Acquisition of Skills - averages

[VegMom]

Clean and in competition? If looking at averages, it is statistically almost nil.

Yes but the stats for figure skating are skewed, as pointed out in this thread. Only a very select few people become high level elite figure skaters - not because of natural ability but because of both natural ability AND a ton of other factors. Just look at skaters - who is NOT represented? As skating becomes more accessible (more rinks, cheaper costs, less stigma for men, etc) and as technology improves (lighter and lighter boots, blades, and costumes) we will see more women doing quads. It's inevitable.

Forever, in every sport, people have said XYZ is impossible. And then someone does it. This will be the same. Women absolutely WILL be doing clean quads in competition within the next decade, especially if the new scoring system favors it.

 

[SmallAminal]

As someone who performs data analysis and statistics as part of my job, I'd like to add my 2 cents here:

1) It is impossible to determine whether the data is "accurate" as we have nothing to evaluate (i.e. the source data). I assume that the author could easily calculate averages, so lets assume that the averages are calculated correctly from the data gathered.

2) Even if the calculations are correct, we don't know if there is any bias in the sampling (collection of data). Did they unintentionally omit a relevant segment of the population (e.g. rural areas or kids in ISI)? We don't know how this data was gathered and whether we have a significant sample bias.

3) EVEN IF we assume there are no problems with #1 and #2, you have to ask yourself if "averages" are giving you any useful information? I would want to understand the dispersion of the data (is everything very tight around the averages or do we see data at basically every point on the scale). The data also does not control for other factors, such as motivation, quality of coaching, physical attributes, etc. and these would all be relevant.

So bottom line, the average data may not be very informative and I would strongly caution against drawing too many conclusions from it.

 

[jf12]

As someone who performs data analysis and statistics as part of my job, I'd like to add my 2 cents here:

1) It is impossible to determine whether the data is "accurate" as we have nothing to evaluate (i.e. the source data). I assume that the author could easily calculate averages, so lets assume that the averages are calculated correctly from the data gathered.

So bottom line, the average data may not be very informative and I would strongly caution against drawing too many conclusions from it.

I agree with you, there's almost no chance that this is from real data, because of how artificially smooth it is. It's clearly coaches/experts making educated guesses.

If you took real data, there are two ways to do the analysis, which is at each stage, ask each skater who can do an axel how long it took for them to do an axel, then each skater who can do a double axel how long it took for them to get that - in which case, it would be two totally different populations, and it could very well be that the average single axel acquisition time is LONGER than the average double axel acquisition time.

The other methodology, which i think they're trying to simulate here, is find the skaters who already achieved triples/quads and ask them how long it took them to get each step. But given that it kicks out every other skater who never got to that level, this is why the other posters are all saying that if your skater is just on single axel, and you're wondering if they're headed to nationals in their future, it's not going to be that relevant.

 

[concorde]

I found that to be a very bizarre table. There are so many variables that I am not sure how those averages can be calculated.

Is the skater male or female? At what age did the skater start? Then you need to factor in the coach's ability but also the skaters natural talent and drive.

And when are those averages taken? When the skater first landed the jump or when the jump is landed and fully clean?

 

[VegMom]

As for sampling data, this is indeed a problem. But we do know that USFSA is trying to collect data. For instance, after my skater did the first MITF test they emailed us a survey. The questions included how long as the skater been skating, how long did they practice on ice for the test, how much off ice time was spent in preparation, how many times did they take the test before passing, etc. So the first steps in getting better data are beginning - the USFSA is collecting data in the form of self selected, self reported data, which though that kind of data has errors, is a great first step in getting more accurate information relating to test track and competitive skaters. (Obv it won't include ISI skaters or skaters who are purely recreational and never register for tests).

2) Even if the calculations are correct, we don't know if there is any bias in the sampling (collection of data). Did they unintentionally omit a relevant segment of the population (e.g. rural areas or kids in ISI)? We don't know how this data was gathered and whether we have a significant sample bias.

