Why are great athletes more likely to be younger siblings?(fivethirtyeight.com)
fivethirtyeight.com
Why are great athletes more likely to be younger siblings?
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-great-athletes-more-likely-to-be-the-younger-siblings/
68 comments
This matches my experience in junior cricket.
At early ages, up to 12 ish, those with older siblings in the sport are a year or two ahead of those that don’t.
At 13 and up it starts to even out, as individual commitment and physical gifts play more of a role.
In the past, this has meant the wrong people are placed on the development programs and a lot of talent being lost, but it’s changing now.
It’s all about retention until well into teenage years
At early ages, up to 12 ish, those with older siblings in the sport are a year or two ahead of those that don’t.
At 13 and up it starts to even out, as individual commitment and physical gifts play more of a role.
In the past, this has meant the wrong people are placed on the development programs and a lot of talent being lost, but it’s changing now.
It’s all about retention until well into teenage years
Were you a swimmer?
One of the studies found that only 5% of the athletes they studied were only children. That presumably means 95% of the athletes had siblings.
Using 1999 data [1], 52% of US families had no children, 20% had one child, 18% had two children, 7% had 3 children, and 3% had 4 or more children.
That means that of children who had siblings in 1999, at least 59% had at least one older sibling, and at most 41% were the oldest sibling. If position within multi-sibling families was independent of chances of becoming a great athlete, we would expect great athletes to be more likely to be younger siblings simply because there are more younger siblings.
If we toss only children athletes in with the oldest child athletes from multi-child families, it doesn't make much difference because with only 5% of athletes being only children there simply aren't enough to tip the balance. It only brings it down to 56% have at least one older sibling, 44% do not have an older sibling.
This suggests that a better question would be "Why are only children less likely to become great athletes?"
[1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/trends-well-being-americas-child...
Using 1999 data [1], 52% of US families had no children, 20% had one child, 18% had two children, 7% had 3 children, and 3% had 4 or more children.
That means that of children who had siblings in 1999, at least 59% had at least one older sibling, and at most 41% were the oldest sibling. If position within multi-sibling families was independent of chances of becoming a great athlete, we would expect great athletes to be more likely to be younger siblings simply because there are more younger siblings.
If we toss only children athletes in with the oldest child athletes from multi-child families, it doesn't make much difference because with only 5% of athletes being only children there simply aren't enough to tip the balance. It only brings it down to 56% have at least one older sibling, 44% do not have an older sibling.
This suggests that a better question would be "Why are only children less likely to become great athletes?"
[1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/report/trends-well-being-americas-child...
In the study mentioned in original article seems to account for this by comparing elite and near-elite athletes, and having found they had the same number of siblings.
"On average, the two groups had the same number of total siblings. What mattered was whether those siblings were younger or older. The elite athletes had 1.04 older siblings on average; nonelite athletes had only 0.61."
I think this ratio is greater than what you find in the general population analysis.
"On average, the two groups had the same number of total siblings. What mattered was whether those siblings were younger or older. The elite athletes had 1.04 older siblings on average; nonelite athletes had only 0.61."
I think this ratio is greater than what you find in the general population analysis.
> Using 1999 data [1], 52% of US families had no children, 20% had one child, 18% had two children, 7% had 3 children, and 3% had 4 or more children.
52% no children made do a double take and I'm glad I did. I think the issue with your calculation is that some of the families will eventually have more children than they did at the time of measurement. So number of children is biased downwards.
52% no children made do a double take and I'm glad I did. I think the issue with your calculation is that some of the families will eventually have more children than they did at the time of measurement. So number of children is biased downwards.
An observation is that single-child families are correlated with higher academic level as well as higher socioeconomic level.
I wonder if that's a major part of the reason or if there are other more significant factors.
I wonder if that's a major part of the reason or if there are other more significant factors.
As an only child, my guess would be because I had no one to play with. Even if you have friends, siblings are far more accessible to go out and do something sporty with. In fact, your parents might even be telling the lot of you to go play.
One factor this article might miss is a pure fitness aspect. I had older siblings and a father who often coached their teams, and credited much of my fitness level in elementary school to having attempted to run laps with kids 6.5 years older than me when I was a toddler and kindergartener.
