HighSchoolHockeyForums.com

Without causing a big hub bub are there any results from the weekend?

Can see scores on MN Blades web site under boys teams then go to the '95 boys page and scores are listed.

dumbpuck wrote:Can see scores on MN Blades web site under boys teams then go to the '95 boys page and scores are listed.

Were there really people there watching that didnt have a kid on a team

flatontheice wrote:

dumbpuck wrote:Can see scores on MN Blades web site under boys teams then go to the '95 boys page and scores are listed.

Were there really people there watching that didnt have a kid on a team

the games i saw had some gopher players and a few coaches or directors from college / juniors

trippedovertheblueline wrote:

flatontheice wrote:

dumbpuck wrote:Can see scores on MN Blades web site under boys teams then go to the '95 boys page and scores are listed.

Were there really people there watching that didnt have a kid on a team

the games i saw had some gopher players and a few coaches or directors from college / juniors

What??? That CAN'T be!!! This violates the principles of ADM....these kids are WAY too young to be scouted, they are nothing but the offspring of overbearing parents who push their kids WAY too hard. Don't these scouts know that these kids should be at the lake fishing and not at the rink during the summer???

BTW - here are the results:

Friday Games:

Minnesota Blades 6, Manitoba Express 5
Minnesota Breakaway 9, Team Illinois 2
Lake Superior Icemen 7, Mistover 1


Minnesota Blades 7, Team Illinois 2

Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 3

Minnesota Breakaway 1, Lake Superior Icemen 6

Saturday Games:


Minnesota Blades 8, Mistover 3

Manitoba Express 1, Minnesota Breakaway 7

Lake Superior Icemen 2, Team Illinois 5


Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 1

Minnesota Blades 9, Team Illinois 7

Lake Superior Icemen 4, Minnesota Breakaway 1


Sunday Games:

8am 5th Place Game: Mistover vs. Team Illinois

10am Championship Game: Minnesota Blades vs. Lake Superior Icemen

noon 3rd Place Game: Manitoba Express vs. Minnesota Breakaway

who won the championship?

Championship Game: Minnesota Blades 4 Lake Superior Icemen 1

3rd Place Game: Manitoba Express 6 Minnesota Breakaway 5 (ot)

5th Place Game: Mistover 5 Team Illinois 4 (ot)


Thanks to all our volunteers and to the teams that played. It was a fun weekend.

muckandgrind wrote:

trippedovertheblueline wrote:

flatontheice wrote: Were there really people there watching that didnt have a kid on a team

the games i saw had some gopher players and a few coaches or directors from college / juniors

What??? That CAN'T be!!! This violates the principles of ADM....these kids are WAY too young to be scouted, they are nothing but the offspring of overbearing parents who push their kids WAY too hard. Don't these scouts know that these kids should be at the lake fishing and not at the rink during the summer???

BTW - here are the results:

Friday Games:

Minnesota Blades 6, Manitoba Express 5
Minnesota Breakaway 9, Team Illinois 2
Lake Superior Icemen 7, Mistover 1


Minnesota Blades 7, Team Illinois 2

Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 3

Minnesota Breakaway 1, Lake Superior Icemen 6

Saturday Games:


Minnesota Blades 8, Mistover 3

Manitoba Express 1, Minnesota Breakaway 7

Lake Superior Icemen 2, Team Illinois 5


Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 1

Minnesota Blades 9, Team Illinois 7

Lake Superior Icemen 4, Minnesota Breakaway 1


Sunday Games:

8am 5th Place Game: Mistover vs. Team Illinois

10am Championship Game: Minnesota Blades vs. Lake Superior Icemen

noon 3rd Place Game: Manitoba Express vs. Minnesota Breakaway

You should at least read the ADM before you take shots at it. You clearly haven't.

SECoach wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

trippedovertheblueline wrote: the games i saw had some gopher players and a few coaches or directors from college / juniors

What??? That CAN'T be!!! This violates the principles of ADM....these kids are WAY too young to be scouted, they are nothing but the offspring of overbearing parents who push their kids WAY too hard. Don't these scouts know that these kids should be at the lake fishing and not at the rink during the summer???

