Specific sports training course standards

A qualified special sports training course standard is never a unified template that is universally applicable, but an implementable implementation guideline that takes into account the objective laws of the project, the characteristics of the training groups, and the stratification of training objectives. The core principle is always "safety as the base, science as the bone, and adaptation as the soul." There is no "standard answer" that can cover all scenarios.

A while ago, I helped a local youth badminton club that had been in business for five years to revise the curriculum. The teaching and research meeting started less than 20 minutes before an argument broke out: an academic coach who graduated from the sports training major of the Sports Institute clutched the youth badminton training syllabus issued by the General Administration and said that students under the age of 10 must ensure 15 hours of non-ball swing + footwork training every week. If the foundation is not solid, subsequent improvements are all empty talk.； Coach Chen, who has been teaching on the front line for three years, took pictures of half a year's training and threw it on the table. He said that the effective concentration time of children in the 10-year-old group can only be 40 minutes at most. Last month, he insisted on practicing according to this time limit. Three children have already told their parents that they no longer want to play, and the attendance rate has dropped by 27%.

In fact, this is also a common problem of many institutions and schools offering special courses: they either completely copy the training system of professional competitive teams, completely regardless of whether the trainees want to take a professional route or just want to keep fit, turning interest classes into "purgatory camps"”； Or, in order to please parents and make quick money, the curriculum is made into a game process purely for coaxing children to play. After half a year of practice, even the forehand grip posture is wrong. The cost of subsequent changes to the movements is higher than that of zero-based learning, and the risk of injury to the wrist and elbow joints is more than doubled.

In all the useful course standards that I have seen that have been tested on the front line, the first page is never the training content arrangement, but the risk checklist. Take the youth basketball class as an example. The list clearly states that "30 minutes before participating in the training, students must be screened to see if they have a history of sprained feet or myocarditis. The U12 group is prohibited from arranging more than three consecutive full-strength jumping and high-touch training." Before There is a peer organization that did not include this in the curriculum. In order to improve the competition results, the coach asked the 11-year-old child to jump high 10 times in a row, which directly caused patellar tendinitis. The medical expenses and compensation cost less than 20,000. The child did not dare to touch basketball for more than half a year.

Many people think that curriculum standards must have unified requirements to be professional. In fact, it is quite the opposite. The core of a good curriculum standard is stratification. It is also a table tennis class. The curriculum standards for children who want to take the route of entering higher education for students with special talents must be strict in the standardization of movements, training time, and intensity of confrontation. If the standards are followed for ordinary children who just want to improve myopia and improve coordination, it is simply looking for trouble. A parent complained to me before, saying that after three months of training in the table tennis class for his child, he was setting points against the ball machine every day. The child could not sit still, and now he cries when he mentions playing ball. I went to look through their course standards, my dear, they are all written according to the standards of reserve talents for the provincial team, and there is no "interest guidance" module. Isn't this nonsense?

There are a lot of controversies about special training in the industry, the most typical one being the age of initiation. Practitioners of sports such as gymnastics and diving generally believe that special basic training can begin at the age of 4. The earlier you develop the foundation of flexibility and coordination, the better. ； Most researchers in the field of sports medicine believe that the bones and muscles of children before the age of 6 have not yet developed to the extent that they can withstand special loads. It is best to only do general movement pattern training and not special content, otherwise it is easy to leave irreversible sports injuries. At this time, the course standards cannot be black and white. There must be room for flexible adjustment. Instead of spelling out "Leg pressing must start at the age of 4", it should be changed to "Special movement training time for participants under 6 years old shall not exceed 30% of the total class time, focusing on fun games and basic ability training." This not only takes into account the training rules of the project, but also maintains the bottom line of safety. No big mistake will be made no matter how it is used.

I have been revising the curriculum standards for various projects for almost 8 years, and I have privately summarized a very crude but useful verification method: After calibrating the first draft of each version of the course, don’t rush to go online. Find 3 participants with different levels to try out 3 classes - one for those with zero basic knowledge, one for those with 3-6 months of foundation, and one for those with clear competitive/performance goals. Directly improve all the stuck, uncomfortable, and unfinished content encountered in the trial class, which is much more effective than sitting in the office and checking literature for half a month. Last time we made a course standard for adult outdoor cycling, the original draft said "every class must complete a 10-kilometer ride at a constant speed." During the trial class, an overweight student complained of knee pain after riding for 7 kilometers. Later, we directly changed the requirement to "set the riding intensity at 60%-70% of the maximum heart rate, and the distance is not mandatory." After the official launch, the course completion rate for students increased from the original 62% to 94%. It has been running for 8 months without a single sports injury.

In fact, to put it bluntly, the standard of sports-specific training courses has never been a rigid framework used to block coaches and students. It is more like a navigation map marked with risk points. The general direction cannot be deviated - you cannot ignore safety for the sake of performance, and you cannot have no training effect at all for the sake of fun. However, the specific path to take and how fast to go can be adjusted according to the actual situation. If you get a course standard that says "required", "strictly prohibited" and "uniform" from top to bottom, then there is a high probability that it is just a showpiece that has not been polished. If it is really used in training, there will be problems.