Sports psychologists for juniors?

[TennisCoachFLA]

Originally Posted by notennis

Scientific evidence thats pretty amusing. TCF I'm afraid you read to much and thats your biggest problem. It has been demonstrated that little children in very poor countrys are already working at the age of 5. Moving boulders, working on a farm trying to survive,etc. Those kids I have to say have muscle, I have seen it, strange but true. Medicine balls that weigh 2 lbs can be used for muscle memory for throwing motions and core. Why do you always have to try and be a know it all? You think you have experience because you are a coach and really have not demonstrated anything other than having young children who play Tennis. Oh, thats right. I forgot you owned several fitness centers over your lifetime,etc.....Botton line, you and all the other parents on here do it the easy american way, by the book. Europeans train at a very early age (medicine balls and push ups) thats why they dominate. Don't be a dummie and argue this fact anymore because it ruins your credibility whatever that is. Your still the king of thread though, but definately off base with this subject..............

Your post is beyond silly. Yeah, kids move boulders at age 5 and grow huge muscles.....despite the fact that that is impossible. Besides the rare, rare exception, 5 year olds do not have the hormones needed to increase muscle size due to weight training. Strength gains at that age come from neurological "learning". And even if they did, they would be crippled with arthritis by age 40. Oh yeah...and their spines would be deformed because a 5 year olds spine is as flexible as a piece of grass and would be hopelessly bent if they had large muscles in their upper bodies.

Now if you wanted to make a valid point that kids in other countries are tougher, that they work on the family farm at a young age....fine. That would have made sense.

Europeans? Buy American? Oops...Dr. Drabik is part of the Polish, Eastern Bloc, former Soviet Union establishment. His research and results are after studying for decades UNDER THE VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE TOUTING!!

He learned what works and what does not work from that system.

http://www.stadion.com/children_sports_training.html

Rick Macci and Nick Saviano's kids do not work hard? Kids at our club don't work hard? Why, because they don't "lift boulders at age 5"? Because they actually take kids through the progression of training the right way?

How about Emilio Sanchez-Casal? He and the Spanish system have also produced tons of great players? Go see how he trains kids.....slow progression through the training cycle with no weights until the mid teens.

Hmmm...how come all these coaches have so much success doing it the right way?

Funny how this lazy system has produced Madison Keyes, Williams sisters, Sekou Bangoura, Roddick, Mary Pierce, Capriati, Sonya Kenin, about 90 D-1 players, boatloads of successful Spanish players, and on and on.

By the way...for the 3rd time....we all advocate MEDICINE BALLS at a young age. That is 100% different than advocating push ups and sit ups at a young age.

[notennis]

Originally Posted by TennisCoachFLA

Your post is beyond silly. Yeah, kids move boulders at age 5 and grow huge muscles.....despite the fact that that is impossible. Besides the rare, rare exception, 5 year olds do not have the hormones needed to increase muscle size due to weight training. Strength gains at that age come from neurological "learning". And even if they did, they would be crippled with arthritis by age 40. Oh yeah...and their spines would be deformed because a 5 year olds spine is as flexible as a piece of grass and would be hopelessly bent if they had large muscles in their upper bodies.

Now if you wanted to make a valid point that kids in other countries are tougher, that they work on the family farm at a young age....fine. That would have made sense.

Europeans? Buy American? Oops...Dr. Drabik is part of the Polish, Eastern Bloc, former Soviet Union establishment. His research and results are after studying for decades UNDER THE VERY SYSTEM YOU ARE TOUTING!!

He learned what works and what does not work from that system.

http://www.stadion.com/children_sports_training.html

Rick Macci and Nick Saviano's kids do not work hard? Kids at our club don't work hard? Why, because they don't "lift boulders at age 5"? Because they actually take kids through the progression of training the right way?

How about Emilio Sanchez-Casal? He and the Spanish system have also produced tons of great players? Go see how he trains kids.....slow progression through the training cycle with no weights until the mid teens.

Hmmm...how come all these coaches have so much success doing it the right way?

