[98]

Nothing against your post, but I would like to hear some debate on how could you ever prove the motive was purely athletic?

Do you have to be a mental midget or slobbering on yourself to be held back for any other reason than athletics? What should be the qualifications to be held back?

Here is a scenario, you're kid is an A student, but he is one of the youngest in his class and you feel he shouldn't be starting college at 17. He happens to play sports, but has only mediocre talent at best. Never an all-star. Kinda of a nerd. You keep him back in hopes that he matures physically & socially because it is a debatable fact that at earlier ages physically mature kids are leaders socially. He happens to hit a growth spurt and now is bigger than most in his new class. Combine that with his mediocre talent and he is now better than most and he becomes an athlete in that class. With hard work he goes on to be better than was ever expected and the results turn out well for him. He even gets an athletic/academic scholarship to play at a small college, keeping his parents from paying his tuition.

Was this hold back purely athletic driven or were there other factors involved? Could those factors have been seen by anyone other than the parents?

If your kid is an A student and you held him back for those reasons you would be doing such a ridiculous disservice to that kid that if you can't see that then there is no point even having this discussion with you.