Are Elite Athletes Born or Made

JB Cases said:
Neither Gladwell nor Erikson said that 10,000 hours was the magic number of time in that led to world class mastery. Erikson's research identified that those who were at the highest levels had roughly 10,000 hours of deliberate practice in and Gladwell merely noted that.
Click to expand...

DaddysVisa said:
That`s a good article you linked there. But again I think they have misconstrued what Ericksen and Gladwell said. They noted that it was extremely rare to find a world-class expert in something who did not put in at least 10,000 hours of deliberate practice. They never said that 10,000 hours was all that was necessary to become an expert. I think its more accurate to think of the 10,000 hours as a needed ingredient, but there are obviously some other intangibles that are harder to quantify that really separate those who are merely good from those who are great.
Click to expand...


Coyle has written about it too and says it's all about the quality of the 10,000 hours. Just punching a time clock won't cut it.

Lou Figueroa
 
easy-e said:
Many here will argue with you about the poker thing (and probably the rest of your no-skill "games"). If you took pool and shooting off your "sport" list we'd be jibing.
Click to expand...


To clarify, I did say "physical skill" as in it being a necessity to execute and play the game at a high level. Personally, I would not equate picking up and tossing cards, pushing out chips, maintaining a stone face, or acting, or wearing sun glasses in that category :-)

Lou Figueroa
 
Bob Jewett said:
Such as Joe Bachelor who is said to have run 100 by the time he had played six months. The book I mentioned before gives good examples on both sides.
Click to expand...

Talent obviously is not the only factor ,, but a lot of times it's the deciding factor
Obviously in pool because of its not a requirement to be physically talented it would not have the same worth say such as woman's Tennis ,,


1
 
JB Cases said:
I would say that those people are not REALLY training. They are spending time playing, socializing, matching up but they are not looking to go pro nor training as if they want to.

Anyone can have a library of videos that doesn't mean they actually study them and absorb them. Doesn't mean that they can repeat a single lesson from them.

Anyone can read books on how to do something but if they don't ingest that material and work it completely then they won't really get much better.

Training is what SVB does, spending hours and hours, up to 18 one day, working on the break until there is nothing he doesn't know about breaking a ten ball rack. Training is doing what John Schmidt said and stroking till your fingers bleed.

That's dedication and desire. Training is also working on your mental game to insure you can't be fazed when the heat is on.

Social players who love the game and spend every available moment don't realy train, they just carry on a love affair with a cruel mistress.
Click to expand...


I think in pool your observations are probably more right than wrong,...but in many other endeavors (tennis, golf, chess, music, math, swimming) there are legions of youth who are put into extremely high quality, regimented and competitive training environments for extended periods of time, and the variation in results cannot be explained by mere training time or quality. (see l.Figeroa's linked article for related sources).

A really good definition of talent was given in an earlier post:

"Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton argues that talent is best thought of as any package of personal characteristics that accelerates the acquisition of expertise"

(although I think it's reasonable to limit these characteristics to those that are genetic and not learned/developed)

Of course, that package of personal characteristics should and does include intellectual, emotional, and physical traits. And certainly ingredients such as dedications, desire, heart, and drive fall under "emotional traits" and therefore help to make up our notion of "talent".
 
Last edited:
Sloppy Pockets said:
There are many sports where this is not only unnecessary, it is outright impossible.

My nephew Brian's son was a pretty hot pitcher when he was 8. At that age, the most hard throws you are supposed to make is about 100/week. Sure, he played catch a lot with his dad, but serious, dedicated practice time actually throwing fastballs - next to nothing compared to any pool player.

He's 14 now and is still going strong. Time will tell. He has all the desire, the eye, the heart, the knowledge that you might expect of a kid his age who desperately wants to pitch in the majors, but I personally think he will be too small by the time he is finished growing. His mom is a tiny thing and Brian is only about 5' 9" and weighs maybe 180. Damn genetics. May rob the kid of his dream.
Click to expand...

Billy Wagner is from near my home town. He was maybe 5'9. Turned out to be the best closer ever
 
BJTyler said:
I think in pool your observations are probably more right than wrong,...but in many other endeavors (tennis, golf, chess, music, math, swimming) there are legions of youth who are put into extremely high quality, regimented and competitive training environments for extended periods of time, and the variation in results cannot be explained by mere training time or quality. (see l.Figeroa's linked article for related sources).

A really good definition of talent was given in an earlier post:

"Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton argues that talent is best thought of as any package of personal characteristics that accelerates the acquisition of expertise"

(although I think it's reasonable to limit these characteristics to those that are genetic and not learned/developed)

Of course, that package of personal characteristics should and does include intellectual, emotional, and physical traits. And certainly ingredients such as dedications, desire, heart, and drive fall under "emotional traits" and therefore help to make up our notion of "talent".
Click to expand...

