Ireland's best bjj players

Sid_Justice

doesnt matter if its bjj, composing, chess etc...doesnt matter...no natural talent, no genetics

In Summary, in your 'opinion' you need 10,000 hours training along with:

Coaching
time
love/addiction

SO hypothetically you could train a man of 4 feet height to become a high level basketball player? Sprinter? High jumper?

Or could a person with no hands spend 10000 hours practicing surgery and become a neuroseurgeon?

[sarcasm]I completely agree, genetics has no effect on the likeihood of an individual becoming a high achiever [/sarcam]

Chris89

Sid_Justice wrote: »

In Summary, in your 'opinion' you need 10,000 hours training along with:

Coaching
time
love/addiction

SO hypothetically you could train a man of 4 feet height to become a high level basketball player? Sprinter? High jumper?

Or could a person with no hands spend 10000 hours practicing surgery and become a neuroseurgeon?

[sarcasm]I completely agree, genetics has no effect on the likeihood of an individual becoming a high achiever [/sarcam]

Wow, strong argument there.

Pontificatus

SanoVitae wrote: »

Malcolm Gladwell's book "Outliers" frequently refers the "10,000-Hour Rule", claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.

Cogito ergo vis a vis: Choose your parents carefully because genetics come first followed by work ethic. I'll never be a top basketball player or rower no matter how much i love those sports, damn shorties!! I could get quite good with the right training but my advancement will always be limited by a genetic predisposition to 5'9edness

When playing chess you start of at a ranking of 1000 and you can only play against players with a ranking of 900-1100. As your ranking improves so will the quality of your opponents (10% either side of your ranking). This forces you to improve at an increasing rate and adapt as the hours playing go by. The 10,000 hours supposition is flawed because you will always be limited by the quality of available opposition.

Also, you could easily learn more in 1000 hours with a good instructor than 10000 with a poor one.

colinlaird000

10000 hours required to "get good" / 2 hours a session / 4 sessions a week / 50 weeks a year = 25 years to get anywhere. Only 20 years to go! yay! I think genetics must have a bit to do with it. Heres hoping I'm superhuman, eh?

I think one of the key factors required for any aspect of life, in order to make it successful, is a huge amount of commitment & time. Whether it be exams, a profession, a relationship, playing computer games, sleeping 8 hours a day, whatever. Obviously, when a person tries to do all of these things concurrantly, living in a normal universe where the 24 hour day applies, its difficult! (I'll just have to give up the exams, job & relationship!) :P

Like barry says, the long limbed amongst us seem to display certain advantages relating to guard, sweeps, arm locks etc. I agree that the 10000 hours of mat time they put in arent being wasted, but i think there is a certain body type that "suits" BJJ. I was too small for high level rugby, my limbs arent long enough for BJJ. Frustrated.com

We are in the position in Ireland that, for the minute, we only have one Black belt coach, and their gym a bit of a commute for a large number of us. Therefore we cant all train with the highest ranked instructor all the time.

I think John pretty much hit the nail on the head with the coach / time / addiction. The addiction is still there, as I've almost reached the dreaded 35 drop out age, and am still going. Just! Thankfully I can aspitre to the Al Bundy philospohy and not worry about being awesome for a few years, and just enjoy the training for what it is.

weemate

SBG Ireland wrote: »

opinions are nice but facts are better

there is no evidence of anybody reaching a level of expertise in a complicated activity without around 10,000 hours of purposeful practice

none

nada

doesnt matter if its bjj, composing, chess etc...doesnt matter...no natural talent, no genetics

evidence > opinion

talent, gifts, skills....even 'hard work' are all a myth

there are a number of factors that do have to come together at the right time...the perfect storm...to produce a champion

Coaching - the athlete must have access to a coach who is an expert in the technical aspects of the chosen sport - without the knowledge the practice or length of time training is irrelevant. beginners coaching beginners actually slows down their progress.


time - the athlete must be able to practice. it takes about 4-5hrs a day for 10 years to log 10,000hrs....if you have a wife, 2 girlfriends, 3 jobs and 5 kids this may not be achievable.

love/addiction - you must absolutely LOVE the activity. 'will power' 'work ethic' 'hard work'...all bull****....if you do not LOVE doing it you will not put in those type of hours.

as i said read the book...the cool thing about it (and the scientific method in general) is that its not the authors opinion...its based on verifiable studies, facts....your opinion..or mine doesnt matter.

