Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for :

  • "pyramid model" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Restricted access

Richard Bailey and David Collins

Despite evident differences between approaches to talent development, many share a set of common characteristics and presumptions. We call this the Standard Model of Talent Development (SMTD). This model is articulated and the relevant literature drawn out to highlight the model's strengths and weaknesses. The SMTD has been enormously influential, in terms of both policy documentation and practice, and it retains an obvious common sense appeal. However, we will argue that not only is its attractiveness illusionary and inconsistent to the emerging evidence base from research, but it is also undesirable from a variety of perspectives and desired outcomes. In short, we suggest that the most common system for identifying talent is unsubstantiated from both a process and an outcome perspective.

Restricted access

B. Christine Green

Sport development has become a leading issue for sport policymakers and sport managers worldwide. Sport development systems have two main objectives: to increase the number of participants actively engaged in sport and to enhance the quality of performances in sport. This is the foundation of the much used, but rarely examined, pyramid analogy in sport development. In this article, the pyramid model of sport development is explored, and its underlying assumptions are critiqued. Three tasks necessary for an effective pyramid model are identified: athlete recruitment, athlete retention, and athlete transitions. Recruitment requires the assistance of significant others, as well as the proliferation of many smaller, local-level sport programs. Retention requires a focus on motivation, socialization, and commitment. Advancement requires that programs be linked vertically and that athletes be aided in processes of locating and socializing into new levels of involvement. Although specific strategies for enhancing recruitment, retention, and transition of athletes can be identified from the literature, further research is needed.

Restricted access

Evgeny B. Myakinchenko, Andrey S. Kriuchkov, Nikita V. Adodin, and Victor Feofilaktov

Purpose: To compare the training-volume (TrV) distribution of Russian international-level male biathletes, female biathletes, and cross-country skiers (XC) during an annual cycle. Methods: Day-to-day TrVs were recorded and averaged for a 5-year period for male biathletes (n = 6), female biathletes (n = 8), and XC (n = 14) with VO2max values of 77.7 (3.8), 64.6 (1.9), and 79.4 (3.5) mL·min−1·kg−1, respectively. Results: The volumes of low- and moderate-intensity endurance training and all types of nonspecific endurance and strength training gradually decreased toward the competition period. However, the volumes and proportions of high-intensity endurance training and specific exercises (roller skiing, skiing, and shooting during high-intensity endurance training) increased by the time of the competition period. The total volume of training, volumes of low- and moderate-intensity endurance training, moderate- and high-load strength training (70%–95% 1RM), and power/speed loads did not increase gradually but reached their maximum immediately after a short stage of initial training. All teams employed the “pyramid” model of intensity distribution. Compared with the biathletes, XC demonstrated a larger (P < .01) annual volume of endurance training (~190 h), low-intensity endurance training (~183 h), and strength training (~818 sets). They also engaged in more upper-body and core-strength exercises (~769 sets), and they reached their maximum aerobic TrVs in June, while the biathletes reached theirs in July. Conclusions: In recent decades, the traditional model of periodization has been altered. The Russian XC and biathletes had significant differences in TrVs.

Restricted access

Jan G. Bourgois, Gil Bourgois, and Jan Boone

LIT (Z1: >75%), with sequentially increasing proportions of ThT and HIT 8 ; (2) the threshold model (THR) emphasizing ThT (Z2: >40%) 8 ; and (3) the pyramidal model (PYR) emphasizing a large volume of LIT (Z1: >70%), with sequentially decreasing proportions of ThT and HIT. 7 , 12 Figure 1 —Models of

Restricted access

Alba Reguant-Closa, Margaret M. Harris, Tim G. Lohman, and Nanna L. Meyer

Sports & Exercise, 47 ( 3 ), 547 – 555 . doi:10.1249/MSS.0000000000000447 10.1249/MSS.0000000000000447 Ruini , L.F. , Ciati , R. , Pratesi , C.A. , Marino , M. , Principato , L. , & Vannuzzi , E. ( 2015 ). Working toward healthy and sustainable diets: The “double pyramid model” developed

Restricted access

Marlene A. Dixon, B. Christine Green, Arden Anderson, and Peter Evans

. Like all true pyramid models, the number of opportunities (i.e., places on a team and number of teams) is largest at the base of the pyramid (largely where children are first introduced to sport) and gradually shrinks as the competitive level rises and opportunities become more selective. Although

Restricted access

Andy Gillham and Craig Stone

achieving peak performance. Psychological Profile of Peak Performance Hardy, Jones, and Gould ( 1996 ) compiled the peak-performance research to date and offered the first all-inclusive psychological profile of the construct, resulting in a pyramid model with the ideal performance state at the apex. This