Printable View
Well I wouldn't be so sensitive about it Paul. It depends on what you mean by good enough. They practiced and learnt enough to play at a professional, premiership and international level - that's pretty elite...they clearly didn't practice or learn to the same level as most of the Spanish international players for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Fly
Quote:
Syed exposes the effort involved in becoming the top tennis player, or musician. It’s the hours that they put in that really make the difference between the elite and the amateur. Syed writes from personal experience, as he worked his way to becoming the #1 British table tennis champion. He also discusses the myth of child prodigies and how their success is affected by good coaching, strong personal motivation, and, of course, putting in the requisite amount of practice to hone their skills. The elite also have a certain mindset – positive thinking/mind over matter that allows them to eliminate self-doubt, focus on the moment, and find that centered place where they can just allow their bodies/minds to take over without having to pay attention.
Just some extracts from some goodreads reviews that I felt are interesting and relevant! The Mozart thing is that he had a really pushy father who chained him to the piano but that Mozart loved it so much that he practiced, practiced, practiced and excelled. I think he mentions that the compositions were fairly fundamental but were far more advanced than anyone else his age and that this superiority continued into adult life as he just kept practicing at the same breakneck speed... But when people hear that he was composing at 6 or 7 the mind assumes that he was writing the well known symphonies at 7...Quote:
My favourite 'study' was a Hungarian guy who announced to the world he would make a chess grand champion to prove the hypothesis, found a woman willing to give him kids as test subjects, and did it. His three daughters were (according to Syed) the best female players ever, the eldest was the first ever female grand master, and the youngest was the youngest grandmaster ever, of either gender. The middle daughter had to settle for a mere 4 chess olympiad medals. Remarkably, people didn't believe his theory about practice, instead saying he must have 'good chess genes' essentially
I like your point about Woods/Hendry... Compare to Norman/White...the magic comes from the "flawed genius" thing... The relentless robotic machines are never loved nearly as much!
In my opinion, it's a combination of natural ability, the work put in by the player, and the standard of coaching and development available to them.
Natural ability is to a certain degree genetic, but across a large enough population is essentially random. Ireland should have the same "raw" natural ability as, say, Norway, Finland, New Zealand, and Costa Rica. We'll turn out the same number of potentially great players as them, although where they go after that is anyone's business.
The work put in by the player is important, but I don't think it's enough in the current global game. Without it, they're never going to be very good. I was never a good footballer (at least on the ball). I never had the coordination, athleticism, awareness or ability to think quickly under pressure. I could have worked hard and become considerably better than I am now, but I was never going to be Damien Duff. The most I could ever be would be perhaps a lower-league journeyman in England, if I worked hard enough on very specific basic skills. Whether a potential player is going to deliver on whatever potential they might have is going to depend on their own motivation and their background. All other things being equal, China would have a whole raft of world class footballers, but for a variety of reasons, their "kids with potential" don't choose that route. Recreational sport in general is not a big priority in China, and if you do play recreational sport, it's more likely to be badminton or table tennis than football. Your parents are far more likely to push you towards other used of your time though, such as music, or just working like a mad eejit.
The coaching and development is vital. That's what determines whether that young person with bags of talent is going to be funneled into the big bruiser box at eight years old, or coached in a way that best utilises their talents. This also includes the "critical mass" of people to train against and compete with, as was discussed in the Olympics thread over the summer. Enough good players will drag each other up to a higher standard than any one would have achieved individually, even if not all of them "make it".
There is no "natural ability" to take on two players, spot a one-two, and create the space for a pinpoint cross. If there was, there's be the odd African tribesman or Inuit who emerged at age 25 having never kicked a football before. What is natural are the building blocks such as coordination and awareness, everything else has to be worked on in one way or another.
Nurture versus nature lads - literally thousands of psychologists, researchers and educators haven't ever reached any kind of definitive conclusion. I doubt you will here.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers"Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Very interesting debate. Fly's mention of snooker is interesting. Hendry certainly lacked that 'magic' and seemed to be a player who worked very hard to achieve his success. Alex Higgins had the 'magic', and certainly was always worth watching. Could he have been the best ever if he was more disciplined? Possibly.
Completely on a tangent here, I just had a vision of Higgins smoking and drinking as he played! The world has changed dramatically. Didn't Bill Werbenuik drink up to 13 pints during a game? And these were sportsmen!
I know what you are getting at with the Hendry, an actual repeated world champion, vs the peoples champion type players like Higgins, White and O'Sullivan, who could at times be more exhilarating to watch perhaps, but I feel it a disservice to put Hendry in the hard working, made the most of his abilities, box. His aggression early in frames, splitting the pack, creating and converting frame winning visits over and over relentlessly, following knocking in the most difficult of opening long reds conventional snooker wisdom preached to steer clear of till the frame was more open. Unerring under pressure, nerveless almost. Yes, he allied this to dedicated hard practice and made himself almost unbeatable, but there was a well of natural ability unmatched in his or any other generation thus far to begin with.Quote:
Originally Posted by gastric
The others had their days in the sun and I you tube breaks by Higgins & Co more often than Hendry, but it was the latter who redefined how the game is played.