...but its always comforting to look at champions from your chair and say 'well i coulda done that but just didnt have the 'talent'...'

surely most facts are just someone elses opinion.....they can be argued and refuted and added to etc etc etc
to say that there's not even a slight amount of natural ability/talent/'gift' involved in building a champion or even a reasonable sportsman is nonsense John....in my opinion!!
are you saying that Guys such as Gunnar,who you have helped personally to achieve his level in bjj/mma,had not got any natural talent?I put it that even having the mental focus that the top guys have,is in some way a talent in itself.I agree that nothing will compensate for hard work and the more you put in the better you will get but I refuse to believe that Talent and ability does not play a part.

cowzerp

I have 2 trainee's the same weight, different body types that train the same time and put the same effort in and can certainly say that 1 is just physically more capable than the other and is training 1 quarter the time of the other, does not mean that both cant do well but the newer athletic lad is already at or above the less athletic lads abilities..

This is 1 example and there is many, work and time will get you so far but other factors usually dictate the great and the average and genetics is a major 1 in my experience and opinion..

You can see some lads from day 1 that just have something and you can tell they will be good with practise...

Pontificatus

cowzerp wrote: »

I have 2 trainee's the same weight, different body types that train the same time and put the same effort in and can certainly say that 1 is just physically more capable than the other and is training 1 quarter the time of the other, does not mean that both cant do well but the newer athletic lad is already at or above the less athletic lads abilities..

This is 1 example and there is many, work and time will get you so far but other factors usually dictate the great and the average and genetics is a major 1 in my experience and opinion..

You can see some lads from day 1 that just have something and you can tell they will be good with practise...

That makes me ask the question: Is intelligence a genetic trait? Everyone can learn but its pretty clear that intelligent people learn and adapt to different situations/envornments more quickly.

Chris89

Andre galvao says he was always the slowest to pick things up in class, it would take him weeks to learn things other guys would pick up in Hours or days.

Doesn't sound to me like he was in any way "talented".

cowzerp

Chris89 wrote: »

Andre galvao says he was always the slowest to pick things up in class, it would take him weeks to learn things other guys would pick up in Hours or days.

Doesn't sound to me like he was in any way "talented".

Exactly, you dont have to be talented to reach the top, but it does help..

Talented may not be the right word to use though..

Pontificatus

Chris89 wrote: »

Andre galvao says he was always the slowest to pick things up in class, it would take him weeks to learn things other guys would pick up in Hours or days.

Doesn't sound to me like he was in any way "talented".

Its all relative. He was training with Terrere and Conbrinha. i wouldnt mind being a slow learner in that company.

Chris89

Pontificatus wrote: »

Its all relative. He was training with Terrere and Conbrinha. i wouldnt mind being a slow learner in that company.

Not when he started out.

Sid_Justice

Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration, Thomas Edison 1903

BobbyOLeary

This genetics argument crops up in every sport. It's pretty silly to think that genetics don't play a part in the very top end of sports. Your genetic predisposition doesn't make you get through that tough training session or lift that last barbell but it raises your potential athleticism above that of others. It's up to you to reach that potential.

There's a fairly well-known statistic from Men's Athletics that adds credence to the genetics argument. Why did it take up until 2010 for a white guy to run an official sub 10 100m when the 10 second barrier has been broken since 1968? You can't tell me that every white guy is just lazier and doesn't train as hard as their darker skinned counterparts? Or if you want to be cynical, you can't tell me that these guys aren't getting the same pharmaceutical help. What's the difference then?

I think the problem stems from people using genetics as an excuse. All of us have the ability to be great BJJ players, not all of us have the ability to be world champions.

SBG Ireland

Sid_Justice wrote: »

In Summary, in your 'opinion' you need 10,000 hours training along with:

Coaching
time
love/addiction

SO hypothetically you could train a man of 4 feet height to become a high level basketball player? Sprinter? High jumper?

Or could a person with no hands spend 10000 hours practicing surgery and become a neuroseurgeon?

