How much natural talent do you have - and how much do people need ?

Pacing Mule

I started running 5 months ago. Came literally from the couch - unable to run for more than a minute and am now able to run 10k..... slowly Now I do know that speed will increase the more I run and I accept that. I am making progress and am happy with it.

From reading posts here though I've noticed that there seems to be a broad spectrum of starting stories. Like I said above my first run I was hardly able to run for a minute at a time. Over the course of a few weeks that increased as I followed the couch to 5k program - eventually running my first 5k in about 35 minutes 6 weeks into training. My best time ever for a 5k is 28 minutes and that's 5 months in. I'm not alone in that kind of story - there are plenty of people here with that history.

On the other side there are quite a few stories / logs where someone decides to take up running and knocks out a 5k in 28 minutes on their first ever run ! (to be fair a lot of these but not all would have played other sports beforehand) or mentions a 5k in 23 minutes 3 weeks in etc.

So I'm interested to know from the more experienced runners here - just how much natural talent did you have starting off. Don't get me wrong - I'm not hoping someone will turn around and say "hey I fell off the treadmill with exhaustion 30 seconds into my first session and ran 3 marathons yesterday in 2 hours each" but I am interested to see where / at level it all began for you guys.

Pisco Sour

In 2008 I started running for the first time in about 4-5 years and trained for the Great Ireland Run 10k. I hadnt done a tap of sport in college with the exception of the gym from time to time, darts, pool and drinking. I remember my first run being 3k in Marlay Park in about 15 minutes or so. Within a few weeks I was running 5k's in about 23 minutes around my local area. About 5-6 weeks after starting training I ran my first ever road race in 21:46 I think it was, and then a month later the GIR in just a smidge under 47 minutes.

After Rotterdam Marathon in 2010 I didnt do a tap of running. Lost all motivation. Then decided to try some random track distances for fun a few months later after no running during that time off. Ran a mile in 6:16, which I then brought down to 5:56 and then 5:48 (thanks to great pacing by brianderunner), but most significantly I ran a 67 400m followed a few days later by a 66, off no training.

It helps that I'm naturally thin and have fast metabolism so don't put on weight, so I'm starting at an advantage over many other people. I certainly wouldn't call myself anything close to naturally talented at all, but as I have said before I believe talent to be a relative thing. You may think you have no talent in comparison to somebody way faster than you (the David Gillick's of this world) but you still may have a lot more talent than somebody behind you. Talent isn't black and white. Some have lots of it, some have a bit of it, and some have none. But talent alone will only get you so far.

tunguska

seamus

For people coming new to running, I suspect that weight and general fitness are the two primary factors moreso than any kind of natural talent. Natural talent may have more of an impact on the rate that someone improves and ultimately their performance when they get to higher levels of training.

Running is a cardio-intensive sport which relies a lot on pure fitness. Taking two people who've similarly done no exercise since leaving school and are the same height, but have a 2 stone weight difference, the lighter person will naturally be able to run faster and for longer before their body gives out. It's purely down to power output - the smaller person requires less energy to move and so will get more speed for the same effort.

If the two don't change weight at all, the lighter person will also appear to progress more quickly because for every additional watt of power that he can output, the fat guy will need to improve by 1.18 watts to match his progress. In other words the fat guy needs to work 18% harder than the skinny guy just to keep up.

Likewise taking two people of similar weight, but one has been doing a non-running sport regularly in previous years, the fitter person will be able to run faster and for longer than the less fit person. Both require the same energy to move their body, but the fitter person's body is more attuned to outputting that power over a longer period (or more power in a shorter period), so they can keep it going longer.

myflipflops

I would say get another 12 months of good training into you and then start wondering about talent. When a lot of people talk about talent, they are actually referring to attitude and dedication.

I have seen guys that would have been judged as having very little natural affinity with the sport but superb dedication, attitude and 'luck' with injuries run 50 second 400's, 14.20 5k's and 2.31 marathons.

Pisco Sour

myflipflops wrote: »

I have seen guys that would have been judged as having very little natural affinity with the sport but superb dedication, attitude and 'luck' with injuries run 50 second 400's, 14.20 5k's and 2.31 marathons.

IMO people who say these type of things dont actually realise how talented they actually are themselves, as they are constantly using those who are better than them as a benchmark and so may not feel talented in comparison. Make no mistake you do need talent to run a 50 second 400m and a 14:20 5k. How much talent is required is a different question, but there is no doubt a certain element of talent is required.

