Competitive (Club) Swimming -- At what point is it fine for a child to leave a longtime sport?

[Anonymous]

Let your kid decide! If you try to pressure her to quit just because it looks like she's not going to the Olympics, what mind of example is that? She should chose based in what she enjoys and has time for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the 8 year old here.... Thank you so much for the advice. He did do winter swimming but at the end of the summer season gets beat out by a few athletic kids that did not winter swim and have more natural ability. And also more time over the summer to practice....

Anyways, we are only in for a few hours a week at this point so we will keep it up since he likes it. I hear there are some kids that are so good when they start that when things start to get tough they quit. We definitely wont be having that problem!

No one needs or wants him to be a superstar since there are other activities and academic stuff that he excels at. I just don't want him to end up feeling bad about himself, or spend a lot of time doing something that in the long run just isn't his thing. I guess its too early to say at this point so we will stick with it.

I want my kids to do things that they are bad at and have to work hard to be good at. My kids excel at a lot of stuff. I don't want them to only do stuff that is easy because I want them to learn to work for their goals. I wasn't really challenged in school until I got to college and then the whole "Wait, I have to work?" experience was disorienting and a shock to the system.

Totally agree. I will be thrilled if my LO does any kind of competitive swimming because think swimming is a life skill. Being a strong swimmer opens up so many doors - you can do all kinds of water sports, triathlons, sail and jus plain enjoy the beach and lake!

[Anonymous]

This is a great thread; I posted earlier about my 9 yo and our pending decision on how to approach swimming for the upcoming winter. I'm going to continue to encourage other sports and stick to 2x week non-meet winter swimming. No need to burn him out on swimming...he loves it and really looks forward to summer league. Would like to preserve this balance! Thanks everyone for sharing your thoughts and experiences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Mom of the 8 year old here.... Thank you so much for the advice. He did do winter swimming but at the end of the summer season gets beat out by a few athletic kids that did not winter swim and have more natural ability. And also more time over the summer to practice...

This happened to my 9 yo old, too. Some older kids who didnt do winter swim got much better by the end of the summer season. This was a good lesson for my kid, even though you worked hard, others are working hard too, and you cheer them on, you're all team mates and it's ok. Just work on your own times and have fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are the competitive area swim clubs so successful at getting parents to pay thousands of dollars of fees per year for programs where it seems that the same principle would apply as to our academic teams. (I.e., they are open to everyone, but are of greatest benefit to the most talented participants)?

Swimming is an individual as well as a team sport. The "supporting players" may not be earning points for their team but they get to participate in meets, they participate in practice, they improve their technique and their times and their endurance.

Those same parents would likely not pay if their children did not get to participate (e.g. if they only got to attend practice and never compete in a meet, if they weren't challenged and taught how to improve technique and times, etc) fully.

My child is not a star swimmer but aside from the competitive qualifying meets, she gets the same experience as a star swimmer. She might not get the same amount of access to the "best" coaches, if you consider only their stats on coaching star swimmers, but she gets the same amount of access to excellent coaches who suit where she is in swimming.

USA Swimming, the regional governing bodies (e.g., PVS), and the local, year-round, competitive club swim teams (e.g., RMSC, NCAP, The Fish, Machine, NOVA, Sea Devils), and the summer leagues (Prince Mont, MCSL, NVSL) have done an excellent job of recruiting an incredibly large base of young age-group swimmers. Swimming is now the second-most popular organized sport in the country for children. Last year (2012), membership in USA Swimming increased to a total of 300,884 active, year-round competitive swimmers across this nation. (Of the less than 50% who self-reported their ethnicity, .5% identified themselves as African American, 1.5% identified as Latino, 2.7% identified as Asian, and 20.1% identified as White).

Swimming's effective recruitment of an incredibly large (if not diverse) population of young swimmers is the single most important reason why U.S. swimming continues to outperform and dominate every other country in the world. First, because when you cast a wide net, you are bound to catch some very good fish. More U.S. children experience organized competitive swimming, at some point in their youth, than all but one other sport (soccer?). And I would argue that those who do engage in organized swimming have a more serious experience of it than those who attempt organized soccer (through AYSO, and local city or county leagues when they are very young).

In addition to catching some of the very best swimmers with the wide net it casts, swimming supports its most talented swimmers through the "subsidies" that the not-so-talented swimmers provide in annual club fees ($3,000+/yr.), and USA Swimming dues (approx. $60/annual to national and club). In almost no other sport does a base of almost 300,884 swimmers help to support through their fees and dues the top-level coaching and competition that USA Swimming does. Gymnasts and figure skaters, for example, often have to pay large, out-of-pocket-fees for their top-level coaching. In part, this is because swimming can be organized on a larger scale (pools are big, staggered practices provide more time still, and the star clubs can hire less-recognized coaches for the junior groups).