[sarcasm]I completely agree, genetics has no effect on the likeihood of an individual becoming a high achiever [/sarcam]

great point kev, well done

well guys if you want your opinions challenged i'd recommend the book

SanoVitae

Sid_Justice wrote: »

Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration, Thomas Edison 1903

Or rather 1% perspiration and 99% taking credit for Nikola Tesla's work.....

weemate

SBG Ireland wrote: »

great point kev, well done

well guys if you want your opinions challenged i'd recommend the book

sorry mate but I dont need to read a book to have a differing opinion on your point.......although Iam open to new suggestions on coaching etc.
In your previous post you said that there is no evidence of anyone hitting the top level in any field without 10,000 hours of practice that included music chess etc......and yet there is EVIDENCE of composers such as Beethoven writing symphonies at the age of 7!footballers such as George Best kicking a ball from the age of three [ alright he wasnt in the premier league then but apparently the talent was there ]....Practice does indeed make perfect but I think there has to be some sort of ability there in the guys who do make it to the top.How hard do you think the members of the Gracie family trained to get to the level they are at.....in fact,you are one of teh top guys at the sport in Ireland,if not the U.K and maybe further afield.I can recall when you first took up the art all those many years ago and you where nigh on unbeatable then......what I dont remember is you putting in 10,000 hours of practice....I would say you where just naturally talented at what you did..:D

SBG Ireland

weemate wrote: »

sorry mate but I dont need to read a book to have a differing opinion on your point

jaysus peter that wasnt aimed at anyone....tbh i dont care if anybody reads it or changes their opinion. SBG are doing fairly well on the competition scene right now so should probably keep coaching stuff to myself anyway haha

...but since i love ya i'll go through your post anyway

weemate wrote: »

although Iam open to new suggestions on coaching etc.

well there's a book i was recommending....:P

weemate wrote: »

surely most facts are just someone elses opinion

im not being a smart ass but thats just not understanding the difference between a 'fact' and an 'opinion'

it is a 'fact' that tonights ufc has bisping and hardy fighting
it is my 'opinion' that bisping will lose

facts > opinions

weemate wrote: »

In your previous post you said that there is no evidence of anyone hitting the top level in any field without 10,000 hours of practice that included music chess etc......and yet there is EVIDENCE of composers such as Beethoven writing symphonies at the age of 7!

its usually mozart used for this example...and this is shown not to be true....as covered in depth in the book.

weemate wrote: »

footballers such as George Best kicking a ball from the age of three

and?

there's a photo of me kicking a ball at 2. only 1 of us went on to put in the 10,000hrs....

weemate wrote: »

.Practice does indeed make perfect

i would change that to purposeful practice (defined in the book) makes perfect

weemate wrote: »

but I think there has to be some sort of ability there in the guys who do make it to the top.

you may think that...but that doesnt make it so

weemate wrote: »

How hard do you think the members of the Gracie family trained to get to the level they are at

yes they are a good example of the perfect storm i spoke about earlier....thats kinda a point for me there haha

weemate wrote: »

in fact,you are one of teh top guys at the sport in Ireland,if not the U.K and maybe further afield.I can recall when you first took up the art all those many years ago and you where nigh on unbeatable then......what I dont remember is you putting in 10,000 hours of practice.

you are far too kind

yes i was one of the better....of a bunch of beginners...back then i was rather obsessive. would train 3-4hrs a day 6 days a week. so i logged more hours than those around me....but i remember my first trip to the states and getting tooled by the brown and black belts who had more hours than me.

weemate wrote: »

what I dont remember is you putting in 10,000 hours of practice....I would say you where just naturally talented at what you did.

again thank you kindly

but it was nothing to do with 'talent' i just put in more hours rolling than most. put simply i LOVE rolling...when im not doing it i find it hard to not think about it....have chilled in recent years though...more concerned about coaching now

to give an example of someone far superior to me - gunnar nelson. i guaruntee he will be the next fedor/bj penn anyway...

my point is that he is not 'naturally gifted' 'talented' or whatever. he is the perfect example of the perfect storm

coaching - has trained under bj penn, john danaher, gsp (one of his main sparring partners) and even my wee self

love - you have never met somebody so obsessive about mma/grappling. no i mean it. he is first on the mat, last off...and thats just the beginning. he watches nothing but related videos and reads nothing but nutrition advice. he follows the perfect athletes diet all the time...no getting pissed after a fight. i have never met or heard of another athlete (or person) like him.

curious - i didnt say this before but this is an essential ingredient to be a mma champion. you must be curious as to why certain movements happen in certain orders etc in fact this must be something you think about all the time....a very quick anecdote about his nature. he texted me asking me the combination of my bike lock so he could use it....i didnt get the text for 2hrs....i rang him to give it to him and he said he didnt need it...had worked it out. sat there for 2 hrs doing through combinations until it opened. he's the same in training, if some position is giving him trouble he'll stay there until he's figured it out.

opportunity - just gone 22 with the financial freedom to train/travel full time


now if all those qualities coming together is 'talent' or 'natural gifts'...then yes , he is very talented

but the idea that some people are just born to play chess, bjj or football is completely dispelled by the book...and not by opinion but with facts.

Sid_Justice

I'm 99% percent in agreement with SBG Ireland I just think the 1% counts more than he does (i think). I'm glad he brought up Gunnar nelson because I think he's the closest Ireland has to a phenom(gunnar is 100% icelandic just trained in ireland for a significant chunk). gunnar probably trains more in a year everyone else on this forum bar one or two (or three) will train in their life time so that is the reason that he's got so good.

But as an aside, Gunnar didn't start BJJ as a fat kid with no attributes, he started as a 16/17 year old who could walk on his hands, do 20 pull ups like they're sit ups and other wise being a good athlete. Just to make this clear, I'm not trying to subtract from his awesome work ethic and attitude or 'blame' his success on 'good genes' but gunnar went in as a good athlete who excelled via hard work.

Having said that, Olivier Geddes, probably the closest thing the UK has to a BJJ phenom seems to be almost an anti-athlete and all of his success is down to obsessive (intelligent) training and really smart strategy.

So just to be affirm, I'm not being deliberately obtuse I just think there is a little 1% of je ne sais quoi that helps champions become champions

cowzerp

Michael Jordan, Muhammed Ali, Maradonna all these are gifted-sure they trained but for sure others trained as hard and with the same coaches, something set them apart-The ones i named particularly Ali and Maradonna where just smarter than there competition and all 3 had natural abilities that where not a simple matter of hours and smart training, I've seen many kids from day 1 in sports such as Soccer, Boxing, GAA, MMA and from day 1 you know there going to excel and often when they stick at it they do, It goes without saying that more hours of good practise improves athletes but most train in groups and you cant say that all improve the same with the same training.. Even if some book says otherwise.

PinkPants

Surely somebody who has bags of intelligence will count as someone with 'talent' even if they arent athletic, a BJJ player must use his brain an awful lot, especially when learning.

SBG Ireland

cowzerp wrote: »

Michael Jordan... Maradonna all these are gifted-sure they trained but for sure others trained as hard and with the same coaches

do you know that...or are you guessing? do you know how many hours jordan put in compared to his team mates...or is that your opinion?

cowzerp wrote: »

Even if some book says otherwise.

lol

anyway thats my last post on this topic..off to work with some of my naturally talented athletes...

darced

This post has been deleted.

cowzerp

SBG Ireland wrote: »

do you know that...or are you guessing? do you know how many hours jordan put in compared to his team mates...or is that your opinion?

anyway thats my last post on this topic..off to work with some of my naturally talented athletes...

I am not to well up on Jordan but Maradonna would not be known for his work ethic, training spirit, if ever there was a person believed to be gifted this is him..

As far as im concerned we obviously have different opinions and thats ok, but most people would tend to agree with me on this 1 i feel..That my opinion anyway!

OLDMAN1

i watched a doc on jordan a while back, one thing that i remember from it was the fact that he wasn't picked for his high school team, he then put in extra training and was picked the following year and the rest is history...

Barry.Oglesby

First of all, I haven't read the book, so let me get that out of the way.

However I'm always suspicious of popular science books in general, having written a bit for college and for other stuff. In many cases what you tend to do when you want to prove a point is pick your conclusion, then work backwards citing some relevant studies to back up your point, and of course conveniently ignore the other stuff that disagrees with it, or at the very minimum scoff at it a bit to show how aware of it you are but how much you're going to ignore it too . Of course that sort of stuff would get you laughed out of any journal but can easily make it's way to being published as a work of popular non-fiction. I'd be far more interested in the studies he used to draw his conclusion, and from which field? Sports, behavioural, cognitive psychology? Or did he interview coaches etc. I'll have to have a read, as long as it's in my library- it's a recession you know.