I am going to go with the jury is still out. Having no talent or dedication I should probably not be offering my opinions in either direction. :-)
 
True desire cannot be overlooked as a major factor..

BJTyler said:
I think in pool your observations are probably more right than wrong,...but in many other endeavors (tennis, golf, chess, music, math, swimming) there are legions of youth who are put into extremely high quality, regimented and competitive training environments for extended periods of time, and the variation in results cannot be explained by mere training time or quality. (see l.Figeroa's linked article for related sources).

A really good definition of talent was given in an earlier post:

"Psychologist Dean Keith Simonton argues that talent is best thought of as any package of personal characteristics that accelerates the acquisition of expertise"

(although I think it's reasonable to limit these characteristics to those that are genetic and not learned/developed)

Of course, that package of personal characteristics should and does include intellectual, emotional, and physical traits. And certainly ingredients such as dedications, desire, heart, and drive fall under "emotional traits" and therefore help to make up our notion of "talent".
Click to expand...

True desire cannot be overlooked as a major factor but unfortunately it is not even remotely measureable.

This is the problem with many attempts to scientifically quantify psychological factors of success.

There are many variables that are impossible to quantify, true desire being one of them.

Someone can claim that they have desire and it could more be a desire to please someone close to them, or desire for monetary benefit (which can be a strong motivator) but that isn't a true desire to excel at the given endeavor.

There are always limiting factors. Stephen Hawking ain't ever going to excel at any physical endeavor, but I think that many people think that variances in total ability are bigger than they necessarily are.

Jaden
 
easy-e said:
So that would mean Buddy Hall is an elite athlete? Got it.[/QUO
Buddy Hall great-12-hall.jpg
Click to expand...
 
lfigueroa said:
To clarify, I did say "physical skill" as in it being a necessity to execute and play the game at a high level. Personally, I would not equate picking up and tossing cards, pushing out chips, maintaining a stone face, or acting, or wearing sun glasses in that category :-)

Lou Figueroa
Click to expand...

I happen to be on the same page as you regarding the games you mentioned.
 
one stroke said:
That's easy they maxed out their potential. .... Any one who has ever coached kids knows some learn much faster than others , given the exact same training ,, I have had kids that no matter how much I tried to teach them they just could not do it ,, while others grasp it the first time ,,,
The best coaches in the world go thru hundreds to thousands of kids while only turning out a small percentage of elite quality students

1
Click to expand...

I agree. Everyone has a limit, in al things in life. Equality, is impossible!
 
backplaying said:
How do you explain the people who have put in more time than top players, love the game more than anything, took many lessons, library of video's, table at home, dedicated their life to the game and never even made it to a A level speed? I know 25 players, who play 6 days a week and most have played over 30 years and never played better than a B level.
Click to expand...


I explain this with the Power of the self-image.


Nevermind for a moment the relationship between the self image and the subconscious mind when performiing and just imagine the difference in the quality of practice between someone who sees themselves simply as a B player who has been that way for years and doesn't have much hope in getting better, compared to a hungry individual who knows he has what it takes to improve and he can picture himself being amongst some of the best someday and right now he is willing to do what it takes to make it happen. Even if they are doing the same things in practice the quality between the two will be much different.
 
Last edited:
I also believe that, at least in the case of pool, given the infinite variables of how a player can setup and deliver a stroke, there are some folks that just pick up a cue and viola -- they get high level results.

The rest of us struggle to find a PSR that works, we read, watch, practice and sometimes stumble on to something that kinda sorta works.

Lou Figueroa,
 
lfigueroa said:
I also believe that, at least in the case of pool, given the infinite variables of how a player can setup and deliver a stroke, there are some folks that just pick up a cue and viola -- they get high level results.

The rest of us struggle to find a PSR that works, we read, watch, practice and sometimes stumble on to something that kinda sorta works.

Lou Figueroa,
Click to expand...

Good point. Also helps to be around great players to emulate. It makes stumblin onto a good PSR a bit easier.

I didn't grow up anywhere near pool. There was a couple bars in my town of 2000 that had bar boxes, but I didn't get to sneak into those places until I was 16. Even then, it was put up your quarter, lose to an experienced player, then wait another hour until your next quarter came up. Slow learning curve for sure.

My personal feeling is that most people are born with enough natural abilities that they could learn to make balls extremely well given sufficient practice time. It's all the thousands of other tricks, patterns, safeties, kicks, strategies, etc. that make the game a lifelong challenge. If you are never exposed to a very high level of play, you will never get to an elite level no matter how well you learn to pocket balls or how much natural ability you began with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top