John Joe Nevin

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

If it's supposedly a dirty race/sport then how was he the ONE that was so far ahead? You can't just apply it to him. There were 7 other sprinters as well. Am I to assume they didn't do anything suspect? There were two other Jamaican's in that race. A real cop out from you in this example.

He won the race because he trained hard and because he is naturally the more talented athlete. His physiological make up was also influential. Every so often in any sport there are a select few humans that are extraordinary, and who are very dominant due to their natural skills and talent and physiology.

Bottom line: Your point about at the top being due to hard work only is wrong. That god given natural ability and talent will always play a part in separating ATGs from greats and very goods. You think Rocket Ronnie makes all those centuries in match play off both wings as being down to hard work alone? And the likes of Ken Doherty, who I am sure puts in as much hard work is Ronnie's equal? There's a clear gap, and it's called natural skill and talent!

Why did you conveniently choose to ignore where I said "While I'm not saying any person can achieve greatness in anything they choose (there has to be some basic talent obviously - a 5 foot man is never going to break the high jump world record)"?

There has to be some bloody talent there of course, but all the talent in the world doesn't matter if you don't put in a HUGE effort. And the higher up you go the bigger the effort needs to be, because you are meeting those that already put in a HUGE effort to get to that point, so you have to up it again to overcome those guys. And it's not like they dont' have any talent either.

If you don't want to read the excellent books I mentioned, talk to any really successful person and ask them about talent and hard work. They'll tell you more than I can.

I will row back slightly and admit the hard work principle is more important in skill sports rather than raw power/speed/endurance sports. Although I was a good sprinter myself as a kid, I don't think any amount of training, preparation or drug-taking would have made me as fast as Bolt.

On the Bolt scenario - Do you think Lance Armstrong was more talented than those he hammered in the 7 Tour de Frances he won?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

On the Bolt scenario - Do you think Lance Armstrong was more talented than those he hammered in the 7 Tour de Frances he won?

Lance did indeed hammer the opponents. I'd say 4-5 minutes was his average win over the 7 Tours, so even without juice he likely would have been a real contender. He didn't come from nowhere. Plus, was he the only one in the top ten on juice? Hardly!

I didn't ignore the whole 5 feet high jump analogy. I happen to agree with that. It was just too obvious to nod to.

Simple: I was debating your view about it being ALL hard work at elite level. That is not true IMO, and as I mentioned, and others mentioned, hard work and that definition is subjective. Yes, I am betting there are certain elites in world sport who don't need to put in the same amount of effort and training as other elites to achieve the same results, whether that be man vs man or team sports like soccer r rugby or basketball.

I forgot to mention Kobe and MJ. Tow men who probably achieved their success more so from their natural athletic skills and talent. Of course, they also trained and worked hard, but their natural skills and talent is very very special.

Henno30

Nevin heading back to Philly soon according to his twitter feed. Hopefully he'll be back in action soon.

Does anyone know what exactly is contractual status is at present? I know that Irish-American crowd he's with were supposed to get him a promotional deal initially but has anything along those lines materialised?

He's young but his career has already hit the rocks once. The years slip by very quickly and given his style he needs to progress as quickly as he possibly can. He won't have those reflexes in 5 year's time.

megadodge

Lance did indeed hammer the opponents. I'd say 4-5 minutes was his average win over the 7 Tours, so even without juice he likely would have been a real contender. He didn't come from nowhere. Plus, was he the only one in the top ten on juice? Hardly!

His drug-taking operation was regarded as being on a complete different level to anything seen or suspected before. This allowed him to take more drugs / more powerful drugs than anyone else and not get caught. And the advantage of taking steroids is that it enables you to work longer. That's what he did. His training schedule was always looked upon as ridiculously hard even by the top standards. That's why he beat them by so much. If you check out his early career, he wasn't regarded as anything special.

Unfortunately I suspect there is something similar going on with Bolt, due to Jamaica not having out-of-season drug-testing. You must admit, for such a small country to dominate both male and female sprinting to the level Jamaica has been for the last 6-10 years or so is suspicious to say the least. I'd love to be wrong, cos the guy is spectacular and has serious charisma, but....

hard work and that definition is subjective

If you think that's subjective, how can you actually measure 'natural' talent. I gave the example of Alex Higgins already. Ronnie O'Sullivan hit his first century at 10 years of age. He had been playing snooker for years at that stage.

