JasoninHalifax wrote:
lightheir wrote:
B_Doughtie wrote:
An AG athlete is no where close to training to the level that ātalentā is then the factor. Availability is likely the biggest limiter for the AG athlete. So many variables that make swim training thatās the hardest thing to o at one. Talent is 8th in the list of limiters not r fb worth discussing for many AG athletes.
As I've said ad nauseum - talent + training dictates rate of improvement.
You need both. Even you know that.
You and Jason are both misrepresenting what I'm saying. You seem to think I'm saying because AGers don't train maximal hours, they have no problems with a talent limiter. That is NOT what I'm saying.
I'm saying that AGers by definition pretty much always have a time limiter in training - that's why they're not pros. If you can only swim 7k per week, max, due to scheduling and life demands, that amount of improvement and level of performance you get is going to be heavily dependent on your response to such low training. Which is literally the definition of TALENT.
Every time you discuss a target goal with your athlete, you are having a discussion that's depends on the work they put in, and their talent (intrinsic response to training.) You might not say the word talent, but when you tell that perennial 2:00/100 swimmer that they did a great job by becoming a 1:55/100 swimmer with their hard work, you're making a statement about their talent level and including it directly in your assessment.
Just because AGers don't come close to maxxing their potential, doesn't mean they're not already limited by their intrinsic ability. I know you know this.
no.
untapped potential plus training = rate of improvement. one person could be super talented, but maybe they're closer to their potential than the untalented person. the first is going to find it harder to improve than the "untalented" one who has a lot of low hanging, easily accessible fruit to pick off.
I never said anything about training maximal hours. never. Its not always about training more. It is often about training well, figuring out what works and what doesn't, and ditching the stuff that doesn't.
when you tell that perennial 2:00/100 swimmer that they did a great job by becoming a 1:55/100 swimmer with their hard work, its simply about where they are vs where they were, and how they got there. No statements on "talent" anywhere, neither explicit nor implicit.
This discussion is getting ridiculous.
- Work Matters
- Aerobic "talent matters"
- Inherent strength "matters"
- Flexibility "matters"
- Coordination in a weightless medium "matters" (by that I mean open chain)
They all matter. I showed up as an 18 year old for my military fitness test and cranked off 20 pull ups with no training for that. It was just from monkeying around at the the playground as a kid hanging off bars and doing flips and jumps and endless manouevres jumping from ground, hanging off bar and lifting my body over the bar and standing on top. Almost no kids in the playground could do what I could do. I had god given flexbility and power. So when I started to learn how to do butterfly after 30 years in triathlon as a 53 year old, I was able to get to a basic level of ability even with a debilitating back injury from which I could barely walk!!!
Now if I ask most swimmers to do the 110m hurdles they will fall over at hurdle number one. I could just say, "keep training you'll get there" I would be lying to most people.
I agree for age group swimming you don't need to be at the max limit of points 1-5 above. But the better you are on each of them you're going to get to a higher level of proficiency earlier. It is the same reason why my sister within 3 months can master most yoga moves that the rest of us can never hope to get to even with a decade of training. She's just talented for doing that. It involves 1-4 above, and the last point would be changed to coordination in a closed chain mode. If you throw both of us into the air and tell us to catch a baseball, or football or serve in tennis, once her feet are not touching the ground she does not have the level of coordination I do with the spine no longer in a compression mode and getting sensory feedback from body parts without the gravitational frame of reference.
Land animals are coordinated with gravitational force goes through spine, water animals are coordinated when their spine is no longer in a compression mode. It is entirely different how the brain connects to the body in these two modes.
Perhaps youth swimmers develop not just the flexiblity but the innate coordination when spine is unweighted.
Food for thought here.