Sports Specialization

[JSR]

Do we specialize in academics too much...5 days a week and homework and no games...burnout in the making.

14, 15, 16 yr old Olympic medalists...not multiple sport .......

Being multiple is much more of a US thing than any other and is a great way to develop into a well rounded athlete / person. But probably not the best way to become the very best at something. That takes dedicating your life to it.

Black sheep,

Given your comparisons of young kid hockey to academics and reference to Olympic medalists the only conclusion I can come to is that you are looking for a different hockey experience for your kid(s) than I am.

Best of luck to you and your players. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Actually no...my kids are 3 sport athletes, football, hockey and baseball. And schedules are set up to accomodate all three even though they often overlap.

I believe player development is a marathon not a sprint. And have stated that multiple times.

BUT...if your (generalization) goal is very specialized then your training needs to be very specialized also. There is a lot of very good science behind specializing and i just don't see why so many people act like it is killing off sports. There would not be 16 yr. old gold medalistists if there was not specialization.

Why do some doctors become specialists, becasue that is how you get really good at something.

Jack of all trades...master of none.

Problem with specializing is too many people believe it is a fast path to stardom, there are many many more failures stories than success stories. I know a lot of kids who specialized in their early teens and after wished they had played multiple sports. But you don't get that back. Just the lesson learned. Maybe thats not a failure.

There is no magic recipe for success. And success is in the eye of the beholder.

The problem is you are inconsistant in your theory on specializaiton an dmiss the mark in a few areas. For instance the Olympic gymnast, yes they specialize and they specialize early and intensely but for even the best of the best there careers are over by the ages of 18 to 22 years old (female wise anyway) and for many even younger so the "burn out" factor that gets discussed often doesn't get discused in regards to that sport since they are "retired" at around the same ages they'd likely be burning out at. So that is flawed comparison since their career are over before most hockey careers even begin.

Same with your doctor specialization theory, in reality kids spend their lives getting a "Jack of all trades" education until they get to college, once in college is when they begin specialization and it gets more focused after undergraduate school once they are in their 20's and much more able to make those decisions. Again 18 years old or older. To me people keep trying to lump academics into this discourse but reality is the kids get alot of different non-sepcialized things throughout each day at school that allows their brains to stay focused (atleast a majority of kids) without burining out because they only have the class for like 50 minutes then it is on to soemthing completely different and in some instances the classes are not every day.

I believe in the 10,000 hour rule of mastering anything, and I believe to become a "sepcialist" in something requires the same. But there is a huge difference in early versus late specializations, I do not believe you are differentiating between the two when you use the two examples you are using the way yuo are using them. That said you do seem to be a proponent of the "marathon vs sprint" concept and the benefits of not specializating too early in something that arguably is something that you should wait til a certain age to specialize in (ie hockey or doctoring.....)

[HockeyTalk18]

Harre, from the former East Germany, conducted an experimental longitudinal
study, while Nagorni, from the former USSR, carried out a descriptive longitudinal
survey regarding youth developmental programs. Their results yielded similar,
significant findings. Over a period of 14 years, Harre sampled a large population of
children, from the ages of 9 to 12 years old, dividing them into two groups. The first
group was exposed to the traditional North American, early specialization program.
While the other group followed the general, multilateral approach and developed their
sport specific traits simultaneously. The results, found in Table 1, conclude that a
multilateral training regimen is superior in the early stages of development and promotes
a strong, stable foundation for athletic success.

[b]EARLY SPECIALIZATION[/b]
•Performance improvements were
immediate
•Best performances between 15-16
because of early adaptation
•Performance inconsistencies within
competitions
•By 18, many athletes quit or
“burnout”
•Forced adaptation accounted for a
high rate of injuries


[b]MULTILATERAL PROGRAM[/b]
•Performance improvements were
continuous
•Best performances over 18 due to
physical and mental maturation
•Performance consistencies within
competitions
•After 18, many athletes were
starting to “come into their own”
•Gradual adaptation accounted for a
low rate of injuries

This has been posted before,

I feel Puberty is one of the biggest factors in all of youth team sports.
being bigger and stronger is most of the time confused with "being better skilled", it's harder for kids/families of early bloomers to take it when others catch up, usually blame associations/coaches/teams, Etc..

there are those cases where both have success that's for sure, but undo expectation is sometimes placed on early bloomers - "what happened to that kid?" nothing, others just got as strong as him.

and the late bloomers are sometimes over looked at the younger ages

If post HS is where you want to be, then both groups keep plugging along and meet up then, just don't forget to have fun along the way because it's a very long road and being ready at the right time is worth gold

[SCBlueLiner]

I was just at my USAH mandated CEP requirement this weekend and they presented some material on this.

