Posts Tagged ‘Los Angeles Sports & Fitness’

What is the Point of Youth Sports?

Friday, October 28th, 2011

Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, October 2011.

Youth sports are a billion dollar industry, but what is its purpose? Do we invest billions in youth sports to produce professional athletes? If developing professional athletes is the primary purpose, why are professional organizations uninvolved in the development process? The NBA, NHL, MLB and NFL spend virtually no money on youth programs, instead relying on the school system and other non-profit programs (YMCA, Parks & Recreation, AAU) to supply talented adult-aged players for professional drafts. (more…)

Small-Sided Games Expand Sports Acumen

Monday, October 24th, 2011

Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, September 2011.

When Massachusetts had a five-year period where 16,000 youngsters quit youth hockey before they turned 8, USA Hockey re-evaluated its programming. Roger Grillo, regional manager for USA Hockey’s developmental program and a former coach at Brown University said in a Boston Magazine interview that “The research shows that it’s burnout. It’s too serious too soon.’’ USA Hockey adopted the American Development Model to guide the development of its young players through a long term athlete development plan.  (more…)

Quit! You Might Improve

Saturday, August 6th, 2011

Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, July/August 2011.

I recently started jiujitsu. In the fall, I tried Pilates. Last year, I bought a paddleboard and started paddleboarding. The winter before that, I taught myself to swim. Before that, I tried boxing and kick boxing. I am, to use the description of George Leonard in Mastery: The Keys to Success and Long-Term Fulfillment, a Dabbler. I enjoy the newness of an activity. I enjoy learning. However, once the newness of an activity wears off, I move on. Once I reach an acceptable level of learning, which for me is far from mastery, I try something new.  (more…)

Specialization and Training Volumes: What does it all mean?

Monday, May 9th, 2011

Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, May/June 2011.

A recent article from the Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and Science in Sports titled “Late specialization: the key to success in centimeters, grams, or seconds (cgs) sports” concluded that athletes who specialized later (mid to late teens) fared better than those who specialized in a sport at an earlier age. In truth, the study focused more on training volume, than specialization. (more…)

Is vilifying the winners in youth sports creating a nation of wimps?

Tuesday, May 3rd, 2011

Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, March 2011.

Saturday was the best day of the week when I was young because it was game day. In the era before never-ending sports schedules, game day had meaning. In soccer, our season lasted about 12 weeks with games on 10 consecutive Saturdays. In basketball, we played our games on Saturday mornings with the exception of 2-3 tournaments which included Sunday games. In Little League, we played one night per week and a second game on Saturday. I spent the entire week waiting for Saturday, for the chance to play the game. (more…)

Learning from Video Games to Increase Athletic Engagement

Saturday, February 5th, 2011

Note: Originally published in the December 2011 issue of Los Angeles Sports & Fitness.

In high school, we played so much basketball that we self-policed the student parking lot so we had courts to use during breaks, lunch and after school, which meant that late-arriving students parked out past a field rather than on the basketball courts next to classrooms. These days, courts often remain vacant during breaks, lunch and after school as this generation engages in different free-time activities. (more…)

The Fallacy of Wins and Losses in Youth Sports

Monday, January 31st, 2011

Note: Originally published in the January/February 2011 issue of Los Angeles Sports & Fitness.

In a recent youth football championship game, one team trailed 6-0 when the coach ordered a trick play that is now a youtube sensation. After a penalty, he called out loudly that the defense had been off-side, and the official forgot to walk off the five yards. He yelled at his center to move the ball forward. The center stood up and handed the ball over his shoulder to the quarterback, which is a legal maneuver. The quarterback started to walk off the five yards and then sprinted past the unassuming defenders for the game-tying touchdown. (more…)

Is Athleticism in the Genes?

Monday, October 11th, 2010

Originally published by Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, October 2010.

In fifth grade, my school’s new eighth grade basketball coach (a former high school varsity coach, which was a very big deal) came to our house. He asked for my favorite player. I answered Kenny Anderson, then a freshman at Georgia Tech. He suggested, not too subtly, that I should follow Duke University’s Bobby Hurley (who was white) because I would never be quick enough to emulate Anderson (who was black).

