Talent v Likeability

[DaveShoelace]

I actually think the 'talented' kids who pick these things up early had an environmental helping hand along the way. Tiger Woods was coached by his Dad from age 2, the Williams Sisters were genuinely conceived to play tennis, Andre Agassis family owned a tennis ball serving machine, Floyd Mayweathers dad is a former boxer and trainer, the list is endless. I'm sure somewhere along the line Beckham had some extra curricular help from his parents, maybe his proximity to a football field, a good sporting facility at school or some other outlier which helped encourage him to train more.

In the late 1990s, I think four of the top ten ranked table tennis players in Britain were from same road in Reading, which just happened to be the road where a former table tennis champion and coach lived. I know British table tennis is a poor example to end on, but there is a ton of data out there which suggests its all down to environment and hard work.

Speaking of which, three cracking reads:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-born/dp/0099519852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357056824&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1357056824&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1857885198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357057411&sr=1-1

[redarmi]

Bounce in particular is a fascinating read coming, as it does, from a former elite level sportsman.

[DaveShoelace]

Bounce in particular is a fascinating read coming, as it does, from a former elite level sportsman.

Its funny actually, all three books came out at round about the same time and they are all equally as good.

Talent is Overrated is best at debunking the idea of natural talent
Talent Code is best for explaining the actual neurological and biological science behind ability
Bounce is best, as you say, for breaking down how elite sportsmen and women train and perform differently to the rest of us, it won a sports book of the year prize iirc.

[Waz1892]

I actually think the 'talented' kids who pick these things up early had an environmental helping hand along the way. Tiger Woods was coached by his Dad from age 2, the Williams Sisters were genuinely conceived to play tennis, Andre Agassis family owned a tennis ball serving machine, Floyd Mayweathers dad is a former boxer and trainer, the list is endless. I'm sure somewhere along the line Beckham had some extra curricular help from his parents, maybe his proximity to a football field, a good sporting facility at school or some other outlier which helped encourage him to train more.

In the late 1990s, I think four of the top ten ranked table tennis players in Britain were from same road in Reading, which just happened to be the road where a former table tennis champion and coach lived. I know British table tennis is a poor example to end on, but there is a ton of data out there which suggests its all down to environment and hard work.

Speaking of which, three cracking reads:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Talent-Code-Greatness-born/dp/0099519852/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357056824&sr=8-1

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bounce-Myth-Talent-Power-Practice/dp/0007350546/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1357056824&sr=8-4

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Talent-Overrated-Separates-World-Class-Performers/dp/1857885198/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357057411&sr=1-1

Steffi Graf father coached her from a very early age too.  Every night after school, and at weekends from the age of 6.  Even sawn a tennis racket in half so she had a adult racket head, but a small handle to cope with her small hands.

She did pretty well too!

[Royal Flush]

I think many on here will disagree after the RC but from those who know him, Ian Poulter.

I would say he lacks on the talent department.

On the natural talent debate i still don't get how someone like kin can debunk the idea of a deity so easily but somehow believe kids are born with 'special abilities'

[DaveShoelace]

I think many on here will disagree after the RC but from those who know him, Ian Poulter.

I would say he lacks on the talent department.

On the natural talent debate i still don't get how someone like kin can debunk the idea of a deity so easily but somehow believe kids are born with 'special abilities'

lol, superb

[kinboshi]

I think many on here will disagree after the RC but from those who know him, Ian Poulter.

I would say he lacks on the talent department.

On the natural talent debate i still don't get how someone like kin can debunk the idea of a deity so easily but somehow believe kids are born with 'special abilities'

lol, superb

It's a combination of nature and nuture.  Of course some people are born with 'special abilities', but without application they won't be successful.  Show me a sprinter who doesn't have the ACTN3 protein.  It's nothing to do with a deity, it's to do with genetic make-up (a process governed by evolution).  Nature provides the resources, and then nurture and application is required to reach the top.

I used to be pretty good at basketball. Then at about 14 years old, everyone got bigger, faster, stronger.  I didn't.  I trained harder, played harder and yet some of the other players were just naturally so much better than me, and even without putting in the hours they were just better than I was.

A few of them also trained very hard. They went on to play at a decent club level, whereas some of the others with the 'natural' talent didn't try as hard to apply themselves - and they didn't do as well.

[Tal]

I kind of have to relate to chess a lot as it's something I've had a fair bit of exposure to.

I was a latecomer at 9½ to chess but there a few kids who start at 3 and the majority of the better players start at 5. On the junior circuit, there are a lot of parents who force the game on their children (I suppose like any other game - note kinboshi I didn't say sport!) and I've seen some utterly deplorable sights wherr a parent is shouting at - even smacking - their ten year old son for losing a game.