First, I'll get out of the way that the Level 1, 2, & 3 class is pretty much the same class. I took the different levels in 3 different towns from 3 different instructors over the years yet the material is all the same. Also, what is the point of advancing Mite or Squirt age coaches to level 3 if the instructor isn't even going to cover the material about systems and concepts because it is not age appropriate? USAH has this set up that if you start coaching when your kid is 5 you'll be level 3 when he is a Mite and taking a Level 4 as a first year Squirt coach. Has to be a better way. At least they are trying to educate coaches, but man, there has to be a better way.

Now to get back on track, they presented the material about the training arc, when the windows were the best for skill development, training to win, etc. If any of you have seen this material, which I'm guessing most have if you are on this site, you know what I'm talking about. The thing that stands out, and this is where specialization comes in, is that the training window is open until a kid is 19 or 20 and beyond. Guess what? Kids graduate from HS at 17 or 18 and their career is over if they haven't made it to the next level. No chance to develop those skills like the book says if you got nowhere to play. That's what drives people to early specialization. You better be good at 10 to make the A team and get the coaching you need (at some associations). You better be good at 14-15 to make the high school team or your career is essentially over. You better be good at graduation to make it to juniors or college. Kids who continually develop late in these cycles are continuosly left behind. I wonder how many potentially great players have been left behind or quite just because they didn't develop on the same schedule that the system revolves around.

Parents obsess that their kid is going to progress at every level so they are not left behind. I look at my own kid. At age 10 he is not as skilled as other kids on his team. I know how good of player I was and how good of player his uncle turned out to be. I know others in our family tree that excelled in other sports, whether it was a college football, baseball, cross country, or volleyball scholarships his older relatives have earned. I look at his size, speed, etc, now, and can project he is going to be an athlete and he's probably going to be a pretty good hockey player. I look at the kid he has to compete with for a spot on the team and his family's genetic makeup. I know my son projects as a better prospect, yet also know htat if he doesn't beat that kid out for the A team now he could be left behind and not realize his potential.

That, in a nutshell, is what drives parents.

[black sheep]

Black sheep,

Given your comparisons of young kid hockey to academics and reference to Olympic medalists the only conclusion I can come to is that you are looking for a different hockey experience for your kid(s) than I am.

Best of luck to you and your players. I hope you find what you are looking for.

Actually no...my kids are 3 sport athletes, football, hockey and baseball. And schedules are set up to accomodate all three even though they often overlap.

I believe player development is a marathon not a sprint. And have stated that multiple times.

BUT...if your (generalization) goal is very specialized then your training needs to be very specialized also. There is a lot of very good science behind specializing and i just don't see why so many people act like it is killing off sports. There would not be 16 yr. old gold medalistists if there was not specialization.

Why do some doctors become specialists, becasue that is how you get really good at something.

Jack of all trades...master of none.

Problem with specializing is too many people believe it is a fast path to stardom, there are many many more failures stories than success stories. I know a lot of kids who specialized in their early teens and after wished they had played multiple sports. But you don't get that back. Just the lesson learned. Maybe thats not a failure.

There is no magic recipe for success. And success is in the eye of the beholder.

The problem is you are inconsistant in your theory on specializaiton an dmiss the mark in a few areas. For instance the Olympic gymnast, yes they specialize and they specialize early and intensely but for even the best of the best there careers are over by the ages of 18 to 22 years old (female wise anyway) and for many even younger so the "burn out" factor that gets discussed often doesn't get discused in regards to that sport since they are "retired" at around the same ages they'd likely be burning out at. So that is flawed comparison since their career are over before most hockey careers even begin.

Same with your doctor specialization theory, in reality kids spend their lives getting a "Jack of all trades" education until they get to college, once in college is when they begin specialization and it gets more focused after undergraduate school once they are in their 20's and much more able to make those decisions. Again 18 years old or older. To me people keep trying to lump academics into this discourse but reality is the kids get alot of different non-sepcialized things throughout each day at school that allows their brains to stay focused (atleast a majority of kids) without burining out because they only have the class for like 50 minutes then it is on to soemthing completely different and in some instances the classes are not every day.