Have you heard of the 10,000 hours theory?
http://www.wisdomgroup.com/blog/10000-hours-of-practice/

It is a widely accepted theory (though not universally - please try not to ignore that last bit because there are dissenters, but even they are just splitting hairs IMO because they actually do accept the enormous amount of time required) across many spectrums and the following is from the above link -

"Natural Talent: Not Important

One fascinating point of the study: No “naturally gifted” performers emerged. If natural talent had played a role, we would expect some of the “naturals” to float to the top of the elite level with fewer practice hours than everyone else. But the data showed otherwise. The psychologists found a direct statistical relationship between hours of practice and achievement. No shortcuts. No naturals."


I can't put it any plainer.

I forgot to mention Kobe and MJ. Tow men who probably achieved their success more so from their natural athletic skills and talent. Of course, they also trained and worked hard, but their natural skills and talent is very very special

It's funny you should mention Kobe Bryant and Michael Jordan. These two guys are absolutely notorious for their non-stop work ethic and there's endless evidence showing that those two trained harder than virtually all their peers. Go to Youtube and you'll find videos entitled 'Kobe Bryant's Insane Work Ethic', 'Kobe Bryant - The Vigorous Worker', 'Kobe Work Ethic Stories', 'Michael Jordan's work ethic and competitiveness', 'The Mind of Michael Jordan (the psychology of an obsessed winner)' etc.


I really would encourage you to start reading up on this subject. It is fascinating. I would have been more down your way of thinking originally, but the facts speak for themselves. If you look deeply enough behind the really successful (and I have spoken to a few in the last 10 years as I do a lot of coaching) they'll all tell you the same.

Joeseph Balls

I see JJ documentary on RTE 'inspired' Phil Taylor win his match in the darts on Thursday in Dublin. Watched it Wednesday and asked RTE to thank John Joe

walshb

All the hard work and training in the world still won't allow a Gerrard do do what Mesi can do. It's that simple. I could give many other examples. One more, all the hours that god sends to a Ken Doherty will never see him be as naturally effortless at potting balls as a Ronnie O'Sullivan, and that is not juts because Ronnie is putting in equal or more practice.

Hard work (hours of practice/training) is important, but more important for some that others. That's all I am saying.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

All the hard work and training in the world still won't allow a Gerrard do do what Mesi can do. It's that simple. I could give many other examples. One more, all the hours that god sends to a Ken Doherty will never see him be as naturally effortless at potting balls as a Ronnie O'Sullivan.

Hard work (hours of practice/training) is important, but more important for some that others. That's all I am saying.

Go do some reading.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Go do some reading.

What, as if reading is going to prove what you originally stated. At the elite level it's ALL hard work that separates them? That is not fact, so no, I'll skip the reading. Humans aren't that easy to decipher when it comes to sports and other skillled and talented pursuits.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

What, as if reading is going to prove what you originally stated. At the elite level it's ALL hard work that separates them? That is not fact, so no, I'll skip the reading. Humans aren't that easy to decipher when it comes to sports and other skillled and talented pursuits.

Ok, don't do some reading.

You're missing out on some really interesting stuff.

tony stark

It's a fact that there's no such thing as natural talent. Any of the greats have not only accumulated hundreds of hours of just practice but a 'well guided' practice. It could even be something as simple as say Bernard Dunne having a father who trained him outside of his club training or Pele constantly being challenged by older lads as a kid. The natural ability is the talent to dedicate hours of properly guided practice hence Messi is better than Gerrard due to Gerrard not having as good a guide or the same work ethic as messi. These books are well worth a read. Coaches everywhere are now catching on to this. The yanks have been at it for years.

FTA69

tony stark wrote: »

hence Messi is better than Gerrard due to Gerrard not having as good a guide or the same work ethic as messi. .

That's utter nonsense. Messi is better simply because he worked harder? Stevie G and the likes of Roy Keane were some of the hardest working men in soccer, they'd still never match the flair and talent of Messi or Maradona because they simply didn't have that gear in them to move up to.

I generally agree with the concept of hard work superseding talent, but your above statement is far too linear and is just not the case to be honest. Performance doesn't hinge on hard work alone all of the time. It's more complex than that.

gene_tunney

If you train every 13 year old as hard as Tyson trained for 6 years would they all be heavyweight champs at 19? No, and most many of them still wouldn't be good enough to turn pro.

Obviously at the top level, everyone works hard but hard work only gets you so far. Genetics are king. Body type, muscle contractility, lung expiratory function, cardiovascular output all vary with genes.