Whether subtle or overt, responsible people (parents, coaches, teachers) told me (and my friends) over and over that I had no chance to play college or professional sports because I lacked the right genes – I did not jump high enough or run fast enough, and these abilities were genetic.

However, several recent research studies, collected nicely into David Epstein’s article “Sports Genes” in the May 17, 2010 Sports Illustrated, suggest that “something other than genetics is at work.”

When we look at the NBA, we see a high percentage of African-American players and assume a genetic advantage. However, if you look at volleyball, another sport emphasizing height and jumping ability, lanky white teenagers appear to have a genetic advantage. In football, we see a high percentage of African-American athletes and assume a genetic advantage. However, watching the best rugby players and nations, one might think that Europeans or Maoris have a genetic advantage even though the games require similar athletic qualities. When we look at marathon running, we see the dominance of East African runners and assume genetic superiority. However, Epstein’s article suggests a socioeconomic (dis)advantage.

“When [Yannis] Pitsiladis [a biologist at the University of Glasgow] compared 400 elite Kenyan athletes with a group of randomly selected Kenyans, he found that as children, the athletes were more likely to have lived at least several miles from school, and much more likely to have had to run there and back. Eighty-one percent of the elite Kenyan runners he studied had to rely on their feet to get to and from school, compared with only 22% of the control group.”

Kenyan runners dominate because they rely on their feet for survival. The same is true in Ethiopia. “Haile Gebrselassie, the world-record holder in the marathon and perhaps the greatest distance runner ever, began running to school when he was five, covering more than six miles each way. For Ethiopians like him, Gebrselassie says, ‘every day is running. Every job is running: working in the fields or just getting somewhere. Life is running.’”

Our assumption that the East African advantage is genetic often undermines the development of athletes who could compete and challenge the East African’s supremacy. “Pitsiladis’s conclusion is that whatever specific genes are necessary for endurance, they aren’t exclusive to either Ethiopians or Kenyans.”

Unfortunately, the misconception creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. If a young runner believes that he has a genetic disadvantage, how hard is he likely to train? If he does not train as hard as an Ethiopian runner, he is unlikely to be competitive, which reinforces the genetic advantage assumption. When his times plateau, will he persist and change his training routine or see his leveling off as a sign that he has reached his genetic peak?

When I was young, I was one of the better athletes in baseball, football and basketball. I had the advantage of a late birthdate, so I was one of the older and taller players. I picked up skills quickly and naturally, and I enjoyed the hours of practice required to master a skill.

As I moved toward junior high school and high school, I heard more about genetics and innate talent, almost as if responsible adults wanted to prepare me for an eventual inability to maintain my athletic status.

Because speed and power were deemed to be genetic abilities, not developed skills or qualities, I never dedicated myself to lifting weights or doing plyometrics like I did to shooting or hitting off a tee. Shooting and hitting were learned skills that I could improve, but speed and power were not. I controlled my ability to develop my shooting skills, but not my speed or jumping ability.

Therefore, my lack of speed and power development became a self-fulfilling prophecy: because I did not believe that I controlled my ability to improve my athleticism, I did not train my athletic skills, and therefore I did not enhance my athleticism. However, at the time, it was not my lack of effort, but my lack of genes to blame.

We see the dominance of African descendants (African-Americans, Jamaicans) and believe in their genetic advantages. In recent years, scientists identified and named the ACTN3 gene the Speed Gene, giving more credence to the belief that speed is a genetic trait, not a skill that can be developed.  However, “nearly all Kenyans, as well as 80% of Europeans, two groups not renowned for sprinting,” have at least one copy of the sprint gene variant. Unfortunately, because the sporting landscape appears unequal, science is unable to overpower myth.

While I practiced all day and ignored the speed and power work because of the misconceptions, an African-American child watched NBA games and saw a path to success. Nobody told him that he did not have the genes to succeed. While I ran laps around the field during soccer practice and shot baskets by myself, he raced in the streets, played tag and pick-up games – activities that enhanced his speed and power development.