I believe in the 10,000 hour rule of mastering anything, and I believe to become a "sepcialist" in something requires the same. But there is a huge difference in early versus late specializations, I do not believe you are differentiating between the two when you use the two examples you are using the way yuo are using them. That said you do seem to be a proponent of the "marathon vs sprint" concept and the benefits of not specializating too early in something that arguably is something that you should wait til a certain age to specialize in (ie hockey or doctoring.....)

For sure I am inconsistant at best on it...and I am not trying to promote either side, I guess that is the whole point...when to, or if to specialize has a lot of factors but is ultimately needed to become the best.

The point I was trying to make about school is that I make my kids go to school every day...they generally like it, but given the choice they might go about half of the time. So I am forcing them to do something they would usually chose not to do, yet they are still learning and being successful students.

When it comes to athletics people immediately turn to the evils of specialization...you are going to burn kids out....but I don't believe you get burned out by specializing in skill development...you get burned out on repeated failure and the pressure to compete.

That is why multi-sport athletes in the US well...both in sport then onto a career path.

I have no doubt that if I made my kids stickhandle and shoot pucks every day that they would improve drastically...and they would hate it...just like school...but at what cost? If there were as many skilled hockey jobs open as skilled labor so that it was a viable career path it might make sense.

Very interesting topic.

[Section 8 guy]

Black Sheep,

You keep referring to being a multi sport athlete as a United States issue. Why is that?

[black sheep]

Black Sheep,

You keep referring to being a multi sport athlete as a United States issue. Why is that?

Since this is a hockey board, lets use Canada as an example. It is commonplace that you send your 14, 15, 16 yr old son half way across the country to play Junior A or B so that they can specialize in hopes of making the NHL. They are not keeping there kids at home to be multi-sport athletes. Canada still produces a significant % of the NHL players. Not necessarily due specifically to specialization it has a lot to do with national participation % also, but that is what they do.

Kind of like USA football or basketball, but those are not IMHO specialized sports, if you are an athletic freak you can compete in either even if you did not begin to compete at them into your teens.

Baseball is Americas game and a skilled sport - but we rarely win the Little League World series - Why? Becasue we are not willing to have our kids play baseball year round just to win. We still end up with a % advantage in MLB due to our participation %.

I think you see specialization more commonly from other countries. Most of the European countires are primarily single sport athletes, or will typically specialize at an earlier age. They generally do not have the resources that we do to mulit-sport.

In hockey when you talk about "skilled" players you generally look at the Europeans.

When you look at "specialized" sports in general (hockey, tennis, soccer, golf etc...) there are very few US players that are the top players any more, you may even be able to add baseball into that. Look at the 10 5 athletes in any of the skilled sports and see how many US born players are in that list...not many.

Google the Russian tennis camps...and look at the dedication those kids have, tennis is not just for fun...

Becasue these other countries do not have the luxurys we have they tend to specialize in hopes of finding a better life or in some cases a way out, whether that is in sports or a trade. We live in a world of supermarkets, mega stores, menards etc...we don't usually buy cheese from the cheese shop, or meat at the meat market...

Not that it is better, I would not trade what we have here for any of that. I think our jack-of-all-trades mentality is part of what makes this country great.

[JSR]

Since this is a hockey board, lets use Canada as an example. It is commonplace that you send your 14, 15, 16 yr old son half way across the country to play Junior A or B so that they can specialize in hopes of making the NHL. They are not keeping there kids at home to be multi-sport athletes. Canada still produces a significant % of the NHL players. Not necessarily due specifically to specialization it has a lot to do with national participation % also, but that is what they do.

You agreed to this above but starting to specialize at age 14 I consider the beginning of late specialization and I do beleive that is ALOT different than specializing at age 10. Also, LOTS of Canadian hockey pllayers, even the ones shipped off at age 14 play things like baseball and lacrosse and soccer up until around the 13 or 14 year old age, then yes they do tend to drop those sports to specilize in hockey. Again differentiating between late and early sepcilization which i think is the key difference as I ddo not see hardly anyone rail against specilization when it begins around age 14 even on this board, it's the ones trying to do it at age 10 and under that get the resistance and ridicule, atleast in my perception which is why I think it's an important differentiation within the discussion

Kind of like USA football or basketball, but those are not IMHO specialized sports, if you are an athletic freak you can compete in either even if you did not begin to compete at them into your teens.

Baseball is Americas game and a skilled sport - but we rarely win the Little League World series - Why? Becasue we are not willing to have our kids play baseball year round just to win. We still end up with a % advantage in MLB due to our participation %.

Actually a United States of America team has won 6 of the last 8 Little League World series and 7 of the last 11, most recent winner in 2011 so just last year (List below shows year and the two opponents, top opponent was series winner). It actually seems in the last 11 years we win the majority of Little League World series which would be the exact opposite of rarely.

2002
Louisville, KY 1–0
Sendai, Japan
2003
Musashi-Fuchu, Tokyo, Japan 10–1
East Boynton Beach, FL
2004
Willemstad, Curaçao 5–2
Thousand Oaks, CA
2005
Ewa Beach, HI 7–6 (F/7)
Willemstad, Curaçao
2006
Columbus, GA 2–1
Kawaguchi City, Japan
2007
Warner Robins, GA 3–2 (F/8)
Tokyo, Japan
2008
Waipahu, HI 12–3
Matamoros, Mexico
2009
Chula Vista, CA 6–3
Taoyuan County, Taiwan
2010
Edogawa Minami, Tokyo, Japan 4–1
Waipahu, HI
2011
Huntington Beach, CA 2–1
Hamamatsu City, Japan
2012
Tokyo Kitasuna, Tokyo, Japan 12–2 (F/5)
Goodlettsville, TN

I think you see specialization more commonly from other countries. Most of the European countires are primarily single sport athletes, or will typically specialize at an earlier age. They generally do not have the resources that we do to mulit-sport.

In hockey when you talk about "skilled" players you generally look at the Europeans.

I think Sweden is a great example of skilled players. It's my understanding the ADM and it's model uses alot of what Sweden has been doing including the idea of "cross training in other sports" to promote overall athleticism. I think it's a misnomer that the other countries jst play and train in hockey all day long. Now do I think they all play in different organized sports, no I do not. But I thinkk within their hockey culture their hockey programs perhaps use other sports and cross training methods throughout the year that might actually mimic a look a bit like our kids playing different sport sin different seasons. Slightly different model, similar effect.

When you look at "specialized" sports in general (hockey, tennis, soccer, golf etc...) there are very few US players that are the top players any more, you may even be able to add baseball into that. Look at the 10 5 athletes in any of the skilled sports and see how many US born players are in that list...not many.

Not sure how often "many" hockey players from the USA were ever top players historically, actually I think you could probably argue that you have more now than ever before in hockey. In soccer the USA has never been a powerhouse, you could argue Tim Howard our national team goalie is one of the very best golaie sin the world but that is it, on the flip side if you truly understand the growth of soccer in America and see what we've been doing and the growth pattern it's not impossible to believe we will have a great team and some players considered amongst the best within the next 15 years or so.....Tennis, on the men's side Sampras was probably the last one. On the women's side I think it's hard to argue against the Williams sisters as still being the very bes tin the world when they are training and in shape. Golf pendulum swings back and forth all the time, I mean in golf I do think it's disingenuous to limit it to 5 to 10 when arguably the top 100 are just otherwordly good and capable of winning any given week and even the best of the best wins maybe 3 to 4 tournaments a year out of like 28 and what do we use. Should we use World Ranking or this years money list, or FedEx cup points as they are all different top tens? In golf if you use world rankings then 5 of the top 10 are Americans so 50% are from america the rest are 3 from England, 1 from Ireland and 1 from Australia.... If you stretch it to the top 20 in golf then 11 of the top 20, so I think America is still doing alright in golf

Google the Russian tennis camps...and look at the dedication those kids have, tennis is not just for fun...

I have sen those and you are correct on this exact example. They are wild and intense but also very sober and somber looking. Kind of scary some of them.... but they do produce some great players.

Becasue these other countries do not have the luxurys we have they tend to specialize in hopes of finding a better life or in some cases a way out, whether that is in sports or a trade. We live in a world of supermarkets, mega stores, menards etc...we don't usually buy cheese from the cheese shop, or meat at the meat market...

Not that it is better, I would not trade what we have here for any of that. I think our jack-of-all-trades mentality is part of what makes this country great.

Understand your point and can somewhat agree there.