I think, assuming the older one is athlete as well, the younger one gets to practice and learn from not only a great athlete but also a 'coach' who can give personal fine tuned feedback. I might be biased but for the youger sibling all learnings are almost ready made, they can just absorb if they are interested in that sport and it is very easy because it is very easy for them to connect with the elder brother/sister . Just my opinion, however biased it may be (speaking as an elder brother & athlete)
I don't know about other people, but I always gave my best when competing with my younger sibling. I have to imagine the tenacity that develops in such a situation is extremely valuable. They don't look to win, since they know they won't, instead, they look for a series of micro-victories. Which means they learn to constantly analyze their opponents and wait patiently for the opportunity to best them in some small aspect.
I used to teach jujitsu when I was younger. My younger (by 5 years) cousin was a student there and he loved to practice with me outside of class. I remember one time we were doing some informal practice in the afternoon, and during a standing grapple, something distracted me at the door of the gym. In an instant, he grabbed my leg and slammed me hard into the ground. I was totally shocked and he wasted no time jumping up and down, celebrating for a good 5 minutes. He was absolutely as excited as he would have been had he won a championship match.
I'm guessing he had that move planned for weeks or months before ever getting the opportunity to execute it.
I used to teach jujitsu when I was younger. My younger (by 5 years) cousin was a student there and he loved to practice with me outside of class. I remember one time we were doing some informal practice in the afternoon, and during a standing grapple, something distracted me at the door of the gym. In an instant, he grabbed my leg and slammed me hard into the ground. I was totally shocked and he wasted no time jumping up and down, celebrating for a good 5 minutes. He was absolutely as excited as he would have been had he won a championship match.
I'm guessing he had that move planned for weeks or months before ever getting the opportunity to execute it.
But he did, haha.
It is very true. I would add that there is another key factor. Not all kids are this driven. The ones that are willing to do whatever it takes to keep up do have that drive. Combine drive and bigger/better/faster/stronger competition and that is a recipe for success at most anything.
I have this situation with my daughters. My son, the youngest, isn't much interested in baseball yet.
I played baseball, not at a high level or anything special, but I played and loved it. Then I had kids, the first two girls, and I got them started with fastpitch softball. It took me awhile to get up to speed with what I'll call "modern training methods" - and did a lot of trial and, unfortunately, error with my oldest daughter.
I've coached both of them and I can say that when I started training my younger daughter how to hit, at age 6, I had about 4 years worth of modern training/coaching knowledge fresh in my head. My older kid, who started at 9, had a dad who kind of knew how it worked, but it was rusty.
So what I ended up with is an older daughter who became great, eventually, around 14u, but spent a lot of time on the bench and a lot of time spent re-learning how to correctly do things.
Then I have a 10 year old (at the moment) who was taught the correct way to do everything, from step 1.
Currently, the only objective results I can give you is that I had one kid who didn't make any teams for two entire seasons before making one because we attended 90% of their practices (open practices). Then I had another kid who has only not made one team in the last 2 years. This fall she made 4 out of 4 teams that she tried out for. She finally failed to make a team when we went over a large organization in Oklahoma that plays at an extremely high level, and they were only looking for 2 more players to complete their roster.
I played baseball, not at a high level or anything special, but I played and loved it. Then I had kids, the first two girls, and I got them started with fastpitch softball. It took me awhile to get up to speed with what I'll call "modern training methods" - and did a lot of trial and, unfortunately, error with my oldest daughter.
I've coached both of them and I can say that when I started training my younger daughter how to hit, at age 6, I had about 4 years worth of modern training/coaching knowledge fresh in my head. My older kid, who started at 9, had a dad who kind of knew how it worked, but it was rusty.
So what I ended up with is an older daughter who became great, eventually, around 14u, but spent a lot of time on the bench and a lot of time spent re-learning how to correctly do things.
Then I have a 10 year old (at the moment) who was taught the correct way to do everything, from step 1.
