You also probably should think deep thoughts about women’s gymnastics and the starting age for those athletes. Or, how old they are when they retire.
3 years old to 21 years old? (assuming they do gymnastics in college).
Your Mom goes to college, but most of these girls are done before they start college.
While were on the subject of ‘starting early’, I was a Juilliard violinist in my youth and grew up in NY very familiar with all the top youth players both in the area and nationally through Juilliard.
As far as I know, there was nobody who started violin lessons later than age 6. Most people at my level or higher were started at age 4 or under. (I was age 5.) For sure, if you were starting at age 10, you had no chance even in high school or college against a good early starter. This was well known to the top music teachers there, and was why they encouraged lessons so early on, and without breaks in the intervening years. By the time I was in high school, I had zero peers who started violin later than age 6.
Sports is obviously different, as some folks can bloom a lot later with their aerobic engine, but in terms of a coordination/technical capacity, it really ,really helps to start super young.
Both my boys started in the pool at 6 months (parents and tots) and my 4 year old now does sessions with his teacher without us.
As soon as he is 5, he will start swimming with the local club and work his way up to competitive swimming.
He knows already that daddy wants him to focus on “swimmmming bicycling and runnning” when you ask him 
Does anyone have kids who are in a swim club? In the pool I go to I see 7 year old kids swimming countless laps at a pace much faster than I swim. I am curious what mentality they must have to swim like that at such a young age. I certainly did not possess it (wish i did). I wanted to go to the pool but it was not to swim laps and put in work like that. I wonder does it take much influence or motivation from the parents to get kids involved in a swim club or team, or do the kids just take to in naturally?
If we have 15 year olds taking gold, I don’t see how anyone who actually takes up swimming in middle school (10-12 years old) making it beyond U.S. Olympic Trials.
This is completely false.
In fact, I’d say you see more flame outs of 12 year old phenoms than anything. That is certainly true of 10 year olds. Now most get to the all-American phase by 14, usually at the latest 16.
A few examples:
Josh Davis (multiple gold medals) started swimming at 13.
Connor Dwyer wasn’t fast enough to walk onto top DI schools coming out of HS (1:43/4:43 200/500)
Sabir Muhammad had a single jr nats cut when he walked onto Stanford (21.1 in the 50 - of course he was 6’8" - he barely missed the US Olympic team)
Kurt Grote (2000 olympics) was walk-on at Stanford
Scott Weltz was a very good HS swimmer, but not top DI school material
Jason Lezak was also just a decent HS… and college… swimmer. Didn’t even qualify for NCAA’s his first two years in college.
Cullen Jones… same deal as Lezak.
Larsen Jensen had his huge time drops starting at 16, previous to that he was very ordinary.
Generally, You kid needs to be getting good by 16. There are few exceptions beyond that. But 12? Too early, they will probably just flame out. Also, its helpful if they grow to be at least 6’4"/5’11" m/f.
This has disolved into two different hreads, both relant to me, hence two responses:
Yes, absolutely one can hit a VERY high level of swimming but not compete at a young age. I was just under AA in high school and times were AA level (D3) in college back in the late 80s (now, they wouldnt make my college team (Kenyon), and at HS state (IN) I was beaten by a guy who hadnt swum competitively until his freshman year…he went on to star for Stanford. AA+ swimming is technique based, combined with a HUGE motor, an intrinsic feel for the water, and a tremendous work ethic. The best swimmers have a genetic advantage, to a huge degree, over those who simply are good with a tremendous work ethic. Putting your kid in he water at age 5 wont guarantee anything but multiple cases of swimmers ear.
As to kids in swimming—my 5 y.o. simply loves it…learning the strokes, being a part of a team, hanging out with big kids…practice isnt work to her…its a chance to race all her friends, and then get cookies after. Yes, there are “swim parents”, just like there are soccer/tennis/football/insert sport here parents…and im sure some/most of the gymnasts and similar repetitive sports at he olympics had parents who drove their kids to succeed…but, without a dose of genetic greatness, such drive (either by the athlete or parent) is largely moot.
I pretty much agree with you.
