Summary:
Chloe Kim, an athlete in the PyeongChang Olympics is representing the USA in snowboarding. She was one of the top snowboarders four years ago when trying to compete in the Sochi Olympics in 2014. However, she was unable to compete due to being underaged. Kim says in hindsight that it was a good thing she was not able to compete four years ago because she didn't think she could "handle the pressure."
As a seventeen year old, Kim has just won the gold medal in the snowboard halfpipe. Several women tried to keep up with Kim, but her scores dominated in this race.
Questions:
1. Do you think that there should be age restrictions on who can compete in the Olympics?
2. Being that we are close to, if not the same age as Chloe Kim, can you imagine the kind of commitment it would take to be an Olympian in high school?
Source:
https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/chloe-kim-wins-snowboard-halfpipe-gold-olympic-debut
29 comments:
I think there should be age restrictions on those who can compete in the Olympics. Like Kim said, there is an enormous amount of pressure put on these athletes, and if there are no age restrictions, the pressure that these athletes will feel from themselves, their coaches, and other people will only increase. Coaches will start pushing for excellence at a younger age and more kids will probably burn out. At least in gymnastics, most of the girls who are going to the Olympics are homeschooled so they can spend more time practicing. It takes an enormous amount of commitment since most of them start homeschooling in elementary school. In addition to sacrificing school, due to their strict training schedules, Olympians must also have to sacrifice time with their friends and family.
Yes, I believe there should definitely be an age restriction on who can compete in the Olympics. This is because the age restriction prevents countries from pushing children too young to perform at the Olympic level, which in some cases can become quite cruel. If the age restriction were not present, kids would be bread by countries to compete in the Olympics, and this would, in effect, remove the Olympic ideal of people who truly represent the other people in the country they are representing. My sister is a very high level gymnast, and she has competed with people who have trained to compete as an Olympian in high school. What it truly takes to become an Olympian in high school is an intense love of the sport they do. Otherwise, the 40+ hours a week of training means nothing.
i do not believe in a age restriction. The olympics is designed to show the world the best of the best in the world. Nowhere in the defenition does it say you neeed to be a certain age to be the greatest. The pressure that is involved is entirely on the person.There is no gauaruntee one person that is young is either the most calm or panicked in sports,it depend soely on the person. I could not even contemplation what it is like to practice every day for four years to live it up for one night.The pressure would bee that literally the whole world is watching.
I also agree that there should be age restrictions on athletes in the Olympics. Parents are already starting their kids in sports at younger ages recently in hopes of turning them pro quickly. Lifting age restrictions, like Natalie mentions, will probably double down on this pressure to get started early, and negatively affect a child's development and possibly their mental health as well (I, Tonya?). I'm no professional athlete, but I would imagine training for the Olympics takes a lot of time and energy. One of my friends from elementary school went pro for figure skating and she had to take a gap year in high school to practice for multiple hours in the day. It seems like it literally takes away all free time and changes how you live your daily life.
There is an age restriction already (16) so I do not think that that is an issue. I like the Olympics because people are out doing what they love. Yes they practice for hours but it is something that most choose to do.
I think that the age restrictions in place now are a little too low. While I do think that it is an amazing accomplishment to have at such a young age, committing that much time and effort into training is a little strenuous, especially for someone who should be in high school. I think that the age restriction should be raised to eighteen for this reason; although there is no guarantee that kids will still be pushed towards intense training despite a slightly higher age restriction. I can't even imaging being an Olympian and training that hard. Thinking about it makes me tired.
I agree that there should be an age restriction for the Olympics, however, I think 16 years old is even too young. I think even at our age we aren't necessarily ready for the insane amount of pressure, fame, and change that can come about when competing in a sport, especially the Olympics, a worldwide event. However, I know it is hard with sports because unlike acting or singing where you can be any age and still be good at what you do, in sports your peak age is around 17 to early 30's (with some exceptions). I don't think people are necessarily ready for fame or the immense amount of pressure at any age, but if they are exposed to this, they should be at least in their mid 20's, where their brain has fully developed and they've lived a "normal" childhood. But, as I said, this is impossible and understandably very unfair to athletes, so I agree the age restriction that is currently in place is good.
I think that this argument goes both ways. On the one hand, I know that there are children out there our age who are extremely dedicated to an olympic activity and work hard towards their goals every day. I think these type of people should be allowed to participate because they have been training very hard and are probably ready to take the pressure. However, I totally agree with Jordan and his point about the countries intervening. There have been countries in the past where children were forced to overtrain and compete in the olympics. In this case, an age restriction does prevent these children from being caught in such a dilemma. I think that there should be an age restriction but I think they should keep it as it is (Gabby mentioned that it was 16). 16 is an age where children are very equipped to making their own decisions and I think by then, they would know whether they are truly ready to participate in the olympics.
I agree with Gabby, the current age restriction seems fine. If one truly loves something and wants to be the best at it, they will spend much of their time on it. This is an argument over choice, and if these kids choose to compete at a higher level then that should be their decision and not their parents.
I also think there should be age restrictions because at 16 we can really decide important decisions and it is good for athletes to know foresure what they really want to do with their time, and their future.