Currently, the only objective results I can give you is that I had one kid who didn't make any teams for two entire seasons before making one because we attended 90% of their practices (open practices). Then I had another kid who has only not made one team in the last 2 years. This fall she made 4 out of 4 teams that she tried out for. She finally failed to make a team when we went over a large organization in Oklahoma that plays at an extremely high level, and they were only looking for 2 more players to complete their roster.
Not mentioned in your story is birth month of your two daughters, and how that aligned with the sports season. Its been shown that there are a greater percentage of summer birthdays in professional baseball, as an example. Older kids in the age group (particularly at young ages) have a developmental advantage going in compared to younger kids, which can result in more reps, more opportunities to improve, and more playing time. This all compounds over the youth years.
https://slate.com/culture/2008/04/why-do-so-many-pro-basebal... https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/why-many-olym...
https://slate.com/culture/2008/04/why-do-so-many-pro-basebal... https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/why-many-olym...
I have read about that too. In my situation it's backwards. My older daughter is Feb, younger is Oct. In fastpitch the season turns with the calendar, so the Feb birth month would have the advantage.
Another "hearsay" tale I can relay is from my childhood. We'd play wiffleball very seriously in our neighborhood. To the point that we kept summer stats. The pitchers in those games, those leagues, were little brothers throwing full speed. Because us older boys (10-13) threw too hard. My brother and my friends brother were the main pitchers, at like age 7-8, and went on to be very successful baseball players.
Ha! Keeping wiffleball stats. That's great.
The real question is did you make an APBA card for yourself based on those stats
http://apbagames.com/apbabaseball
http://apbagames.com/wp-content/uploads/baseball/APBA_own_ca...
The real question is did you make an APBA card for yourself based on those stats
http://apbagames.com/apbabaseball
http://apbagames.com/wp-content/uploads/baseball/APBA_own_ca...
Next year she is ready and going to kill it. I wonder if acting would help kids to get a better grip on reality.
> The amount of informal play that athletes do may also be a predictor of who goes on to become elite. A study comparing soccer players who were offered scholarships from Premier League academies at age 16 with players who were released found that the two groups had accumulated a nearly identical number of hours in practice at their academies. But players offered scholarships had spent more than twice as much time per year on informal soccer play — games with family and friends in local streets and parks — than the players who were released. The NBA has also noted that informal play exposes children to more variables — like different roles and positions, court sizes and numbers of players — which can accelerate skill development, creating “smarter learners” used to adapting.
This seems like such a strange thing to conclude. It seems like this could be driven entirely by there being a much larger variation in the number of hours of informal practice than the number of hours in formal practice.
This seems like such a strange thing to conclude. It seems like this could be driven entirely by there being a much larger variation in the number of hours of informal practice than the number of hours in formal practice.
in the soccer community at least, it's well known that you have to move a kid up in age groups to accelerate development
Is this in reaction to a child need to move up to match competition at his level. Or is this done even for kids who are average or maybe a bit above average at his own age group?
I have experienced this myself...
If you are average in your level, and move one level up, you will suck at that level. You will probably be below average and struggle. <- Important keyword
When you move back to your level, you will be above average. Your teammates will feel slow, you can anticipate/read read the game much better... etc.. etc..
It seems that 'struggle' at the higher level, forces players to learn much faster. It can have un-intended consequences in some though (give up playing). You, when going a level up, it has to be a level you can still manage.
eg. a 9yo (second grade), could manage to play with 10yo (third grade), but would never be able to cope with 11-12+ yo (fourth grade)
If you are an adult recreational player, you could move from lower-intermediate, to upper intermediate, but you will flame out at a semi-competitive level.
If you are average in your level, and move one level up, you will suck at that level. You will probably be below average and struggle. <- Important keyword
When you move back to your level, you will be above average. Your teammates will feel slow, you can anticipate/read read the game much better... etc.. etc..
It seems that 'struggle' at the higher level, forces players to learn much faster. It can have un-intended consequences in some though (give up playing). You, when going a level up, it has to be a level you can still manage.
eg. a 9yo (second grade), could manage to play with 10yo (third grade), but would never be able to cope with 11-12+ yo (fourth grade)
If you are an adult recreational player, you could move from lower-intermediate, to upper intermediate, but you will flame out at a semi-competitive level.
