Edward Koch wrote: > "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."
I'd agree with that. An example is here locally is at Coast Union HS. A very small HS with 250-300 students up in Cambria where they filmed "Arachnophobia". Well last week Coast Union ran their State qualifying meet at Taft HS. Coast Union had 2 kids win their respective races and qualify for the state championships in division V. The boy is a sophomore in his first season of running and the girl is a senior in her first year. Both have decided to forgo the California HS XC state meet next weekend in Fresno because they have soccer games and are being pressured to do them instead. The head coach at Coast Union said he would arrange XC practice around soccer practice for these next 2 weeks without success. Granted these two kids aren't the best kids in the state, but 2 kids forgoing the largest meet in California to attend soccer games is a bad thing, not to mention a heck of a missed opportinuty for them as individuals. Joe > > -----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/ . > >> > >