BTW - here are the results:

Friday Games:

Minnesota Blades 6, Manitoba Express 5
Minnesota Breakaway 9, Team Illinois 2
Lake Superior Icemen 7, Mistover 1


Minnesota Blades 7, Team Illinois 2

Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 3

Minnesota Breakaway 1, Lake Superior Icemen 6

Saturday Games:


Minnesota Blades 8, Mistover 3

Manitoba Express 1, Minnesota Breakaway 7

Lake Superior Icemen 2, Team Illinois 5


Manitoba Express 3, Mistover 1

Minnesota Blades 9, Team Illinois 7

Lake Superior Icemen 4, Minnesota Breakaway 1


Sunday Games:

8am 5th Place Game: Mistover vs. Team Illinois

10am Championship Game: Minnesota Blades vs. Lake Superior Icemen

noon 3rd Place Game: Manitoba Express vs. Minnesota Breakaway

You should at least read the ADM before you take shots at it. You clearly haven't.

Believe me, I have....this tournament and the teams that are playing in them are CLEARLY violating two main tenants of the ADM for their age group:

1) They should be in the "Train to Train" phase of their development and have FAR exceeded their 35-45 game limit, and

2) They are in violation of the ADM rule for this age group that says they should only be playing for 9 months of the year.

Which part of the ADM says they shouldn't be "scouted"?

What part of a "scout/spectator" being at a game tells you that their long term success is being helped or hampered by their training methods? Ask the people "scouting" what their opinion is. Find me one professional scout or coach that would tell me that the more they play the better off they are, with no diminishing returns. I'm not saying that they should play the winter season and put away the skates. Balance is the key.

I think if you want to take shots you can always find a way to make it look like your "experience" model is better than ADM or any other model for that matter. Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up. Or will you just list some very gifted athletes that played a lot of hockey and tell me that is the development model we should all use?

By the way, Massachusetts Hockey has been desparately trying to find out why they are placing fewer and fewer players on elite teams. I believ e their research shows that exactly what we seem to be moving towards is what has caused their situation.

SECoach wrote:Which part of the ADM says they shouldn't be "scouted"?

What part of a "scout/spectator" being at a game tells you that their long term success is being helped or hampered by their training methods? Ask the people "scouting" what their opinion is. Find me one professional scout or coach that would tell me that the more they play the better off they are, with no diminishing returns. I'm not saying that they should play the winter season and put away the skates. Balance is the key.

I think if you want to take shots you can always find a way to make it look like your "experience" model is better than ADM or any other model for that matter. Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up. Or will you just list some very gifted athletes that played a lot of hockey and tell me that is the development model we should all use?

By the way, Massachusetts Hockey has been desparately trying to find out why they are placing fewer and fewer players on elite teams. I believ e their research shows that exactly what we seem to be moving towards is what has caused their situation.

I admit that my tongue was half-way in cheek when I posted that reply.

But, like I said before, my problem with the ADM is that it's a "one size fits all" approach that is more reactionary to what some perceive as the "superior" Euro philosophy of developing hockey players. Some see a recent uptick of Euros being drafted into the NHL and all of a sudden feel that we need to re-think our entire philosophy to get in step with them. I don't buy it. When I read over that policy, my initial reaction was "this doesn't sound like a lot of fun for the player's perspective".

You want me to point you to one scout or coach who doesn't have an issue with getting plenty of ice in the summer? OK. Troy Jutting from Mankato is coaching a Blades team... There are others as well.

You're looking for evidence that we are doing things OK the way they are? Look no further than recent NHL drafts and the number of kids playing college hockey. We are seeing more and more Minnesota youths going into Div I and the NHL than ever before, and believe it or not, most of these players were, in fact, labeled as "elite" before the age of 12. IMO, the current system ain't broke, so why fix it? Sure, tweaks can be made here and there, but revamping the WHOLE development process because of some recent success by some Euro countries is ridiculous....just my opinion.

Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up.

10,000 hours doesn't come from doing less reps.

InigoMontoya wrote:

Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up.

10,000 hours doesn't come from doing less reps.

You're so right. Just imagine if we can get them up to 20,000 reps by the time they are 10.

You're so right. Just imagine if we can get them up to 20,000 reps by the time they are 10.

I appreciate the credit you bestow upon me, however:

To develop into a highly skilled player takes 10,000 hours of practice and playing.
Hal Tearse
Minnesota Hockey, Coach in Chief
September 2006

muckandgrind wrote:

SECoach wrote:Which part of the ADM says they shouldn't be "scouted"?

What part of a "scout/spectator" being at a game tells you that their long term success is being helped or hampered by their training methods? Ask the people "scouting" what their opinion is. Find me one professional scout or coach that would tell me that the more they play the better off they are, with no diminishing returns. I'm not saying that they should play the winter season and put away the skates. Balance is the key.