While prominent TV personalities Charles Barkley and Len Elmore lament the fact that so many young African-American teenagers believe that professional sports provide their best path to success, nobody tells a young African-American child that he lacks the genes to play college or professional basketball.

Golden State’s Stephen Curry was a lightly recruited high school player who played at Davidson College, after every ACC programs failed to offer a scholarship. Curry’s father was a long-time NBA player, yet his alma mater, Virginia Tech, offered the younger Curry only a chance to walk-on.

Curry finished third in the 2010 NBA Rookie of the Year voting. In retrospect, people believe that Curry developed into a prolific scorer because his father was a great shooter. Somehow, Curry possesses the shooting gene.

Instead, it was not Curry’s genes, but his environment. When college after college passed over the younger Curry, rather than be discouraged, he worked harder. Curry knew that he could play in the NBA because his dad, an NBA authority, told him that he was good enough. This motivated the low Division I recruit to work harder, while many others forfeit their dream.

Pitsiladis notes that few progeny of Kenyan greats excel as runners. “How many of the top Kenyan runners have sons or daughters who are excelling at running? Almost none. Why? Because their father or mother becomes a world champion, has incredible resources, and the child never has to run to school again.” Their environment changes, and the children ignore the process that led to their parents’ greatness.

If the eight grade coach had never said anything, chances are that I never would have played college or professional basketball. The odds are steep. However, rather than dampen my motivation, under different circumstances, I may have embraced the weight room and enhanced my athleticism. With improved athleticism to complement my high basketball I.Q. and technical skill level, who knows what would have happened?

Athletic success is not determined at conception. Instead, many factors account for an athlete’s development. The more that a young athlete believes that he controls his success through his work ethic and determination, the more likely he is to persist through the plateaus, mistakes and tough days that are inevitable in the talent development process. When someone believes that his genes determine his success, he is less likely to persist and maintain the same high level of training effort and intensity once he reaches a sticking point.

By Brian McCormick
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Athletes Rushing to Sport-Specific Training Sacrifice Self-Taught Skills and Imagination

Friday, August 13th, 2010

Originally published by Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, Summer 2010.

montanaplayer

The Internet’s interminable need for new and original content makes web sensations out of five-year-old Little Leaguers and eight-year-old basketball stars. This season, various sports sites, including Yahoo! Sports, promoted dribbling sensation Jaylin Fleming as the world’s greatest nine-year-old basketball player. Last year, 6th grader Jashaun Agosto had his 15 minutes of fame when a Seattle television station’s segment showing him making shot after shot went viral. Not to be outdone, Yahoo! Sports touted New Jersey’s Ariel Antigua as the best five-year-old baseball player ever!

These internet sensations are the outliers, not the norm. Those who appear destined for greatness at an early age rarely reach sustained excellence at a competitive level due to the many varied factors of professional success. For every O.J. Mayo identified in junior high school as a future superstar, there are dozens of Demetrius Walker’s, the former Sports Illustrated cover boy hailed as the next LeBron James in 2005, who recently transferred from Arizona State University to the University of New Mexico after averaging only four points per game in 23 games as a freshman.

Unfortunately, the outliers grab the headlines, distort our perceptions of the path to success and alter our approach to youth sports. Others gravitate to these stories and attempt to emulate their success. We rush the development process and ignore developmentally-appropriate play activities because another child developed a skill a few years earlier than normal, and a television station desperate for feel-good stories featured him in a segment that captivated the Internet.

Childhood is moving quickly from a time of exploration and discovery to a pre-professional training environment. Rather than encourage children to play on their own and engage in self-discovery, parents set appointments with pitching, goalie or shooting coaches to train their offspring so their child can keep pace with the perceived status quo.