As already stated it does omit skaters who are recreational skaters because they usually never reach the higher levels.

It's true that this was likely written by one coach after coaching for many years with input from other coaches. The fact that it closely resembles the chart in Skating Ahead of the Curve, written by a long time coach and choreographer suggests that these charts are more based on a handful of people's experience rather than raw data collected. BUT that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. Clearly we all value the information from our coaches. Would any serious skater even trust a coach who simply said something similar to what's been said in this thread, "There's no knowing the direction this skater will go and I have zero idea about the possible outcomes." No, we would not. We would trust a coach who said, "Well I think this skater has XY and Z but only time will tell if she has AB and C so I recommend a training schedule of MNO and a competition schedule of Q with skates and blades of R and P."

3) EVEN IF we assume there are no problems with #1 and #2, you have to ask yourself if "averages" are giving you any useful information?

For useful information, gkelly answered that here: http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...lls-averages&p=1871346&viewfull=1#post1871346

Also, if a skater seems to be progressing at the rate indicated by the chart (not necessarily the specific hours, but the rate - where a double takes about twice as long to acquire as a single and a triple takes three times as long*) but then seems to plateau for an unusually long period of time, a good coach would probably start looking for explanations - is there an underlying injury? is it time for new bigger or better boots or blades? do we need to take ballet lessons? is it time to add more flexibility or strength training to off ice practice? is there an emotional challenge?

For parents, I pointed out some uses in this post: http://www.goldenskate.com/forum/sh...lls-averages&p=1870454&viewfull=1#post1870454

Is the skater male or female? At what age did the skater start? Then you need to factor in the coach's ability but also the skaters natural talent and drive.

The article that accompanies the chart clearly states there are many factors.

As for male vs female, unfortunately I think there's really a data problem here since so few boys/men figure skate for long periods. I hear all kinds of sex/gender claims at the rink and here online that simply do not make sense from a statistical perspective. For instance, people are always attributing boy's successes to gender. But when boys struggle they don't mention gender at all. And all in all, there's more struggle. It simply doesn't add up or pass the sniff test.

And when are those averages taken? When the skater first landed the jump or when the jump is landed and fully clean?

It clearly says that it's when the jump is landed and fully clean.
It says: "The jumps on this chart are assumed to be fully rotated, performed correctly, and of a fairly consistent quality. The middle of the chart is a general schedule of skill acquisition based on total training volume shown in hours. [This chart] is meant to be a very general frame of reference and not a hard and fast schedule."

If you took real data, there are two ways to do the analysis, which is at each stage, ask each skater who can do an axel how long it took for them to do an axel, then each skater who can do a double axel how long it took for them to get that - in which case, it would be two totally different populations, and it could very well be that the average single axel acquisition time is LONGER than the average double axel acquisition time.

I agree that " it could very well be that the average single axel acquisition time is LONGER than the average double axel acquisition time." But IF that's the case, then that's even more reason to think that if a skater struggles to learn single axel then that skater will likely struggle more or give up learning the double axel. So there's utility there - if a skater is way behind the rate suggested by the chart, then it's likely they should pursue recreational skating and not competitive skating OR they need a better coach, better skates, more off ice training etc.

The other methodology, which i think they're trying to simulate here, is find the skaters who already achieved triples/quads and ask them how long it took them to get each step.

*Agreed. The smooth progression is very clearly a lack of data or some sort of bias. But there is still plenty of utility in ideas that aren't perfectly correct - refer to Newton's Laws.

But given that it kicks out every other skater who never got to that level, this is why the other posters are all saying that if your skater is just on single axel, and you're wondering if they're headed to nationals in their future, it's not going to be that relevant.

Obviously, that specific outcome can't be accurately predicted. BUT does anyone here really believe that at the stage of single axel you can't get a decent idea of whether or not this is going to be competitive vs recreational?