This talk explains why specialised body types have come to the fore in their respective sports in recent years. https://www.ted.com/talks/david_epstein_are_athletes_really_getting_faster_better_stronger?language=en#

It explains how genetic body types limit sporting performance.

tony stark

Roy Keanes training was in Ireland as a child it could never compare to the much better training messi recieved as a child from his own father or indeed as an adult at international level( poor Roy had the tail end of Charlton and Mick McCarthy). Keane also spent time away from football boxing as a kid whereas Messi was always 24/7 football. Messi even over came a growth hormone deficiency to become excellent. Keane is actually a good example in itself of a below average footballer as a kid who became a top European player. If you're you train everyone the same as Tyson they won't be champs because they lack the fire of motivation he got on the streets and in juvenile prison which in itself is training psychologically. Tyson and Ali. Two champions with different genetics and body types. Both champions as a product of their environment, well guided training and work ethic. There is obviously a certain cut off point of physicallity and intellect but there is still a situational scientific explanation as to what separates champions from other top performers. It can even be something like Evander Holyfield having 8 older siblings he always had to fight logging him those extra hours of practice and providing motivation to work harder. Body types can suit certain sports but this is constantly contradicted by people like Tyson who was short and had a shorter reach but he overcame this by becoming a machine. Lung function and muscle contractility has been proven to have the ability to improve significantly. Unfortunately a lot of the time with drugs but also naturally over years in sport specific training.It can be impossible to catch up on world class champions if they logged so many extra hours of well guided practice as kids. To sum up yes there is a cut off point of genetic physicality and intellect but beyond that its situational and hard work in my opinion that is. Too many excuses not to be champion it wouldn't happen in the Usa. Now if I can get off my arse it might not be too late to be champion!! Ha

Chrissybhoy

tony stark wrote: »

Roy Keanes training was in Ireland as a child it could never compare to the much better training messi recieved as a child from his own father or indeed as an adult at international level( poor Roy had the tail end of Charlton and Mick McCarthy). Keane also spent time away from football boxing as a kid whereas Messi was always 24/7 football. Messi even over came a growth hormone deficiency to become excellent. Keane is actually a good example in itself of a below average footballer as a kid who became a top European player. If you're you train everyone the same as Tyson they won't be champs because they lack the fire of motivation he got on the streets and in juvenile prison which in itself is training psychologically. Tyson and Ali. Two champions with different genetics and body types. Both champions as a product of their environment, well guided training and work ethic. There is obviously a certain cut off point of physicallity and intellect but there is still a situational scientific explanation as to what separates champions from other top performers. It can even be something like Evander Holyfield having 8 older siblings he always had to fight logging him those extra hours of practice and providing motivation to work harder. Body types can suit certain sports but this is constantly contradicted by people like Tyson who was short and had a shorter reach but he overcame this by becoming a machine. Lung function and muscle contractility has been proven to have the ability to improve significantly. Unfortunately a lot of the time with drugs but also naturally over years in sport specific training.It can be impossible to catch up on world class champions if they logged so many extra hours of well guided practice as kids. To sum up yes there is a cut off point of genetic physicality and intellect but beyond that its situational and hard work in my opinion that is. Too many excuses not to be champion it wouldn't happen in the Usa. Now if I can get off my arse it might not be too late to be champion!! Ha

Well put tony I'd believe it all and agree with that post

walshb

I can't believe I am reading some of this nonesense. Some humans are designed to do some things that bit better and that much better than other humans. Now, at the top of certain disciplines where there are several humans who are great at a discipline or sport, sometimes hard work is what separates the great elites from the elites, but also, sometimes it's as mentioned, flare and natural ability, and of course, physiology and mechanics.

It's absurd to lump in all the elites as equal, and to then say that some of them thrive even more, or succeed even more because they put in more hard work. Ridiclulous. There are just naturally great athletes and sport stars on earth that are that great and natural because f who they are just as much as how hard they work.

BTW, Tony, the comparison of Mesi and Keane is bonkers. They aren't even the same position on the pitch, and are completely different as regards their physical make up. Similar with Gerrard. All the hard work won't make them as skilled and great as Mesi. Keane was a good footballer and had his strengths and weaknesses. Mesi is an ATG player that had his strengths and weaknesses. The only comparison in terms of soccer is the flare and talent and ball handling skills of the two. Mesi trumps Keane all day long. His balance and coordination and ball control and general all around flare is god given first, and improved upon with practice. Hard work plays a smaller part in Mesi's genius than genetics and 'god given' talent.

