USST, "Project 26" Plans for the Future. New USST Criteria.

[Karen_skier2.0]

And the newest article is out--Advocating for Accessibility in Ski Racing

https://www.skiracing.com/premium/letter-to-the-editor-advocating-for-accessibility-in-ski-racing

 

[BGreen]

And the newest article is out--Advocating for Accessibility in Ski Racing

https://www.skiracing.com/premium/letter-to-the-editor-advocating-for-accessibility-in-ski-racing

I was just about to post that. Rokos weighs in with his view.

 

[hbear]

I don’t know much about her history or her ability as director and how successful she has been in translating what she says to what she does..... but do agree with her making some interesting and insightful videos.
I particularly liked the one she made directed to parents (embrace the growth of your child, not focusing on results and challenging them to grow and learn as their kids have).

There is a passion for skiing there for sure.

 

[hbear]

And the newest article is out--Advocating for Accessibility in Ski Racing

https://www.skiracing.com/premium/letter-to-the-editor-advocating-for-accessibility-in-ski-racing

We can only manage the accessibility side of things for so long and to a certain point.

I believe we are confounding 2 things here, 1 is keeping kids in the sport and making the sport more accessible....the other is how do we fix the development hurdle between having great world class junior skiers to World Cup contenders. This is not a function of accessibility (perhaps slight at best).

The best in the world are not hampering their athletes with equipment limitations, training accessibility, etc. While I fully get the point, the fact of life is there are always going to be parents that can afford more opportunities for their kids and those kids will be advantaged because of it. Fact of life, it’s not just ski racing. Academy kids will have a better platform to develop than a kid skiing only weekends at the local hill. It’s not fair but it’s reality. The parents that can afford private coaching for their child similarly will put their athlete at an advantage. Now does that advantage guarantee anything....nope but it still helps.

The parents that can better tune skis will give their child an advantage over ones that don’t. The parents that can afford to buy the right equipment for their child vs. whatever is available 2nd hand put their child at an advantage.

Families that live in close proximity to mountains vs ones in the middle of flat land cities have an advantage. I could go on and on.

The issue with developing World Cup athletes is not accessibility...it’s proper handling and development in those later years.

Perhaps there is an athlete that leaves the sport in early days (say U12 or U14) that could’ve been a contender if only they had better accessibility to the sport....my limited experience says if one showed that potential early and absolutely had a passion for racing....there always is a way to figure out the support.

Or perhaps a secondary regional program where “local” kids don’t need to get their asses handed to them by the full time mountain kids would keep more in the sport (we have these regional programs here in Canada), but that has no bearing on developing the cream of the crop to the WC. There is a reason kids move into the regional programs...don’t know many on the WC that went that route. Good for sport sure, has no bearing on WC development.

To add: I totally disagree that North America has equal quality training in the summer to NZ. No chance, we get at most 3 hours of morning training before the snow turns to mush? In NZ we can ski well into the afternoon with great and firm conditions. (But that’s an aside).

 

[Muleski]

I just read @hbear's post a second time, after checking in to read the latest comments on the various "articles" on skiracing.com and on the Facebook pages of Dan Leever and Deb Armstrong. The comments are very interesting and many absolutely miss the point, and miss the perspective that @hbear brings to the discussion. It's right on point. A+.

I get the impression that a lotto these conversations are blending two VERY different goals. One being making ski racing for kids, in particular, "more accessible", while keeping kids in the sport and making it a great experience. The second is this whole broad issue of making the USST stronger again, something that we can be proud of, and "more" than MS, LV, etc. I, too think these are entirely differs objectives, and based on the various comments we have many varying interests.

We also have passionate people who profess to have some knowledge and experience, yet come across as being pretty clueless, and to be harshen denial.

When I hear very part time coaches, from non-mountain areas, referring to 9 year olds as "their athletes", I seriously don't know whether to laugh, cry or scream. Little kids skiing in short season weekend programs are just that. Little skis who should be having a blast, while developing some ski skills. There is NOTHING about competitive alpine ski racing that is fair, or not advantaged to a certain group in countless ways. The biggest being location to REAL mountains. It has been that way, in much of the world for generations. My family is on the fourth generation, so I'm pretty confident in that. I went away to school, starting in the fifth grade, in 1965, to be able to be on snow during the week. I don't recall my parents being screamed at.