Edit to add: The biggest issue for me as a parent is that early specialization is REQUIRED for big success in figure skating but early specialization at sports results in SIGNIFICANT risks. So as a parent it's crucial to try to evaluate whether or not my skater's dreams of success are realistic. I want to develop this little human. But my athletic goals for my skater (to enjoy sport, to find lifelong fitness, to be healthy) seem to be at utter odds with my skater's chosen sport. My skater is super-passionate about this sport and my skater has a challenging personality that makes it difficult to redirect into activities for which he is not passionate. If he were progressing at a rate that suggested his goals were utterly unachievable, I would put more effort into diversifying his extracurriculars.

 

[jf12]

Obviously, that specific outcome can't be accurately predicted. BUT does anyone here really believe that at the stage of single axel you can't get a decent idea of whether or not this is going to be competitive vs recreational?

At the extremes, yes it might be predictive, in that Johnny Wier got his axel a week after getting on the ice, and on the other extreme, if your skater has been working on it fruitlessly for years and years its probably time to chill out. However there's many cases, not even outliers, where it would not really be wise to draw a ton of conclusions from this timeline. Some kids start skating at age 4, and many just won't get the axel until age 8 or so (4 years of skating) because they are weak and uncoordinated toddlers. After that, SOME of them tend to really get good very quickly - like get double axel very soon after single axel. And then, there are people who start post puberty (ages 12-20s), who are strong, can take instructions well, and have good coordination with history in other sports, should be able to get through the basic skills through single axel + beginning doubles probably sooner than this chart would imply. But, these skaters are also really unlikely to get triples. These are generalizations too, of course, but just what I've observed over time.

 

[SmallAminal]

It's true that this was likely written by one coach after coaching for many years with input from other coaches. The fact that it closely resembles the chart in Skating Ahead of the Curve, written by a long time coach and choreographer suggests that these charts are more based on a handful of people's experience rather than raw data collected. BUT that doesn't mean it isn't valuable. "

.

The statistician in me disagrees and I would disagree if this had been data on average salaries, educational outcomes, crop growth, etc. The *Average data* in this case, especially when their is sample bias and you know nothing about the standard deviation of the data, has limited informative value.

For example, if you have the following observations:
100, 100, 100, 100 , 100
the average is "100" and there is no variation in the data.

However, you can have the following data points and STILL get an average of "100"
0, 200 , 25, 50, 150, 175

The first example might indicate (if we control for other factors) that everyone in the sample achieved a goal by 100 hours (assuming no sample bias and statistically significant sample size). You might infer (assuming other factors are controlled for) that you are unlikely to reach the goal if you have already invested 120 hours.

The second example might indicate (same caveats) that there is a very wide variation in the time taken for achievement of the goal. Because of this, you might be less concerned with taking more than the "average" because there are plenty of people who fall above the "average" (which is just a statistical measure) but still get there.

My point being is that an average is a measure of central tendency only and its not always the most informative measure of central tendency, especially in absence of other descriptive information about the data. I would want to understand the distribution of the data (e.g. standard deviation) before drawing any useful conclusions from it.


This is my field of expertise, so I look at all the data analysis around me with a critical eye and I cringe at most of it. I understand the desire to want to compare against some sort of benchmark, but my point still remains - this average data has limited value on its face in absence of other information (and I didn't say it had *no* value, just that you should not rely on it heavily and draw too many conclusions). That doesn't mean that it isn't an "interesting" data point (maybe the launching point of a serious convo with your coach), but by no means does it give the whole story or enough to answer the sort of questions you are grappling with, which are weighty and have implications for the skater and family. To draw conclusions you would need more of the story. Perhaps if I had the actual data set, I could provide you with much more valuable insight into what the data is saying (if we ignore that it obviously has sample bias and other issues).

While it is a nice idea that someone was trying to start gathering data, it still doesn't change the fact that I wouldn't rely heavily on what the averages say for the reasons stated. You asked for comments on the data and these are mine. If you are looking for confirmation of a decision to rely on the data, sorry I can't give you that but I hope you find your answers.