Sports, in their most basic form, are a form of play. In Play: How it Shapes the Brain, Opens the Imagination, and Invigorates the Soul, Stuart Brown, M.D. defines play as an activity possessing the following seven characteristics:

  1. Apparent purposelessness – play is done for its own sake
  2. Voluntary
  3. Inherent attraction – it’s fun
  4. Freedom from time – we lose a sense of the passage of time
  5. Diminished consciousness of self – we are fully in the moment; we stop worrying about looking awkward or stupid
  6. Improvisational potential – no one way to do things
  7. Continuation desire – pleasure of the experience drives a desire to continue

Developmentally, many view play as superfluous because it is fun, and therefore not serious practice. However, play offers the same learning experiences that drive the desire for more intense training. When I was young, I shot in my driveway for hours while engaged in self-initiated play. I was not training to be a professional player; I chose to play because I preferred playing outside to sitting at a piano and because shooting free throws cleared my mind.

Playing in my front yard or going to a neighborhood court for 3v3 games was fun. Hours flew by. I made up new moves or copied moves that I saw on television. If I dribbled the ball off my foot or airballed a shot, I chased down the ball and tried again and again until I mastered the move. I did not avoid mistakes but embraced them as challenges.

This play offers the same or better opportunities for skill development as more intense training sessions. In fact, a great trainer manages to engage many of the same characteristics as the child-initiated play. Regardless of the trainer’s knowledge, the child’s learning depends on his self-motivation and desire. If the child does not want to improve or does not value the lesson, he will not invest the time and effort required to learn something new. Play, however, is inherently fun.

Play differs from training because of its purposelessness. When a player moves from playing for the sake of playing to training for sports success, the motivation starts to change from fun to goal-oriented activities. In an athlete’s development, one naturally progresses from a period of play to more training-based activities. This progression is natural and gradual and occurs after a player has played a sport and developed an affinity for the sport and a desire to continue participation at more advanced levels.

The irony in the rush to eliminate these playful periods in favor of more specific training is that the prodigies’ initial skill development occurs through play, as the child explores different ways to manipulate the ball and engages in hours of self-initiated practice.

In 2001, I coached a nine-and-under team with amazing ball handling ability. At the AAU National Championships, we stayed at the same hotel as a 13-and-under team from Minneapolis. As our van pulled out of the hotel to get to one of our games, the players from Minneapolis were outside doing different ball handling drills and tricks. While idling in the driveway waiting for a coach, one of our players jumped out of the van, grabbed a ball and perfectly executed one of the moves that the other players struggled to perform.

Our players did not develop these skills through training-based activities. While we did ball handling drills, we did not do typical drills. One coach led the players through follow-the-leader type drills and incorporated different tricks out of streetball videos. However, these activities only enhanced the players’ motivation. Their development primarily occurred outside of practice.

After almost every practice, our top two ball handlers wasted time while their parents talked by going 1v1 in a hallway, trying to find ways to dribble past or through each other in a small, confined area. Nobody told these players to practice while their parents talked. Instead, they made their own games, and the games happened to enhance their skill development greatly. As they practiced, they did not have some higher goal; they simply wanted to have fun and one-up each other.

When we eliminate play at a young age, drills become tedious as the player loses his freedom, and he engages in more and more adult-initiated activities. Rather than trying new things and exploring different moves through play, players follow the coach’s instructions. Learning follows explicit instructions rather than through self-initiated exploration and imagination.

There is a time in the athletic development spectrum for training and specialized coaching. Unfortunately, more and more, parents seek this specialized training before their child plays the sport and develops the desire to train to be a better player.

By skipping these playful periods, players miss out on the self-discovery and exploration. They develop in an environment of extrinsic motivation and schedules, and an atmosphere of pleasing parents and coaches rather than playing for the sake of playing. They play in competitive environments at an earlier age where people focus on their performance and they worry more about how they look or perform as opposed to staying in the moment and engaging in an activity for the sake of playing. Often, this early training atmosphere leads young athletes to quit the sport at an early age because the sport loses its fun: the sport is no longer play.