Staying injury free can also be described as a talent as ecoli has mentioned in the past. Sure look at how Roger Federer has never missed a grand slam tournament in something like 11-12 years. Rafa has missed plenty and has been severely underpar in some others. There's no way this is down to luck. Different sport of course but the point still stands.

pconn062

I agree with myflipflops, I think for the standard club runner a hard working, dedicated attitude is more important than natural talent. Someone who trains hard and regularly will succeed in improving their times. Personally speaking I am probably not very naturally talented but I train religiously 6 days a week with two quality sessions so my times drop consistently. A poster here called Seres had a great log titled "Patience and Consistency" and I think those attributes are more important than natural talent.

Pisco Sour

pconn062 wrote: »

I agree with myflipflops, I think for the standard club runner a hard working, dedicated attitude is more important than natural talent. Someone who trains hard and regularly will succeed in improving their times. Personally speaking I am probably not very naturally talented but I train religiously 6 days a week with two quality sessions so my times drop consistently. A poster here called Seres had a great log titled "Patience and Consistency" and I think those attributes are more important than natural talent.

I agree. Just with regards the times he mentioned I don't agree that somebody could get to that level on hard work and dedication alone. SOME talent would also be required, in addition to all the hard graft. Again, how much talent is a different question that can be debated, but no way could an average talentless person hit 50 seconds for 400m.

gmurran

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I agree. Just with regards the times he mentioned I don't agree that somebody could get to that level on hard work and dedication alone. SOME talent would also be required, in addition to all the hard graft. Again, how much talent is a different question that can be debated, but no way could an average talentless person hit 50 seconds for 400m.

Would have to agree an average runners cant run any of those times. You need talent.From my experience training and dedication will get you so low on your times but you do have a barrier that you wont get over unless you can handle higher mileage without serious injury or have natural pace. People have very different levels of mental toughness also.

myflipflops

Pisco Sour wrote: »

I agree. Just with regards the times he mentioned I don't agree that somebody could get to that level on hard work and dedication alone. SOME talent would also be required, in addition to all the hard graft. Again, how much talent is a different question that can be debated, but no way could an average talentless person hit 50 seconds for 400m.

What are you basing this on?

Get in a few months training to get properly fit and then get 9-12 months real, hard 400 training into you and you will probably change your mind. The mystique around these types of times disappear when you do the training.

dna_leri

You can't measure talent so this discussion will go around in circles.

Your running performance is affected by many things some of which you can influence, some of which you can. Talent is dictated by your genes and there is a broad spectrum of abilities. You also can not influence how you used your talent in the past. If you came from the couch and could hardly run a mile, it could be because you have no talent or because you have wasted it for 20 years, you will never know.

You can influence how hard (and smart) you work now. Any coach will tell you that he would prefer someone with minimal talent who works hard to someone with lots of talent but does not work.

Pisco Sour

myflipflops wrote: »

What are you basing this on?

Get in a few months training to get properly fit and then get 9-12 months real, hard 400 training into you and you will probably change your mind. The mystique around these types of times disappear when you do the training.

Basing it on the fact that there have been people who have trained for YEARS and have not approached those times you are listing. With regards the 400m if you don't have the basic speed then no amount of training will get you to 50 seconds. If you can't get your top 100m speed under 12 seconds then it doesn't matter how hard you try you will not hit 50. There are many many people who have tried and tried but can not run those sort of times.

A simple example. Back when I was doing nothing, myself and my mate one day went down to the track. I hadnt run in months and had never sprinted before (excluding sports days in school). He hadnt run in a couple of years. Both of us were a healthy weight and he was quite gym fit. He would always beat me in road races that we would do, usually by about 2 minutes over 10km. So we had a little time trial each over 400m for ****s and giggles. I ran it in 67 and he ran it in 71. The same guy who kicked my ass in road races despite NEVER doing a tap of training, was trailing way behind me in sprints. That shows that I have less natural talent than him over distance running, and visa versa over the sprints. I'd love to see how you would take him down from a 71 to a 50 over 400m. Dedication and hard work is crucial, no denying that. But you cant put in what God left out! If you don't have the natural speed in the legs then no chance.

Pisco Sour

dna_leri wrote: »

Your running performance is affected by many things some of which you can influence, some of which you can. Talent is dictated by your genes and there is a broad spectrum of abilities.

This bit in bold.

Talent is very much relative. A could be talented compared to B but not very talented at all when compared to C.

50.06 came 9th in the State Championships this year down here in Victoria, population around that of Ireland. Of course talent is required!!

corny

All that needs to be said is 99% of the people posting on this forum will never reach the limit of what their bodies can do so the time to be wondering about 'natural talent' is when you're sitting on 3 year old pbs that you just can't improve upon.

There are myriad things that can affect rates of progression too. Weight, diet, sleep, stress, training, injury, attitude, stuff we don't even know about etc. There is an element of 'talent' at the high end but its hugely overstated for most of us imo.