I think if you want to take shots you can always find a way to make it look like your "experience" model is better than ADM or any other model for that matter. Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up. Or will you just list some very gifted athletes that played a lot of hockey and tell me that is the development model we should all use?

By the way, Massachusetts Hockey has been desparately trying to find out why they are placing fewer and fewer players on elite teams. I believ e their research shows that exactly what we seem to be moving towards is what has caused their situation.

I admit that my tongue was half-way in cheek when I posted that reply.

But, like I said before, my problem with the ADM is that it's a "one size fits all" approach that is more reactionary to what some perceive as the "superior" Euro philosophy of developing hockey players. Some see a recent uptick of Euros being drafted into the NHL and all of a sudden feel that we need to re-think our entire philosophy to get in step with them. I don't buy it. When I read over that policy, my initial reaction was "this doesn't sound like a lot of fun for the player's perspective".

You want me to point you to one scout or coach who doesn't have an issue with getting plenty of ice in the summer? OK. Troy Jutting from Mankato is coaching a Blades team... There are others as well.

You're looking for evidence that we are doing things OK the way they are? Look no further than recent NHL drafts and the number of kids playing college hockey. We are seeing more and more Minnesota youths going into Div I and the NHL than ever before, and believe it or not, most of these players were, in fact, labeled as "elite" before the age of 12. IMO, the current system ain't broke, so why fix it? Sure, tweaks can be made here and there, but revamping the WHOLE development process because of some recent success by some Euro countries is ridiculous....just my opinion.

I appreciate the tongue in cheek.

I don't think this is based on a recent uptick in Euros. It is based on decades of many countries producing high level players at a much higher percentage than the US. All of these countries have had a central plan. We have not. USA Hockey is made up of 12 districts that have functioned solo from the standpoint of a development plan, if they had one at all. The logistics of our country make it much more difficult to develop a cohesive plan that "fits all". For this reason I don't believe it's meant to fit all. The number a players, arenas, etc in different parts of the country make this virtually impossible.

The ADM would change very little in the way we practice and play hockey in Minnesota. It does provide a roadmap especially for organizations that may be flying by the seat of their pants with no organization. We have all heard from posters that believe they are in a "bad" association. This give everyone a guide to help prevent this. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

I don't ever mean to imply that players at any age will develop better or faster if they don't play. Playing isn't the problem. If a player hooks up with an organization such as the Blades they will likely find that the people running it provide age appropriate balance. No problem. No disagreement. My issue is with the race to get more, more, more. This is parent driven and not driven by organizations like the Blades.

SECoach wrote:

muckandgrind wrote:

SECoach wrote:Which part of the ADM says they shouldn't be "scouted"?

What part of a "scout/spectator" being at a game tells you that their long term success is being helped or hampered by their training methods? Ask the people "scouting" what their opinion is. Find me one professional scout or coach that would tell me that the more they play the better off they are, with no diminishing returns. I'm not saying that they should play the winter season and put away the skates. Balance is the key.

I think if you want to take shots you can always find a way to make it look like your "experience" model is better than ADM or any other model for that matter. Go with the old more reps has to be better than less reps then show me the research that backs it up. Or will you just list some very gifted athletes that played a lot of hockey and tell me that is the development model we should all use?

By the way, Massachusetts Hockey has been desparately trying to find out why they are placing fewer and fewer players on elite teams. I believ e their research shows that exactly what we seem to be moving towards is what has caused their situation.

I admit that my tongue was half-way in cheek when I posted that reply.

But, like I said before, my problem with the ADM is that it's a "one size fits all" approach that is more reactionary to what some perceive as the "superior" Euro philosophy of developing hockey players. Some see a recent uptick of Euros being drafted into the NHL and all of a sudden feel that we need to re-think our entire philosophy to get in step with them. I don't buy it. When I read over that policy, my initial reaction was "this doesn't sound like a lot of fun for the player's perspective".

You want me to point you to one scout or coach who doesn't have an issue with getting plenty of ice in the summer? OK. Troy Jutting from Mankato is coaching a Blades team... There are others as well.

You're looking for evidence that we are doing things OK the way they are? Look no further than recent NHL drafts and the number of kids playing college hockey. We are seeing more and more Minnesota youths going into Div I and the NHL than ever before, and believe it or not, most of these players were, in fact, labeled as "elite" before the age of 12. IMO, the current system ain't broke, so why fix it? Sure, tweaks can be made here and there, but revamping the WHOLE development process because of some recent success by some Euro countries is ridiculous....just my opinion.

I appreciate the tongue in cheek.