Sorry, but the notion of somehow exposing kids ski racing, late, and having them catch up as "late bloomers" is no way to develop a world class alpine team. The "lore" of how little some of our past champions actually skied is often just that.....fiction. Relying on this being some nation wide, super egalitarian deal isn't going to produce a great ski team. The number of people who are railing against the bigger, well resourced and staffed clubs with full-time programs, as well as the country's ski academies and suggesting that they ARE HURTING our prospects for a stronger team is non-sensical. I sense I strong note of bitterness, as not everybody can move a family to Vail, or send their kids to be boarding students at ski academies. Not every family can send their kids to be coached by world class coaches in the Southern Hemisphere winter for a good block time, which is incredibly beneficial.

And yet, many of these comments come from people boldly pronouncing how experienced they are in the sport, and such. Or that it wasn't that way back in the day. No it wasn't. Perhaps they need to do some research and learn about all of the ski academies word wide. Or learn of the number of current WC stars who were essentially private coached, and home schooled as kids ...often coached by their parents....unless they were in ski academies.

The Austrians, French, Germans, Italians, Swiss, all are in the ski academy business. So are many others....most others. Like the Chinese.

We're not going to get to be the best we can be, at the top of the pyramid, by making changes like having a U12 use one pair of skis for all events. No. If you want "kids" real close to the WC at 17, 18 {like other countries} you don't dumb it down and restrict things.

I'm ALL for having as many possible people interested in the sport, and participating in racing as we possibly can. That's a great goal, and hopefully we can see that swing a bit. Bring back more race arenas! Let's get NASTAR even more robust. However, that's NOT where we are going to find and develop our best. It may not be fair, it maybe very offensive to some. But it's reality.

@hbear is right on the money. If you want to be the best, there will be a group of young athletes who simply are in this sport at an entirely different level. There are right now. Our problem has NOT been having exceptional 16-19 year olds. Not at all. It's been what they USST has failed to do to ensure that that group is ready to be scoring and winning on the WC at older ages.

If you think ski racing is cruel, or unfair, and that favorites are picked and chosen, speak to the parents of kids who were "competing against" Mikaela, Lindsey Kildow, Julia Mancuso, etc. when they were 15-16. Already identified as the future of the USST, already starting to get a huge share of the USST resources. There are "kids" who certainly could be skiing on the WC who were pretty much shunned and cast aside.

That HAS to change. MUST. And I'm watching very carefully to see just how "Special" they make River Radamus. I think its a risk.

But nothing about this has ever been fair. And to be honest, it's not that fair in most sports these days. Team sports, individual sports.

I'd like to see people understand that we're dealing wit two different issues, and rally support around both of them.

Ski racing is a blast and ANYBODY can be a ski racer. But a very select few of the most elite will ever be able to wear a USST uniform and score on the World Cup. Huge horizon of what "ski racing" is.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I'd love to hear Mike Rogan's perspective on development. He was involved, but not for very long. It seemed like the program he was involved in was a step in the right direction.

 

[Muleski]

I'd love to hear Mike Rogan's perspective on development. He was involved, but not for very long. It seemed like the program he was involved in was a step in the right direction.

I'm not sure if it was a step in the right direction. At least what I heard. He was likely very well intended. He's no doubt a great ski instructor, as is Ron Kipp. But integrating with the athletes and the coaches was not that easy. The athletes would go through some "training", emerge with PSIA level three certs and dump all over it. Like it had "zero to do with how they ski." Some of the team was more vocally supportive.....often those who have parents who were instructors.

If I had to guess, I think he's be pushing that we MUST ensure that the skiers we bring up to say the NorAm and upper FIS levels.....think 18-19 year olds....are fundamentally close to perfect. There is a big push to do that today, but once again not everybody "gets it". A lot of parents think that this is about weekend kids "ski racing." While the better full time program youth coaches that I know are taking a very long haul approach, and think its about creating great skiers, and doing a ton of directed free skiing. These are skilled coaches.

The problem is that these programs are very much run and the programming set on a local level. So, once again, there is he disparity among the programs, and the kid's experience. Of you have a great coach, with a small group of talented skilled kids, say U14's and U16's who free ski on BIG mountains with long tough terrain...on their GS skis, that's not the same as the kid who you get for abut 8 hours a weekend, when somebody made the decision that it was "about running gates."

I find a big difference between the programs in the Rockies, West as well, compared to the East. More free skiing. Better basic ski skills, based on my eye. At the recently completed U16 Nationals, the Western and Rocky kids killed the free skiing part of Skills Quest, I hear.