For me, when i see impressive times and progression i say **** you must have worked hard for that not you must very talented.

token56

Indeed natural talent can only take a person so far, it really is down to what you do with it, the dedication and attitude you have towards work and training.

Talent will only shine to a certain level, after that its hard work that is needed especially if you want to compete to the best of your ability.

Pacing Mule

corny wrote: »

All that needs to be said is 99% of the people posting on this forum will never reach the limit of what their bodies can do so the time to be wondering about 'natural talent' is when you're sitting on 3 year old pbs that you just can't improve upon.

There are myriad things that can affect rates of progression too. Weight, diet, sleep, stress, training, injury, attitude, stuff we don't even know about etc. There is an element of 'talent' at the high end but its hugely overstated for most of us imo.

For me, when i see impressive times and progression i say **** you must have worked hard for that not you must very talented.

Totally agree with your last comment.

But as for the bit in bold. My OP was not really talking about athletes years into training trying to shave seconds off sprints or minutes off long distances.

I'm asking about the effect of (if any) natural talent at the very start of your training. What effect does this talent have on a person ? Why can some people get off the couch and run 5k in 28 minutes on their first ever attempt at running whereas others can't run 500 metres ? Is it all about weight, body build etc ?

Mind you the direction the thread has gone since is also very interesting and I understand the can of worms reference now

menoscemo

Pageant Messiah wrote: »

Why can some people get off the couch and run 5k in 28 minutes on their first ever attempt at running whereas others can't run 500 metres ? Is it all about weight, body build etc ?

That's a very simple answer and it has nothing to do with talent.
The guy getting off the couch and running 5k is much fitter than the guy who can't run 500m. I would have thought that would be quite obvious

corny

menoscemo wrote: »

The guy getting off the couch and running 5k is much fitter than the guy who can't run 500m.

+1

plodder

What are the factors of natural (distance) talent though? If you define talent as the performance factors you don't have control over, then my guess is the two main ones are lung capacity and build (ie. light and not too tall, being better).

ecoli

I remember during a debate last year Clearier actually made a great point about this when he talked about the influence of talent for the likes of a 3.30-4hr marathoner being more prominent than in a 2.45-3 hour marathon run. The idea was that at this stage hard work is a factor which cannot be escaped whereas some can manage the other times based more on talent than the work put in. This does not mean that when they do put in the hard work that they will run faster but rather they are able to perform better off limited base

Here is the thread:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056285981

Simply put 2 people not trained racing each other you may find talent is the deciding factor however as they both train and how the body handles training this "talent" level becomes less of a factor compared to training, mental strength,focus, nutrition, injury and training approach (you can train hard and not improve to your potential simply because the type of training does not suit you)

ecoli

menoscemo wrote: »

That's a very simple answer and it has nothing to do with talent.
The guy getting off the couch and running 5k is much fitter than the guy who can't run 500m. I would have thought that would be quite obvious

I think he means if two people with sedentary life styles were to both try run 5k straight off the couch these could be the two results rather than seperate approaches

DublinDilbert

ecoli wrote: »

I think he means if two people with sedentary life styles were to both try run 5k straight off the couch these could be the two results rather than seperate approaches

I guess the thing is that no two people will have the same lifestyle, one will typically have advantages over the other.

Someone who's on their feet all day and has some physical element to their work may well have reasonable core strength and take to running quite easily. For someone who sits at a PC all day it might be much harder.

People may well do lots of physical activity and not even now about it, even just doing stuff around the house, cutting the grass, working in the garden, can actually make a big difference.

The thing is some people will have advantages over others, and it will possibly make it easier and more enjoy able to do that first 5 or 10K run. They won't dread going out for an hours run, where as others will initially hate it. The one who likes it won't miss a run, even on a morning like today, I quite enjoyed running in the lashing rain in the phenoix park

menoscemo

ecoli wrote: »

I think he means if two people with sedentary life styles were to both try run 5k straight off the couch these could be the two results rather than seperate approaches

Yeah but there are a myriad of possible factors. One may be overweight the other not. One might have a better diet. One might have done a bit of sport back in the day and retain some residual fitness. One may have a slightly higher/lower Bodyfat percentage etc etc. In other words there are a million possible reasons before 'talent' even comes into it.
A friend of mine took up running and ran 35 minutes for 5 mile off no training, it took me a years solid training to get to that level. I could just say that he had 'talent' and that is the reason, but I'd just be fooling mysef. Fact is he is a relatively healthy, thin guy and I was a mess before I started running so i took a years training to get to where he was 'coming from the couch'.

