Sports Specialization

[O-townClown]

Side note/not hockey. Watching ESPN highschool game tonight. Kid fron St. Pius Texas, quarterback going to A&m to play football. Throws a 97 mph fastball. Will go in the top ten this spring.[baseball] Dad does not let him touch a baseball from Aug thruogh Jan.

No wonder you are having trouble following. Read the posts.

[JSR]

Side note/not hockey. Watching ESPN highschool game tonight. Kid fron St. Pius Texas, quarterback going to A&m to play football. Throws a 97 mph fastball. Will go in the top ten this spring.[baseball] Dad does not let him touch a baseball from Aug thruogh Jan.

No wonder you are having trouble following. Read the posts.

I read every post,. You need to reread them. My argument had NOTHING to do with watching a game or any game for that matter. Further the OP really has nothing to do with the game nor the argument at hand. Why would having watched or not watched the game mattered.... answer: it wouldn't.

Circular logic is getting out of control on this one

[O-townClown]

You've read all the posts and you are STILL having trouble following? I made the small and obvious comment that this kid won't go to A&M for football and go Top 10 in the baseball draft. You and others quibbling over the point has next to nothing to do with the thread.

I stand by the comments, it won't happen. And I don't have to know who the kid is. Anyone with familiarity of baseball's draft knows the kids that go in the top few picks have to eschew other sports for now.

Your "argument" isn't pertinent to comments about the kid from the ESPN football game. There's no argument from me or anyone else about sports specialization. Seems like people posting on this thread pretty much agree.

You didn't see the football game either. That makes two of us. Feel free to tell me about Russell Wilson or another guy that missed the Top 10 by oh, only a thousand or so spots.

[old goalie85]

I thought it was interesting that the dad didn't let the kid throw the baseball 1/2 the year. I guess it is Texas/football. I know 20 yr baseball careers aremore common than 10 yrs football careers. I know what I would advise my kids if in that situation.

[JSR]

You've read all the posts and you are STILL having trouble following? I made the small and obvious comment that this kid won't go to A&M for football and go Top 10 in the baseball draft. You and others quibbling over the point has next to nothing to do with the thread.

I stand by the comments, it won't happen. And I don't have to know who the kid is. Anyone with familiarity of baseball's draft knows the kids that go in the top few picks have to eschew other sports for now.

Your "argument" isn't pertinent to comments about the kid from the ESPN football game. There's no argument from me or anyone else about sports specialization. Seems like people posting on this thread pretty much agree.

You didn't see the football game either. That makes two of us. Feel free to tell me about Russell Wilson or another guy that missed the Top 10 by oh, only a thousand or so spots.

I wasn't arguing that, and frankly neither were you when you posted this:

BadgerBob82 wrote:
But if this kid's agent makes it known he would entertain pro baseball offers, and is truly that good, he will get drafted. And then sign. 20 year baseball players are more common than 20 year football players.

In which case he won't be playing QB at A&M.

This post changed what you were arguing and that is what I was chiming in on. This had nothign to do with WHERE he would go in the draft, this was clearly that you said if he got drafted he WOULD NOT play football at aTm. I disagreed with that. See I am following along, you aren't even follwwing your own posts.

[O-townClown]

I'm well aware of what I posted, which is why I had no trouble keeping up with the thread when it segued into whether or not this kid (or any kid, for that matter) could be taken Top 10 in the baseball draft if he went to college at age 18 to play football.

In about 9 to 11 months we'll know his fate.

[Mite-dad]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying this, but doesn't it stand to reason that if you double the number of games a kid plays by playing summer hockey, you also double his risk for injury? Hockey is a very physical game and the more games a kid plays, the more likely he will injure himself. There is a reason NFL players don't want to expand on a 16 game schedule.

[JSR]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying this, but doesn't it stand to reason that if you double the number of games a kid plays by playing summer hockey, you also double his risk for injury? Hockey is a very physical game and the more games a kid plays, the more likely he will injure himself. There is a reason NFL players don't want to expand on a 16 game schedule.

Back to the OP I see There is a difference between acute injuries (ie the pulled groin or broken bone) and overuse injuries.

[BadgerBob82]

JSR: There is a difference between acute injury (i.e. broken bone) and chronic injury (i.e. joint injury).

More games = more chance of acute injury. More icetime = more time to wear the body down.

[Cut Above]

Just catching up on the recent thread.

Cant wait to read, this should be real interesting.

[MrBoDangles]

Forgive me if I am oversimplifying this, but doesn't it stand to reason that if you double the number of games a kid plays by playing summer hockey, you also double his risk for injury? Hockey is a very physical game and the more games a kid plays, the more likely he will injure himself. There is a reason NFL players don't want to expand on a 16 game schedule.

