At the risk of being tiresome, let me ask this question again. We all assume that to be world class by late teen years a swimmer has to be national caliber and swimming 2 a day workouts year round by age nine. Can anyone show me statistically valid evidence that is the case?
Hey, talent is talent: Rowdy Gains. Ed Moses. I have a sneaking suspicion that Olympic swimmers would still be Olympic swimmers regarless of whether they started getting serious at age 7 or age 13. I also have a sneaking suspicion that those of us who think our kid is going to be "great" if they get serious at age 7 or 8 may all be kidding ourselves. How would that change our approach to age group swimming if it were true?
Lastly, even if getting serious at a young age does make for better swimmers by the time they reach their late teens, is it necessary for every kid to have the same dream? Is our sport healthier by hyperfocusing on the Olympic Games, or perhaps would it be better to treat 8 & under swimming as a complete and worthy in its own terms? I often think there should be room in age group swimming for programs that have the mindset of Little League (no, not the year-round, all-star, "select," "traveling," faux teams that get all the TV coverage in the "Little League World Series" abomination, but the neighborhood collection of any ole' kids who come together for a couple-three months to have a little fun and learn a little baseball, and who cares whether there are ANY future major leaguers in the whole darn league.)
Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Matt
At the risk of being tiresome, let me ask this question again. We all assume that to be world class by late teen years a swimmer has to be national caliber and swimming 2 a day workouts year round by age nine. Can anyone show me statistically valid evidence that is the case?
Hey, talent is talent: Rowdy Gains. Ed Moses. I have a sneaking suspicion that Olympic swimmers would still be Olympic swimmers regarless of whether they started getting serious at age 7 or age 13. I also have a sneaking suspicion that those of us who think our kid is going to be "great" if they get serious at age 7 or 8 may all be kidding ourselves. How would that change our approach to age group swimming if it were true?
Lastly, even if getting serious at a young age does make for better swimmers by the time they reach their late teens, is it necessary for every kid to have the same dream? Is our sport healthier by hyperfocusing on the Olympic Games, or perhaps would it be better to treat 8 & under swimming as a complete and worthy in its own terms? I often think there should be room in age group swimming for programs that have the mindset of Little League (no, not the year-round, all-star, "select," "traveling," faux teams that get all the TV coverage in the "Little League World Series" abomination, but the neighborhood collection of any ole' kids who come together for a couple-three months to have a little fun and learn a little baseball, and who cares whether there are ANY future major leaguers in the whole darn league.)
Just my thoughts, for what they are worth.
Matt
