Stop comparing hockey and lacrosse. They are different sports entirely. One of the above posts actually implied that if lacrosse goes to age based then lacrosse players will be able to make a living playing the sport. That is ludicrous.
My older sons didn’t need to play up to be successful in the system as currently constructed, and my younger son is on a similar path (though admittedly impossible to extrapolate). And yes, he is developing a work ethic by playing against holdbacks, or any player that is better than him. What you see as lunacy, I see as opportunities to develop his whole person and make him a stronger future adult. You see it differently because you are a weak person and can’t relate to the necessity for challenges at a young age. That’s why you’re so bitter about it.
My son(s) play(ed) in this system and, as far as my eldest two, I’m proud of men they’ve become. Obviously, lacrosse played a small part in that, but it definitely played a part. They are scholar athletes who make no excuses. Something you clearly know nothing about. I’ve been through the system and have seen it’s benefits first hand. You, presumably, read some obscure studies funded to prove the point your trying to make, but have actually seen and done nothing.
This argument bores me and so do you.
OK - so let me bore you further . . .
It's already been hashed out, but the two sports have more similarity than not for a number of reasons - just because you declare otherwise with no reasons presented for doing so means what exactly . . ?!!
Your son(s) didn't "need" to play up because, in essence, the holdback situation is forcing everyone to play up to some degree, with that forced situation increasing relative to the increasing number of holdbacks each year. That forced situation may have helped your sons and others, but it likely has also hurt others; maintaining that situation as the status quo is apathetic. And your approach to making this a pure binary argument - deal with it = strong vs not accepting it = weak - is over simplified and intellectually lazy thinking. It may suit your 'argument', but it doesn't hold up well when you honestly assess all of the variables that go into a child's development.
All of the people here have sons playing, they are dealing with the current situation, but also have a desire to make the system better - you can actually do both! Novel concept there, huh?! Some will only talk about it, others may be more active in that regard - that goes for anything, but that's how things evolve. I advocate for age-based play as a coach who sees that an age-based system will be better for all players - I am not sure that a change will impact my sons, as both are strong players on good teams today - again, probably a novel concept for you. Those "obscure" (NOT) studies have guided every other sport to come to a decision that age-based play was the best system for at least pre-HS aged SAs - EVERY SINGLE one! Those sports are all further along the time and maturity curve of lacrosse - they ALL dealt with these issues previously, and adapted to create a better experience, and the athletes being turned out by those systems have not lagged. Yet, your position is basically they ALL got it wrong! That's a pretty arrogant line of thinking, although not surprising within lacrosse - there is fair amount of elitism present in the sport. And like most elitism, it's usually not borne out by rational facts, but the elitism persists because the status quo is maintained.
Social Darwinism at its finest. For every study you find, I can find one to the contrary.