By the time they reach the team, teaching ski skills is problematic. It should be done. This involves a huge overhaul in programming. Much of it starts with realizing that for kids who are on the track to really excel, race results mean really nothing, relatively speaking until about the second year of FIS. Developing race skills, sure. But nobody should be "selected" for finishing 3rd at U16 Nationals, versus say 20th.

I have a feeling that Mike may have been frustrated. I believe that there is plenty of room for input on how to get the basic fundamental skill better, before they hit the team. Now this assumes that the USST as we know it is going to be older athletes, i.e. the D team, goes away and the younger athlete development takes place with the clubs and various regional and national projects. That's already happening.

Of course there is also a push underway for much more coach education and certification. That's going to take a lot. Most weekend coaches, who coach the most kids, and the younger ones, do it for the love of the sport. Surely not for the money! And the experience level, as coaches.......covers a wide horizon. Some are not that current, to be polite. But they are working hard, and ensuring that a lot of kids get exposed to the sport.....and hopefully have fun.

This "whole octopus" has many, many tentacles. Say we need better/stronger leadership is the very tiny tip of the iceberg...and may not be the issue.

Going to be an interesting couple of months, then an interesting year, etc.

 

[Erik Timmerman]

I'm not sure if it was a step in the right direction. At least what I heard. He was likely very well intended. He's no doubt a great ski instructor, as is Ron Kipp. But integrating with the athletes and the coaches was not that easy. The athletes would go through some "training", emerge with PSIA level three certs and dump all over it. Like it had "zero to do with how they ski." Some of the team was more vocally supportive.....often those who have parents who were instructors.

Actually, I wasn't thinking of that, but rather of the junior team that he was involved with. I saw them in Stowe on their way to the Hannenkam Junior race. I actually forgot about the other thing. I guess I git different feedback than you. The one person I talked to about it was a former USST member who was telling me about how the current members she talked to who had done it raved about it. So mixed results I guess. You probably can't expect everyone to buy in.

 

[Muleski]

Actually, I wasn't thinking of that, but rather of the junior team that he was involved with. I saw them in Stowe on their way to the Hannenkam Junior race. I actually forgot about the other thing. I guess I git different feedback than you. The one person I talked to about it was a former USST member who was telling me about how the current members she talked to who had done it raved about it. So mixed results I guess. You probably can't expect everyone to buy in.

I did hear that the guys {and that mIght be part of the issue....gender} liked HIM a lot. I would be that some liked it....but I also some who wondered "Why are we doing this? What are we going to do with this?"

I agree that you have fans and cynics both on these things, and no lack of opinion.

Did not realize that he would have been on one of the Jr. Hahnenkamm trips. Those are U16's. Bet it was back in the day when the USST Academy was big in the plans and NTG had a different direction. That's changed a bit, to say the least.

Funny, knowing some of the coaches on those projects, I can see some really suportive and others resistant. Which seems odd, as we ought to bring it all to improve the works!

 

[ScotsSkier]

I'm not sure if it was a step in the right direction. At least what I heard. He was likely very well intended. He's no doubt a great ski instructor, as is Ron Kipp. But integrating with the athletes and the coaches was not that easy. The athletes would go through some "training", emerge with PSIA level three certs and dump all over it. Like it had "zero to do with how they ski." Some of the team was more vocally supportive.....often those who have parents who were instructors.

If I had to guess, I think he's be pushing that we MUST ensure that the skiers we bring up to say the NorAm and upper FIS levels.....think 18-19 year olds....are fundamentally close to perfect. There is a big push to do that today, but once again not everybody "gets it". A lot of parents think that this is about weekend kids "ski racing." While the better full time program youth coaches that I know are taking a very long haul approach, and think its about creating great skiers, and doing a ton of directed free skiing. These are skilled coaches.

The problem is that these programs are very much run and the programming set on a local level. So, once again, there is he disparity among the programs, and the kid's experience. Of you have a great coach, with a small group of talented skilled kids, say U14's and U16's who free ski on BIG mountains with long tough terrain...on their GS skis, that's not the same as the kid who you get for abut 8 hours a weekend, when somebody made the decision that it was "about running gates."

I find a big difference between the programs in the Rockies, West as well, compared to the East. More free skiing. Better basic ski skills, based on my eye. At the recently completed U16 Nationals, the Western and Rocky kids killed the free skiing part of Skills Quest, I hear.