Would it not be more useful to talk to a coach or other informed individual who can take into account a lot of the factors (your skaters age, ability, progress so far, etc.) to get an honest assessment of where they are and what their potential for progression would be given your personal circumstances? Obviously, this is not a "statistical" analysis, but in a way the coach is taking the data that they have "gathered" over their years of experience and will do a mental econometric model that takes into account all of these other factors. Is it statistically rigorous? No, but it would really pull on all of the information that the coach has about your skater and all of their skaters in the past. You can use the chart as the jumping off point for the conversation - say "I see that it says on avg it takes X hours to achieve Y" and then the coach can fill in with "in my experience lots of kids take longer but are successful (or maybe she says in her experience you fail if you don't hit the goal by that point)....." which is really the more useful information to you.

 

[Spinning]

At the extremes, yes it might be predictive, in that Johnny Wier got his axel a week after getting on the ice, and on the other extreme, if your skater has been working on it fruitlessly for years and years its probably time to chill out. However there's many cases, not even outliers, where it would not really be wise to draw a ton of conclusions from this timeline. Some kids start skating at age 4, and many just won't get the axel until age 8 or so (4 years of skating) because they are weak and uncoordinated toddlers. After that, SOME of them tend to really get good very quickly - like get double axel very soon after single axel. And then, there are people who start post puberty (ages 12-20s), who are strong, can take instructions well, and have good coordination with history in other sports, should be able to get through the basic skills through single axel + beginning doubles probably sooner than this chart would imply. But, these skaters are also really unlikely to get triples. These are generalizations too, of course, but just what I've observed over time.

I think Chafik Besseghier, the French skater started skating around 13-14.

Guidelines are just that "a guideline" not a Bible of figure skating. Using the average data to making life altering decision is a good start. I'm sure our OP is not going to base her decision solely on this guideline.

I know someone who used this data to determine her daughter progression in the past together with their coach es' suggestions. At least it gave her some ideas where the skaters stand.

I wish all the best for OP and her skater. Just enjoy the ride I say.

 

[concorde]

VegMom - I have completed the USFS survey after each test my daughter had passed. Even with those, there is a lot of variability.

On the East Coast (or at least those rinks near us), the push is for competitive skaters to pass their MIF tests ASAP. So passing all of those tests by age 10 or 11 is quite common. But then you go to other areas and you see that MIF and FS ratings are balanced.

And competition levels for competition skaters do not come close to matching FS levels. We had one girl at our rink skate Juvenile at Regionals - unfortunately she got 5th in her qualifying group so she did not reach the finals. At that point, she decided she was done with competing and decided to test out. By early spring, she had passed her senior FS.

So both the girl from my rink and Bradie T are Senior skaters and have passed their FS within the same year (If I remember correctly, Bradie has only been a senior about a year). Their jump skill sets are completely different. They get the same survey but if I temember correctly, it only asks how long it took to pass the test, how much you practice each week but nothing about actual jumping skills.

I am pointing this out because there are a lot of variables that go into when a skater decides to test and the survey does not begin to take into account these factors. These USFS only tests jump minimums and stops before a double axel.

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

VegMom - I have completed the USFS survey after each test my daughter had passed. Even with those, there is a lot of variability.

On the East Coast (or at least those rinks near us), the push is for competitive skaters to pass their MIF tests ASAP. So passing all of those tests by age 10 or 11 is quite common. But then you go to other areas and you see that MIF and FS ratings are balanced.

And competition levels for competition skaters do not come close to matching FS levels. We had one girl at our rink skate Juvenile at Regionals - unfortunately she got 5th in her qualifying group so she did not reach the finals. At that point, she decided she was done with competing and decided to test out. By early spring, she had passed her senior FS.

So both the girl from my rink and Bradie T are Senior skaters and have passed their FS within the same year (If I remember correctly, Bradie has only been a senior about a year). Their jump skill sets are completely different. They get the same survey but if I temember correctly, it only asks how long it took to pass the test, how much you practice each week but nothing about actual jumping skills.