I'd add in a peak Federer over many other top players. Some, like Nadal, do have the game and fitness to beat a peak Federer, but in general what Federer does with a racket is as much down to natural flare and skill and grace as hours spent on the court from plain hard work. I'd back Federer over any ATG (apart from Nadal) 7-8 times from 10 based on his natural game and skill.

walshb

Relating to Bolt, personally I think hand on heart he is a clean and brilliant and kind of freak of nature and once in a lifetime athlete. Everything about his career tells me this. Yes, the Jamaican issue as regards their stringency is a matter to look at, but I wouldn't be placing that as some sort of evidence that he uses. Bolt's character and charisma and warmth and global appeal. I just don't think he'd risk it. I believe him. There's something believable about him. A kind of Ali like persona. A fun and warmth about him. Add this to his physiological make up and his talent as a Junior athlete. I believe hard work and maturity and physiology is what allows him to run 9.6 or so. He also has never failed any tests. What more can an athlete do? They can only pass the tests they take. And just because some athletes passed tests and were later found out (despite not failing tests) doesn't mean we apply a bad judgment against those who have not failed. Otherwise we are slating any great athlete form the past was probably a cheat. That's wrong. Many were not, and had the character and honesty to compete fairly.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

I can't believe I am reading some of this nonesense. Some humans are designed to do some things that bit better and that much better than other humans. Now, at the top of certain disciplines where there are several humans who are great at a discipline or sport, sometimes hard work is what separates the great elites from the elites, but also, sometimes it's as mentioned, flare and natural ability, and of course, physiology and mechanics.

It's absurd to lump in all the elites as equal, and to then say that some of them thrive even more, or succeed even more because they put in more hard work. Ridiclulous. There are just naturally great athletes and sport stars on earth that are that great and natural because f who they are just as much as how hard they work.

BTW, Tony, the comparison of Mesi and Keane is bonkers. They aren't even the same position on the pitch, and are completely different as regards their physical make up. Similar with Gerrard. All the hard work won't make them as skilled and great as Mesi. Keane was a good footballer and had his strengths and weaknesses. Mesi is an ATG player that had his strengths and weaknesses. The only comparison in terms of soccer is the flare and talent and ball handling skills of the two. Mesi trumps Keane all day long. His balance and coordination and ball control and general all around flare is god given first, and improved upon with practice. Hard work plays a smaller part in Mesi's genius than genetics and 'god given' talent.

I'd add in a peak Federer over many other top players. Some, like Nadal, do have the game and fitness to beat a peak Federer, but in general what Federer does with a racket is as much down to natural flare and skill and grace as hours spent on the court from plain hard work. I'd back Federer over any ATG (apart from Nadal) 7-8 times from 10 based on his natural game and skill.

What you're stating is your opinion.

What you're contradicting is the EVIDENCE provided by numerous studies. That evidence won't change because you think different. Evidence is evidence, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Relating to Bolt, personally I think hand on heart he is a clean and brilliant and kind of freak of nature and once in a lifetime athlete. Everything about his career tells me this. Yes, the Jamaican issue as regards their stringency is a matter to look at, but I wouldn't be placing that as some sort of evidence that he uses. Bolt's character and charisma and warmth and global appeal. I just don't think he'd risk it. I believe him. There's something believable about him. A kind of Ali like persona. A fun and warmth about him. Add this to his physiological make up and his talent as a Junior athlete. I believe hard work and maturity and physiology is what allows him to run 9.6 or so. He also has never failed any tests. What more can an athlete do? They can only pass the tests they take. And just because some athletes passed tests and were later found out (despite not failing tests) doesn't mean we apply a bad judgment against those who have not failed. Otherwise we are slating any great athlete form the past was probably a cheat. That's wrong. Many were not, and had the character and honesty to compete fairly.

As I already said, I would like to believe he's clean too. The world of sport really needs him to be.

However, for years before he was found out, I was saying the same about Lance Armstrong too and it would be highly hypocritical of me to ignore the same things I harped on about with Armstrong simply because Bolt has a likeable personality.

Bolt is hammering guys in a sport where 1/100th of a second can be the difference between a medal and nothing. It's widely accepted that athletics is riddled with drugs, yet somebody clean is annihilating all the drug-users??? I'm sad to say it but it just doesn't add up.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

What you're stating is your opinion.

