Travel Where next

[Underdog]

Pat rafter wasnt anymore naturally gifted than all of us who played sport well and competitively as teens (rep).

But the average slob on bf would think he had great natural ability.

Quite frankly, that's bullshit.

There would be tens of thousands of athletes in the category your speaking of and you think Rafter simply worked harder than all of them and was a Grand Slam winner because of it? Garbage. When you're talking figures that large, the difference in work rate between the hardest workers is negligible. Extending your theory, we should be dominating world tennis.

 

[Gough]

Steve Waugh wearing that bloody cap of his to watch Rafter play in the Wimbledon final was one of the more embarrassing things I've ever seen.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Caesar]

Small nations produce more top tennis talent because there are less opportunities for gifted athletes in other sports. Tennis in Australia gets a low share of the athletic talent in this country.

You can see the same thing happen in Australia. NSW & Queensland produce more international cricketers per capita than the southern states because footy takes a lot of the talent away.

 

[edgie]

Some people have a knack for doing something but everyone has to work equally hard to become a professional. As Joe Montagna once said about Rudy (from the movie):

"So he got in. He did get a sack. And then the guys carried him off, just playing around. I won't say it was a joke, but it was playing around. He worked his butt off to get where he was and to do the things he did. But not any harder than anyone else."

 

[Run n Spread]

Reckon you need both. When it comes to the absolute elite talent and the best of the best hard work , training and dedication is what separates them. Any small error or mistake is magnified 100 times and seized upon by opponents. At the top level mental strength and exceuting skills under extreme pressure is what counts.

To get to the elite level however you simply must have the genetic talent. Things like hand/eye, power and strength and lung capacity are predominantly from birth. Yes you can improve but to reach the pinnacle of sport you basically need elite talent to begin with. The top athletes are simply in the top 5% of talented athletes I believe. For an example a cricketer like Ed Cowan is probably not as talented as say Michael Clarke but Cowan would be in the top 5% top talent where as Clarke happens to be in the top 1%.

 

[Run n Spread]

I'd totally agree that a good mentality and hard work from an early age is the most important things in sport. But anyone who doesn't think that talent doesn't play a role is kidding themselves. I tend to find professional athletes espouse the hard work mantra because - like all of us - they want to believe that they have got where they are off the back of their own efforts rather than pure luck of the genetic draw.

Agree with this. A lot of what got them to the top is hard work thou otherwise they would struggle. Yet to get the opportunity to train and work with the best coaches/teams/training environments they needed the talent to begin with. Perhaps they fail to see they not everyone is as blessed talent wise.

I've heard the same argument can be made for top scientists/doctors etc. While no doubt hard work was crucial they were blessed with genetic intelligence as well. So it can cut across all fields Isuppose.

 

[zimma]

It's a mix of 3 things really, you need to have at least some degree of all 3 most of the time to reach the top of a sport. Have to be naturally talented in the sport, have the right genetic build / composure for it and have to train and want to succeed. Simply always going to be the "freaks" who can pick up a ball / stick or whatever implement the sport uses and dominate in their first game, sometimes it's skills that transfer, other times it just sort of happens.

I mean it doesn't matter how "naturally gifted" you are at a sport if you hate it or have no interest in training, sadly I tend to pickup sports I hate or have no interest in quickly, while I still suck at golf and soccer, while in cricket my bowling consistency makes Tait look like McGrath. Then there's genetics, I love basketball, I trained my ass off at basketball, I could shoot the lights out from the 3 line, but I only ever played SF and stopped growing at age 13.

Simply put if you're lacking in one area it can be covered by another, to an extent. I mean you're not about to see a 5'6 C, nor are you likely to see someone built like Shaq playing PG, then there's the shitload of people who no matter how much they train will never play in the PGA let alone beat Tiger Woods. It simply isn't as cut and dry as athlete trains harder therefore athlete is better than the rest. The MJ example listed is one of those annoying fallacy that get spewed out like the "Well Bill Gates dropped out of Harvard" or the "Einstein failed mathematics" lines...

 

[ben_1301]

I'm positive I read this on GD, check out the blog of a golfer "the dan plan". Testing the theory that with 10,000 hours or progressive practice anyone can become an expert in a certain skill.
He started having never played golf before and aims to get his pro card, started in 2010 and I think is tracking alright, handicap down to 5

 

[ben_1301]

This is the theory behind it.
"Talent has little to do with success. According to research conducted by Dr. K. Anders Ericsson, Professor of Psychology at Florida State University, “Elite performers engage in ‘deliberate practice’–an effortful activity designed to improve target performance.” Dr. Ericsson's studies, made popular through Malcolm Gladwell's book Outliers and Geoff Colvin's Talent is Overrated, have found that in order to excel in a field, roughly 10,000 hours of "stretching yourself beyond what you can currently do" is required. "I think you're the right astronaut for this mission," Dr. Ericsson said about The Dan Plan."
Obviously he's chosen golf as its skill based as opposed to physiological based.

 

[Caesar]

I'm positive I read this on GD, check out the blog of a golfer "the dan plan". Testing the theory that with 10,000 hours or progressive practice anyone can become an expert in a certain skill.
He started having never played golf before and aims to get his pro card, started in 2010 and I think is tracking alright, handicap down to 5

A 5 handicap is lightyears away from being a pro with a tour card though. Even being a scratch golfer is a long way from being a tour pro.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[ben_1301]

A 5 handicap is lightyears away from being a pro with a tour card though. Even being a scratch golfer is a long way from being a tour pro.

