Race Club Article

I try to swim distance and IMs. I've done this all of my life. I could do a pretty good 1650 and a good 100 IM. Doing a 100 fly though was always very rough on my lungs. I was never a good 50 sprinter. when I ran I always trained great distances. My upper body was never very powerful but my legs were. I used then a lot for fly kicking. I think that it might be possible to do distance and work your 100s. but since most people don't breath during a 50, why would lung functions really matter?

Matt, I find your post fascinating. In my opinion, there should be awards for every age grouper that does a "best time" (this mkay necessitate the creation of a database of some sort), and an award given to the swimmer who cut the largest percentage from his/her previous best time. Those kids are champions too. I have swum countless races in my time, and only on rare occasions can I recall where I finished. But I can recall the time I swam to the hundredth, and whether it was my best time or not.

Originally posted by mikeh Matt, I find your post fascinating. In my opinion, there should be awards for every age grouper that does a "best time" (this mkay necessitate the creation of a database of some sort), and an award given to the swimmer who cut the largest percentage from his/her previous best time. Those kids are champions too. I think this is the problem with youth athletics today, namely everyone gets a trophy for showing up so no one gets the sniffles. You should get a trophy or medal for 1st - 3rd place, or whatever is designated, not for just participating or swimming faster than before. You are only a champion if you win.

Aquageek, I agree that we shouldn't encourage mediocrity. I get what you are saying but, I disagree with the fact that you only "win" if you come in first. You can only control what you personally do in a race. You can't help the level of your competition. I coach a summer league team in a county that is among the fastest in the nation. Our county meet is almost as fast as our state USS meet! To motivate my swimmers I give "Speed Breaker" ribbons. If they improve their time, they get recognition. The goal of summer league is to get children interested in the sport of swimming. We have a very measurable sport that allows us to know when and how much we improve individually. I know I personally would rather improve 3 seconds and get second than add 3 seconds and "win".

I like the idea of speed breaker ribbons, that is a far cry from trophys for folks who do personal bests, which was what was suggested. It's good to recognize accomplishment for kids. My point was that not everyone wins a race and therefore you shouldn't get some award for just showing up.

There was a commercial on during the Winter Olympics, where the speaker (one of the Olympians) was stating how in the US the emphasis is usually only on the winners. Kids are taught, "if you can't win, don't play". In this atmosphere, the result is that fewer kids compete at all (since they won't win). And then people wonder why obesity is on the rise... Found this document during a google search: "If you can't win, don't play" is an unhealthy attitude, says psychologist that I think says it more eloquently than I can. (It is a Word doc, but you can also get it in regular text interpreted by Google.) (I agree with Matt and AGeek that we shouldn't celebrate mediocrity. But I agree with John Furedy's point that we should emphasize competition more than just coming in first place.)

Aquageek, I agree with you a lot more than you would expect by reading our posts. Absolutely, we should not redefine or bowdlerize the meaning of first, second or third. They are what they are, and the State Champion probably worked just a little harder and put more of himself into his event than the kid that showed up for practice about half the time but swam the same event and finished way back in the pack at the local meet. My beef is recognizing ONLY first, second or third. I have two problems with that. First, kids that worked and swam their hearts out to finish in the pack, but a few places higher and a few seconds faster than last year have achieved something too, and that needs to be recognized for what it is. Second, you find a small enough pond, and you too can be the biggest fish in the water. Some people are so much more talented than the competition that "winning" has little meaning for them. Yes, they could seek out faster meets, but maybe they want to for example, go to a Div III program for the education and not have to sacrifice it for their swimming career. They've made a choice and a valid one, but we're kidding ourselves if we think "winning" in those conditions has much meaning. My larger point is that a healthy program will recognize different kinds of achievement in different ways. An unhealthy program will hyperfocus on one goal (dual meet winning record, conference champions, record setting swims, size of the program...whatever) and treat everyone who does not contribute to that exhalted goal as a red-headed step-child whose presence is tolerated only to the extent they don't "get in the way." So I say give out medals, but only to 1st, 2nd and 3rd and treat them as meaning what they mean. Recognize swimmers who break PRs and what that means. Keep track of school records and remind folks from time to time what that means. Give out "letterman" awards to those who participate faithfully on the team, even if they never make an A relay. Moreover, on a team that focuses more on younger and first time swimmers, skew the rewards more towards participation. A couple of examples from my piddly little summer league coaching experience. We made a point of taking EVERY kid who wanted to swim at the League Championship Meet, not just our 4 fastest swimmers in each event. That might mean a couple of middling fast swimmers gave up their third event so one of our slower swimmers could get two splashes. Experiencing the mad-house of Leagues was part of the experience. Also, we intentionally changed the dynamic of what events kids wanted to swim by having "ice cream" day for every kid that swam at least once in the dual-meet season all the individual events in their age group. Instead of "coach, I don't like that event." We got, "coach, I need to swim this event." And, everyone still on the team at the end of the dual meets legitimately earned the ice cream. Especially in an Olympic driven sport like swimming, 1st, 2nd & 3rd have special meaning. We need to preserve that and recognize it for what it means. We don't need to turn it into a fetish and disregard everything else that is going on. By the same reasoning, Aquageek is 100% correct when he argues we can't make "participation trophies" the only award we give out. Awards and recognition need to heterogeneous. Matt

I agree that children, especially in summer league, should get ribbons or something for improving their best time. Most young children will automatically think only about place, which can change greatly depending on the other swimmers. Giving them ribbons for improving their personal best times may encourage them to swim faster, even if they never place well. I started summer league swimming at age 11 with no experience swimming year-round. I was also very slow - my first 50 free in a meet was over a minute. Fortunately, I was mature enough to focus on how my times were improving, not just on place. During that first summer, my 50 free time improved almost 10 seconds, enough to make me want to improve more, which is why I still swim now.

Originally posted by mattson There was a commercial on during the Winter Olympics, where the speaker (one of the Olympians) was stating how in the US the emphasis is usually only on the winners. Kids are taught, "if you can't win, don't play". In this atmosphere, the result is that fewer kids compete at all (since they won't win). And then people wonder why obesity is on the rise... This is a stretch to say the least. We have fat kids b/c we stress winning? I think we have fat kids b/c parents don't know a darn thing about nutrition and/or don't take the time to feed their children properly.

Originally posted by Sam Perry I think we have fat kids b/c parents don't know a darn thing about nutrition and/or don't take the time to feed their children properly. That might be part of the problem, but I think kids sitting around watching TV and playing Nintendo is a big factor, too.