Take a top-level area talent competing on the national or world stage. That swimmer commands more of his/her coaches and club's time than $4,000+ they pay in dues every year. In fact, if coaches charged their top-level swimmers by the hours spent, it would be prohibitively expensive. The less-talented but still enthusiastic, competitive swimmer still also gets a lot of benefit, but could probably attain the same level of enjoyment and fitness with less hours. In many cases, this majority of competitive swimmers gets less than the $3,000+ in value that they pay.

Getting back to the comment above, to which I am responding, I do not know why the same principles of mass support cannot/are not translatable to academic teams on which everyone can compete, or even other sports in which everyone can join. Must be something in the water, I guess.

[Anonymous]

PP here again.

It is interesting to note that membership in USA Swimming and the year-round competitive swim clubs peaks around the 11-12 age group, with about 35,000 swimmers.

By age 18, a still-sizable 12,000 year-round competitive club swimmers are registered under USA Swimming.

[Anonymous]

Imagine if so many people (300,000) would come together to generously support academic summer bridge programs for their own children and those who from academically underserved communities. I will not hold my breath though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:USA Swimming, the regional governing bodies (e.g., PVS), and the local, year-round, competitive club swim teams (e.g., RMSC, NCAP, The Fish, Machine, NOVA, Sea Devils), and the summer leagues (Prince Mont, MCSL, NVSL) have done an excellent job of recruiting an incredibly large base of young age-group swimmers. Swimming is now the second-most popular organized sport in the country for children. Last year (2012), membership in USA Swimming increased to a total of 300,884 active, year-round competitive swimmers across this nation. (Of the less than 50% who self-reported their ethnicity, .5% identified themselves as African American, 1.5% identified as Latino, 2.7% identified as Asian, and 20.1% identified as White).

Swimming's effective recruitment of an incredibly large (if not diverse) population of young swimmers is the single most important reason why U.S. swimming continues to outperform and dominate every other country in the world. First, because when you cast a wide net, you are bound to catch some very good fish. More U.S. children experience organized competitive swimming, at some point in their youth, than all but one other sport (soccer?). And I would argue that those who do engage in organized swimming have a more serious experience of it than those who attempt organized soccer (through AYSO, and local city or county leagues when they are very young).

In addition to catching some of the very best swimmers with the wide net it casts, swimming supports its most talented swimmers through the "subsidies" that the not-so-talented swimmers provide in annual club fees ($3,000+/yr.), and USA Swimming dues (approx. $60/annual to national and club). In almost no other sport does a base almost 300,884 athletes strong help to support through their fees and dues the top-level coaching and competition that USA Swimming does. Gymnasts and figure skaters, for example, often have to pay large, out-of-pocket-fees for their top-level coaching. In part, this is because swimming can be organized on a larger scale (pools are big, staggered practices provide more time still, and the star clubs can hire less-recognized coaches for the junior groups).

Take a top-level area talent competing on the national or world stage. That swimmer commands more of his/her coaches and club's time than $4,000+ they pay in dues every year. In fact, if coaches charged their top-level swimmers by the hours spent, it would be prohibitively expensive for that swimmer. The less-talented but still enthusiastic, competitive swimmer also gets much benefit, but could probably attain the same level of enjoyment and fitness with less hours. In most cases, the majority of competitive swimmers gets less than in value than the $3,000+ in fees they pay annually.

Getting back to the comment above, to which I am responding, I do not know why the same principles of mass support cannot/are not translatable to academic teams on which everyone can compete, or even to other sports which everyone can join.

Must be something in the water, I guess.

I think that there is a lot of segregation among the swimmers themselves based on talent level, in the context of year-round, competitive club swimming.

I recognize that the best swimmers and those of lesser ability need to practice in different groups (e.g., nationals or senior v. age group swimmers), with different coaches, and/or at different times.

However, unlike with summer swim teams there is usually little unity or socialization among the swimmers from the same team but different sites, or from the same site but different ability groups -- unless the kids already know each other as classmates, neighbors, or teammates from another sport or team.

[Anonymous]

PP at 17:08 and 17:45, you posted the same thing on two threads.

And for

In addition to catching some of the very best swimmers with the wide net it casts, swimming supports its most talented swimmers through the "subsidies" that the not-so-talented swimmers provide in annual club fees ($3,000+/yr.),

probably all of the parents of the "not-so-talented swimmers" don't have any problems with their money is "subsidizing" the "most talented swimmers", right? They couldn't be happier to be paying $3000+ that their kids don't benefit from, because Olympics USA USA yay.