It's the same with a lot (probably all) of sports. I've played tennis semi-seriously since I was four-years-old (by late-teens I could hold my own with people who got tennis scholarships to the states (I'm in the UK)), and by far the best way to get better is to play with people who are better than you.
If you just play with people the same level, or if you are the best amongst the people you play with, you have no reason to learn new techniques or figure out how to read serves or position yourself on the court etc.
For example, when I started playing with the scholarship guys I had to learn a kick second serve (top spin serve that bounces very high to opponent's backhand) or they were just smacking them for winners every time.
Obviously you can't advance too quickly or it would be like neophytes playing with experts, but amongst the people I played with it was accepted that you always wanted to be playing the people who were better than you.
If you just play with people the same level, or if you are the best amongst the people you play with, you have no reason to learn new techniques or figure out how to read serves or position yourself on the court etc.
For example, when I started playing with the scholarship guys I had to learn a kick second serve (top spin serve that bounces very high to opponent's backhand) or they were just smacking them for winners every time.
Obviously you can't advance too quickly or it would be like neophytes playing with experts, but amongst the people I played with it was accepted that you always wanted to be playing the people who were better than you.
I think that's also why it makes sense for girls to play with and compete against boys.
I would expect that some kids would give up a sport when moved up an age group. Maybe this effect is less when they are also with an older sibling.
I think that's the risk-reward trade-off. At the most elite levels, it'll all be about survivor bias. So even if that technique only works some of the time, those that it works on will have a better chance of becoming elite.
I see this in wrestling all the time.
First off, the biggest influence would seem to be having a parent who is a coach or competed at a high level. I don't see how this would change by birth order as all the kids are likely wrestling before they walk.
For kids with parents new to the sport, I see a couple possible reasons. First and foremost I would say that having an bigger/stronger sibling to spar with benefits the younger child more than the other. I can also assure you that at least with wrestling, this happens throughout the day, anywhere in the house. Even for other sports, I can see this happening. Show up a bit early and pass the ball around, or warmup with techniques. The younger child will be be exposed to someone with slightly better technique on a regular basis.
The other factor I see is that the parents just have a better idea of how it works. Which tournaments/camps/clubs to sign up for outside the regular scholastic season.
Also, the younger sibling may just start earlier. You're already dragging them along to all the tournaments and clubs anyway, may as well sign them up, too. So they end up starting a couple years earlier.
First off, the biggest influence would seem to be having a parent who is a coach or competed at a high level. I don't see how this would change by birth order as all the kids are likely wrestling before they walk.
For kids with parents new to the sport, I see a couple possible reasons. First and foremost I would say that having an bigger/stronger sibling to spar with benefits the younger child more than the other. I can also assure you that at least with wrestling, this happens throughout the day, anywhere in the house. Even for other sports, I can see this happening. Show up a bit early and pass the ball around, or warmup with techniques. The younger child will be be exposed to someone with slightly better technique on a regular basis.
The other factor I see is that the parents just have a better idea of how it works. Which tournaments/camps/clubs to sign up for outside the regular scholastic season.
Also, the younger sibling may just start earlier. You're already dragging them along to all the tournaments and clubs anyway, may as well sign them up, too. So they end up starting a couple years earlier.
I think you mean actual wrestling. But I experienced growing up with informal wrestling (like at home on the bed during sleep overs). I was oldest by a decade so nearly a only child from this perspective. But my friends with older brothers would dominate. Even later, when there was a playground fight the kids with older brothers were most victorious. Around puberty I self selected out of all the physical stuff; sports and physical conflict. And I’m pretty athletic. I just went towards sports that were more solo oriented.
My decade younger brothers, tough as nails. We still horseplay wrestled and all that. I’ve always attributed to Growing up with a teenage version of me during their younger years before I left home.
My decade younger brothers, tough as nails. We still horseplay wrestled and all that. I’ve always attributed to Growing up with a teenage version of me during their younger years before I left home.
You see it in skateboarding and music as well. Older sibling or parent is the gateway and having someone around with above average talent to train and learn from gives the younger sibling (the apprentice) a big head start on their competition.
One aspect that isn't mentioned that I think probably has a huge impact: money.