There was one particular lad who I encountered very early into my chess "career". My parents got chatting to this lad's parents outside the tournament hall (moms and dads aren't allowed in because there's far too much opportunity for cheating and it cuts down on the pressure on the kids). This lad was the same age as me but had been playing for a few years already. His dad told my parents "Charles eats, sleeps and breathes chess. He goes to bed at night with a chess video on so that when he wakes up in the morning he has been dreaming about the game."

Mom and dad couldn't believe their ears. Then this lad loses his next game and is visibly upset when he comes out of the tournament hall. His dad wasn't worried about that tho, demanding to know what went wrong and making this poor lad recant each of the moves. He pulled the lad by the arm and within a few seconds this boy in a chess T-shirt was in tears.

Not only did I beat him in the tournament, he stopped playing a couple of years later (presumably when he was old enough to tell his dad he liked playing something else instead).

There's the odd special talent that comes through but quite a few have an early gift and then aren't seen afterwards.

Football is one of a small number of sports where by the age of 15, if they're good at it, it is fairly likely the child won't want to do anything else (studies, girls, boys, whatever). There's a famous story of Dwight Yorke and Brian Lara being from the same area in Trinidad and one being the best footballer and the other the best cricketer (but the other way round!). Phil Neville was a good cricketer too.

If he were born into that sort of family, Paul Scholes could have been a golfer.

Football is working class sport and there aren't many people who play at Eton and go on to play professionally (altho the referee David Ellery was a house master there IIRC).

It's def a case of nature and nurture.

[TheDazzler]

Tal, Charles didn't work hard enough.
His parents also made the mistake of not giving the correct name. They should have called him Vladimir. Martina Hingis was named after Matina Navratilova and the parents clearly started early.
As for Elleray, he was taught at 'the other place', Harrow.

[Tal]

Tal, Charles didn't work hard enough.
His parents also made the mistake of not giving the correct name. They should have called him Vladimir. Martina Hingis was named after Matina Navratilova and the parents clearly started early.
As for Elleray, he was taught at 'the other place', Harrow.

Ah fancy getting a Harrovian confused with an Etonian!

Charles wasn't talented enough. The point is Hingis, Woods and the-like were thrust into the game AND happened to be extremely talented at it as well.

[ACE2M]

I played football so much when i was younger i got very good, getting scouted by clubs and paying county level. I had knee trouble and stopped playing at 14, took it back up at 28 and now i'm toss, i would struggle to get a starting berth in a pub side. Purely the hours and hours of practice that got me to that level.

[Tal]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

As with my scratch golfer comparison, there is a huge gap then between a professional player and the world's best. This thread is mainly about the elite of course.

[redarmi]

There is definitely a degree of survivor  bias in a lot of these theories.  I am sure I wasn't alone in spending days at a time playing football but, ultimately, not being that good at it.  i guess the point is that in all but the most exceptional circumstances you have to work very hard to reach the top irrespective of your natural talent.  When I was a kid, as I said, i played a lot of football and a few of my friends at the time went on to play at a semi-pro or pro level.  None really made it although i have subsequently viewed at a distance a similar process with my nephew who has done well and whilst they all had some natural talent, they also worked hard.  On the flip side the most naturally talented footballer I ever came across was in my  class at school.  He was incredible and the ball seemed like it was stuck to his feet at times.  I was reminded of his talent the other day when i read about him in my parents local newspaper.  He had been found dead in the street of a suspected overdose.  I guess sometimes there are things you just cannot overcome.

[rfgqqabc]

That's a good point. I could work solely on chess for a few years and possibly - only possibly - get to International Master level. I definitely couldn't get to the next level of being a Grandmaster tho. That requires another level of talent. No one is a Grandmaster by work alone.

Probably like being a scratch golfer. You can get down under 5 by being quite good and working hard but it takes more than commitment and a decent set of bats to be a club pro.

Is that really true with Chess? I always imagined if someone had enough commitment and ~average iq they could become a grand master with enough effort. I mean like serious dedicated training full time etc.

[kinboshi]

Tal, Charles didn't work hard enough.
His parents also made the mistake of not giving the correct name. They should have called him Vladimir. Martina Hingis was named after Matina Navratilova and the parents clearly started early.
As for Elleray, he was taught at 'the other place', Harrow.

Ah fancy getting a Harrovian confused with an Etonian!

Charles wasn't talented enough. The point is Hingis, Woods and the-like were thrust into the game AND happened to be extremely talented at it as well.

Becker was another one.  Good at quite a few sports (including football), but his dad had a tennis coaching club (or something), and so it was pretty obvious which direction he was going to take.

Anthony Joshua is an interesting one.  Only took up boxing when he was 18, after showing a talent in football and sprinting (sub-11s 100m runner). He's a proper athlete (unlike a lot of heavyweight boxers), and will be interesting to see how he gets on as a pro if/when he moves on from the amateur game.  It's also interesting to think of how good he'd have been if he'd boxed from a younger age as well.