aisletrainer wrote:
godot wrote:
Och aye rab yerr nae wrang aboot that.
Please tell me that you're in middle school.
Why?
aisletrainer wrote:
godot wrote:
Och aye rab yerr nae wrang aboot that.
Please tell me that you're in middle school.
Why?
Here's more data that supports the case for being patient:
"Plenty of experts argue that anyone who wants to develop a skill, play an instrument, or lead their field should start early, focus intensely, and rack up as many hours of deliberate practice as possible. If you dabble or delay, you’ll never catch up to the people who got a head start. But a closer look at research on the world’s top performers, from professional athletes to Nobel laureates, shows that early specialization is the exception, not the rule.
David Epstein examined the world’s most successful athletes, artists, musicians, inventors, forecasters and scientists. He discovered that in most fields—especially those that are complex and unpredictable—generalists, not specialists, are primed to excel. Generalists often find their path late, and they juggle many interests rather than focusing on one. They’re also more creative, more agile, and able to make connections their more specialized peers can’t see."
https://davidepstein.com/the-range/
If you have the DATA to refute his book, please enlighten us all.
Reach high levels early and you'll be there longer, he says.
What age is considered "early specialization" for athletes for the purposes of this book?
any truth here wrote:
If you have the DATA to refute his book, please enlighten us all.
Make a list of mlb, nba, soccer, or NFl players who picked the sport up after 16 and compare to the number that do it before that age. You will notice how few people pick it up late and sucked.
And you are confusing starting early and being exclusive. Nobody is saying that 10 year old shouldn't play soccer in addition to running. There is a lot of room between running 0 miles from 8-14(i.e. most kids) and 100mpw( the half dozen crazies) for development. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the kid that shows up to freshman year with 3 or 4 years of 20-40mpw of running is in worse shape than the alternatives.
There's no data to refute what's in the book I suppose. I haven't read it. I'm not arguing that someone who is 25 is likely to be better at it than they are at 17. But you're treating this as a certainty when it isn't.
You want young prodigies to sacrifice maximum success now for the possibility of having even greater success later and if that delayed, greater success was a certainty then sure, it makes sense to choose that direction. It might even make sense to choose it despite the uncertainty and hope that greater success really does materialize. But the delayed greater success is far from a certainty so deciding to go for the immediate success, to take the sure thing, is not remotely idiotic, to use your word.
ddidididid wrote:
any truth here wrote:
If you have the DATA to refute his book, please enlighten us all.
Make a list of mlb, nba, soccer, or NFl players who picked the sport up after 16 and compare to the number that do it before that age. You will notice how few people pick it up late and sucked.
And you are confusing starting early and being exclusive. Nobody is saying that 10 year old shouldn't play soccer in addition to running. There is a lot of room between running 0 miles from 8-14(i.e. most kids) and 100mpw( the half dozen crazies) for development. You are going to have a hard time convincing me that the kid that shows up to freshman year with 3 or 4 years of 20-40mpw of running is in worse shape than the alternatives.
So you agree that early specialization is bad and the article author is an idiot. Those "half dozen crazies" are the tinman athletes such as Grace Ping, Reinhardt Harrison, and Aiden Puffer. That is what the article supports.
any truth here wrote:
So you agree that early specialization is bad and the article author is an idiot. Those "half dozen crazies" are the tinman athletes such as Grace Ping, Reinhardt Harrison, and Aiden Puffer. That is what the article supports.
The evidence for either approach is sketchy and depends on methodology. For example, you think Harrison specialized early. But he was also played other sports until the end of middle school. Does that make him a generalist?
And Is running like 20 mpw( the number I have seen for the 10 year old him) really count as hard training? Aidan Puffer was doing 30-40mpw as a 13/14 year old when he ran 15:20. Again not exactly mega mileage here. No clue what else he did. Grace ping was running 45mpw. She also did a couple other sports in the preteen years. That is a good chunk of training but a far way from the crazy level.
If you go survey the keyan/ethiopian olympic champs of the past 30 years, what percent do you think were doing that type of mileage at those ages? 95%? Now if the kid doesn't play soccer or BB at recess cause it mess up there running, that is excessive. But not doing like 3-4 hours/week of something you enjoy cause you are worried about burnout is also stupid.