I would even venture to say that with the right physiology and brain you could start in your 20’s if you really wanted. However, the thing that the young kids get is time in the water with an open mind and without over-thinking things. Its like watching someone who played golf when they were young vs someone who took it up at 45 and then played obsessively to get their handicap down. The one who started young will probably have more natural technique but won’t be any better in the end unless they continue to apply themselves.
Dont’ forget that plenty of sporting talent gets side-tracked in its late teens by various combinations of alcohol/night clubs/girls- boys/academic life/a job…You need to steer through this minefield too. 25 might feel old but if you’re committed and have the physiology (for swimming in this case) you could achieve anything really. I’ve seen plenty of washed-up 18 year olds who killed it as 13 year olds but didn’t have what it took to go further.
Committment > early start.
Agreed, doesn’t necessarily take much push from parents to get kids into it. I loved summer swim lessons growing up and asked my parents to join the year round team when I turned 8 (hour and a half practices, 3xweek). Loved being in the water, liked getting faster, racing, and getting ribbons, became best friends with the other girls on the team. Switched to a more serious team when I was 10 and started swimming 2hrs/practice, 6xweek. Loved it until my performances stagnated near the end of HS and started feeling burned out. But I was never top of the heap, only pretty good. Probably would’ve stuck with it if I was good enough to swim DI, but wasn’t fast enough to swim at the places I wanted to go to school. Kudos to my parents though for spending so much money on swim team fees and so much time at meets, with minimal complaining. Set me up well to be a decent triathlon swimmer even though I’m nowhere near as fast as I used to be. Good swimmers can be successful in a variety of other sports if they get sick of swimming.
10 time Olympic medalist Gary Hall jr started at age 16. He has good swimming genes, though.
10 time Olympic medalist Gary Hall jr started at age 16. He has incredibly good swimming genes, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hall,_Jr.
Ya, I read the wiki article and a couple of other sources and this does appear to be true. I’m really surprised given his father’s having swum in the 68, 72, and 76 OGs. I’d have thought he would’ve been going 6K a day by age 6, but apparently not.
10 time Olympic medalist Gary Hall jr started at age 16. He has incredibly good swimming genes, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hall,_Jr.
Ya, I read the wiki article and a couple of other sources and this does appear to be true. I’m really surprised given his father’s having swum in the 68, 72, and 76 OGs. I’d have thought he would’ve been going 6K a day by age 6, but apparently not.
I remember the Olympic broadcasters making this age point during his events. It could have been rebellion- why do what Daddy always did/does. Maybe it’s the same reason Taylor Phinney started cycling at age 15.
10 time Olympic medalist Gary Hall jr started at age 16. He has incredibly good swimming genes, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Hall,_Jr.
Ya, I read the wiki article and a couple of other sources and this does appear to be true. I’m really surprised given his father’s having swum in the 68, 72, and 76 OGs. I’d have thought he would’ve been going 6K a day by age 6, but apparently not.
I remember the Olympic broadcasters making this age point during his events. It could have been rebellion- why do what Daddy always did/does. Maybe it’s the same reason Taylor Phinney started cycling at age 15.
Ya, I have thought about that and rebellion is a very good possibility. Hall, Jr. always seemed kind of rebellious anyway:)
Rowdy Gaines – NBC swimming color commentator, World Record Holder, Olympic Gold Medalist, and Auburn graduate – started swimming at age 17.
Rowdy Gaines – NBC swimming color commentator, World Record Holder, Olympic Gold Medalist, and Auburn graduate – started swimming at age 17.
Ya, actually I read this before and apparently he tried several other sports before giving swimming a try.
I wonder if some of these ages are when they joined a USA Swimming program. Most summer rec leagues are not USA Swimming I would think that most kids do several summers of rec leagues prior to joining a USA swimming club. My understanding is that age group records and such only count if you are USA Swimming, you could be the fastest kid in the country but it doesn’t count if you are doing it in a rec league.
I wonder if some of these ages are when they joined a USA Swimming program. Most summer rec leagues are not USA Swimming I would think that most kids do several summers of rec leagues prior to joining a USA swimming club. My understanding is that age group records and such only count if you are USA Swimming, you could be the fastest kid in the country but it doesn’t count if you are doing it in a rec league.