I don't think this is based on a recent uptick in Euros. It is based on decades of many countries producing high level players at a much higher percentage than the US. All of these countries have had a central plan. We have not. USA Hockey is made up of 12 districts that have functioned solo from the standpoint of a development plan, if they had one at all. The logistics of our country make it much more difficult to develop a cohesive plan that "fits all". For this reason I don't believe it's meant to fit all. The number a players, arenas, etc in different parts of the country make this virtually impossible.

The ADM would change very little in the way we practice and play hockey in Minnesota. It does provide a roadmap especially for organizations that may be flying by the seat of their pants with no organization. We have all heard from posters that believe they are in a "bad" association. This give everyone a guide to help prevent this. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

I don't ever mean to imply that players at any age will develop better or faster if they don't play. Playing isn't the problem. If a player hooks up with an organization such as the Blades they will likely find that the people running it provide age appropriate balance. No problem. No disagreement. My issue is with the race to get more, more, more. This is parent driven and not driven by organizations like the Blades.

Or child driven ... there are more options than ever before and many parents in an effort to avoid burnout etc. ask their children if they want to do it and try to describe what it will be like as far as commitment. Many times the child will say yes they want to do more and many times it will work out ... and sometimes its too much. Were trying to find the balance and it is an inexact science and depends on the child. I dont sign my child up for these because he/she is a star or going to be ... quite the opposite. He/she may never get that opportunity again and if the child wants to and we can afford ti we will give it a shot ... with little or no expectations that there will be a big payday later. Many parents are like me ...

This isn't specific to hockey. look around and see all the options in baseball, basketball, learning/tutoring etc. ooops I guess its OK turn burn a child out on learning.

BluntInstrument wrote:

SECoach wrote:

muckandgrind wrote: I admit that my tongue was half-way in cheek when I posted that reply.

But, like I said before, my problem with the ADM is that it's a "one size fits all" approach that is more reactionary to what some perceive as the "superior" Euro philosophy of developing hockey players. Some see a recent uptick of Euros being drafted into the NHL and all of a sudden feel that we need to re-think our entire philosophy to get in step with them. I don't buy it. When I read over that policy, my initial reaction was "this doesn't sound like a lot of fun for the player's perspective".

You want me to point you to one scout or coach who doesn't have an issue with getting plenty of ice in the summer? OK. Troy Jutting from Mankato is coaching a Blades team... There are others as well.

You're looking for evidence that we are doing things OK the way they are? Look no further than recent NHL drafts and the number of kids playing college hockey. We are seeing more and more Minnesota youths going into Div I and the NHL than ever before, and believe it or not, most of these players were, in fact, labeled as "elite" before the age of 12. IMO, the current system ain't broke, so why fix it? Sure, tweaks can be made here and there, but revamping the WHOLE development process because of some recent success by some Euro countries is ridiculous....just my opinion.

I appreciate the tongue in cheek.

I don't think this is based on a recent uptick in Euros. It is based on decades of many countries producing high level players at a much higher percentage than the US. All of these countries have had a central plan. We have not. USA Hockey is made up of 12 districts that have functioned solo from the standpoint of a development plan, if they had one at all. The logistics of our country make it much more difficult to develop a cohesive plan that "fits all". For this reason I don't believe it's meant to fit all. The number a players, arenas, etc in different parts of the country make this virtually impossible.

The ADM would change very little in the way we practice and play hockey in Minnesota. It does provide a roadmap especially for organizations that may be flying by the seat of their pants with no organization. We have all heard from posters that believe they are in a "bad" association. This give everyone a guide to help prevent this. I don't see how this can be a bad thing.

I don't ever mean to imply that players at any age will develop better or faster if they don't play. Playing isn't the problem. If a player hooks up with an organization such as the Blades they will likely find that the people running it provide age appropriate balance. No problem. No disagreement. My issue is with the race to get more, more, more. This is parent driven and not driven by organizations like the Blades.

Or child driven ... there are more options than ever before and many parents in an effort to avoid burnout etc. ask their children if they want to do it and try to describe what it will be like as far as commitment. Many times the child will say yes they want to do more and many times it will work out ... and sometimes its too much. Were trying to find the balance and it is an inexact science and depends on the child. I dont sign my child up for these because he/she is a star or going to be ... quite the opposite. He/she may never get that opportunity again and if the child wants to and we can afford ti we will give it a shot ... with little or no expectations that there will be a big payday later. Many parents are like me ...