Funny how this lazy system has produced Madison Keyes, Williams sisters, Sekou Bangoura, Roddick, Mary Pierce, Capriati, Sonya Kenin, about 90 D-1 players, boatloads of successful Spanish players, and on and on.

By the way...for the 3rd time....we all advocate MEDICINE BALLS at a young age. That is 100% different than advocating push ups and sit ups at a young age.

Why do you think all the people you named never did sit ups or push ups at an early age? You don't know that and I rest assure most that you named off did some of that stuff.....Again, you may have book facts but your guessing on the others which is why I say don't blow your credibility on here because once again you are exagerating and making false assumptions unless of course youy know these people personally which you don't.......Dummy!

[chalkflewup]

Originally Posted by notennis

Why do you think all the people you named never did sit ups or push ups at an early age? You don't know that and I rest assure most that you named off did some of that stuff.....Again, you may have book facts but your guessing on the others which is why I say don't blow your credibility on here because once again you are exagerating and making false assumptions unless of course youy know these people personally which you don't.......Dummy!

Name calling is such a lame defense. TCF has plenty of credibility here and when you resort to calling him a "know-it-all" or a "dummy" it backfires. Give it a rest.

[notennis]

Originally Posted by chalkflewup

Name calling is such a lame defense. TCF has plenty of credibility here and when you resort to calling him a "know-it-all" or a "dummy" it backfires. Give it a rest.

OK Chalkflewpoopoo..........

[momtogrif]

Wow, I see my thread has totally gone off track so I wanted to throw this information out there for some of you who are arguing about exercises for young children. I used to help coach our homeschool group's PE classes and we participated in the President's Challenge for the Presidential Physical Fitness Awards. We would instruct the kids on the moves they would be tested on for about 2 months prior and then test them in the spring.
Here is a link where you can view the standards: children, starting at the age of 6, are tested on sit ups or half sit ups(AKA curl ups), push ups, shuttle run, v-sit or sit and reach, and a distance run. Personally, I see nothing wrong with instructing children on weight bearing exercises using their own bodies as resistance. Of course, as usual there are varied opinions on this board, LOL.
http://www.presidentschallenge.org/e...tandards.aspx#

[ClarkC]

Originally Posted by mike53

Plenty of room for disagreement on this one. Even though I'm not completely sold, the beauty of the internet is that you can find references to support almost any point of view.

Finding a reference to support a point of view is not worthwhile.

I am moved to comment on this old thread because I have been thinking about an educational issue recently, and this thread is a classic example. The issue is teaching our students how to think, how to get to the bottom of an issue that is not cut and dried for them. For example, if one writer says that our schools are declining in quality and the decline in SAT scores over the decades proves it, and another writer says that the decline in SAT scores is entirely due to a larger pool of students taking the test, our students would have no idea how to proceed. We are training them to read textbooks, which means we are ultimately training them in how to take someone else's word on the matter.

When investigating a matter of disagreement, they need to be taught to find out what one side says about the other side's argument, then find out what the second side says in rebuttal to that, then go back to the first side to find a counter-argument, etc. At some point, you find that no one has anything new to say, and you can make up your mind who was more persuasive.

You can find a source that says 10 year old boys should do heavy weight lifting if you look long enough on the internet. But if that source is completely unaware of contrary sources, and thus does not answer them, it is not that useful. Jozef Drabik presented research that growing spines do not need to be compressed by dead lifts, overhead lifts, etc. If the pro-weightlifting sources do not scientifically rebut this claim, they are worthless to the discussion.

The approach to argumentation here, as in most internet discussions, seems to go like this:

One person finds a source that claims A.
Another person finds a source that claims NOT A.
First person finds another source that claims A.
Second person finds another source that claims NOT A.

repeat until exhaustion sets in

If a source, like the Akron Children's Hospital source, shows no awareness of specific rational claims to the contrary by Drabik, then it is not really a rebuttal to the Drabik source.

Yes, you can find any opinion on the internet. So what?