It may well be that Gaines, Hall Jr, and others swam summer league for years before committing to year-round training, and prob got pretty fast, but no way they would’ve been setting AG records if they weren’t on a year-round team. Your point’s very valid though as really doubt Gaines and Hall Jr had ZERO swim background. But you never know, since both obv have great innate talent.
To make the swim team or gymnastic team, you pretty much need to come out of the womb swimming or doing cartwheels.
I pretty much agree with you.
I would even venture to say that with the right physiology and brain you could start in your 20’s if you really wanted. However, the thing that the young kids get is time in the water with an open mind and without over-thinking things. Its like watching someone who played golf when they were young vs someone who took it up at 45 and then played obsessively to get their handicap down. The one who started young will probably have more natural technique but won’t be any better in the end unless they continue to apply themselves.
Dont’ forget that plenty of sporting talent gets side-tracked in its late teens by various combinations of alcohol/night clubs/girls- boys/academic life/a job…You need to steer through this minefield too. 25 might feel old but if you’re committed and have the physiology (for swimming in this case) you could achieve anything really. I’ve seen plenty of washed-up 18 year olds who killed it as 13 year olds but didn’t have what it took to go further.
Committment > early start.
Agree, but I definitely think (know, actually) that for skilled motor movements, those that start in early childhood have a lifelong, undeniable advantage that lasts for a lifetime against peers who start in adolescence or teenage years. Swimming has an endurance component that can mask this and make it harder to detect, but in pure skill-based activities like music (violin in my example), if you don’t develop good technique in your early childhood years, you will never get to the top levels no matter how hard you try as a teen or adult. It’s so extreme in violin that you’re out if you haven’t started at age 6 or below. (Age 7 is too late.)
Swimmers who start early will have solid technique for their life, and even if they don’t swim, it’ll resist degradation far better than an adult-onset learner who might have trained to similar speed through building the engine.
Of course, fine motor mastery alone won’t get you that far in competitive swimming. A HUGE engine will likely get you farther. No way you’re going to take a MOP engine swimmer, give him perfect technique and then see them swimming at a top level. In fact, I’d be surprised if technique alone got that dead MOP swimmer to FOP without an engine increase unless they were really flailing in the water. (You’re usually not totally flailing if you’re swimming 1:35/100yds T-pace, which is what a dead MOP swimmer pool pace is around here.)
I pretty much agree with you.
I would even venture to say that with the right physiology and brain you could start in your 20’s if you really wanted. However, the thing that the young kids get is time in the water with an open mind and without over-thinking things. Its like watching someone who played golf when they were young vs someone who took it up at 45 and then played obsessively to get their handicap down. The one who started young will probably have more natural technique but won’t be any better in the end unless they continue to apply themselves.
Dont’ forget that plenty of sporting talent gets side-tracked in its late teens by various combinations of alcohol/night clubs/girls- boys/academic life/a job…You need to steer through this minefield too. 25 might feel old but if you’re committed and have the physiology (for swimming in this case) you could achieve anything really. I’ve seen plenty of washed-up 18 year olds who killed it as 13 year olds but didn’t have what it took to go further.
Committment > early start.
Agree, but I definitely think (know, actually) that for skilled motor movements, those that start in early childhood have a lifelong, undeniable advantage that lasts for a lifetime against peers who start in adolescence or teenage years. Swimming has an endurance component that can mask this and make it harder to detect, but in pure skill-based activities like music (violin in my example), if you don’t develop good technique in your early childhood years, you will never get to the top levels no matter how hard you try as a teen or adult. It’s so extreme in violin that you’re out if you haven’t started at age 6 or below. (Age 7 is too late.)
Swimmers who start early will have solid technique for their life, and even if they don’t swim, it’ll resist degradation far better than an adult-onset learner who might have trained to similar speed through building the engine.
Of course, fine motor mastery alone won’t get you that far in competitive swimming. A HUGE engine will likely get you farther. No way you’re going to take a MOP engine swimmer, give him perfect technique and then see them swimming at a top level. In fact, I’d be surprised if technique alone got that dead MOP swimmer to FOP without an engine increase unless they were really flailing in the water. (You’re usually not totally flailing if you’re swimming 1:35/100yds T-pace, which is what a dead MOP swimmer pool pace is around here.)