Would it be a terrible idea then to play lacrosse and football after the Hockey season since they are just as physical?

[Section 8 guy]

Does a kid that specializes at the age of 10 come out further ahead at the end of the day than a kid that specializes at the age of 14 or 15?

To me, the key discussion point here has been touched on in this thread but not focused on. What age are we talking about? There's somewhat of a difference between a 15 year old specializing and a 13 year old doing it. There's a huge difference between a 13 year old specializing and a 10 year old doing it.

10 year olds, in most cases, arent mature enough to know what they want and they also haven't played enough sports long enough to know what they are good at or what their passions are for that matter. 10 year olds usually specialize, directly or indirectly, because mom and dad want them to.

15 year olds are mature enough to know what they like and what they want to do. If its their own choice to specialize....truly their own choice....my $ says they are far less likely to burn out. My $ also says the developmental benefits of specializing are greater because their heart is probably completely in the high level of training and the grind that really provides the meaningful developmental advantage over the long haul.

I don't think specialization is a bad thing. I just think its far less risky burn out wise and far more productive development wise if it happens at an age when the kid is mature enough to know on his own that hockey is the only sport he or she wants to play and their heart is in the grind of playing one sport year round and more importantly, training for one sport year round.

And if you are honest with yourself as a parent, that's probably not when they are 10 and even more likely isn't when they are younger than that.

[JSR]

Does a kid that specializes at the age of 10 come out further ahead at the end of the day than a kid that specializes at the age of 14 or 15?

To me, the key discussion point here has been touched on in this thread but not focused on. What age are we talking about? There's somewhat of a difference between a 15 year old specializing and a 13 year old doing it. There's a huge difference between a 13 year old specializing and a 10 year old doing it.

10 year olds, in most cases, arent mature enough to know what they want and they also haven't played enough sports long enough to know what they are good at or what their passions are for that matter. 10 year olds usually specialize, directly or indirectly, because mom and dad want them to.

15 year olds are mature enough to know what they like and what they want to do. If its their own choice to specialize....truly their own choice....my $ says they are far less likely to burn out. My $ also says the developmental benefits of specializing are greater because their heart is probably completely in the high level of training and the grind that really provides the meaningful developmental advantage over the long haul.

I don't think specialization is a bad thing. I just think its far less risky burn out wise and far more productive development wise if it happens at an age when the kid is mature enough to know on his own that hockey is the only sport he or she wants to play and their heart is in the grind of playing one sport year round and more importantly, training for one sport year round.

And if you are honest with yourself as a parent, that's probably not when they are 10 and even more likely isn't when they are younger than that.

Great post. I've been under the assumption that we've been talking about "early" speacialization, ie those kids under 13 that you are referring to and I agree, early specialization in hockey is usually not ideal, both injury wise and burn out factor wise. I do not believe starting at age 15 with specialization, based on literature I read, is considered early specialization. In fact I think that is the sweet spot to start specializing in sports like hockey. That said, you'd be shocked at the burnout rate in junior hockey, kids who play even NAHL level hockey for even one year beyond high school have a huge burnout rate, probably for many factors but I am sure one of biggest is they are truly opened up to how much of a "grind" hockey beyond high school really is, it's no longer a "fun game" for alot of them at that level. Not exactly the same thing or the same "type" of burnout a 13 year old might experience but just putting some perpsective that burnout happens at all ages even for the late specialization kids

[IHEA]

Does a kid that specializes at the age of 10 come out further ahead at the end of the day than a kid that specializes at the age of 14 or 15?

To me, the key discussion point here has been touched on in this thread but not focused on. What age are we talking about? There's somewhat of a difference between a 15 year old specializing and a 13 year old doing it. There's a huge difference between a 13 year old specializing and a 10 year old doing it.

10 year olds, in most cases, arent mature enough to know what they want and they also haven't played enough sports long enough to know what they are good at or what their passions are for that matter. 10 year olds usually specialize, directly or indirectly, because mom and dad want them to.

15 year olds are mature enough to know what they like and what they want to do. If its their own choice to specialize....truly their own choice....my $ says they are far less likely to burn out. My $ also says the developmental benefits of specializing are greater because their heart is probably completely in the high level of training and the grind that really provides the meaningful developmental advantage over the long haul.

I don't think specialization is a bad thing. I just think its far less risky burn out wise and far more productive development wise if it happens at an age when the kid is mature enough to know on his own that hockey is the only sport he or she wants to play and their heart is in the grind of playing one sport year round and more importantly, training for one sport year round.