I am pointing this out because there are a lot of variables that go into when a skater decides to test and the survey does not begin to take into account these factors. These USFS only tests jump minimums and stops before a double axel.

Thank you for saying this more detailed and eloquently that I was able to on page one. :agree:

 

[VegMom]

Would it not be more useful to talk to a coach or other informed individual who can take into account a lot of the factors (your skaters age, ability, progress so far, etc.) to get an honest assessment of where they are and what their potential for progression would be given your personal circumstances?

I do talk to and listen to the advice from the coach and people at the rink. The thing is, you always have to take coach's advice with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in trying to get you to buy more lessons. Or sell you skates. Or to quit your coach and move your kid to them.

Edit to add: This does not mean I don't trust my skater's coach. It just means that I recognize areas where there may be a conflict of interest or bias and thus these are areas where statements should be backed up with some evidence.

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

I do talk to and listen to the advice from the coach and people at the rink. The thing is, you always have to take coach's advice with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in trying to get you to buy more lessons. Or sell you skates. Or to quit your coach and move your kid to them.

But if you can't trust your child's coach, then there's a real problem.

The coach is the one person in the sport you should entrust that they are going to guide your kid well. And if you haven't found a coach like that then I would start running and find one that you can.

 

[loopy]

You have to trust your coach or find a different coach you can trust. No coach is making bank on students. They might make enough money to have comfortable lifestyle but they are up hours before dawn, are in an uncomfortable environment, work crazy hours and deal with kids and their parents all day and often have big time gaps in their schedule where there is no ice but no time to have a second job.

 

[AndreaRu]

I hear this a lot from parents... their kid is zipping through the levels, they have all their singles in just months, an axel in 18 months. What you need to take into account is not just the acquisition of a skill, but the quality of that skill. Parents are not the most objective observers (unless they are very familiar with the sport outside of their child's skating). There's a sweet spot for learning the axel -- some kids hit it pretty quickly when they start because they were the right age, had the right level of strength and coordination, etc. What you need to assess to understand the potential of a skater is the quality of that jump and how it combines with the other moves needed to be successful at the level where that jump can be used.

I have seen some kids get an axel pretty quickly... even a nice axel, better than some who have been skating longer. But in pretty much all of those cases, there is a significant skills gap. They have the axel, but do they have the necessary spins and footwork quality to compete at pre-pre well balanced outside of small basic skills competitions? Usually not. There is a whole spectrum of skating skills that go with getting "the jump." Also, there is a huge divide between having that axel and having a competitive axel that flows in and flows out, that has proper foot placement, and is fully rotated off the ice. These are things parents don't really see.

I've seen girls win at preliminary well balanced with nothing but singles against girls who are attempting cheated doubles. Judges don't care about one single jump -- they are looking at the whole package. Just getting an axel in 18 months isn't a significant indicator of future success, all things being equal.

 

[VegMom]

.

 

[4everchan]

I do talk to and listen to the advice from the coach and people at the rink. The thing is, you always have to take coach's advice with a grain of salt because they have a financial interest in trying to get you to buy more lessons. Or sell you skates. Or to quit your coach and move your kid to them.

Edit to add: This does not mean I don't trust my skater's coach. It just means that I recognize areas where there may be a conflict of interest or bias and thus these are areas where statements should be backed up with some evidence.

Here are my two cents and a half.. i am not a figure skating coach... but i am in a similar situation meaning that i have students that I train and coach and parents paying significant amounts of money to make that happen....

I will leave all the skill acquisition stuff behind as there is only one truth, I encourage students to progress but at their own rhythm... so there is no chart.... some students can acquire a very difficult skill and not master a basic one...e tc

regarding financial interest.. that's where it got me irked... because simply... that's not true.... my schedule is full. If a student leaves me, for whatever reason, i get another one... the aim of a good coach is to keep his/her best talent and help those kids develop into the best they can... we are not attached to your wallet... we are attached to the potential of a student...