Not talking about whether the older siblings' career makes money that's used for the younger, although that might be the case as well. Instead, by the time the younger starts the parents probably have more of it. Given that for academic success money is a huge factor, I'd wager it's in sports as well.
Not talking about whether the older siblings' career makes money that's used for the younger, although that might be the case as well. Instead, by the time the younger starts the parents probably have more of it. Given that for academic success money is a huge factor, I'd wager it's in sports as well.
Related:
> Recent research has consistently found that earlier born children score slightly higher on average on measures of intelligence, but has found zero, or almost zero, robust effect of birth order on personality.
(Wikipedia, citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order#cite_note-:0-2)
> Recent research has consistently found that earlier born children score slightly higher on average on measures of intelligence, but has found zero, or almost zero, robust effect of birth order on personality.
(Wikipedia, citing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_order#cite_note-:0-2)
Thanks. I've been finding more and more "things everyone knows is true" that turn out to be false lately, and they're always things you'd never suspect.
I'd always assumed the idea of youngest siblings being the most extroverted, personable, bubbly etc. was supported by studies, it's such an "obvious" fact. Very valuable to find out it's yet another unfounded assumption!
Always useful to spread these things.
I'd always assumed the idea of youngest siblings being the most extroverted, personable, bubbly etc. was supported by studies, it's such an "obvious" fact. Very valuable to find out it's yet another unfounded assumption!
Always useful to spread these things.
The research itself does say “This finding contradicts lay beliefs and prominent scientific theories alike”¹, though “On the basis of the high statistical power and the consistent results across samples and analytical designs, we must conclude that birth order does not have a lasting effect on broad personality traits outside of the intellectual domain.” (end of the abstract’s first paragraph https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655522/#idm140...).
¹Last sentence of §Significance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655522/#idm140...
¹Last sentence of §Significance https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4655522/#idm140...
This is a really cool topic to me, I vaguely remember coming across a book on how birth order determines personality (or life), but I can't remember it now. Diving into that link to try to find...
Would also be interesting to know about single children intelligence vs children with siblings etc. Not only averages, but percentage of geniuses and other small details like this.
Is this only true for sports? My older brother has always acted as a kind of trailblazer for me (at school and in all aspects of life). I've been "drafting" behind him most of my life, so I wouldn't be surprised if I've had less stress overall and could therefore afford to take on even more one day..
did you find a way to pay it back?
This is easy you get to figure out what they know without their mistakes. My brother taught me to dribble, pass, shoot, tackle, and throw. I'm much better at them but he had to teach himself. He learn how to dribble left and right cause he saw how it hampered him to he forced me to learn. Its pretty standard to do that
I saw some of this when my son was in kid sports. A lot of the better soccer players had an older brother or sister.
yep, they get to practice with better players. Ideal learning is with people better than you, but not at a completely different level (since then you won't understand what they do or won't be able to imitate).
A lot of (really anyone who isn't already elite level) high school athletes realize this when they go to college. I wrestled in college and it was like starting over. I went from being one of the best wrestlers in my state to being one of the worst wrestlers at my Division II small not that great wrestling team.
By my second year I'd closed the gap considerably as had many of the other incoming freshmen who returned for a second year. Two of the freshmen were actually ready to compete their freshmen year and I found out later that they had practiced with college wrestlers quite a lot during their high school careers.
I heard someone once say compare yourself to those at the level above you rather than your current level. It's a bit draining but it is a good way to progress quickly for athletes.
By my second year I'd closed the gap considerably as had many of the other incoming freshmen who returned for a second year. Two of the freshmen were actually ready to compete their freshmen year and I found out later that they had practiced with college wrestlers quite a lot during their high school careers.
I heard someone once say compare yourself to those at the level above you rather than your current level. It's a bit draining but it is a good way to progress quickly for athletes.
Collegiate wrestling is no joke. Everyone in the room placed in state. So everyone that you were looking at competing against in that one match at the end of the year in high school...well, they're your practice partner now. Oh, and they've put on 3 years of man strength.
