The bell curve is a powerful information source

Is the population bell curve for physical capacities more than a statement about gifted and lesser skill-sets?  Yes, the information we can take from the curve is more profound than it might first appear. 

Recall that a bell curve is the shape of the data points when we plot a trait for a representative group of people (normal distribution).  If we plot height for a representative group of the population, we find that there is a small number of abnormally very tall (right edge) and abnormally very short individuals (left edge), but most (of the population) range in the area above and below the average; hence the curve looks like an upside down ‘bell’.

When we look at the curve for a group of basic physical skills, e.g. jumping and sprinting performance, or throwing and catching skills, we are actually seeing the skill development curve.  An individual might appear, at a moment of time, in the bottom half of the curve but, far from being a fixed statement about talent, it tells us where that skill or set of skills has developed to.  There are several important facts that arise from this idea:

1.       Because skills can be improved, an assessment of talent does not have to be a fixed or permanent statement about an individual’s future – it only says was it is today

2.       The process of improving skills is a ‘vertical’ or ‘linear’ pathway.  For example, young children learn to crawl, then stumble, then walk with greater efficiency and, in turn, to run.  The key to improving any skill is an understanding of what the basic (underlying) resources and steps are (we call these tools)

3.       The development of all physical skills and capacities takes time – we adapt in very small steps.  The earlier we begin, the further a skill may be extended.  In a sense, this is the greatest difference between the highly skilled and the rest of us.  For one reason or another, their bodies accumulated information and instituted strategies more effectively - they use time to better effect

4.       Recovery from physical injury, remediation of modifiable physical deficits, long-term physical and athletic development and conditioning are essentially all expressions of the skill development curve – understanding the curve provides huge scope in the area of health and fitness

The competitive mistakes adults make with children, part 2

Children need 'open/ free' minds during competition before they can be expected to grasp complex ideas and manage the anxiety of performance.  Contest is stressful all by itself and, rather than teaching them to relax, we tend to overload them from the start.  An analogy that fits would be teaching a young child how to swim in the surf.  Waves are an unusual natural physical phenomenon. There really isn’t anything else that recreates the threat and randomness of a set of waves.  As parents we get this, so we teach our children in stages: just the flowing water (no wave), then small waves up to the knees, waves around the hips etc.  Eventually we let them experience the full force of the surf but, even then, we’re not layering additional information, we just let them play.  Once it’s obvious they can cope, the options are there to add boards and devices, and events.

Competition should be introduced the same way: participation with an emphasis on self-discovery of skills and outcomes until there is obvious evidence that the child is psychologically stable.  Only then, can we safely introduce the threat of results and reading the other player/ team.  That’s not how it’s generally done.  Instead, results with match/ performance planning are instilled before children have learned to understand and accept their abilities.  Children don’t cope well with adult concepts, and none of us are comfortable analysing and planning performance before we are aware of what we can and can’t do.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise that many children collapse psychologically in competitive environments. 

How can we know when a child has come to terms with themselves in competition?  They consistently enjoy it!  The most obvious sign a child is not ok is that they’re unhappy, and sport is no different. 

What can be done when it’s understood that a child is not happy competing?  Take away the discussion about results and pull back on technical and tactical planning.  Just let them play.  Ask them only to empty the tank.  Given enough time, they will find their rhythm and begin to understand how to be effective.  Children can have help understanding outcomes and with execution, but there are some rules to follow:

·         Talk afterwards and not before

·         Keep it simple and about them

·         One or two ideas at a time

The competitive mistakes adults make with children, part 1

The biggest thing that sucks about testing/ competition is that it's agreed learning/ training is a co-responsibility - teacher and student together - but the result of the test or contest is all on the student. This absolves the teacher/ coach of responsibility and puts the entire weight of expectation on a young, usually immature mind. I have a related point to make and will do so shortly.

The problem of generalisation

If you're going to take health and fitness advice from the internet, you will need to understand the problem of generalisation. I call this the dilemma of: 'Yes, in principle, but in practice no', which is the difference between something that may be generally correct, but wrong without proper context. Alternatively, a piece of advice might apply to an individual, or a group of individuals possessing a specific trait, but not to a diverse population or group.

Olympic lifting is an example. The principle of O lifting is sound, but its safe application depends on the individual having excellent thoracic mobility/ range of motion (among other qualities). Deep squatting requires very good hip range of motion to curb lumbar stress.

Lifting weights during childhood is an excellent example of the problem of generalisation. The various physiological qualities that underpin movement can be represented on something statisticians call a bell curve - an upside-down U with tails at each end. As we move from the middle toward the right edge, we find increasingly gifted individuals whereas the population becomes progressively physically inferior as the curve passes from the middle toward the left edge.

Children who appear on the right edge are very likely to cope and prosper with advanced physical training/ stresses because they possess the necessary skills and physical structure. Children at the left hand edge of the bell curve will not. Children around the middle may or may not possess the physical qualities needed. Are parents reliably aware of whether their children possess deficits or advanced capacities? No, they're not, and the internet also provides no safe set of tools for determining individual risk factors.

I could make as strong an argument against children generally using weights in the gym by discussing the nature of motor skill and physical development, and how there is simply no need to take risks during childhood. The qualities of quickness/ speed and highly efficient movement don't require extreme muscle strength due to the advantage of low body weight.