And if you are honest with yourself as a parent, that's probably not when they are 10 and even more likely isn't when they are younger than that.

Great post. I've been under the assumption that we've been talking about "early" speacialization, ie those kids under 13 that you are referring to and I agree, early specialization in hockey is usually not ideal, both injury wise and burn out factor wise. I do not believe starting at age 15 with specialization, based on literature I read, is considered early specialization. In fact I think that is the sweet spot to start specializing in sports like hockey. That said, you'd be shocked at the burnout rate in junior hockey, kids who play even NAHL level hockey for even one year beyond high school have a huge burnout rate, probably for many factors but I am sure one of biggest is they are truly opened up to how much of a "grind" hockey beyond high school really is, it's no longer a "fun game" for alot of them at that level. Not exactly the same thing or the same "type" of burnout a 13 year old might experience but just putting some perpsective that burnout happens at all ages even for the late specialization kids

There are mental and physical training windows ideal for developing skills, speed, mechanics that start when the kids are young and continue into their teens.... This is proven across many sports over decades of research. These windows are even more important for one of the most technically demanding sports - hockey. Repetition is also key. Problem with waiting until you are 15 is that many of these windows are already closed and time for reps runs out. Practices focus very little on skills which you better have by then and more on learning how to win games. Burnout happens for many reasons not just from playing something a lot - inability to compete in the sport, competing with social/ed/family, personal factors, coaching/parental pressure........ A lot of people focus on how much you practice/play. If a kid loves practicing and playing a sport, playing it twice or three times as much as the next kid will not burn them out. It's very simplistic to focus on that one aspect and usually comes from people who choose not to do that or whose kids do not like a sport as much as another. Yes, you push that kid to do something they are not in love with and they will burn out. So don't do it. But don't project that scenario on everyone. The world is not black and white.

[Section 8 guy]

Fair point and I don't disagree. There are some young kids that are equipped to specialize at a young age. Not many of them, but there are some. And you are right, the world isn't black and white.

But if you think all the young kids playing only one sport all year round, and a lot of it, are in the best situation for them by doing so you are kidding yourself. If you think it's even a meaningful percentage of them, you aren't being honest with yourself. The problem is there are far too many parents that think their kid is that kid, and most of them simply aren't.

The ADM takes into account the developmental windows you are talking about. It's built around them in fact. But it still doesn't support playing a lot of hockey all year round and supports playing multiple sports. It isn't like kids playing hockey 6 or 7 months of the year are going to miss those windows.

[Mite-dad]

I'm not sure where I fall in regards to this argument. Quite honestly, it is very hard to be a 3 sport athlete now days. When I was a kid, I played in the local baseball little league in the summer then jumped to flag football after doing nothing except playing with the neighbor kids from mid-July til school started. A couple weeks after football ended we started playing basketball. Baseball started a couple weeks after basketball ended. In high school I played the same three sports but insisted to my coaches that I get a week off between to just relax and unwind from the previous sport before starting again. We did do a few basketball scrimmages during the summer. I ended up having an above average D1 baseball career.

Today my 14 year old plays baseball from April through the end of July. He played 8th grade ball which overlapped with travel baseball. Our baseball association requires that he also play in the local town league if he plays travel. It is baseball nearly every day from April through July. Of course he also did a couple hockey camps and skills/agility/strength training all summer. Football started pretty much when baseball ended and will run three weeks past when bantam hockey starts. He will have to go through hockey tryouts w/o practicing hockey to try to make the "A" team. Of course hockey will run into March. Then baseball again ASAP.

Multiply that schedule times 2 because I also have a 12 year old who does the same thing plus played AAA summer hockey. We didn't sign my 6 year old up for t-ball because I couldn't stand another baseball schedule.

It is nuts to try to be a three sport athlete today. Nothing like when I was a kid. It is not only hard physically and mentally on a kid, but parents also suffer. I wonder how many failed marriages can be attributed to today's sports schedules. We need to be careful how much pressure we put on kids and our spouses. The stakes seem to be much higher today. Watch out for anxiety in your kids. Make sure they are having fun.

Ok, I'm done. Sorry for the long-winded post.

[IHEA]

Fair point and I don't disagree. There are some young kids that are equipped to specialize at a young age. Not many of them, but there are some. And you are right, the world isn't black and white.

But if you think all the young kids playing only one sport all year round, and a lot of it, are in the best situation for them by doing so you are kidding yourself. If you think it's even a meaningful percentage of them, you aren't being honest with yourself. The problem is there are far too many parents that think their kid is that kid, and most of them simply aren't.

The ADM takes into account the developmental windows you are talking about. It's built around them in fact. But it still doesn't support playing a lot of hockey all year round and supports playing multiple sports. It isn't like kids playing hockey 6 or 7 months of the year are going to miss those windows.