Sorry Crafty, I was inferring he gave the impression that it was hard work that made him what he was, compared to the likes of Higgins who seemed to just be naturally good. I wasn't trying to trivialise his certain ability, I was referring to perceptions of what makes sports people good at their sports.Quote:
Originally Posted by CraftyToePoke
I think it also depends on the sport.
The one I'm most experienced with at an elite level is sailing. The top sailors are the sailors who work hardest. Yes, there are some people who are naturally talented, but they get left eating dust by someone who puts in the hours on the water and in the gym. I'd always be amazed at the people who would turn up after an off-season and suddenly be in the top ten because they'd worked far harder than everyone else. Annalise Murphy was an average sailor who worked like a crazy person to turn herself into a very good one.
Football requires a different skill set, and is a lot faster-paced. Perhaps a bit less predictable. There are a million and one different situations with different solutions you can be confronted with in football, and it might require that little bit of genius or something someone else wouldn't think of. Sailing, most situations have "the right thing to do", there's room for the odd masterstroke, but it's primarily about not making mistakes. Pulling off an amazing move will probably gain you one place. Doing something stupid will lose you ten.
Good point. IMO, the greatest team of all time to watch were the Brazil team of 1970. Watching them, you would think they were very naive in approach as defence wasn't exactly their priority, but their workrate and positional play while looking very natural and easy, came about through hard work and good planning.
Wow what a great Dad! He used his kids as a science experiment. The fact he thought that way, should give you an insight into the kind of person he is. The kind that could breed a chess champion. Not really for this debate, but chess is less sport, more brain power, neural networks and artificial intelligence(if you ever programme a chess game its all about making the programme think for itself, based on a set amount of moves and the best possible outcome) coded into the brain. There are only certain types who could make the grade at chess, and you wouldn't find them in the lower/average IQ range.Quote:
My favourite 'study' was a Hungarian guy who announced to the world he would make a chess grand champion to prove the hypothesis, found a woman willing to give him kids as test subjects, and did it. His three daughters were (according to Syed) the best female players ever, the eldest was the first ever female grand master, and the youngest was the youngest grandmaster ever, of either gender. The middle daughter had to settle for a mere 4 chess olympiad medals. Remarkably, people didn't believe his theory about practice, instead saying he must have 'good chess genes' essentially
Funny the snooker comparison, it was this example that kicked off my first discussion on the matter. A friend tried to make out if he practiced enough he would be as good as say ronnie o'sullivan. I remember thinking if only i'd been born a millionaire and then i would have paid for him to take a year out of college train that much, and disprove his theory.
I think comedians would make good psychologists, but to be honest researchers, educators and psychologists don't have much in the way of science, and without sounding facetious or arrogant, I wouldn't put too much weight behind their studies. I do believe there is a definite scientific answer somewhere in there.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Almost certainly, but the crusty old ethics committees won't allow the necessary twisted and immoral twin studies. They're holding back James McClean's career I tell you!Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Don't worry, you don't sound facetious or arrogant, just totally f***king stupid. "Researchers don't have much in the way of science." Jesus wept, what a comment.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
Who, if not researchers, is going to conduct the research to find the scientific answer you hope for?
I know your background and you would be sensitive to the issue. Psychologists, educators and researchers, I gathered you meant a combination of educators and psychologists, did the research. That's my point. IF i misunderstood and you meant there was a 3rd independent element then fair enough, I didn't read it like that, and it was my mistake. You don't have to be a scientist to do research...:)
Look at the end of the day, I take anything thats not scientifically proven with a pinch of salt. Its all opinion and circumstantial to a point otherwise. Excuse me if i upset you, but thats my belief. I come from a different way of thinking than you.
I think there is also a 3rd element in the natural ability v nurturing, which is athleticism, it probably fits into natural ability moreso, but its not something I see as pure natural ability.
There's an awful lot of sh*te in this thread recently.
Which normally would let go, but some of it, is the same eejits moaning about similar in other threads.
:rolleyes:
Lose the Hypocrisy, please...
Let's not forget that you all probably mean to say "Psychiatrist" rather than "Psychologist". The former are actual doctors while the later are mere chiropracters. If it helps you, great, but.... It is essentially unsanctioned. Like Voodoo.
They call themselves "Doctors" but....do not have any scholarly bonafides to say the least. The phrase in the industry is 1 Psychiatrist equals 10 Psychologists. There is even a scene in Sopranos about it.
The ironing is deliciouosQuote:
Originally Posted by ArdeeBhoy
Not snooker, and don't think the guy is aiming for the elite of the elite, but this may interest youQuote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
http://thedanplan.com/theplan.php
"On April 5th, 2010, Dan quit his day job as a commercial photographer" and he has a donate link on his page...I've just read it mind and that's what stood out for me straight away.Quote:
Originally Posted by A N Mouse
2.5 years on how is he doing?