By the time they reach the team, teaching ski skills is problematic. It should be done. This involves a huge overhaul in programming. Much of it starts with realizing that for kids who are on the track to really excel, race results mean really nothing, relatively speaking until about the second year of FIS. Developing race skills, sure. But nobody should be "selected" for finishing 3rd at U16 Nationals, versus say 20th.

I have a feeling that Mike may have been frustrated. I believe that there is plenty of room for input on how to get the basic fundamental skill better, before they hit the team. Now this assumes that the USST as we know it is going to be older athletes, i.e. the D team, goes away and the younger athlete development takes place with the clubs and various regional and national projects. That's already happening.

Of course there is also a push underway for much more coach education and certification. That's going to take a lot. Most weekend coaches, who coach the most kids, and the younger ones, do it for the love of the sport. Surely not for the money! And the experience level, as coaches.......covers a wide horizon. Some are not that current, to be polite. But they are working hard, and ensuring that a lot of kids get exposed to the sport.....and hopefully have fun.

This "whole octopus" has many, many tentacles. Say we need better/stronger leadership is the very tiny tip of the iceberg...and may not be the issue.

Going to be an interesting couple of months, then an interesting year, etc.

Spot on MS (and @hbear). 2 completely separate issues. And to have some utopian dream that somehow trying to limit spending/equipment/training etc will somehow miraculously transform 15 y/o weekend racers into WC stars is simply smoking crack.

And some of the recent efforts to make it more affordable - in particular the decision for thisi season to suddenly change the course sets and ski specs for USSA - reputedly driven by NY division - has in many ways made things worse as it has now effectively created a 2 tier system where kids either race USSA or FIS leading to a further drop in USSA entries at U19 level. Law of unintended consequences....

 

[Average Joe]

Spot on MS (and @hbear).

And some of the recent efforts to make it more affordable - in particular the decision for thisi season to suddenly change the course sets and ski specs for USSA - reputedly driven by NY division - has in many ways made things worse as it has now effectively created a 2 tier system where kids either race USSA or FIS leading to a further drop in USSA entries at U19 level. Law of unintended consequences....

Thread drift.... I would conclude from your comment that you believe that USSA weekend participation would increase if the rule requiring 30 meter GS skis had remained?
There already IS a two tier system. As a USSA coach you must be aware. The academies operate for different purposes with a different group - that's their mission.
But while we're on the subject of "accessibility," the top down central planning committee at USSA who push FIS rules upon developing weekenders do long term damage to the base pyramid of the participation. As evidence, this committee changed the equipment requirements four times in the past five years for U-19's. Three out of five for the U-16's and U-14's
My "favorite" was they year they were going to require U-14's (about half are 12 year olds) to ski on something like170 cm GS skis - talk about smoking crack. Thankfully they rescinded that rule in late September of 2014. The required skis would have been about two feet taller than some of the first year 14's

The next MS or LV will, at their parents and coaches discretion, ski FIS races on FIS equipment, as a U-16. They will have probably relocated to Vail, or go to an academy, whatever it takes.
Pushing FIS rules downward into programs designed to broaden the participation will not increase the numbers.
Bob Beattie, who just passed, was a big proponent of the Aspen program, that reportedly has over 2,000 participants. I doubt that this approach was part of his vision.

 

[Muleski]

Just as a point of info, Bob B was the founder or a lot of ski "programs": The USST, basically NCAA skiing, the World Cup, Pro Ski Tour and thus program called, initially "Aspen Supports Kids."

Very true that he loved kids and wanted every kid to be able to get on snow and follow a passion. That program is now AVSC's "Base Camp," and the club serves all of the RFV. It's in that it covers all of the seasonal programs, from never ever toddlers on up. Young Nordic newbies, too. Aspen SkiCo has no youth season programs run through ski school. All the ski club. That enables a huge annual fundraising effort and big big numbers of skis fully on scholarship for everything. It's a great legacy of Bob's, and my good understanding was that he was involved until he passed.

So when you peel away a lot of the numbers, and the disciplines, get to the alpine race programs of U10's {or I guess U8's} through FIS PG's, are a small piece of the 2000 plus kids. I think the alpine race program is quite a bit smaller that Vail, and more like Steamboat.

But accessibility to skiing, and eventually to racing, seems to be a core part of AVSC's mission. Less focus on wins. It's pretty neat, and people clearly get confused as the hear "Aspen" and....well.

