
I was waiting for someone to get mad at me for this.
Olympic sports should be for adults. I have felt this way for a long time. You keep saying:
Well, I think it's been a problem for a long time! It was just easier to ignore when the children weren't dominating. Now that children are much more dominant than ever before, of course the issue is going to get more attention. Not to mention that this has been a concern for many ever since the abolition of figures, as well as Tara Lipinski's OGM (within a few years of that she had to quit skating due to injuries).
The current age limit is completely arbitrary. What is it based on? Nothing. Maybe we should abolish the age limit altogether and let 10 year old compete with 25 year olds? Of course, that is ridiculous. But 18 is the legal age of adulthood in most of the world, so that makes sense as an age limit.
Furthermore, no senior skater has ever said that they are "afraid" of competing against the younger skaters. I'm just not sure how logical it is. Why does Trusova get to compete in seniors but Kamila and Alysa do not? Because of an arbitrary age limit.
Of course, junior competitions will still exist. Why wouldn't they? And they would be wonderful competitions, just like they are now! They just wouldn't be at the Olympics. The juniors could have a Youth Olympic Games competition.
Why do you think senior level competitions would be put in the shadow? We would still have ladies doing incredible tech at the senior level - we have Liza and Lilibet doing difficult jumps now, as will Trusova when she is 18. The field will still be pushed technically at both the senior and junior levels. Both levels will be impressive.
I never said I wanted to lower the tech content.
I am confused - you said you think that junior competitions will be intense and interesting, and senior competitions will be overshadowed - with that logic, the best junior skaters shouldn't have problems getting sponsors, right?
Even ignoring that logical contradiction - what about skaters who do not "peak" until they are in their 20s? If they can manage to stay in the sport without a wealthy family to support them, so can a 15 year old.
Also, male skaters - most of whom do not peak and get sponsor attention until they are at least 18 years old, if not older - seem to do fine. If they can do it, so can the ladies.
There is not a single rule or reason that would support your statement "Olympic sports should be for adults." That is literally the only thing on which you are building your whole argumentation. That has absolutely no weight for me.
Any sport, olympic or not, is for those who are able to compete, to be prepared for it physically and mentally.
As for 18 years, that is also quite a consent, and even not the same in all countries. And even in countries that recognize 18 as a limit of the adulthood there are very different things that can do people younger and that cannot do people even older. Like driving in 16, right, but drinking in 21, right (when you can be killed in the army for several years already)? But this differs from country to country, so this also doesn't support your claim in any way.
Why not lowering the limit? I didn't set it to 15, so don't ask me. But just like 18 is in many countries related to "full adulthood", 15 is connected with "partial adulthood", which means that you are able to decide about many personal matters for yourself and bear responsibility. If you fulfill some conditions, you can marry even in civilized countries, although you didn't reach 18. In people's affairs the 18 is as much arbitrary as 15. In many countries you can regularly and legally work since 15 (if you have finished compulsory education), back to back with adults, just with some restrictions and protection, so why shouldn't you be involved in sport together with them, if you are able to compete in it.
Age limits should be for protecting young people who are not on the same level with seniors and who naturally need to prepare for their further career. But it shouldn't limit those who are physically and mentally prepared for those competitions.
As I said, the only argument I would understand is the health issue, but just like I've said, this artificial rising of the limit wouldn't make anything thet would contribute to it, even if we would come to the conclusion that it is somehow more dangerous. And there is no such thing that would support the rising the age limit would contribute to the health issues positively.
Also I do not think that the intensity of calling for the rising of the limits was ever so high as it is now, even when this very fact of young people competing together with seniors is not at all new. And it is also question whether there wasn't domination or whether there is domination now. Of those names I gave as an example many of them started to win senior competitions since they have started to compete in them even when they were at the age of 15, 16 or even younger. And today, if you speak about domination, on one side you confess that it is what is alarming you or others for those callings, but I still don't think that it is total domination or that it will be domination that would last. People like you mistook the shift in the sport quality and levels just with the age. It is the matter of new training methods and attitude, not so much the matter of age. I don't think that when Sasha at her 18 will compete with some 15 years old, that she would lose automatically. it's not domination of age, it's domination of quality and those callings are one of the ways how to prevent favoritess from stronger competitors. Which is not right.
What is so confusing about sponsors. Sponsors are naturally attracted to top competitions, not so matter about quality,. Just look on the number of viewers of JPG compared to even 2nd rate senior competition (most of the time, exceptions like Chelyabinsk are - exceptions). Spectators watch senior competitions more, sponsors are interrested in adult competitions more. There is no claimed contradiction in it.
Skaters who did not peak - well, most of them truly closed their carees. Generally there are many children who go in for sports, but only a few of them will stay in it till adulthood, which also has much to do with how they succeeded in it. Those who stayed in the sport and didn't peak - well, either they had money from other sources (like family and parents willing to support their child, which in many countries would be a problem and we have examples just now) or their chances are very limited.
So, no, there is not a single reason why the age limit should be raised.