Ed, good question, and one that I don't think should have to be answered. I know you can make an argument that forcing your kid into hardcore competition can pay dividends in the long (sometimes really long) run. If you read Andre Agassi's autobiography you'll hear him talk about how much he hated tennis when he was a kid, but his father forced him into it. Sure, 30 years and $30 million in prize winnings later, all those hours facing the ball machine that he called "the dragon" paid off. But at what cost?
Unfortunately, kids don't get to choose anymore. And what I mean is that although there are levels of competitiveness, there is not level of "recreational" play. I think that if you want to play recreational basketball or volleyball in high school, there should be a recreational league to do it in. Let the super competitive types try to earn the college scholarships, but you shouldn't be DENIED the chance to play because you're NOT that competitive. Especially at prior to the teen years, allow recreational play. I love the movie "The Sandlot" because the neighborhood gang took a kid who had no idea how to play baseball, taught him how to play, and made him a part of the team. Awesome flick!
Ed, don't wait until you're 80! I'll be semi-retired in less than 10 years, so let's start a non-profit called "Fun Sports". Equal playing time, lots of fun, learning the game and learning teamwork. This is at least the 384th good idea we've had on this blog! Maybe someday we'll actually make one of them happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment