Too much too soon, part 3

I’m glad to see that this topic is generating discussion. I’m not as interested in being “right” in this conversation as I am that it is actually happening. I’ve challenged the status quo my entire life and when I take a stance on something, I expect opposition for a multitude of reasons. I’ve learned that when people oppose my viewpoint, and they’re convicted one way or the other, the focus on the conversation is then shifted towards items that aren’t quantifiable. Why? Because arguing on a feeling or emotion cannot be backed up or refuted. What I am trying to do is point out that there is research done by many more experts than me, and they are revealing that there is a better way.

Wrestling people are afraid of science because it doesn’t reinforce what they already think. No one wants to be told that they’re thoughts are contrary to evidence. Too much too soon is contrary to scientific evidence. The system encourages more competition at a young age than it does at an elite level. This actually doesn’t have anything to do with parents’ choices. It’s a failure in the system.

I took a fairly ardent stance and included some bold comments, so I’m not surprised that several people took the time to post a reply in a less-than-supportive manner. Parents don’t like being talked at, even if the best wrestlers and experts are on my side. So, the communication style and process is critical if changes are going to take place. I understand that parents are simply concerned and need to be spoken to delicately, positively and supportively and the hard line approach isn’t always productive. Having said that, this is my blog and my opinion doesn’t necessarily need to foster these parents.

In determining what I believe is best for youth athletes; I’ve considered many scientific studies and resources. Of course, I have an abundance of anecdotal evidence to support the claim that our system is indeed backwards; however, the science seems to hold more weight at this point in the conversation.

Istvan Banyi has developed a world-wide accepted athletic development model that he refers to as Long Term Athlete Development. It has served as the primary tool used to identify major gaps in the current sports system. Here is a quick snapshot from another publication to what this means:

Scientific research has concluded that it takes eight to twelve years of training for a talented athlete to reach elite levels (Bloom 1985; Ericsson et al. 1993; Ericsson and Charness 1994). This is called the ten-year or 10,000 hour rule. For athletes, coaches and parents, this translates to slightly more than three hours of practice daily for ten years (Salmela 1998). Unfortunately, parents and coaches in many sports still approach training with an attitude best characterized as the “peaking by Friday” approach (Balyi and Hamilton 1999). For example, as soon as many coaches start to train athletes, they train them to win. We now know that a long-term commitment to training is required to produce elite athletes in all sports, something that needs to be communicated to and understood by parents, coaches, sports administrators, organizations, etc.

Ultimately, success comes from training and performing well over the long-term rather than winning in the short-term. There is no shortcut to success in athletic preparation. Rushing competition will always result in shortcoming in physical, technical, tactical and mental abilities.

In principle, sports can be classified as either “early specialization” or “late specialization” (Balyi and Hamilton 1999). Early specialization refers to the fact that some sports, such as gymnastics, rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, diving and table tennis require early sport-specific specialization training. Late specialization sports, such as track & field, combative sports (wrestling), rowing and all team sports, require a generalized approach to early training. In these sports, the emphasis of training should be on the development of general, fundamental motor and technical/tactical skill.

Understanding Long Term Athlete Development has encouraged USA Hockey to initiate the first step in steering the ship in the right direction with the American Development Model (ADM). Since my journalistic integrity has inappropriately been questioned in regards to this program, it’s important to clarify my reference here. Injury reduction may be a by-product of the ADM; however, it’s not the starting point. The poster may have confused the ADM and the removal of checking from PeeWee hockey.

The foundation for the development of the ADM was the result of the following:

1.) Recognizing from a retention standpoint that hockey was losing players at a relatively early age. 43% of players dropped out by age 9 and 60% dropped out by age 11-12. This obviously impacts the membership size and player pool at the older age groups.

2.) Identifying that USA Hockey programs were too focused on the outcome (winning) rather than the process (optimal training and development).

3.) Gaining an increased base of knowledge in sports science that USA Hockey was underutilizing critical and sensitive periods of accelerated adaptation to training. For example, not developing athletes at the most important ages. This is referred to as windows of trainability (8-13 years old).

4.) Looking at very critical and identifiable elite performance results. The USA is easily the largest populated hockey country in the world and a close second in terms of hockey participation (Canada) and yet our results at the highest levels of the game are far lower than countries like Sweden, Finland, Czech Republic, and Russia (all of which have less than 1/5 to 1/8 the number of registered players the U.S. has and overall populations that are not even in the same realm as the U.S.).

Why the ADM?

For starters, many athletes spend too much time traveling, competingh and recovering from competition and not enough time preparing for it. Second, there is too heavy a focus on the result rather than the performance. This attitude leads to long-term failure, as coaches forgo the development of skills to focus on specific game tactics. And third, too many athletes are specializing too early on. An early focus on just one or two sports often leads to injuries, burnout and capping athletic potential. This way of thinking has led to 60% of players dropping out before PeeWees and 20% dropping out after only one season leading to an overall decline in retention since 2000.

The ADM is successful because kids are having fun and parents can see that first-hand. It has lowered cost and commitment barriers (i.e. less expensive to play and not asking parents at young ages to commit to 15 hours a week and full weekends to get their kids better). It is also difficult for parents, coaches and others to argue with the statistics and sports science that USA Hockey has at their finger tips to support their position. One cannot argue with a parent as to which is the right way to raise their child, but one can refute any parent that tries to argue optimal periods of trainability, loss rates at ages 9-12, etc.

This brings me to my sport. In 1990, there were 233,856 high school wrestlers. In 2008, there were 259,688 high school wrestlers (numbers compiled by the NWCA). On the surface, that’s great, as participation grew by 11%. But looking closer, the high school student population in 1990 was 12.5 million and in 2008 it was 16.3 million (30% growth). The percentage of wrestlers in high school went from 1.87% to 1.59%. Though that might not look significant, that’s a 15% decrease in participation of the student body – that’s a big deal. Why? Because participation in high school athletics if extremely important. Consider the National Federation of High School’s Case for High School Activities to see how vital participation in high school athletics is.

We all agree that wrestling presents the opportunity to develop life skills, yet we are witnessing a decrease in how many people are wrestling. Why? Because the system is broken.