I do think that there should be age restrictions because if not parents would pressure children into competing at a very young age when it should ultimately be their choice.
I think that the age restriction should be kept at 16 because it allows young athletes to make mature and wise decisions since competing in an olympic sport is a high level commitment that can put a lot of stress and pressure on a child. This a topic I can really speak to because I had almost been homeschooled so that I would have more time dedicated to ice skating because I was trying to get to the junior olympics. those who know me probably would not be able to imagine me in a situation where I’m isolated from peers and social gatherings.Just like in economics, an athlete must do a cost benefit analysis before committing to a sport as a career, and I think that those under 16 just aren’t mature enough to make that choice. Competitive sports drains a lot form you both mentally and physically and you have to make a lot of sacrifices, such as sleep, a social life, school, and extracurriculars. You have to be willing to commit to this sport in the long run, and the possibility of an injury can also put a dent in your career. Furthermore, like people mentioned, there is A LOT of pressure from parents to be the best you can be. Just to compete at a national level, I was going to practice everyday before and after school, so I can’t imagine how strenuous an olympic level sport would be. At the end of the day, we are all still young adults and I think that we should be able to enjoy our youth and its perks before settling down and making such a huge commitment.
I agree with Josh that there shouldn´t be an age restriction. If there were a higher age restriction kids would still be training all their life the only difference would be that they can participate in the Olympics until they are of age. I can´t imagine what kind of grind and dedication she had to go through to get where she is today. Olmypic athletes train their whole lives and usually are home schooled, miss social events, and are too busy to hang out with friends. It´s a completely different lifestyle compared to the average athlete .
I do think that there should be age restrictions on Olympic athletes, and that the current one is fine. I really admire Chloe Kim, as she is exactly our age and is not only attending high school, but is now an Olympic gold medalist. I think high school is tough enough as it is, and honestly I don't have very many extracurriculars as is. To add the pressure of being an Olympic athlete must be really tough, and I commend Kim for taking it on.
I also agree that the current age restriction should be maintained. 16 is still a relatively mature age, and I feel as if many athletes have what's referred to as their "prime" time for athletic competence and ability. For some people this may be in their teenage years and therefore they should be allowed to compete in their respective prime. Taking away the age restriction may allow for children of too young an age and too little of maturity to be competing. Making the age restriction higher would disallow those in their late teens to realize their athletic ability.
Why is the age restriction imposed? I say that if a 14 year old is the best in the world, they should be recognized for their prowess and skill. The dedication it takes to become a world champion athlete is beyond imaginable. If a teenager can perform better than an adult, why stop them? I see that many people site maturity for imposing an age restriction, but I question, who cares if they are mature or not? Red Gerard swore in front of the world, showing a lack of maturity, but he can still compete. Who's to say one becomes mature at 16? I think it should be based only off skill. Maturity doesn't matting when winning the goal, only performance.
There should not be an age restriction on who can compete in the olympics. The purpose of these games is to be recognized and show the world your talent. With that being said, it should not be a matter of how old you are, but rather how skilled you are. Say if you're a nineteen-year-old who won medals before and in this event, you can beat by a fourteen-year-old. That means that you're just not as good as him and you take an L. The L is for learning. One does not need to be 16 to master a skill. You can master a skill at any age.
I think that the age restriction should be lifted. The Olympics should be for the best performers, and I don't think age should effect that. If you are one of the best at what you do, you should be able to put that on display. I could not imagine the dedication and commitment must be for someone to be in the Olympics. I would imagine that there is so much that they sacrifice on a daily basis. Because of this though, they are some of the best at what they do.
I don't think there should be an age restriction on who competes in the olympics. It's pretty self-explanatory. If you're good, you're good. If you're not, then work for it. Restricting age just diminishes this hard work. You're not measured by age in the olympics. You're measured by skill. If you put the time in and build up your body to handle this kind of pressure, then there should be no reason why the olympics can minimize your potential, especially if you are a child prodigy. Although the risk for injury or stress may come into play, platforms like these like a great story so if a teenage girl is kicking adult ass, why should they restrict that? It seems like they are up for the challenge so I'm up for it and it's great to see. Skill is skill regardless, as Stephen stated. It doesn't matter how old you are, just compete.
This is the biggest joke of a question. Age should not restrict you from being considered as one of the world's best. In a similar way, Wei Yi of china is unable to compete in the Candidates Chess tournament due to age. He is most definately a top 10 world chess player, however he can't compete due to the fact he is the age of seventeen. Age restrictions stop the best players from competing and should be taken away.