I do think above in some instances you took some generalizations too far without actually knowing the facts and studies behind them though. Wasn't try to be too argumentative or anything just wanted to bring some objective context to the equation. I do think we do things differently here but I think it's impossible not to when you have a scoiety as large and diverse as the USA. I mean it's tough to compare us to anywhere else in the world, good bad or otherwise and there is no comparison. Any other country our size (or larger) does not have the diversity of our culture and peoples and any country that might be as diverse as our culturally is about a 10th of our size popluation wise (and or country size wise). So what we do here is always probably going to be some unique hybrid and I don;t think that will ever change and like you said not sure I want it to

[black sheep]

I do think above in some instances you took some generalizations too far without actually knowing the facts and studies behind them though. Wasn't try to be too argumentative or anything just wanted to bring some objective context to the equation.

Yep...and i don't disagree with you at all. My only point is that specialization is necessary. And that in the US we are quick to judge when people do specialize, especially early, while it is common elsewhere.

We realize that specialization is necessary to become an elite whatever, but we do not know when that specialization should happen (age) on a case by case basis to hit peak performance in a specific field.

So my take on specialization relating to hockey...I believe there are three critical phases in player development where periods of specialization and not are beneficial.

1. Youth to Pre Adolescent (mite-squirt) - kids need to specialize or train specifically (but not exlusively) on skating technique with maybe a seconday empahasis on puck control and shooting. This is a great learing time for kids as they are sponges and learn quickly. Being a great skater will allow them to be put in the best position and best teams to get the best coaching and resources. Skating is an unnatural act and needs specific training to be very good at.

This early specialization whether specific or not is why I think we see the regionalness of elite players of different sports...if you have two kids raised in similar environments, one in MN and one in TX, the MN kid has a higher % chance of being an elite hockey player, and the TX kid has a higher % chance to be and elite baseball player. Both are skilled sports but yearly length of exposure to a specific sport increases your likely hood to be elite as it is ultimately a version of specialization.

2. Adolescent (Pee Wee to Bantam) - there are a lot of changes going on here. There will be kids who mature early and are monsters, and there will be slower developing kids who will fall behind slightly. To me during this phase is a bit of a wait and see period. This is a time to build overall athletic abilities (weight room, mulitiplicity). There still needs to be skill development but not a need to specialize, kind of a cool down phase while they are figuring out their new bodies. Elite players will likely still be evident but there will be some performance shifting as maturity levels change

3. Post Adolescent - if after adolescense it is believed there is a very high likely hood that you have shown inate abilites to compete at a high level there needs to be a return to specialization to maximize talent. There should be specific development needs that are evident. If you you are not in the elite 5%, or maybe even 1 or 2%, you may be better served by not specializing but continuing focusing on overall training.

Just my take on it.

What i do see is too many kids that decide to specialize when they would be better served maintaing a broader base of talents. They are often misled into believing they are something that they are not.

But certainly nothing wrong with chasing a dream...whether you attain it or not you will learn much in the jouney.

Great thread and debate.

[O-townClown]

The one thing I find interesting is that so many Americans have an expectation that our country be dominant in every sport.

In Sweden, they no longer produce very many top male tennis players and they never have had a champion female. There's been more success in golf. But they are light on elite soccer players at the same time they are very heavy in hockey. It is a small country.

Brazil is a large country and the cream of the crop for soccer. Then what? An okay basketball squad, some volleyballers, and that's about it.

Go around the world and you'll find countries that are world class in a sport or two. Why is it that American expect the U.S. to be #1 in everything? Affluence and size are certainly factors in our favor, but maybe there are a few things where we just won't be best in the world.

Whether kids specialize or not.

[OnFrozenPond]

The one thing I find interesting is that so many Americans have an expectation that our country be dominant in every sport.

Go around the world and you'll find countries that are world class in a sport or two. Why is it that American expect the U.S. to be #1 in everything? Affluence and size are certainly factors in our favor, but maybe there are a few things where we just won't be best in the world.

Whether kids specialize or not.

Such as Cricket, Luge, Biathalon, Marathon, Skeleton, Field Hockey, Syncronized Swimming, Ping Pong, Sumo Wrestling...