My son is (theoretically) wrestling D2 as a freshman this year. I ask him, "do you feel you belong in the room?" He says, "they all know so much more than I do." Yea, that's because they're practicing against guys that can stop the first move.
My son is (theoretically) wrestling D2 as a freshman this year. I ask him, "do you feel you belong in the room?" He says, "they all know so much more than I do." Yea, that's because they're practicing against guys that can stop the first move.
Exactly. My first wrestling partner in college was 26. I was 19. I felt like a child.
Yes, competing "one level up" is a nice short way of puting it.
yeah, but I don't think your anecdote matches with the claim that "great athletes" are likely to be younger siblings, especially if you go with the MJ/Serena Williams examples as guides for what qualifies as greatness. Those little kids you observed were not the next Messi, they were just a little better than average. I can see how playing with older siblings makes an ok athlete slightly better, but I think this advantage washes out by the time you get to the top level of a sport, and you've reached your genetic ceiling.
As long as we're throwing around anecdata, Vincenzo Nibali and Peter Sagan are both far, far better cyclists than their younger brothers.
As long as we're throwing around anecdata, Vincenzo Nibali and Peter Sagan are both far, far better cyclists than their younger brothers.
Messi is a good example, too. Lionel's the youngest of three brothers, and growing up played with them, as well as two cousins (one older, one a little younger), who themselves became professional soccer players. And he is clearly the best of the bunch.
edit: also, fact check: Juraj is in fact Peter Sagan's older brother. Peter is a youngest child, as should be obvious by his antics ;)
edit: also, fact check: Juraj is in fact Peter Sagan's older brother. Peter is a youngest child, as should be obvious by his antics ;)
oops
well, what's your excuse now Antonio?
well, what's your excuse now Antonio?
This reminds me of children being intensively tutored by parents in some parental domain of exceptional expertise. They both illustrate developmental/educational environments having impacts dramatic. Any similar illustrations come to mind?
Looking ahead to edtech that is personalized collaborative remote mobile XR with human-AI hybrid NPCs, etc... there's a question of what should we be aiming for? What constitutes success? Is there potential for low-hanging "OMG!" fruit? If 80% of US high-school graduates were to achieve the science understanding of current Harvard entering freshman, would that be a stunning success, or an abject failure? Or both? Having a collection of "here's an illustration of really good outcomes" might help broaden vision and expectation.
Looking ahead to edtech that is personalized collaborative remote mobile XR with human-AI hybrid NPCs, etc... there's a question of what should we be aiming for? What constitutes success? Is there potential for low-hanging "OMG!" fruit? If 80% of US high-school graduates were to achieve the science understanding of current Harvard entering freshman, would that be a stunning success, or an abject failure? Or both? Having a collection of "here's an illustration of really good outcomes" might help broaden vision and expectation.
I taught my older son to bike like all parents by breaking my back running along them. All stressed out he will die if he falls.
It took a week or so.
His younger brother learned in 15 minutes when we were on vacation because otherwise he woukd not have been able to play with him and some friends.
The key thing is that the older brother won't have much pity, either you follow or you don't.
I saw that in plenty other cases where the younger one had to learn fast, and he learned much quicker and earlier too.
Us being imperfect parents, he also watched some movies earlier than his brother did.
I find on my one data point analysis that the way children are raised are very different between siblings.
It took a week or so.
His younger brother learned in 15 minutes when we were on vacation because otherwise he woukd not have been able to play with him and some friends.
The key thing is that the older brother won't have much pity, either you follow or you don't.
I saw that in plenty other cases where the younger one had to learn fast, and he learned much quicker and earlier too.
Us being imperfect parents, he also watched some movies earlier than his brother did.
I find on my one data point analysis that the way children are raised are very different between siblings.
I've definitely noticed a sibling phenomenon among good fencers. A lot of the top fencers have siblings who also fence. To the point where I can name several sibling duos in the fencing community.
Could it also be that younger siblings get parents who are a little richer and gotten over the sticker shock of being a top athlete? A lot of top youth sports require an obscene amount of money to get to the top levels. Maybe by kid #2 the parents are okay with junior's sport costing them a few thousand a month.