But let's get one thing very, very straight. Every single person I know who is talented (let's use that term whatever way we choose) at Brazilian Jiu Jitsu absolutely lives on the mats. I don't dispute that one iota.

Chris89

I am not sure what my opinion is on the whole talent thing, but i know that i think its pretty funny that people are disagreeing with irelands best bjj player in a thread about the best bjj players about who is the best bjj player and why/how.

just sayin

darced

This post has been deleted.

Ug Lee

SBG Ireland wrote: »

there aint no such as 'gifted', 'naturally skilled' or 'talented' - the tests have been done, the results are back.

there is only one thing that matters - practice, purposeful practice to be precise.

i'd encourage everybody but especially coaches to read Bounce - Matthew Syed

dispels the talent myth best and shows how damaging it can be for the athlete...and the other athletes in the gym to refer to them as 'talented'

I think ultimately what John is saying is that while some people are pick up things easier, this is not what leads to them being a champion. Here is a short youtube clip from the author.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1K6bOG8mj8

However I have guys and whatever I teach them is two steps forward and one step back. Others just fly forward. I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here. I find the ones who do best and learn quickest are the ones who have a bit of a post secondary school education.

weemate

Ug Lee wrote: »

I am going to go out on a bit of a limb here. I find the ones who do best and learn quickest are the ones who have a bit of a post secondary school education.

aw for fook sake...........catch yourself on.:rolleyes:
how can you say that?are you saying that guys who dont go to college are doomed to failure in bjj?There are some really good kids out there [ notice I didnt say talented ] who havent even left high school yet.......I hope to God they pass their exams or they may as well pack the sport in.

while Im here,I wasnt taking the hump at you John about the book.I might even take a look at it as theres no point in trying to argue over something if I have no idea what Im talking about.We'll no doubt have a yarn at the next show.....about something totally irrelevant

SBG Ireland

weemate wrote: »

theres no point in trying to argue over something if I have no idea what Im talking about

doesnt seem to stop anybody else lol

see you at the next show mate

Barry.Oglesby

Chris89 wrote: »

I am not sure what my opinion is on the whole talent thing, but i know that i think its pretty funny that people are disagreeing with irelands best bjj player in a thread about the best bjj players about who is the best bjj player and why/how.

just sayin

Yup, and if the topic was Brazilian Jiu Jitsu I would defer to his superior knowledge and experience. However if you read back the topic has long since changed to the psychology of learning and coaching. In this case I could easily rewrite your post to "it's funny that a BJJ black belt is disagreeing with someone who has studied psychology".

I think what John is saying is valid and I am 90% in agreement, I'm just saying I don't think it tells the whole story of "talent". (which I think John has alluded to anyway) But it's mostly academic as I think the actual genetic potential argument doesn't come into play until elite level. Everyone else just needs to practise a lot more.

SBG Ireland

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

I could easily rewrite your post to "it's funny that a BJJ black belt is disagreeing with someone who has studied psychology".

true

you could also write

its funny that someone who didnt read the book is arguing with someone who has
or
its funny that someone who has studied psychology is arguing with some with an honors degree in engineering and math (so therefore has a really good understanding of the scientific method which was used in getting the evidence used in the book)

Tim_Murphy

I was ordering stuff off amazon and got this book as well, it better be good Kavanagh!

SBG Ireland wrote: »

true

you could also write

its funny that someone who didnt read the book is arguing with someone who has
or
its funny that someone who has studied psychology is arguing with some with an honors degree in engineering and math (so therefore has a really good understanding of the scientific method which was used in getting the evidence used in the book)

Do we all have to start writing the letters we have after our name if we want to get involved in the discussion? :P

Barry.Oglesby

SBG Ireland wrote: »

true

you could also write

its funny that someone who didnt read the book is arguing with someone who has
or
its funny that someone who has studied psychology is arguing with some with an honors degree in engineering and math (so therefore has a really good understanding of the scientific method which was used in getting the evidence used in the book)

Spot on!