I agree with Sid that age should definitely not be a reason to restrict one from being seen as exceptionally talented or skilled at a sport or any talent. Chloe Kim has worked so hard herself on competing against society's view of her being "too young", however she has the skill to snowboard, so why not show the world what she can do. I understand why older competitors may see this as unfair as they've been practicing their entire life for this one moment, while a teenager steps up and gets Gold on her first try. I could see how that may be frustrating, however, teens shouldn't be restricted in what they compete in because they are simply too young. Age isn't good enough a reason to refrain one from competing. Kim has definitely displayed her skills in the half pipe event and shouldn't feel bad about winning. She worked equally hard and should only feel proud of herself. Look at all she's accomplished in just the first 17 years of her life. As a student in high school, I struggle with even comprehending the amount of time and work Chloe must devote into her schedule. Not only does she have an enormous amount of school work, she also has countless hours of practice she must attend. I can't even imagine how challenging it must be for her. But, I look up to her for her dedication and hard work, and am proud of how much she has accomplished.
I believe that there should be an age restriction for the Olympics. Even Kim said it was not a god idea that she did not compete 4 years ago in the Olympics due to the amount of pressure she facing while there. This is not a question of skill, rather a question of the responsibility of individual. I believe that this question is similar to driving. Why is it that we wait until 16 before letting teens drive, even though I guarantee 10 year olds can learn how to do it. It is because we understand that many of these children do not understand the scope or consequence of their mistakes.
I believe that the Olympics should keep the age restricting at 16 because even if the child is one of the best in the world, they may not me mature enough. The Olympics are an extremely high stress environment and this may cause young kids to crack under pressure. Such as last night, a great US figure skater, Nathan Chen, was expected to earn a metal but he ended up falling multiple times. After his performance he was asked why this happened and he said he wasn't thinking the right things when he went out on the ice. Nathan Chen is 18 and an amazing skater but he got the best of himself. With young kids coming in, they may have similar results where the pressure of success it too great, leading them to be discouraged in themselves.
It is wise for the Olympic committee to put age restrictions in place. Currently, one must be 16 years old in order to compete, and I think that is reasonable because it ensures the athlete is physically and psychologically mature enough to handle elite-level competition. Those who participate in the Olympics in high school, I would think, would need to be home schooled, as training full-time is extremely difficult with a vigorous academic schedule. I know a few girls that play professionally, and they live at training camps year-round, at which they take classes, but most of the emphasis is on training.
I believe that age restrictions in the Olympics should be maintained because there is so much pressure that comes from competing and I don't think it's appropriate for children to experience. In this winter Olympics, there was a lot of hype around Nathan Chen, an 18 year old ice skater, however, unfortunately when it came to the finals and competing, he did not perform well. Being talked about by so many people before his debut undoubtedly put a lot of pressure on him and possibly affected his performance. It's hard to imagine the amount of pressure he had and what he feels after his performance given a lot of talk about him before. As a result, I think it would be way too much for someone even younger to handle.
I truly admire the amount of dedication one must have in order to become an Olympian at this age. Senior year alone is a mess and constantly keeping me business but adding hours and hours of training onto that would be unbearable in my opinion. The issue of age requirements has always been circling Olympic events with cases such as China's gymnastics team a few Olympics ago where a member of the team lied about her age in order to be on the squad. She was stripped of her medal and not allowed to return. Although I can understand the immense amount of pressure put on kids, in cases like China it is hard to take a side. Although I agree 14 years old is way too young to compete, in the case of the 2000 Chinese gymnastics team, it is hard to say because it is possible that these teenagers truly are some of the best in the world and it isn't fair to deprive them of displaying and utilizing those talents. In conclusion, I must side with the idea that young teens should not compete, but I feel we should have an open mind and realize sometimes they are the best at hat they do. (Did some research the girl I was referencing is named Dong Fangxiao. She won bronze)
I believe that restrictions of age should definitely be maintained in the olympics. It is very important for athletes to be fully matured in order to go through elite competition. Like Winston mentioned, being an olympian is a matter of maturity and responsibility. While a younger athlete who has the potential to compete at such a high level, it is important to realize that high pressure situations at the olympics can further burden the youth. I agree with a lot of people here in that the age should be maintained.
As many have previously stated, I believe that it is a good idea for the age restrictions to remain in place. It does take a lot of experience and maturity to be able to handle the amount of pressure that comes with competing in front of the entire world, that of which a fourteen year old probably does not have. Additionally, one must keep in mind that while at the Olympics, these young athletes would be surrounded by almost all 20+ year old fellow competitors, so in terms of just fitting in with the other athletes, it is easier to do so when you are over 16. To respond to Sid's point against the age restrictions, in which he said that it prevents the best in the world from competing at a younger age, I think that they must realize that their time will come in the future. If they are already that good at such a young age, their window for success in the future is already so large, so they can afford to wait a little to compete on the highest level. It's not like they won't get the opportunity to do so in the future. In the meantime, let those who are older or only have one, maybe last, shot at the Olympics enjoy their time.
I must agree with Ben in that I do not think that It is a good idea for young people to be placed under such a lens at such a young age. I do not think that it is beneficial for any persons development to be put under so much pressure so early. I understand that there are many eager young athletes that are well equipped to be contenders in the games however putting youth in such circumstances could do them a lot of harm, which is completely unnecessary because they are young, and young people tend to continue to compete and train and get better and usually if they can qualify for the olympics at 13 they can probably qualify at 17, or 23, or 27. At the end of the day, the opportunity to compete is not worth the cost for young people competing in the olympics
Post a Comment