I personally let go students who are not invested enough, who have difficult parents or who do not have the right attitude. Once a student is gone, another one will come in... and that one may be a better match for what I have to offer. This is something to remember.... there is a constant turnover with students for coaches teaching at early ages... so we expect it, and we plan for it, and as I said, in my case, my schedule being full, there is a waiting list so... if the coach of your child is in a similar situation as mine, it's really not for financial incentives that he/she is motivating your child..

Seems like your kid loves skating.. that's a beautiful thing.

ETA : luring students from other teachers into my studio : not happening. In such a small community, nobody wants to earn that kind of reputation of being a coach who "steals" students. So i don't accept transferring students unless their former teacher recommends them. I certainly do not go out of my way to impress students from other teachers either....

 

[concorde]

When my daughter first started skating, I would have loved to find a table like this so I can understand where the OP is going from. 8 years later, I understand why this table is ridiculous. Let me try to explain.

When you start skating plays an important role in gaining jumps. As a general rule, an 8 year old will acquire jumps much faster early on than a 3 year old since the 8 year old tends to be more coordinated and developed. So for an 8 year old to get all single jumps in 1 year is not far fetched but it would be for a 3 year old. But there are exceptions - I recently heard of a 4 year old with an axle. For competitive US female skaters, a 6 year old with a single axle is young but relatively common. Since most of those girls probably started skating around 3 or 4, they took 2-3 years to reach that point.

Now let us move to the mid-point and focus on double axels. The table says 5 years. If you go to the very top competitive female US skaters, 10 is the youngest I have heard of a girl getting one but 12 seems to be closer to the norm of when the girls can do then consistently. Either way, those numbers are well over what the table says since those girls would have been skating probably 7+ years.

I know a 13 year old male skater who started skating at age 2. He currently has all his triples except for the triple axle which he just started working on. According to this chart, he is behind the average since the triple axle is not yet in his arsenal.

Not sure how they got their quad data since the sample size is so small.

Fyi - I have been told that my daughter has "Talent" since her first set of group lessons at age 3. Over the years, I have pondered why the comments are being made but in the end we have decided that it does not matter. She loves skating so we continue to support her.

 

[VegMom]

Obviously, a skater starting at 2 years old is not going to follow some average skill acquisition chart. Same for someone who starts skating at age 16.
In fact, any sports done until about age 5 are really just about learning general coordination, following instructions, discovering interests and talents, etc. Sports don't really get serious until 5-8.
For kids who are not doing an early specialization sport (figure skating is early specialization) then it's suggested the best development plan is to keep doing a variety of sports and don't get serious until after puberty - those other sports the skills are much easier to acquire after puberty so it's better to do sport for general coordination, social reasons, etc and focus on the skills later.


I don't want to start a new thread, so I'm just going to add to this thread.
Here is a snippet from Skate Canada's Guide to Long-Term Athlete Development, which was linked in the thread "So you want to be a figure skater"
https://skatecanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Skate-Canada-LTAD-Model-EN.pdf

Five Basic S’s of Training
If we want to encourage our children in sport and lifelong activity, as well as create the potential to compete
internationally, we need to build our sport programs around principles that respect the developmental needs of
all children. LTAD is a progressive pathway of development that recognizes the distinct stages of physical, mental,
cognitive and emotional development in child athletes. The 10 S’s of training below provide more detail on the
windows of optimal trainability components.

Stamina (Endurance)
The optimal window of trainability for stamina occurs at the onset of the growth spurt. Aerobic capacity training is
recommended before children reach their fastest rate of growth. Aerobic power should be introduced progressively
after their growth rate decelerates.

Strength
The optimal window of trainability for girls is immediately after their fastest rate of growth and at the onset of
menarche (first menstruation), while for boys it is 12 to 18 months after their fastest rate of growth.

Speed
For boys, the first speed training window occurs between the ages of 7 and 9 years and the second window occurs
between the ages of 13 and 16. For girls, the first speed training window occurs between the ages of 6 and 8 years
and the second window occurs between the ages of 11 and 13 years.