By Brian McCormick
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League

Join the forum discussion on this post - (1) Posts

Play Multiple Sports to Build Athleticism

Sunday, July 18th, 2010

Note: Originally published in Los Angeles Sports & Fitness, May 2008

2330586993_691a204aa1We generally do not allow sports science to interfere with our deeply held beliefs, even when the beliefs are more myth than reality. When I coached in Ireland, the young Irish players believed that basketball greatness was not in their genes. They felt that Irishmen were not meant to be great athletes. Meanwhile, the Irish Rugby Team crushed its opponents in its preparation for the 2007 World Cup. While basketball and rugby require different skills, each features fast, quick, agile, strong and coordinated athletes. If Ireland develops world-class rugby talent with these qualities, why do Irish basketball players believe this development is beyond their gene pool?

Few people view rugby and basketball in terms of athletic qualities, so few see the similarities, which impedes our overall athletic development.

Because we view sports in sport-specific terms, coaches encourage early specialization. Some basketball coaches dislike players who play volleyball, as they feel the players fall behind their teammates. However, volleyball and basketball require lateral movement, hand-eye coordination, ball skills and vertical jumping. Blocking a ball transfers to contesting a shot, and moving laterally for a dig transfers to moving laterally to prevent an offensive player’s penetration.

As youth sports grow more competitive, more young athletes rush to specialize. They heed their coach’s advice or follow their parents’ guidance, as parents try to give their child an advantage over the competition.

Early specialization – when an athlete plays one sport year-round to the exclusion of other sports before puberty – leads to immediate sport-specific skill improvements. Coaches and parents see immediate results and follow this path. If the most skilled 10-year-old plays basketball year-round, maybe my son or daughter needs to devote 12 months a year to basketball.

However, athletic development is a process, and sport-specific skill development is only one piece. Before one can be a great player, he must be an athlete, and early specialization impedes overall athletic development. Unfortunately, as with the Irish players, we view sports based on sport-specific skills, not athletic qualities.

Recent years have seen a proliferation of athletic training facilities. While these facilities play to parent’s big league dreams, their success is developing general athletic skills which athletes fail to develop naturally because they specialize and narrow their athletic development. Rather than play multiple sports, which train multiple skills, athletes specialize in one sport and use performance training to compensate for their narrow athletic development.

Kids used to develop these athletic skills by playing multiple sports and neighborhood games, like tag, which develops agility, balance, coordination, evading skills, body control and more.

Now, rather than play tag, children go to facilities and do agility drills so they can change directions, fake, evade and cut when they play basketball, soccer or football.

Athletic development is a process, and early specialization attempts to speed the process. However, what is the goal? Is the goal to dominate as a 10-year-old?

Early specialization leads to early peaks. Players improve their sport-specific skills more rapidly than those who participate in a wide range of activities. However, those who develop deeper and broader athletic skills have a better foundation when they ultimately specialize. While those who specialized early hit a plateau, the others improve as they dedicate more time to enhancing their sport-specific skill.

If one specializes in basketball at 10-years-old, his general athletic development is incomplete. While he likely improves his dribbling, shooting and understanding of the game more rapidly than his peers who play multiple sports, those who play multiple sports develop many other athletic skills. If the others play soccer, they improve their vision, agility, footwork and more; if they play football, they improve acceleration and power. When these athletes specialize in basketball at 15-years-old, they have broader athletic skills and an advantage against the player who specialized early and hit a plateau in his skill development.

Skills – from athletic to tactical to perceptual – transfer from sport to sport. Many coaches and parents insist there is no relation between sports, which gives more credence to early specialization. However, before one excels at a sport, he or she must be an athlete first. The more developed a player’s general athletic skills, the higher the player’s ceiling in his or her chosen sport.

Sports science research contends that specialization before puberty is wholly unnecessary and, in some cases, detrimental to an athlete’s long term success. If the goal is to dominate other 10-year-olds, specialize early. However, if the goal is to nurture healthy children and give them an opportunity to participate in high school and/or college athletics, playing multiple sports offers a child more developmentally than does early specialization.

By Brian McCormick
Director of Coaching, Playmakers Basketball Development League
Author, Cross Over: The New Model of Youth Basketball Development