Lightheir - I’ve read your references to your violin experience several times now and the thought occurs to me that swimming is not as much of a “fine motor mastery” skill as playing the violin. Certainly there is a fair amount of skill involved but the “feel for the water” needed for swimming isn’t quite in the same league with the extreme finger dexterity needed for the violin. Other long-time swimmers may disagree but this diff is why I think people with innate swim talent can take up the sport even in their mid-teens and set WRs. Shoot, I bet Phelps could’ve taken up the sport at 21 and could still have been on the team this yr.
I do agree that swimming does require less super-fine mastery of movements, but still, in violin, you don’t develop that super-fine dexterity until you’re in your teens/adulthood. This still requires that you started early enough to build the foundation as a hatchling - you can’t even approach that dexterity without that base.
Still, I do agree with you that in swimming, the need for super-fine technique is reduced, and thus there’s more of a chance for a late swimmer to gain good technique. Actually, I’d be surprised if technique alone accounts for more than a second per 100 at the elite levels, since everyone there has essentially solid technique.
I also think though that the ENGINE component makes the technique less critical in swimming than violin, which clearly has no engine component. If you’ve got the biggest engine in the world, you could probably get away with 98% perfect form. Come to think of it, there are some who would categorize Janet Evans and her windmill stroke as such back in the day.
I disagree though with your notion that Phelps could take up swimming at age 21 and even reach the Olympics. He would be too far along in age at that point to have access to all the specialized coaches, pool time, and resources that were required for his entire teen life to get to where he is today. I also doubt he’d be able to train as much/hard as he does now if he started so late. It would also be much, much more difficult for him to pick up swim technique as a 21 year old with no pool experience, than before. I think it’d be a stretch to say Phelps with zero pool experience walking into the sport at age 21 would win gold at the Olympics. The logistics of the resources wouldn’t work out, and the techinque/training limitations are also massive. He’d clearly be a swim monster, and might even be 99% as fast as he is now, but that 1% is a HUGE gap in world elite swimming - like the difference between 1st place and not even making the team.
I do agree that swimming does require less super-fine mastery of movements, but still, in violin, you don’t develop that super-fine dexterity until you’re in your teens/adulthood. This still requires that you started early enough to build the foundation as a hatchling - you can’t even approach that dexterity without that base.
Still, I do agree with you that in swimming, the need for super-fine technique is reduced, and thus there’s more of a chance for a late swimmer to gain good technique. Actually, I’d be surprised if technique alone accounts for more than a second per 100 at the elite levels, since everyone there has essentially solid technique.
I also think though that the ENGINE component makes the technique less critical in swimming than violin, which clearly has no engine component. If you’ve got the biggest engine in the world, you could probably get away with 98% perfect form. Come to think of it, there are some who would categorize Janet Evans and her windmill stroke as such back in the day.
I disagree though with your notion that Phelps could take up swimming at age 21 and even reach the Olympics. He would be too far along in age at that point to have access to all the specialized coaches, pool time, and resources that were required for his entire teen life to get to where he is today. I also doubt he’d be able to train as much/hard as he does now if he started so late. It would also be much, much more difficult for him to pick up swim technique as a 21 year old with no pool experience, than before. I think it’d be a stretch to say Phelps with zero pool experience walking into the sport at age 21 would win gold at the Olympics. The logistics of the resources wouldn’t work out, and the technique/training limitations are also massive. He’d clearly be a swim monster, and might even be 99% as fast as he is now, but that 1% is a HUGE gap in world of elite swimming - like the difference between 1st place and not even making the team.
Well, this is all conjecture anyway but I will point out actually 1% is not quite as great as you might think. For example, the WR for 200 LCM is 1:42.00 which is conveniently 102 sec and MP’s AR is 1:42.96 or about 103 sec; so if he went 1% slower that would be about 1:44, and Sun Yang and Tae Won Park tied for the silver in 1:44.93. Of course, both the AR and WR were in the tech suits but you get my point.
Anyway, you have a point about the access to pool time, coaches, etc. Bob Bowman prob wouldn’t take a 21 yr old Phelps under his wing the same way he did with the 11 yr old Phelps. In truth I was exaggerating a bit to make my original point:)