Skill
The window for optimal skill training begins at the age of 9 for boys and the age of 8 for girls. This window ends at
the onset of the growth spurt (12).

Suppleness (Flexibility)
The optimal window of trainability for suppleness in both girls and boys occurs between the ages of 6 and 10. Special
attention should be paid to flexibility during the growth spurt.

Five Additional S’s of Training
Structure/Stature
The structure/stature component links the six stages of growth to the windows of optimal trainability. Coaches
and parents can use stature measurements (i.e. height) before, during, and after maturation as a guide for tracking
developmental age. Such tracking then allows coaches to address the critical or sensitive periods of physical
development (endurance, strength, speed and flexibility) and skill development. Diagnostics for identifying strengths
and weaknesses are critical for properly considering structure and stature in the design of training plans.

(p)Sychology
Sport is a physical and mental challenge. The ability to maintain high levels of concentration while remaining relaxed
and confident is a skill that transcends sport and enhances everyday life. To develop the mental focus for success
at high levels, young athletes need mental training that complements their physical training, designed specifically
for their gender and LTAD stage. Even at young ages, mental training is critical since dealing with success and failure
impacts children’s continuation in sport and physical activity.

Sustenance
When the body performs physical activity, it must be replenished with a broad range of components. Sustenance
prepares athletes for the volume and intensity required to optimize training and live life to the fullest. Sustenance
includes nutrition, hydration, rest, sleep, and regeneration – all of which need to be applied differently to training
and lifestyle plans depending on the LTAD stage. In managing sustenance and recovery, parents can assist coaches by
identifying fatigue. Fatigue can come in many forms including metabolic, neurological, psychological, environmental,
and travel fatigue. While overtraining or over-competition can lead to burnout, improperly addressing sustenance
can lead to the same result.

Schooling
In designing training programs, school demands must also be considered. Programs should account for school
academic loads, timing of exams, and school-based physical activities. When possible, training camps and
competitions should compliment, not conflict, with the timing of major academic events at school. Over-stress
should be monitored carefully, including the everyday stresses related to schooling, exams, peer groups, family,
boyfriend or girlfriend relationships, and increased training volume and intensities. Coaches and parents should work
together to establish a good balance between all factors.

Socio-Cultural
Sport and physical activities often present children with social and cultural experiences that can enhance their
holistic development. These experiences can broaden their socio-cultural perspective by providing increased
awareness of: Ethnicity, Diversity, History, Geography, Architecture, Cuisine, Literature, Music and visual art. Through
periodized annual planning, a child’s activity or sport can offer much more than a simple commute between the
activity venue and the home or hotel room.

 

[Seren]

The more important issue is the skater's desire to skate combined with their natural talent. The skill acquisition chart posted here is nice in theory, but not correct. You couldn't make a chart like that truly accurate, there are too many variables.

The real question is- does the child want to skate and how much do they want to skate. If a child loves skating but isn't necessarily gifted, is their skating less important than a more talented skaters? The majority of skaters won't get to double axels and triple jumps. That doesn't mean they can't take it seriously. I would be very wary about using a rigid measuring standard to measure a young skaters progress. I've seen skaters fly through levels and then get stuck, and I've seen skaters who were slower starters end up at higher levels.

The chart doesn't even touch at injuries.

 

[Ic3Rabbit]

The more important issue is the skater's desire to skate combined with their natural talent. The skill acquisition chart posted here is nice in theory, but not correct. You couldn't make a chart like that truly accurate, there are too many variables.

The real question is- does the child want to skate and how much do they want to skate. If a child loves skating but isn't necessarily gifted, is their skating less important than a more talented skaters? The majority of skaters won't get to double axels and triple jumps. That doesn't mean they can't take it seriously. I would be very wary about using a rigid measuring standard to measure a young skaters progress. I've seen skaters fly through levels and then get stuck, and I've seen skaters who were slower starters end up at higher levels.

The chart doesn't even touch at injuries.