Yeah, you often here of footballers like Goddard and co who have lowish handicaps. It actually suggests that a talented all round athlete such as Goddard who probably only has a hit once or twice a week is as good as if not better than this average person with 5,700 hours of dedicated practice and coaching.

 

[Starburns_]

Also to touch on what Gough missed me saying....ability isn't skill, and skill isn't ability. Gower's graceful style is ability, and his lack of work ethics (honing skills) is responsible for him not becoming a greater batter or more prolific scorer of runs. Whereas players like Border, S.Waugh, etc, they rose due to greater work ethic application. Steve Waugh is a classic example.

Steve Waugh vs Mark Waugh is a perfect example. One had more natural ability, and the other had the more successful career.

Again citing Thistle. In terms of ball sports. What stopped the scud was lack of work ethic.

Scud has 2 grand slam final losses, Lleyton Hewitt has two grand slam final wins. Scud won by falling back onto his strengths, and failed when they failed. Hewitt won by working hard at eliminating any weaknesses he had.

Genetics can give a significant head start, but application seems to be the biggest decider.

 

[Dont be a lemon]

Natural physical and mental advantages won't make you a champion but they will give you an enormous boost over the majority of people.

The vast majority of professional sportspeople have these advantages.

 

[Caesar]

Again citing Thistle. In terms of ball sports. What stopped the scud was lack of work ethic. And im sure there plenty of examples of mediocre talented tennis players who did far more than him due to work ethic, had far greater skill due to relentless training. Im not a tennis-head to know all the names, but guys like nadal and that red headed american who won a few aust opens. Cant ever put the scud in the same stratosphere as nadal...thats when someone makes it in the pros. Scud did jack shit except blow his load/hype early. Pat rafter out succeeded him in the pros. Another example of work ethic not god given ability

Nadal is the greatest clay court tennis player of all time. That's like saying you haven't made it in basketball unless you're Wilt Chamberlain.

Like I said, Philippoussis spent most of his career as one of the top few players in the world, and (compared to most players) he barely worked at all. Of the 1,000-odd guys on the ATP and ITF tours - that's 1,000 of the very best tennis players from all over the world, working and training and grinding their whole lives - he was in the top 2% without breaking a sweat.

If you don't think that's a testament to how important talent is, then I am not sure what you are smoking.

 

[Jimmy1992]

Like everything in life, being great at sports is a mixture of nature and nurture.

A good example is elite cyclists.
Good luck being able to compete in Le Tour De France if you don't have the genetic capabilities for it. On the other hand, good lucking competing in Le Tour De France if you sit on your ass and do nothing no matter how genetically gifted you are.

That hard work will seperate 2 comparably gifted athletes. But, by and large, if you don't have the genetics for something, you don't have it. It's a shame, but that's the way it is. You can always improve with training, but, a genetic freak will always beat someone who doesn't have the same advantage.

 

[exe ex machina]

.

 

[Caesar]

And that from someone who isn't particularly oozing in natural god given genetic advantages.

Nadal is not exactly a good example of someone lacking in natural ability. At the age of 8 (before he started training seriously) he was playing tennis ambidextrously, winning regional tournaments four age groups above, and was already being regarded as a promising soccer player.

Yet there he is proving how great work ethic and relentless training as a blueprint of success.

And what about the other 1,000 players on the ATP Tour, the vast majority of whom have no worse a work ethic or commitment to training than he does, and are nowhere near his level of ability?

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Natural ability =/= skill

Not sure where you are getting at here? Unless you're are saying to me that natural ability is something other than a mental state, you really have me. Not sure if I agree that such a thing as natural ability actually exists. But if it was, it'd be a mental state. That mental state is expressed through physical actions, physical actions being "skills".

 

[MarcusP2]

I think he's implying that skill comes from practice, not natural ability.

I know several guys that play off scratch and they would be miles from qualifying for any tour. I still think that guy is dreaming.

 

[Kram]

You could most definitely argue for swimming as a sport being 90% hard work and 10% talent, although having the right natural physical attributes (especially in mens) like an Ian Thorpe would be a considerable advantage.

 

[MarcusP2]

Except every single top-level swimmer at the Olympics would work just as hard as the another. But nobody was getting close to Phelps and nobody could touch Thorpe for years.

Isn't it a bit rubbish to tell Daniel Kowalski he could've won a few gold medals if he'd worked harder?

 

[Roobs321]

It's a bit like learning new languages. Some people have a lot more naturally gifted aptitude than others, they can learn difficult languages in a shorter space of time. But of course, learning languages requires some hard work and application as well, plus continued exposure to maintain those skills.

David Ferrer is a good example of the hard work principle. He works his butt off despite being a (tennis) midget and lacking firepower and arguably a killer attacking instinct. He is now clearly the 5th best player in the world, but unfortunately for him, the players above mix a more gifted physiology with that same hard work and dedication (plus more of a belief in their ability to be the best).

David Ferrer can routine uninterested big hitters like a Monfils or Scud, or spoiled talent like Tomic, and can outwork a similar player like Hewitt, but the combination is what separates the top 4 from Ferrer and the rest. Obviously application can be worked on whereas physical suitability has its limits, so that's why the chances of players like Tsonga, Soderling, Del Potro, etc. tend to be more hyped, as winning multiple grand slams seems more attainable if they train like a mongrel. The AFL equivalent would be an inside mid like a Matt Priddis.

 

[exe ex machina]

.