Critique on Specialization

491 Words2 Pages
A Critique of “Specializing vs. Sampling in Youth Sports: Which is Healthier?” Growing up, a child is supposed to be free of worries and stress. Parents of our society have succumbed to the demands of college admissions and scholarships, thus leading to specialization in sports slowly evolving over the years in young children. Children shouldn’t have to be worrying about getting into college at such a young age, and they shouldn’t have to be fixed onto one sport, because their childhood is the time to try new and different things, to find their passion. According to Sharon Chirban, who in her article, “Specializing vs. Sampling in Youth Sports: Which is Healthier?” strongly implies that parents are putting their kids in harm’s way by having them specialize in a sport. Chirban targets parents and coaches that are unfortunately pushing young children into doing so. As a highly educated woman with a doctorate’s degree, there is no hesitation that her information may be invalid. Be that as it may, as a witness to a teammate who has developed herself into a sport with no consequences, it is assumed that Chirban is mistaken to signify that training intensively for a single sport is baneful. The main concern throughout the article is the damage that can be done to children who over train in a particular sport. But can specializing in a particular sport really have consequences? Chirban is convinced that developing oneself into a specific sport can constitute a variety of problems for the child, putting their “long-term development in jeopardy” (par. 4), since the bodies of young children are still developing. Children are supposed to be unrestricted and be living a stress-free environment. Not a world filled with talk of college and the future. Chirban manages to keep her argument by going in depth about the injuries that young athletes may suffer from specifying in a

More about Critique on Specialization

Open Document