[JSR]

Go around the world and you'll find countries that are world class in a sport or two. Why is it that American expect the U.S. to be #1 in everything? Affluence and size are certainly factors in our favor, but maybe there are a few things where we just won't be best in the world

I would add cultural diversity to that. We don;t just have size and affluence, we have alot of size and affluence amongst a large diverse demographic population. Ie we've got as many Swedish decent people as sweden, we've got an afircan american popluation as large as most African nations, we've got hispanic populations that rival most hispanic countries and probably larger and yet all are under the unbrella of "Americans". I think this idea that we can be a dominant force in any sport is because we have that kind of diversity in large quantity that again you likely won't find in any other country in the world. So we can be as good as Canada in hockey in our minds because Canada has 30 million people and the country is mostly focused on hockey but not the whole country as it is diverse but not huge but it's still the sport they are known for, well we have 300 million people so it's honestly not that difficult for us to get just as many people interested in hockey as they have in Canada, it's just a matter of better coordination and coaching which has been happening in th last decade or so and I think your seeing results because of it (or said another way isn't Minnesota something like the 4th largest hockey COUNTRY in the world if it were a country..... food for thought). On the contrary you have a place like Brazil which is a really large population but does not have the culutral diversity we have, atleast within the way I'm defining it here if you know what I mean. So they have more of a ingrained ideal of their culture and soccer is part of it, so you have that large of a population and a more focused ingrained sense of culture and tradition and soccer is part of that your naturally going to get alot of great soccer players. The USA though still has enugh folks compared to most other soccer powers and again enough folks from those backgrounds that it believe sit has the abilities to compete on a world stage. Honestly, again becuase of cultural diversity, size and affluence it's actually not an unreasanable assumption that the USA feels it can compete at the highest level of any sport, or atleast should be able to. I don't think that is egocentric or arrogant I think it's reality based on demograhpics

[JSR]

I do think above in some instances you took some generalizations too far without actually knowing the facts and studies behind them though. Wasn't try to be too argumentative or anything just wanted to bring some objective context to the equation.

Yep...and i don't disagree with you at all. My only point is that specialization is necessary. And that in the US we are quick to judge when people do specialize, especially early, while it is common elsewhere.

We realize that specialization is necessary to become an elite whatever, but we do not know when that specialization should happen (age) on a case by case basis to hit peak performance in a specific field.

So my take on specialization relating to hockey...I believe there are three critical phases in player development where periods of specialization and not are beneficial.

1. Youth to Pre Adolescent (mite-squirt) - kids need to specialize or train specifically (but not exlusively) on skating technique with maybe a seconday empahasis on puck control and shooting. This is a great learing time for kids as they are sponges and learn quickly. Being a great skater will allow them to be put in the best position and best teams to get the best coaching and resources. Skating is an unnatural act and needs specific training to be very good at.

This early specialization whether specific or not is why I think we see the regionalness of elite players of different sports...if you have two kids raised in similar environments, one in MN and one in TX, the MN kid has a higher % chance of being an elite hockey player, and the TX kid has a higher % chance to be and elite baseball player. Both are skilled sports but yearly length of exposure to a specific sport increases your likely hood to be elite as it is ultimately a version of specialization.

2. Adolescent (Pee Wee to Bantam) - there are a lot of changes going on here. There will be kids who mature early and are monsters, and there will be slower developing kids who will fall behind slightly. To me during this phase is a bit of a wait and see period. This is a time to build overall athletic abilities (weight room, mulitiplicity). There still needs to be skill development but not a need to specialize, kind of a cool down phase while they are figuring out their new bodies. Elite players will likely still be evident but there will be some performance shifting as maturity levels change

3. Post Adolescent - if after adolescense it is believed there is a very high likely hood that you have shown inate abilites to compete at a high level there needs to be a return to specialization to maximize talent. There should be specific development needs that are evident. If you you are not in the elite 5%, or maybe even 1 or 2%, you may be better served by not specializing but continuing focusing on overall training.

Just my take on it.

What i do see is too many kids that decide to specialize when they would be better served maintaing a broader base of talents. They are often misled into believing they are something that they are not.

But certainly nothing wrong with chasing a dream...whether you attain it or not you will learn much in the jouney.

Great thread and debate.

Good post, I like it. Well thought out and I agree with a great deal of it. The stages of training and specializaion sound actually alot like the path my oldest has followed, not on purpose but by accident but seems like it's working out thus far..... LOL

[Shinbone_News]

This is a good point that I'd like to hear some anti-specialization expert weigh in on.