My point exactly. My training in the field doesn't give me any additional right to a priviliged position in the discussion anymore than your black belt does, or your engineering degree does. This is a discussion forum and no one is trying to misrepresent "facts". We're all just giving our opinion as coaches or trainees.

WRT to Bounce, it's been on my 'to read' list for a while but having read a lot of the stuff in the area, I doubt there would be too much new in it. Like the Gladwell book, which was pretty dull and stretched the Ericsonn research pretty thin in my opinion by the way, it's all about the 10,000 hours study, which was very specific in it's scope. The really remarkable thing is that there's been a glut of recent books on a study that was done 20 years ago. I also don't like some of the misinterpretation of the work that's gone on since the Gladwell book in particular. The original research stated very categorically that "deliberate practise" for 10,000 hours is what makes expertise. Since Gladwell, or more appropriately since the abstract of Gladwell's book appeared, you have people talking about logging one of their 10,000 hours doing whatever, forgetting all the while that Ericsonn specified high quality practise (deliberate).

To be brutally honest, I've yet to read a really good sport's psychology book. What I've actually found better reading for coaching groups is some of the more business aimed psychology texts. They tend to be better funded which means that more time goes into them, they're not aimed at a general populace so there's more detail, and the main point is getting large groups of people to proficiency in a short space of time.

You also have to remember that there's a sort of intellectual swings and roundabouts situation happening. The current trend is towards things that dismiss genetics as the driving force in performance (hence why a 20 year old study is very popular) and elevate hard work. 10 years ago the trend was totally in favour of genetics. Think of it as a sort of backlash against the quasi-eugenic nature of genetic discussion in sports performance. This is all in popular science by the way- the boffins generally do what they want anyway- where columnists and authors write their interpretation of scientific studies with the sole purpose of selling books. The whole pallet is much more complex of course.

With enough time and effort, you could quite easily write the complete opposite of Gladwell (once again not sure about Syed, but it's based on the same study) and state how important having excellent genetics is to high performance and expertise.

Does anyone dispute that practise makes perfect? Of course not.

LOL just read back I'm after flying into this topic. I'm writing since 8am and I'm full of coffee!

Doug Cartel

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Does anyone dispute that practise makes perfect? Of course not.

Practice does not make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect. Which I think was the point of the Anders Ericsson study. Doesn't make as interesting a book title as "Talent is Overrated" though.

Barry.Oglesby

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Practice does not make perfect - perfect practice makes perfect. Which I think was the point of the Anders Ericsson study. Doesn't make as interesting a book title as "Talent is Overrated" though.

Be honest now. Did you just skip to the end of my post and read that line? I wrote a whole frickin paragraph on just that above it! As far as I remember the term Ericsonn used was deliberate practise.

Doug Cartel

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

Be honest now. Did you just skip to the end of my post and read that line? I wrote a whole frickin paragraph on just that above it! As far as I remember the term Ericsonn used was deliberate practise.

Perhaps I should used one of these: , or maybe a .

I just thought it was funny that you did make the distinction between blind and directed practice, then dropped the old cliche in at the end.

Barry.Oglesby

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Perhaps I should used one of these: , or maybe a .

I just thought it was funny that you did make the distinction between blind and directed practice, then dropped the old cliche in at the end.

well now I sort of regret writing that line.

da-bres

"The talent code" is another good read by daniel coyle. Interesting views on what makes perfect practice.

SBG Ireland

Barry.Oglesby wrote: »

With enough time and effort, you could quite easily write the complete opposite of Gladwell (once again not sure about Syed, but it's based on the same study) and state how important having excellent genetics is to high performance and expertise.

really?

can you name one athlete of a 'complicated' sport/activity who achieved elite status (maybe a tennis player winning a few grand slams) that had not completed approx 10,000hrs of purposeful/perfect/ practice?

if i heard of a 'tiger woods' or a 'federer' who had only practiced for about 500-1000hrs but reached the top 0.5% of their chosen 'complicated' activity because of their genetics i would be much more inclined to believe the 'talent' 'natural' 'genetic' argument

Doug Cartel

SBG Ireland wrote: »

really?

can you name one athlete of a 'complicated' sport/activity who achieved elite status (maybe a tennis player winning a few grand slams) that had not completed approx 10,000hrs of purposeful/perfect/ practice?

if i heard of a 'tiger woods' or a 'federer' who had only practiced for about 500-1000hrs but reached the top 0.5% of their chosen 'complicated' activity because of their genetics i would be much more inclined to believe the 'talent' 'natural' 'genetic' argument

Hang on a sec there, that's a total straw man argument. Barry never said that practice is unnecessary, he just said that it would be possible to find reasonable evidence that some people have an innate talent (or genetics, or whatever) that enables them to succeed. They still have to practice though.