What you're contradicting is the EVIDENCE provided by numerous studies. That evidence won't change because you think different. Evidence is evidence, whether you choose to ignore it or not.

In these matters of subjectivity evidence is not fact. It's not conclusive or science fact. Nobody can prove the issue for all permutations and examples.

I'm done. You stated that at the top hard work is ALL that separates the competitors. That cannot be proved or verified no matter how many studies are carried out or how many books are written. Your refusal to include natural talent/physiology and "god given" skills at elite level is off the mark. It is a factor at all levels.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

It's widely accepted that athletics is riddled with drugs, yet somebody clean is annihilating all the drug-users??? I'm sad to say it but it just doesn't add up.

So how do you explain his utter dominance and margins of victory? If it's riddled, then are the other finalists also on juice, and if so, why are they so far behind? Is it because Bolt is on the juice AND he is working so much harder than all the other great sprinters? You can't have it both ways. Or, is Bolt like Lance, the one that is getting all the good juice and the best juice and the most juice, as well as working harder than the other elites?

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

...evidence is not fact...

Huh?

That cannot be proved or verified no matter how many studies are carried out or how many books are written.

Well, it has been proved. The proof is there for all to see, but of course you're going to "skip the reading", because....

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

So how do you explain his utter dominance and margins of victory? If it's riddled, then are the other finalists also on juice, and if so, why are they so far behind? Is it because Bolt is on the juice AND he is working so much harder than all the other great sprinters? You can't have it both ways. Or, is Bolt like Lance, the one that is getting all the good juice and the best juice and the most juice, as well as working harder than the other elites?

Yet again you ignore something I have brought up repeatedly.

JAMAICA HAS NO OUT-OF-SEASON TESTING!!!

Honestly now, no.... HONESTLY, can you not figure out the advantage that gives somebody?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Huh?



Well, it has been proved. The proof is there for all to see, but of course you're going to "skip the reading", because....

Evidence is just that, evidence. It can be challenged and refuted, you do know that? Happens every day in courts.

Are you standing by your assertion that at the elite level in sports what separates wins and losses is who is working the hardest pre event? Bearing in mind that working hard and levels of working/training is a subjective issue?

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Yet again you ignore something I have brought up repeatedly.

JAMAICA HAS NO OUT-OF-SEASON TESTING!!!

Honestly now, no.... HONESTLY, can you not figure out the advantage that gives somebody?

I didn't ignore it. Jamaica also has other top class sprinters. The U.S does too, and many other countries. Can you explain why ONLY Bolt is so far ahead of all the others? Is it because he is the one getting the good juice and the others are not, or is it because he's getting the good juice AND he's working harder than all the other elites?

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Evidence is just that, evidence. It can be challenged and refuted, you do know that? Happens every day in courts.

Are you standing by your assertion that at the elite level in sports what separates wins and losses is who is working the hardest pre event? Bearing in mind that working hard and levels of working/training is a subjective issue?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/evidence

Evidence

noun
1.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.


Nothing there about opinion or subjectivity.

If you're wondering if I agree with years of scientific studies or agree with you, I think you know the answer.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

I didn't ignore it. Jamaica also has other top class sprinters. The U.S does too, and many other countries. Can you explain why ONLY Bolt is so far ahead of all the others? Is it because he is the one getting the good juice and the others are not, or is it because he's getting the good juice AND he's working harder than all the other elites?

The highlighted bit.

megadodge

pac_man wrote: »

What's this got to do with JJN? Can we keep this thread on-topic please.

You're right.

I apologise, because I was the one that initiated it, but I can't help myself at times.

FTA69

James Toney; a man who used to whip world contenders while eating Burker King as his staple diet. The only thing at times that separated him from his opponents was god-given timing and reflex. Yes, he trained at the highest level, but he beat many men who had trained infinitely harder and longer.

The difference between them was talent.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

James Toney; a man who used to whip world contenders while eating Burker King as his staple diet. The only thing at times that separated him from his opponents was god-given timing and reflex. Yes, he trained at the highest level, but he beat many men who had trained infinitely harder and longer.

The difference between them was talent.

He was the one person I was going to mention but I didn't want to get Mega started with a RJJ rant!

Toney was all god given innate talent. Pretty much all. The guy never ran or barely hit pads. He sparred. That was pretty much it. Hard work? I am sure it was, but I bet many elites put in a lot more hours, and lot more varied training.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

The highlighted bit.

I happen to think that's a bit too far fetched. The other Jamaicans would be seething reading it.