 

[Average Joe]

A perfect example, Muleski.
The Aspen program, by Bob’s “design”, seeks the broadest participation possible at the younger age groups - and keeping equipment costs down is key.
The small percentage of this base that moves into organized USSA racing faces an exponential increases in costs - and can drive out kids who might- just might- become top skiers.
Bode Miller is a recent (but rare) example of someone who went from “local” to academy to “Best in th World” - but rare indeed.
In Beatties day, the base of the pyramid was in places like Aspen, Stramboat, Stowe - no surprise this is where the USST racers in his first group generally came from. Bob recognized this crucial pipeline and he was always looking to broaden and maintain that source.
Many of those newbie USSA racers, especially in the 14-16 age group, take a few years to develop their confidence (and skills) before they achieve a level of success that encourages them to keep at it. It’s a tough road, not many see it through to the end.
Let’s not forget that when the USSA committees issue rules that affect 100 percent of the base to benefit 5 percent of the pyramid that “accessibility” is the first victim.

 

[Corgski]

Ski racing is a small world where almost everything is associated with a single organisation. The USST makes it clear that its primary interest in those at the top. That would not be a problem if it did not have a membership of 30 000 and wasn't responsible for almost all levels of racing including Nastar. People with very different goals end up being closer together than in other sports. In some ways this makes it interesting for those pursuing it at a lower level but it also means it is easy to feel burdened by the structure. You can also participate in many activities without having to deal with the issue of whether your kid is on the path to the top. In ski racing, this is a little more in your face, people get defensive and resentful.

I think the argument for relaxing regulations and expanding access as key to developing WC racers is more sophisticated than it is given credit for. Is a kid doing Nastar runs on all mountain skis on the path to nowhere or part of developing a ski racing culture where it actually becomes worth broadcasting Nationals? To get money into the sport you need an audience and more low level participants are a key part of this. It is an alternative to the rich benefactors strategy discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[ScotsSkier]

Ski racing is a small world where almost everything is associated with a single organisation. The USST makes it clear that its primary interest in those at the top. That would not be a problem if it did not have a membership of 30 000 and wasn't responsible for almost all levels of racing including Nastar. People with very different goals end up being closer together than in other sports. In some ways this makes it interesting for those pursuing it at a lower level but it also means it is easy to feel burdened by the structure. You can also participate in many activities without having to deal with the issue of whether your kid is on the path to the top. In ski racing, this is a little more in your face, people get defensive and resentful.

I think the argument for relaxing regulations and expanding access as key to developing WC racers is more sophisticated than it is given credit for. Is a kid doing Nastar runs on all mountain skis on the path to nowhere or part of developing a ski racing culture where it actually becomes worth broadcasting Nationals? To get money into the sport you need an audience and more low level participants are a key part of this. It is an alternative to the rich benefactors strategy discussed earlier in this thread.

Corgski, you make good points here and it is a worthwhile approach although the correlation is not as direct as your statement might imply. I fully agree that expanding the base - and subsequent interest - is a potential avenue for increasing air-time and awakening a wider audience. OTOH, from a broadcaster's perspective would ski-racing in general be enough to attract viewership or would DH be seen as so much different from a Nastar base that it would segment it too much (eg F!1 racing v. Nascar - some crossover of viewers but not huge).

And realistically from a Project 2026 perspective the timeline is too short. Most, if not all, the possible prospects for 2026 are likely already active participants at U12 and Y14 level.

 

[Muleski]

And realistically from a Project 2026 perspective the timeline is too short. Most, if not all, the possible prospects for 2026 are likely already active participants at U12 and Y14 level.

Very good point. My understanding is that the USST development folks think they are current U16's and skiers in their first three years of FIS. A few slightly older....maybe. 2026 is eight years away. The names are pretty well acknowledged. Not to a person, but I would bet that the pool of maybe 50 skiers per gender. Not saying it's "right".

The team was acknowledging that Mikaela was the future of the sport very early on. At about 14. The Austrians were the same with Hirscher, and the Norwegians with HK. Bill Marolt said the same about LV and Macuso at age 13.

I'm all for anything to expand interest and particupation. It will be a LONG time before that translates to any WC skiers. Just sort of fact. And would be regardless of who runs the USST.