What about all those washed up could-have-beens and burned out child prodigies that practised night and day under strict supervision and never ever made it? They just weren't practising enough? Weren't doing it right?

NG-DOC

Doug Cartel wrote: »

What about all those washed up could-have-beens and burned out child prodigies that practised night and day under strict supervision and never ever made it? They just weren't practising enough? Weren't doing it right?

There is obviously quite a lot of variables within this.

In SBG Ireland's original argument, 'love' of what you were doing was said to be a key factor. Maybe these 'prodigies' didn't really love what they were doing? Maybe their parents were making them do it?

Another key factor was a good coach. Maybe they didn't have a good enough coach? Like you said maybe they weren't doing it right, maybe they weren't practicing enough.

So what about all those washed up could-have-beens? There is far too many 'maybes' or 'ifs' to definitively say.

Doug Cartel

NG-DOC wrote: »

In SBG Ireland's original argument, 'love' of what you were doing was said to be a key factor. Maybe these 'prodigies' didn't really love what they were doing? Maybe their parents were making them do it?

Maybe they didn't have what it takes?

NG-DOC

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Maybe they didn't have what it takes?

maybe they didn't do 10,000 hours? maybe they quit because they didn't love what they were doing? maybe they didn't have a good coach? maybe they ate too many chicken fillet rolls?

Doug Cartel

NG-DOC wrote: »

maybe they didn't do 10,000 hours? maybe they quit because they didn't love what they were doing? maybe they didn't have a good coach? maybe they ate too many chicken fillet rolls?

OK so it could be any number of factors?

NG-DOC

Doug Cartel wrote: »

OK so it could be any number of factors?

i have a feeling this is some sort of internet trick question but... yes?

Doug Cartel

NG-DOC wrote: »

i have a feeling this is some sort of internet trick question but... yes?

Any number of factors, except talent?

(Yeah it was a bit of a trick question.)

SBG Ireland

Doug Cartel wrote: »

Hang on a sec there, that's a total straw man argument. Barry never said that practice is unnecessary,

ok

Doug Cartel wrote: »

he just said that it would be possible to find reasonable evidence that some people have an innate talent

then can you show reasonable evidence of one athlete of a 'complicated' sport/activity who achieved elite status (maybe a tennis player winning a few grand slams) that had not completed approx 10,000hrs of purposeful/perfect practice but instead had 'innate talent'

completely different question to the one i asked originally...

Barry.Oglesby

SBG Ireland wrote: »

really?

can you name one athlete of a 'complicated' sport/activity who achieved elite status (maybe a tennis player winning a few grand slams) that had not completed approx 10,000hrs of purposeful/perfect/ practice?

if i heard of a 'tiger woods' or a 'federer' who had only practiced for about 500-1000hrs but reached the top 0.5% of their chosen 'complicated' activity because of their genetics i would be much more inclined to believe the 'talent' 'natural' 'genetic' argument

Who said that? I'm just saying that it would be possible to cherry pick a study or two on the importance of genetics at elite level sport and write a "counter" argument. I'm also trying to emphasise that Ericsonn (the original study on which most of the books on "talent" are based) specified 'deliberate' practise rather than just time spent.

Are you trying to say that things like more fast twitch fibres, greater lung capacity, longer femurs, larger feet, longer arms, greater hand-eye coordination and so on are irrelevant?

SBG Ireland

Doug Cartel wrote: »

What about all those washed up could-have-beens and burned out child prodigies that practised night and day under strict supervision and never ever made it? They just weren't practising enough? Weren't doing it right?

really, thats a question?

there's a clue in your answer....'burned out'....the ones who died in accidents didnt make it either....because they 'died'

you need to get the hours in
AND remain in the sport
thought that would be obvious....