Could it also be that younger siblings get parents who are a little richer and gotten over the sticker shock of being a top athlete? A lot of top youth sports require an obscene amount of money to get to the top levels. Maybe by kid #2 the parents are okay with junior's sport costing them a few thousand a month.
> Could it also be that younger siblings get parents who are a little richer and gotten over the sticker shock of being a top athlete?
If the older sibling was in the same sport, younger siblings get parents that are more experienced in navigating & supporting training, etc., which probably extends beyond just price sticker shock. They may even get a boost directly from interaction with their older sibling. (I know that seems to be the case with general knowledge and skills development with my two young kids.)
If the older sibling was in the same sport, younger siblings get parents that are more experienced in navigating & supporting training, etc., which probably extends beyond just price sticker shock. They may even get a boost directly from interaction with their older sibling. (I know that seems to be the case with general knowledge and skills development with my two young kids.)
> a few thousand a month
Is this literal? How does it break down? I guess you have to travel to a lot of tournaments, fix/replace a lot of expensive equipment, and pay for private coaching?
Is this literal? How does it break down? I guess you have to travel to a lot of tournaments, fix/replace a lot of expensive equipment, and pay for private coaching?
Yep, unfortunately. Private fencing lessons cost about 95 dollars. You want around 2 a week plus 2-3 group classes which cost 45 dollars. That's already 280-325 dollars a week. Add on flying to both domestic and international tournaments, which is easily a thousand just for flights and hotels, not to mention strip coaching fees and other random costs (airline lost your baggage? Guess you gotta buy a whole new set of fencing gear!). Oh and the club membership costs a thousand a year and there's fencing camp in the summer for $1500.
Gear may seem expensive but it's really not in comparison. Blades will cost you about 100-120 a pop, they break every 6 months, a year if you're careful. Full international grade gear you could do for under 1000 dollars.
Granted this is the insane top of the top. But I do know quite a few parents who pay for this.
Gear may seem expensive but it's really not in comparison. Blades will cost you about 100-120 a pop, they break every 6 months, a year if you're careful. Full international grade gear you could do for under 1000 dollars.
Granted this is the insane top of the top. But I do know quite a few parents who pay for this.
Thanks (very belatedly) for the breakdown! It's one of those things that makes sense in detail but still feels surprising in aggregate.
Private lessons on the close order of $100 two, or maybe more, times a week, plus group classes several times a week for maybe another $100, plus travel, plus equipment, plus competition fees, is probably true for lots of individual sports. For most the lessons will be the big expenses.
Yeah, I guess this was probably going on even in some of the sports I played as a junior, like tennis -- it's just that I was never near the top tier, where that level of expense would begin to seem possible/necessary.
The greatest female chess player of all time is Judit Polgar. Her two older sisters are a grandmaster and international master.
Huh, in my anecdotal experience the older sibling is always wayyyy better and i always attribute that to the first sibling being an only child and therefore developing more independent traits and learns to count on themselves which allows them to better excel.
It was definitely was the case when I was growing up that the younger siblings were better, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's faded now that there are more things to do. When I was a kid playing sports in the immediate neighborhood (thus with siblings included vs wider area where you could just rely on friends) seemed so much more fun than other alternatives, but now with games being more and more fancy and addictive I don't think that would still be the case.
If you look at many top professional performers, it usually seems like the younger siblings are better. Haven't read the article yet, but my theory would be that the younger brother gets to practice against his sibling that's a year or two older. My guess would be that this would be particular to sports where 1v1 is a priority like tennis or basketball.
As the article mentioned, parents being able to navigate the sport hierarchy, is very helpful.
As the youngest I can now eat the most food fastest.. I had to if I was to get any seconds
As one ages, this is less of an advantage.
Counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wayne_Gretzky
However, I matured faster than my brothers and, having been able to observe them, picked up proper techniques and approaches to training earlier than they did. As a result, I broke many of their age-group records. Once I stopped growing, however, it came down to who had the most physical / mental talent (not me).
The other thing to mention is access to training. When I was in middle school, I was able to train with the high school team because my middle brother included me. I even got to go on the winter training trip to Florida with the high school team. That access to training with older kids who were bigger, faster and more mature accelerated my development both physically and mentally.