This isn't specific to hockey. look around and see all the options in baseball, basketball, learning/tutoring etc. ooops I guess its OK turn burn a child out on learning.

Great point. IMHO child driven is the only way to go. Does that mean when they say i don't want to go to practice today they don't have to? Does that mean that when they say they might not want to play anymore we shouldn't council, discuss, and in some cases persuade? I don't think so. I admit i spend alot of time on a soapbox and it's often spent preaching to people that put a great amount of effort into reading what is in the best interest of their child and knowing that it's different for each one. I applaud that. I watch threads on this forum and clearly there are some that don't take the temp very often. Some kids would eat pizza everyday and love it but most would lose their excitement for pizza after too many meals. I'm not saying that a kid needs to jump up and down everytime they go to the rink but there should be a level of excitement somewhere. As parents we have to work, and sometimes work hard to figure out the balance. As coaches and administrators we have to work hard to make the rink somewhere they want to be, for the kids that want to at all. We can't just blindly assume that more is better. Good talk.

InigoMontoya wrote:

You're so right. Just imagine if we can get them up to 20,000 reps by the time they are 10.

I appreciate the credit you bestow upon me, however:

To develop into a highly skilled player takes 10,000 hours of practice and playing.
Hal Tearse
Minnesota Hockey, Coach in Chief
September 2006

Just to clarify, the "10,000 hour rule" is not something a hockey guy made up. It actually comes from Malcom Gladwell's essay, Outliers. According to Gladwell's essay, mastery of anything - whether it's the Beatles in music or Bill Gates in the computer world - takes 10,000 hours of practice. The only requirement for the individual is to find the resources to create time for practice, have a strong desire to commit to the work, and practice, practice, practice until they achieve success. What is sometimes missed in all this when it is applied to athletics is "what is considered practice time?". Many experts believe, especially in young athletes, that many things can be considered part of the 10,000 hours, that not everything is skating or stick handling specific. Sometimes just developing overall athleticism is part of the 10,000 hour rule. SOME experts will tell you that when a young hockey player is playing soccer they are contributing to their 10,000 hours because soccer helps develop field vision, teammwork, athleticism etc.... I think where some people get off track is that they seem to think if the activity is not exactly hockey specific it somehow means it doesn't count. I think, IMHO, the ADM is tryin to educate people that it does count and that you donlt need to "specialize" until the child is in their teens in order to achive "elite" status in a certain sport. I am not talking about late bloomers either. I find, in my experience, the best players in all sports are the ones that seem to be very good in nearly every sport. The top three players on our club hockey team (they also play AAA spring hockey) are also, not so coincidentally, amongst the best soccer players in their age group, they are among the best football players, they are the best baseball players and, two of them did a kids triathlon this summer and both placed in the top 20 out of 130 age group peers, and one of them is also the best golfer in the area in his age group. (As an aside in our area most of these sports are offered in separate seasons so there is no overlap or over schedulign of these kids, not all communities are like this I realize). These kids are where they are because they work hard in every sport they do but they also (unknowingly) work really hard at developing their overall athleticism. Someday they will have to focus on fewer sports and if they want to make it big time in one they will have to specialize but it is not necessary to specialize for those under 12 years old to be elite, or to even be identiied as elite.

Hal didn't make that up?

Not only do I appreciate your clarification, I also appreciate your own theory - it certainly does not belong to Gladwell. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice aimed at getting better. His examples did not include Bill Gates spending 2,000 of his 10,000 hours sitting at a typewriter while watching TV; Gladwell's point is that BG actually logged more than 10,000 programming hours. Therefore, as it pertains to Gladwell, those people are not off track, you have simply redefined the track as your own. Perfectly OK, just don't pretend you're quoting someone else.

InigoMontoya wrote:

You're so right. Just imagine if we can get them up to 20,000 reps by the time they are 10.

I appreciate the credit you bestow upon me, however:

To develop into a highly skilled player takes 10,000 hours of practice and playing.
Hal Tearse
Minnesota Hockey, Coach in Chief
September 2006

his son must have only skated 5000 hours so far (Thats a joke)

sdkfjhdkfjhs

InigoMontoya wrote:Hal didn't make that up?

Not only do I appreciate your clarification, I also appreciate your own theory - it certainly does not belong to Gladwell. 10,000 hours of deliberate practice aimed at getting better. His examples did not include Bill Gates spending 2,000 of his 10,000 hours sitting at a typewriter while watching TV; Gladwell's point is that BG actually logged more than 10,000 programming hours. Therefore, as it pertains to Gladwell, those people are not off track, you have simply redefined the track as your own. Perfectly OK, just don't pretend you're quoting someone else.

