When the whole family is good at swimming

[Anonymous]

Examples of Olympians don’t feel relevant to me in either direction (tall or short). You are talking about the best swimmers in the ENTIRE world. None of our kids will be Olympians so why sweat if they are not the perfect height for swimming? Being tall helps but is probably not such a requirement for kids who are high school or even college swimmers (again, sure to win the NCAA but a kid is still successful without that) as an early poster mentioned. This board seems so dismissive.

[Anonymous]

My DD got a lot of practice when I had her in swim for three years while younger siblings took swim lessons. She swam a couple summers in middle school and was always the highest placing non-year round swimmer. I think she could have been competitive if she swam year round but also would have needed to work on that killer instinct. She’s more of a recreational athlete but very strong, flexible and coordinated. Basically good at everything she tries.

[Anonymous]

We have several families on our summer team that are all quite good. They dominate in points and the kids love swimming. You can tell that at least one parent is still athletic and that sports are important to them.

But when you hear the same two or three last names being called over multiple age groups and genders, you just know. I think it is family priority and genetics.

What is rough is when one kid in the family gets the athleticism and the other does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We are at a nice community pool with a big swim team. We have had a few families where all 3 kids are amazing swimmers. What about their genetics makes that happen?

I have three kids and they are all quite good. They all started swimming at 6-7 and were quick to get it. I also know genetics is part of it between my husband and myself we have collegiate and Olympic level athletes. We have height and strength and are both in professions that require a high degree of fitness. So it is a lot of genetics and probably the focus we place on exercise.

[Anonymous]

My sibling and I were both very good swimmers with one parent who probably would’ve been a good swimmer if they had ever tried it — they have the frame and height and were good at other sports — and one parent who cannot swim at all. The latter parent had a near drowning experience as a kid, which was why my sibling and I were out into swim lessons/joined a community pool early. My own young children are both pretty good swimmers with noticeably better form than most other kids in their swim lessons and now in their swim team groups. It might be some genetics, but I also think back to the parent and child swim classes I did with them and how I would hold them when we played in the pool. I always held them horizontal and right on the surface so they could feel the proper body position even when they were babies. If I helped them kick and pull I always made sure their arms and legs were straight and the kicks were small and quick. You could look at them now and say it’s natural the way they are high in the water with strong kicks. But I think a big part of it was me guiding them to have the proper form from their earliest experiences in water. By the time they were in there on their own they could build from a solid foundation. I suspect most kids of swimmers have this same advantage.

[Anonymous]

At Tuckahoe, we start lessons in utero. The dryland program has to wait a bit longer but it kicks into high gear before they can walk.

[Anonymous]

It’s obviously not just training— if that were true, all kids in the same swim group should perform similarly, and they don’t. My second kid started swimming at a younger age (both summer & winter) than my oldest, but my oldest has always been significantly faster at the same age— even when he just swam in summer. Natural talent is relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At Tuckahoe, we start lessons in utero. The dryland program has to wait a bit longer but it kicks into high gear before they can walk.

love you

[Anonymous]

All of this talk of genetics versus training reminds me of my brother--he has always been a fantastic athlete. His first word was "ball." There was a kid in middle school who made a big deal out of how good he was at tennis, always taking lessons at the country club, etc. My brother had never played tennis --had never even picked up a racket-- and guess what, when they played each other in gym classes my brother beat him handily.

[Anonymous]

It is 80% genetics. Maybe more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s obviously not just training— if that were true, all kids in the same swim group should perform similarly, and they don’t. My second kid started swimming at a younger age (both summer & winter) than my oldest, but my oldest has always been significantly faster at the same age— even when he just swam in summer. Natural talent is relevant.

Right- It's genetics and ability also.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Money and willingness to pay $$ for year round teams and private lessons. Not genetics.

Definitely not the case. We’ve got a number of year round swimmers on our summer team and they are not particularly good (some don’t even make A meets). I’m sure they are better than they would be without swimming year round, but they still are not good.

It’s mostly about general athleticism, height and body type, particularly at younger ages. As you get older, you have to also train hard.

We've got a boy at our pool who used to swim year round, but dropped it in favor of lacrosse in middle school. He's still challenging pool records five years later because he's just a freak athlete.

We’ve got 10 year old girl who only swims during the summer. She beats every other 9-10 girl on our team (including 2 club swimmers) in every stroke and usually places first at A meets.

We’ve got one of those at our pool. But it’s just that she grew early and is at least a head taller than everyone else.

That’s what people mean by genetics.

Uh, no - if this girl grew early and is a head taller, she probably just had early puberty and is done growing. All the others will catch up and then pass her. Early puberty for most athletes is advantageous for a few years then the effect is reversed, as they hit their peak at an earlier age and typically end up shorter when others grow, continue to improve, and pass them in both size and speed.

Or the kid who was a head taller in K will end up being 5'11. Either is possible

There was a girl in my daughter’s pre-K class who was a whole head taller. She just kept growing. She hit puberty early and was 5’6”ish in 3rd or 4th grade. One could have said this about her, but she wasn’t done growing. She’s 6’4”, like her mom now. She’s 17 so, I hope for her sake she’s done growing. She plays volleyball, always has. Her dad was a volleyball player, mom was a runway model.

Lol, yeah - having a mom that’s 6’4 is a pretty good indication that a kid will be freakishly tall, especially since it’s likely that the dad is as tall or taller. That’s not really what anyone is talking about and shouldn’t have been a surprise. Not the same as the girl with normal height parents who hits 5’4 in 5th grade and stops growing. And not the same as the 6’4 dad and 5’3 mom who for some reason always expect the sons to be 6’4 like dad but almost never happens.

Also, it would be awful to be a 6’4 woman.

Definitely not awful to be a 6’4” woman. All of my DD’s babysitters are that height and were on full ride volleyball and rowing scholarships. Next they will go to Europe to play pro volleyball with their teammates and the rowers are on or will soon be on the national team prepping for Paris. They are stunning, strong, beautiful women who are also being recruited by top employers for their combined athletic/academic success.

The only downside is that my DD realizes she will probably only be 5’4” or so and can’t take after her idols and their hand me downs are really big on her!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of this talk of genetics versus training reminds me of my brother--he has always been a fantastic athlete. His first word was "ball." There was a kid in middle school who made a big deal out of how good he was at tennis, always taking lessons at the country club, etc. My brother had never played tennis --had never even picked up a racket-- and guess what, when they played each other in gym classes my brother beat him handily.

Ah the good ol days the good ol days