Didn't say that it was for everyone.
Yes ADM takes that into account and this model was not developed by USAH. It's been around and around and around in many sports.

Yes these players should be involved in other sports. Most are whether organized or not. Don't need to be in other "organized" sports to play them and get the athletic benefits from them. And you can play year round hockey while doing them.

Now for the dilemna/catch 22. The reason why kids now a days need year round hockey is because hockey training during the season is almost non-existant. It blows!! Since you referred to ADM why don't you also point out that the ADM model says you need to train skills, skills and skills all of the time at the younger ages especially through PW. Do coaches do that. Most, even in our fair state, don't! So if the current hockey system for 6-7 months a year does not properly take advantage of those WINDOWS then the players will not develop as they should. You can't wait till 15 to start this process. THUS the need for year round hockey so that you can supplement the lack of training during the season with real skills training. Now the parents that sign their kid up for a tournament team in the summer, that does no or little skill training are not doing anything to help their kid. But there are plenty of skills, speed, hands, strength, agility..., hockey training programs that are out there. You don't do them and MOST will be left in the dust. The game has changed from the days that hockey was less skilled. Hockey players are more athletic, stronger, faster and more skilled than ever.

There is always the exceptional athlete that can bypass the process but for most thats the way it is. If coaching during the season was aligned with the windows and really did what the model says, I agree, you don't need year round hockey, but that's not the case.

[Section 8 guy]

I guess we are fortunate then. We are part of an association that preaches, practices and lives skill development. If I had to go outside our association to find skill development I may look at it differently. Fortunately we don't.

IHEA, maybe you have to. If so that's unfortunate. That said, you can't tell me that all the kids in Edina, Minnetonka, Wayzata....etc , who have to make up a big chunk of the year round AAA kids, don't get plenty of solid training and skill development during their association season.

[JSR]

I guess we are fortunate then. We are part of an association that preaches, practices and lives skill development. If I had to go outside our association to find skill development I may look at it differently. Fortunately we don't.

IHEA, maybe you have to. If so that's unfortunate. That said, you can't tell me that all the kids in Edina, Minnetonka, Wayzata....etc , who have to make up a big chunk of the year round AAA kids, don't get plenty of solid training and skill development during their association season.

I don't know what Edina and those other two do but from what I understand they are HUGE assocaitons. Perhaps they make up most of the AAA teams because of pure numbers and the kids who make them up seek outside opportunities to supplement what the association training lacks. I get what IHEA is saying, the truth is most association practices do not take advantage of the skill training necessary at the younger ages and don't do it to the quality necessary. I might argue that this is possibly even true in the Edina's of the world and the numebr of AAA kids is just a product of large numbers, no differently than a small assocaition has one or two superstars that can skate with anyone despite their lack of training within the assoication, they get that trainig outside and then just do the "team thing" with the association. Again maybe Edina does a phenomenol job, I'm not picking on them just using it as a hypothetical example of why that assumption might be wrong.

[black sheep]

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 athletes.

Southern kids that play twice as much baseball are better.

Northern kids that play twice as much hockey are better.

I think it is sport dependent...sports that are skill specific take earlier specialization to become GREAT at. Hockey has skating that is a specific skill that is not trained from normally running around. Baseball has hitting which is naturally difficult to be good at etc...

How many of the worlds best golfers were also great FB players?

What countires are the best at soccer, the ones that kids play soccer more from a young age.

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.

[SCBlueLiner]

In defense of association coaches, at least in my association it doesn't feel like there is enough ice time to get everything done, to train kids to the skill level that I would personally like. We supplement our on ice time with dryland training working on stickhandling and shooting but it still feels like we aren't doing enough.

My kid plays other sports but he also plays summer hockey for an open team that is heavy on the practice side of the practice/game ratio. I hope this is helping to develop his skills and give him "the leg up". But you know what? Those other kids, they are all doing that too, and working on their skills year round too. If you think a kid can put his hockey stick away for the summer and pick it up next winter and have the skills kids need these days to compete, you'd be wrong, or at least you have a very talented kid who is able to do that, for now.

[BadgerBob82]

It almost sounds as though IHEA is supporting hockey specialization at a young age (i.e. under 10?)

If so, I think his rationalization is exactly the problem. (Can't wait until age 15...)

[O-townClown]

How many of the worlds best golfers were also great FB players?

* John Brodie
* Hale Irwin
* Tony Romo (how long is the list of "world's best"?)

Corrollary is Nate Hybl is a very interesting story.

[Section 8 guy]

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.

[black sheep]

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.