Youth soccer is fine when it serves as one of many sports a youngster learns. Unfortunately, many soccer organizers take the view that youth soccer is a 24/7 sport twelve months a year. When that happens, our sport does lose some potential stars.
Ed Koch -----Original Message----- From: Oleg Shpyrko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Monday, November 12, 2001 1:07 PM Subject: Re: Re: t-and-f: marathon qualifiers >I am constantly surprised how soccer "pulling away talent" theory is >mentioned much more often than, say, soaring obesity levels among >teenagers. Actually, in view of how inactive US kids are nowadays, >I would view popularity of soccer as a huge positive factor - not >a negative one. It's about the only sport popular at high school >level that develops aerobic capacity - unlike basketball, baseball or >football - which are more "sprint for 4 seconds, walk or stand around >for the next 10 minutes" kind of sports. > >What is the common link between Aouita, Khannouchi, Vigueras, Larson, >Kagwe, Thugwane, Paul Evans, ElGuerrouj - and throw in any top >portuguese, spanish, italian, mexican or brazilian runners? > >They all started out as soccer players - developed speed and aerobic >base an young age, then switched to running. Didn't seem to hurt them. > >If basketball didn't "steal" Paul Tergat, swimming didn't "steal" Alan Webb >and triathlons didn't "steal" Lance Armstrong, do we really believe that >soccer is "stealing" the next Bill Rodgers or Frank Shorter? > >Oleg. > > > >> Two other contributing factors that have been mentioned before: >> >> 1. Other sports (soccer, triathlon) pulling away more potential distance runners they did twenty years ago; and >> >> 2. The USA birth rate bottomed out in the mid-1970's meaning there are fewer adults in their mid to late twenties these days. Fortunately, the birth rate has improved since then which may be a contributing factor to recent improvements in high school performances in our sport. >> >> Ed Koch >> >> >> Original Message: >> ----------------- >> From: alan tobin [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 23:20:53 +0000 >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: Re: t-and-f: marathon qualifiers >> >> >> The problem is really quite simple, and it is 3-fold: >> >> 1. The US "elite" runners are not running nearly as hard/long as they were >> 20-30 years ago. This is due in part to high school and college coaches >> adopting the high quality/low quantity approach. Three runners, three vast >> improvements in mileage, three of the best US marathoners we have had >> recently: Joe Lemay drops a 2:13 after upping to 140-150, David Morris drops >> a 2:09 after going to Japan and uppping to 150ish, Josh Cox qualifies for >> 2000 Trials after upping to 100+ then drops to 2:13 after upping even >> further to the 130-150 range. 120 a week not working? Try 140. That not >> working? Try 160. Fact is there were more US "elite" runners 20-30 years ago >> running upwards of 150 or more a week. >> >> 2. US "elites" wait too long to try the marathon. Todd Williams best >> marathon days were back in '95-'96. We have three runners capable of sub >> 2:10-2:11, but they are busy running 10ks on the track. The best US runners >> are too busy running 5ks and 10ks to worry about the marathons. 20-30 years >> ago a lot of the best US marathoners could hold their own on the track and >> the not-so-speedy made up the 2nd tier running 2:15s. Today, for the most >> part, the not-so-speedy runners make up the 1st tier. >> >> 3. Too much other stuff to worry about. Forget about the few examples of >> runners running 2:10 while working 50 hours a week. If you want to give >> yourself the best chance to excel in running then you can't be worn out from >> working 50 hours a week. Working 20-30 hours a week gives you a little cash >> plus more than enough time to put in the twice daily 10 mile runs that you >> need. A lot of the best college runners quit running seriously after college >> so they can pursue a job related to their degree. >> >> >> All of these problems can be solved. The developmental groups (Hansons, >> Brownstone, Fila, ect) have started the ball rolling. Now a young runner has >> somewhere to go. Some, like Brownstone, have performance levels with varying >> perks. It's all a matter of finding young people willing to do whatever it >> takes, run farther and faster, and do the things necessary to succeed. Once >> that happens then US distance running will be fine. >> >> Alan >> http://www.geocities.com/runningart2004 >> >> _________________________________________________________________ >> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------- >> mail2web - Check your email from the web at >> http://mail2web.com/ . >> >