[Anonymous]

Unless your child loves it, just quit. Once you do, you won't look back. It probably feels like a breakup because your child and family has put so much time into it and everyone else is still doing it. Once you quit it is so freeing, just move on to another activity. We learned this with our oldest dc. Things change many times in childhood. Friends, schools, activities, they just evolve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP at 17:08 and 17:45, you posted the same thing on two threads.

And for

In addition to catching some of the very best swimmers with the wide net it casts, swimming supports its most talented swimmers through the "subsidies" that the not-so-talented swimmers provide in annual club fees ($3,000+/yr.),

probably all of the parents of the "not-so-talented swimmers" don't have any problems with their money is "subsidizing" the "most talented swimmers", right? They couldn't be happier to be paying $3000+ that their kids don't benefit from, because Olympics USA USA yay.

I believe that this is the point another PP tried to make.

I do not think that the strong base of support for our swimming programs is jingoism (USA!) per say, but rather that we Americans really value our sports (at any level). My father, an immigrant to this country, was struck by how Americans appear (at least) to favor our sports as compared to the arts, music, and other intellectual pursuits.

Suppose that the schools asked our families to pay an average $1,500 fee to set up an after-school academic program to offer daily 2+ hours of instruction in mathematics and the sciences. The best students would be place in an accelerated group taught by current math and science professors from local universities, the good students to be taught by longtime local high school math and science teachers, and the struggling students would be taught by recent graduates of good schools like Virginia Tech.

The best students would be prepared for the national competitions (AMC 8, Siemens, National Science Bowl), but all students could participate in local and regional math and science events/competitions. This program might disproportionately benefit the best students, who would now have structured instruction, guidance, and support for their intellectual pursuits, but also undoubtedly beneficial to the good student or especially the struggling student who would now have the benefit of additional tutoring to gain a higher level of proficiency in academic areas which we "should" value (shouldn't being a good math or science student be as important as being a good swimmer?). The groups would additionally provide a setting for kids to socialize and interact with each other.

The same arrangement principles could presumably be applied to support extracurricular programs in music (youth orchestras, choirs), theater, the visual arts.

And yet I do not think that the parents who willingly pay $2,000+ in annual fees to swim programs for their kids to socialize and become "better" swimmers, would necessarily make the same investment for their child to become "better" in the academics or arts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP here again.

It is interesting to note that membership in USA Swimming and the year-round competitive swim clubs peaks around the 11-12 age group, with about 35,000 swimmers.

By age 18, a still-sizable 12,000 year-round competitive club swimmers are registered under USA Swimming.

Kids become more involved with middle school activities, including middle school sports, at that point. Makes sense to me.

[Anonymous]

And yet I do not think that the parents who willingly pay $2,000+ in annual fees to swim programs for their kids to socialize and become "better" swimmers, would necessarily make the same investment for their child to become "better" in the academics or arts.

I am the PP at 6:19. To clarify: I am not objecting to parents of non-Olympic swimmers subsidizing the parents of Olympic swimmers. I am objecting parents of non-Olympic swimmers unknowingly subsidizing the parents of Olympic swimmers. If USA Swimming (or whatever) offered the parents a choice:

1. Pay $3,000+, to cover both their own children and the extra the "most talented swimmers" use.
2. Pay $2,000 (or whatever), to cover their own children only.

I'm guessing that most parents would pick option #2.

But maybe they wouldn't, I don't know -- I'm not involved in competitive swimming (or competitive anything else).

[Anonymous]

I think most parents believe math is covered and paid for in school. Swimming is not. Parents are already paying taxes for their children to learn math or are actually paying a private school to teach them. Many also hire tutors or do belong to these competition math groups. This obsession with math beyond traditional school teaching (competitions etc) is a recent phenomenon. Getting along with others is something all children should learn. Swimming is a life safety skill. Not all children need to be extremely quick at math. They just need to understand it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most parents believe math is covered and paid for in school. Swimming is not. Parents are already paying taxes for their children to learn math or are actually paying a private school to teach them. Many also hire tutors or do belong to these competition math groups. This obsession with math beyond traditional school teaching (competitions etc) is a recent phenomenon. Getting along with others is something all children should learn. Swimming is a life safety skill. Not all children need to be extremely quick at math. They just need to understand it.

I would argue that math and science are also "life safety skills" in this world, but we do not think of them as such. If you want to achieve a basic level of proficiency in math and the sciences, as you do and can with most subjects through the regular school day then, yes, you would not need outside supplementation through extracurricular academic programs. But if you just want your child to achieve a basic level of proficiency in swimming, as a "life safety skill", then you do not need to invest $2,000+ in annual club fees, when swim classes at the Y or even a private swim instructor for 4 hours a week would do just fine. How is it the we have a base 300,000+ strong willing to invest in making their child a "better" swimmer, but no such base of support exists in these other important areas?