cut, whatever)?
One son (2014) was a 5'10 140 lb freshman soaking wet. When he graduated he was 6'5" and 190. I know the coaches in 9th grade would have loved to have known he was going to get that big.
I think by definition he was a late bloomer. I don't think it's necessarily referring to actual age but instead, the biological age when the body is ready to put on man muscle and the growth plates fuse.
My son's travel team has some really good players. Some of them have grown man muscle definition and others look like q-tips with ball caps because their bodies aren't there yet.
I remember watching the PGAA a few years back and they talked about a kid who was 79 as a sophomore and 93 at the AA game. That's my definition of a late bloomer.