Predictors of Junior Versus Senior Elite Performance are Opposite:
A Systematic Review and Meta‑Analysis of Participation Patterns
Michael Barth, Arne Güllich, Brooke N. Macnamara, David Z. Hambrick
Sports Med. 2022 Jun;52(6):1399-1416. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01625-4. Epub 2022 Jan 17.
For this month's research roundup we are reviewing Predictors of Junior Versus Senior Elite Performance are Opposite (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35038142/) in conjunction with another review:
Quantifying the Extent to Which Successful Juniors and Successful Seniors are Two Disparate Populations (Gullich, et. al. 2023) (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37022588/).
Purpose
Both of these articles are systematic reviews which provide a summary and assessment of current literature. The authors of wanted to ask " To what extent does the pathway to senior elite success build on junior elite success?" (Gullich et. al., 2023).
Additionally they asked, to what extent are "athletes' starting age, childhood/adolescent progress, and amounts of coach-led practice and peer-led play in their main sport and in other sports" predictors of performance? (Barth, et. al., 2022).
Background
Two opposing views for adult/senior elite level success exist.
The first is the idea of "giftedness" and deliberate practice/expertise. This view encourages early specialization (choosing one sport early on) because the view states that performance is based on cumulative deliberate practice, "task-specific practice under the supervision and monitoring of a coach (i.e., coach-led practice) that is undertaken to improve performance, is highly effortful, and is not inherently enjoyable." (Barth, et. al., 2022).
Additionally, this view states the importance of giftedness and that juniors who show a quick progression of performance in their early years will go on to be successful at adult elite levels. Thus in this view, success as a junior elite is predictive of success as a senior elite athlete.
The second view is that of the Developmental Model of Sport Participation (DMSP). This model encourages early diversification (engaging in multiple sports) and specialization later on. This view states that early diversification mitigates the risk of burnout and injury from early specialization and is a better long-term development plan.
This view states that rapid progression and elite success as a junior are not predictive of senior elite success.
Results
The results of Gullich, et. al. (2023) showed that "successful juniors and successful seniors are largely two disparate populations" and "few junior athletes go on to achieve an equivalent competition level when they are seniors".
Additionally Barth, et. al. (2022) demonstrated that successful senior elite athletes participated in early diversification at young ages and "began playing their main sport later; accumulated less main-sport practice; and reached performance milestones in their main sport at a slower rate."
Both of these findings support the DMSP and they postulate this is because varied learning experiences are important for long-term athletic success. They also propose that these athletes are better able to capitalize from their practice time when marginal improvements become more and more important.
This evidence does not support the giftedness/deliberate practice view. If this view were correct, successful juniors and seniors would be a more singular population.
Barth M, Güllich A, Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ. Predictors of Junior Versus Senior Elite Performance are Opposite: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Participation Patterns. Sports Med. 2022 Jun;52(6):1399-1416. doi: 10.1007/s40279-021-01625-4. Epub 2022 Jan 17. Erratum in: Sports Med. 2022 Feb 7;: PMID: 35038142; PMCID: PMC9124658.
Güllich A, Barth M, Macnamara BN, Hambrick DZ. Quantifying the Extent to Which Successful Juniors and Successful Seniors are Two Disparate Populations: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Findings. Sports Med. 2023 Jun;53(6):1201-1217. doi: 10.1007/s40279-023-01840-1. Epub 2023 Apr 6. PMID: 37022588; PMCID: PMC10185603.
My Two Cents
These systematic reviews pulled from studies across a large variety of sports. They found no significant differences in the results between these different sports. However to draw conclusions about climbing specifically, I believe a retrospective study should be done for elite climbing athletes.
Additionally, these reviews defined "success" as international competition performance. For the bulk of us climbers, we are looking to improve our climbing on a more recreational level. These results were from comparing "world-class" versus "national-class" athletes, the gap between which are much more narrow versus comparing a world-class athlete to a regional or local-class athlete.
Though the results showed that world-class athletes had less accumulated practice than national-class athletes, they still had significantly more practice than regional/local-class athletes.
This makes me think that perhaps there is some sort of threshold that elite level athletes still need to reach before accumulated practice becomes less significant. And that the giftedness/expertise view holds true to a certain extent when comparing elite versus recreational athletes.
Potentially for us more recreational athletes, accumulating experience should still be the main focus of our practice.