Steve Magness@stevemagness
A rant: So many people intentionally misread the research on youth performers predicting adult performance.
We know the claims: either youth success doesn't predict adult success, or those who point to the Tiger Woods of the
The truth is much more nuanced.
On the extremes, we have the outliers of all outliers like Woods who are great at 5 and great at 25. We also have outliers on the other side, people who couldn't even walk on to a crappy D1 school, but ended up Olympians.
What most of the research and real world data shows is that there's no predictability of youth performance. Most of the people who make it were good or very good 12 year olds.
That's not the argument. The argument is if how predictable being great as a youth translates to adult success. Do the best 11 year olds become the best 20 year olds or at least some of the best?
And that answer is not very often.
Now, are the best 20+ year olds good or pretty good as kids? Of course. Most show some degree of talent. No one thinks that
That means success at 11 is somewhat predictive if we include the entire population of athletes.
But that's not the interesting question or the ones most care about. It's common sense to understand if you're running a 10 minute mile at 12, you're unlikely to run 3:55 at 22. Sure it might occur as an outlier, but most of the future sub 4 milers are going to be running 5 something for the mile at 12 at least.
But which one of those 4:40-5:40 milers at 12 actually makes it? That's where it's mostly a crapshoot.
That's the point. To make it real, take my Junior high cross-country district championship.
The guy who won? Didn't do anything in HS/XC.
Me in 2nd? 4-minute miler.
3rd-4th? Solid local HS XC runners, nothing special
the guy around 5th? D1 XC runner, one of the best in the state.
Another guy who wasn't very fast, maybe 15-20th became a borderline D1 recruit.
That's relatively normal. If you go through the yearly top 10-20-30 lists for youth track, you find similar predictability. Some kids do turn into later stars, but the predictability is poor. It's better than a random selection of HS runners. But it's mostly, once you are okay or kinda good pre-puberty, predictability drops. There's little difference between the good and the great 10 year olds in terms of future performance.
And that's what we're getting at. The top talent came from those "in the club" for the most part...but it's not that predictable.
Even after puberty, it's hit or miss. Take the top 20 all-time high school performers in any track event...how many make it? A handful. Many, never run a step faster. Most have some sort of success in college. The majority never make it to or near the top.
Take the top HS milers. It's a clear distinction:
-Made it at the highest level (Ryun, Fischer, Kessler, Liquori, etc.)
-Strong college success, haven't made jump to higher
-Didn't do much or derailed by injury (Danielson, Verzbikas, Slagowski, myself).
It's essentially like 25-30%, 30-40%, 20-30% for each group.
So of the greatest ever in HS, you get maybe at the highest level 30-35% who compete on the highest level.
So I get it, it sells on social media to make big claims in either direction. But I think most folks understand and get it. It's not that youth talent doesn't matter at all...it's that in the grand scheme the youth star seldom becomes the adult star. The adult star is often still "in the club" of pretty good.
But the point is freaking out over your 10 year olds success often backfires. Too often it results in premature specialization, overtraining, insane pressure, and all sorts of stuff that prevents them from reaching their potential.