The ADM champions at USA Hockey are always saying kids need to play multiple sports, but their own "LTAD model" says ages 8-12 are prime windows of opportunity to learn skills. Hockey is a sport of skills. You don't learn how to skate, shoot, pass by the time you hit adolescence, there's a good chance you can't ever be elite. It's no wonder specialization happens at such a young age with such a specialized sport.

I don't disagree with USAH, the ADM, or the LTAD plan -- I just find it a paradox that none of the ADM experts ever talks about this and reconciles it.[/b]

[Section 8 guy]

I don't think it's really a paradox. ADM says you should focus on those skills during those developmental windows, it doesn't say you you should eat, sleep and breathe them.

Also, how much of the "extra" and summer hockey kids are playing is really focused on those specific skills during those specific windows? Isnt much of it games and team based practices?

[O-townClown]

JSR, you raise many valid points. It goes a long way to explain that line of thinking. Rather than a homogeneous pot of 300 million we are the rolled up sum of smaller subsets.

However...our nation's problem with national development programs is our geography. The top players just live too far from each other to model our system like Sweden (hockey) or England (soccer).

On: LOVE the list! Which brings up another reality. When Americans aren't dominant, or at least competitive, in a sport there is no interest and it is dismissed as silly.

Pakistan turns out the best in Squash, India for cricket, and China for table tennis. Sometimes we Americans just dismiss these sports as stupid.

[MNM JMH]

What is sport specialization?

Is it the amount of time you play or practice the sport?

Or that it may be the only sport you play?

Hockey, I completely agree with "BLACK SHEEP" . This is a sport that requires time and the right technique taught with the right instruction. Time will tell if you have a potentialy elite player. If you don't train year round in some cases, the others that do will pass the ones that don't up at the mite to squirt ages. After this age you may want to train in other sports or fitness across the board, and not Specialize in just hockey, or keep doing what is working.

Football, well all I will say is you will shot your eye out ....

Baseball, not in Minnisota due to the weather.

Any other sport doesn't count, because I say so...

So just keep on writing the checks and filling the car up with gas. In the end you will have had a great time with your child... and be broke. If you don't believe in the fact that Hockey, and really hockey is the only sport you can have an ok athlete with the right traing and money may turn out to be great. If he doesn't make the next level after the high school years he will still have DETERMANATION... Thats it..... oh and you may be a single parent too... Too much money for the both of them.

[OnFrozenPond]

JSR, you raise many valid points. It goes a long way to explain that line of thinking. Rather than a homogeneous pot of 300 million we are the rolled up sum of smaller subsets.

However...our nation's problem with national development programs is our geography. The top players just live too far from each other to model our system like Sweden (hockey) or England (soccer).

On: LOVE the list! Which brings up another reality. When Americans aren't dominant, or at least competitive, in a sport there is no interest and it is dismissed as silly.

Pakistan turns out the best in Squash, India for cricket, and China for table tennis. Sometimes we Americans just dismiss these sports as stupid.

For many of the sports we simply have small pockets of interest but they are not ingrained into our culture like they are in other places. We may have an outlier that is very good at the Marathon, but they are unlikely to become a national celebrity like they would in Kenya for example.

[black sheep]

Also, how much of the "extra" and summer hockey kids are playing is really focused on those specific skills during those specific windows?

i would say very little of the current AAA hockey is truely a development tool....

however...i think it plays a very legitimate roll in development as it allows players to compete with players equal to or above their talent level. If the games are viewed objectively it will give you a clear indicator of your developmental needs.

This used to happen more on the playgrounds, rinks etc...where you always had some older competition around...with the increased structure in todays society that happens much less.

More and more of the Elite MN youth are being exposed to the top talent in the US and Canada at a much younger age through AAA hockey and I think we will see some growth from this is in upcoming years. Kids who in association hockey can loaf a little and still score / compete learn very quickly learn that you better be on the gas the whole time vs. high level competition. Or you think you have a great shot until you see some 10 yr old kid blast an top shelf slap shot from the blueline.

You will see weakness in skating, puck possesion, decision making etc...very quickly.

It's just important that you are honest in viewing the developmental needs and getting the work in to refine them.

[DrGaf]

The one thing I find interesting is that so many Americans have an expectation that our country be dominant in every sport.

Team America, EFF YEAH!

(points to everyone who gets the reference)

[JSR]

The one thing I find interesting is that so many Americans have an expectation that our country be dominant in every sport.

Team America, EFF YEAH!

(points to everyone who gets the reference)

Parker and Stone are hilarious....