 

[ScotsSkier]

Thread drift.... I would conclude from your comment that you believe that USSA weekend participation would increase if the rule requiring 30 meter GS skis had remained?
There already IS a two tier system. As a USSA coach you must be aware. The academies operate for different purposes with a different group - that's their mission.
But while we're on the subject of "accessibility," the top down central planning committee at USSA who push FIS rules upon developing weekenders do long term damage to the base pyramid of the participation. As evidence, this committee changed the equipment requirements four times in the past five years for U-19's. Three out of five for the U-16's and U-14's
My "favorite" was they year they were going to require U-14's (about half are 12 year olds) to ski on something like170 cm GS skis - talk about smoking crack. Thankfully they rescinded that rule in late September of 2014. The required skis would have been about two feet taller than some of the first year 14's

The next MS or LV will, at their parents and coaches discretion, ski FIS races on FIS equipment, as a U-16. They will have probably relocated to Vail, or go to an academy, whatever it takes.
Pushing FIS rules downward into programs designed to broaden the participation will not increase the numbers.
Bob Beattie, who just passed, was a big proponent of the Aspen program, that reportedly has over 2,000 participants. I doubt that this approach was part of his vision.

Average Joe, you have confirmed the points made earlier that there are effectively 2 separate issues here - accessibility and creating athletes that can succeed at WC level.

I fully understand and support your desire to increase accessibility and participants at the grass roots level. However I would disagree to some extent that you are expanding the base of the pyramid. (other than in the number of USSSA licenses sold). With the changes made last season in USSA course sets and ski regs for U16 and U16+ we have effectively created a different pyramid where USSA is now the "beer league" and you can "run what you brung" basically in terms of skis Absolutely nothing wrong with that and it remains a great way to keep people racing and involved. And I am sure this is not that different from what happened previously. However I will stick my neck out here and argue that none of these athletes focused on racing USSA U19 on different skis at this stage are going to suddenly make the switch to National, FIS or NCAA level and/or become WC contenders. As you yourself point out, these candidates are already in the Academy or FIS streams, rightly or wrongly. (and this thread started as a discussion on project 26, aimed at developing successful WC level talent).

I applaud - and strongly support - your desire to keep kids involved in racing at all levels. I also understand the angst and disagreement (and rebellion!) that was created when the u19 rules were changed to mandate 30m GS skis. (I use GS skis here in my discussion as it is one of the most visible areas of divergence) At the time the arguments put forward against it were that it was increasing costs, driving people out of the sport, smaller hills couldn't run GS, was different from High School racing etc. All valid points. However there is also a different - and IMHO equally valid - way of looking at it. Prior to some of these changes /counter changes it was easier for smaller programs to run combined U19/FIS (and U16) programs. Now effectively we have forced FIS and U19 into 2 completely different camps. As a result, there is a reduced level of competition in USSA and very little crossover where athletes compete in both or where there is even a realistic option for many to progress from USSA to FIS if they have not already taken that route at U16.

One of the arguments against the 30m ski requirement was that it was increasing costs and forcing people to buy new skis. And this was certainly true at the time. I would argue now however that it is much easier to acquire good used 30m skis and, if an athlete is buying new, the cost of a 17-25m ski is basically no different than that of a 30m ski. That is of course a different argument but if we hope to help kids progress to elite levels then we must prepare them by skiing on equipment similar to that required at elite levels

So, while we may have increased accessibility to some extent (good!) but we have also segregated athletes into 2 completely disparate camps (bad). The greater accessibility helps keep the sport alive (and hopefully gives us potential masters racers in the future! ) but does not really provide any avenue to capture late developers who might have been missed earlier. All IMHO of course and based on what I have seen happening

 

[Rudi Riet]

Let's add some more fuel to the fire with this article from Outside about the athlete incubator that is the town of Norwich, VT:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2286441/how-train-next-generation-olympians

We can discuss after everybody has read the article...

 

[Started at 53]

Interesting article, certainly a recipe to raise well rounded and stable kids.

Not sure how many Olympic Gold Medalists or World #1’s are well rounded.....

As an adult, I would rather be a well rounded person, but I chose differently as a kid. Luckily I think I have grown into be well rounded.

 

[Seldomski]

Let's add some more fuel to the fire with this article from Outside about the athlete incubator that is the town of Norwich, VT:

https://www.outsideonline.com/2286441/how-train-next-generation-olympians

We can discuss after everybody has read the article...

Found this article to have a bit more meat to it: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/08/...-norwich-vermont-parents-children-sports.html