Gladwell could also say that Bill Gates business acumen in the computer field is part of his expertise, that is not honed by programming computers. So was he deliberatley practicing computers when he was doing business transactions?

Gladwell does speak to athletics though but defining what is and what is not part of a specific sprts training regimine when speaking to the 10,000 hours is not specifically defined by him or anyone else, he leaves it slightly nebulous. I mean what is "deliberate training" when it comes to hockey. See someone could spend the entire 10,000 hours doing nothing but mastering stick handling, but would that make them NHL caliber, I doubt it, neither would spending 10,000 hours just skating or spend 10,000 hours developing explosive muscles, or stamina or whatever, or you could spend 10,000 hours developing field of vision for play, yet all are necessary to be considered "expert" in the field of hockey, aka all are necessary in order to be NHL caliber. So when are you deliberatley practicing and when aren't you? Perhaps eventually one could log that many hours in all areas but it's not going to happen by the time your 18 years old, there is not physically enough time for a child to do so. Where "my theory" is somewhat in concert is that if you develop overall athleticism early that when the kids do start to specialize they'll be better equipped and they'll, in a way, have already logged many of the 10,000 hours toward that goal even if it wasn't specifically pointed at the goal at that time.

Gladwell could say that, but he doesn't say that. He could say that Bill Gates drank a lot of milk as a child, but he doesn't.

I don't disagree that there are many flaws with Gladwell's book; he contradicts himself regarding hockey specifically. However, if the JSR theory of 10,000 hours says that 3,000 hours of baseball, 3,000 hours of football, 3,000 hours of golf, and 1,000 hours of fishing will lead to being a world class hockey player, then I find that as a flaw in your theory.

10,000 is a lot - about 2.5 hours per day, every single day from the time they totter out as mites to the time they are done with high school. Not many will put in nearly that amount of time doing what they do; not many are world class at what they do. For most of us watching TV is one of the few things, other than sleeping, on which we have spent that much time - for some commuting would be up there (but are you really striving to be a better commuter?). Then again, neither you nor I were even honorable mention in his book.

10 years and 10,000 hours isn't an original Gladwell concept. It has been around for many years. He just cites it in his book. The 10,000 hours has been defined by many as deliberate, intense practice. It is methodically correcting mistakes and working on all the fine details. In theory, you would be world class when you put in that amount of deliberate practice. One also must consider the age when you start this effort. In womens gymnastics, starting at age 5 may be the right thing to do since one would peak physically for that sport at age 15 or so. In a sports where you do not peak physically until your early-mid 20s, then starting post puberty would be the best time to focus the effort. Obviously you need to start earlier, but not as intensly as some do.

Gladwell points out that many other things have to fall into place such as coaching, geopraphy, resources, and a support structure condusive to developments.

The other difficult part of the equation is the person must be extremely passionate about their chosen activity. If the high level of passion is not there, the person will never endure the 10 year/10,000 hour level with focussed effort. Mental and physical burnout/injury can also stop the progress. In sports, one must also have the stature and physical build condusive for sport (i.e. gymnast, swimmer, basketball or hockey player).

Books like the Talent Code and Talent is Overrated also talk in depth on how high performers achieve their status.

The funny thing is that places like MM have physical talent building portion figured out, it just that the mental duress portion needs work. Some kids are fine, but other kids get sick of it.

Many people have pieces of the puzzle figured out, but not the whole puzzle.

The theory states that 10 years/10,000 hours is what it takes to become world class. Becoming a high school hockey player is not world class, though some obviously are.

Gladwell brings up the relative age effect which also influences the ADM program. ADM hopes to minimze the relative age effect, so the national teams will have a bigger pool of top end talent to choose from. The claim is it works for the Euros-as witnessed by the number of high caliber NHLers they produce with a smaller base.

If you step back and look at the forest and not the individual trees, all these theories and programs make sense. The key is keeping the mind and body fresh so the person can reach their potential. Building an athletic base vs. specializing early produces more top end players according to the studies. Sprint speed correlates with skating speed if the skating technique is sound-so one could play sports that have sprinting in them to improve skating speed. You can work on balance, quickness, speed and eye-hand coordination off the ice. hockey sense comes from playing hockey-which is also key.

IF your kids only wants to do one sport, then that is probably best for them. A lot of kids thrive on variety, then that is probably best for those kids. The only thing a parent can do is take in the information that is available and apply it to their situation.