Pisco Sour

Whatever about something like the marathon which is quite training intensive, something like the 400m is certainly very talent intensive. You can build up endurance, but you can’t develop natural speed if it is not there to begin with. That's why they use the term NATURAL speed. Myflipflops is referring to a 50 second 400m. This would equate (roughly) to a sub 11 for 100m. There is simply no way you can say that ANY man can be taken off the street and after 4-5 years of highly dedicated training and commitment can be turned into a 10.9x runner over 100m. It is just not true. I’m all for the whole “you can do it” attitude, but up to a point. There is no way that simply every male could run 50 seconds for 400m if one put their mind to it. It’s a ludicrous claim, and underestimates just how talented such people actually are.

ChickenTikka

I came across this article years ago which I kindof like.

http://www.iaaf.org/news/kind=2/newsid=42836.html

So if El Guerrouj can only run 36 mins for 10k a few years after he ceased being a professional athlete, this must say something about what dedication and training can do for you.

Pisco Sour

ChickenTikka wrote: »

I came across this article years ago which I kindof like.

http://www.iaaf.org/news/kind=2/newsid=42836.html

So if El Guerrouj can only run 36 mins for 10k a few years after he ceased being a professional athlete, this must say something about what dedication and training can do for you.

Or it is an indication of how he has let himself go since retiring? Sonia O'Sullivan was running faster 10k's than that a few years after retiring from competitive athletics.

And if somebody can get off their arse and run a 10k in 36 minutes that shows talent.

Nobody is disputing that you need to put in the years and years of hard graft, just that the talent element is being understated here. It's very much a "you can do anything you set your mind to". It's not true. You can't put in what God left out (how many times have I said that now). If you don't have NATURAL speed in you, then no amount of training will make you a world beater.

This isn't like soccer where the hard grafters like Steve Bruce and Gary Pallister can be on the same pitch as extremely talented guys like Eric Cantona. Athletics is a simple sport. If a hard worker races a talented hard worker, the talented hard worker will win EVERY time.

walshb

seamus wrote: »

Running is a cardio-intensive sport which relies a lot on pure fitness. .

Fully agree. Running is natural to us. Some are just naturally that bit fittter and built that bit better to run at different distances. You could take two men of similar build and weight and age and one may run once a week and the other may run 4-5 times a week. What will separate them mostly is their innate natural fitness and stamina.

tunguska

Pisco Sour wrote: »

Whatever about something like the marathon which is quite training intensive, something like the 400m is certainly very talent intensive. You can build up endurance, but you can’t develop natural speed if it is not there to begin with.

Sorry but thats complete nonsense. You absolutley can develop speed. You become good at what you train for, theres no horses for courses. 4 years ago I'd struggle to run 75sec repeats in training, now Im doing them in 67s. And I plan to get faster. In fact I'll be doing 400s next week and my aim to to knock them out in 65/66. And trust me I will do it.
Its about what you believe you can do and not restricting yourself.
The real question is why do you believe you cant get faster, what do you get from thinking that its impossible to develop speed?

walshb

I think what Pico Sour means is that you can develop speed-endurance, but flat out raw speed is something that you either have or do not have. Sure you can get a wee bit faster, but your top speed is almost set in stone. Training and training will help you maintain speed for longer (speed-endurance), but your top flat speed may only very slightly improve.

tunguska

walshb wrote: »

I think what Pico Sour means is that you can develop speed-endurance, but flat out raw speed is something that you either have or do not have. Sure you can get a wee bit faster, but your top speed is almost set in stone. Training and training will help you maintain speed for longer (speed-endurance), but your top flat speed may only very slightly improve.

I dont agree. Theres nothing set in stone, its all up for change. Why not choose to believe that, instead of putting limits on yourself. Maybe it'll turn out that you're right, but at least you get to find out for sure, having left no stone unturned. But how many people do that? Instead they give up before they even start, claiming that their genes hold them back and stop them from ever developing speed.

walshb

tunguska wrote: »

I dont agree. Theres nothing set in stone, its all up for change. Why not choose to believe that, instead of putting limits on yourself. Maybe it'll turn out that you're right, but at least you get to find out for sure, having left no stone unturned. But how many people do that? Instead they give up before they even start, claiming that their genes hold them back and stop them from ever developing speed.

I am aware that a person can increase their speed, but flat speed is something you have or don't have. Natural speed! Yes you can increase your flat out speed, but really it is something you have to begin with.

I am talking about the average fit male here .Not someone who is obese who then loses weight and gets fit and notices that they can run a deal faster and for longer.

tunguska

walshb wrote: »

I am aware that a person can increase their speed, but flat speed is something you have or don't have. Natural speed! Yes you can increase your flat out speed, but really it is something you have to begin with.

You dont have to be born fast to become fast. Maybe the guy next door can skin you in a 400 race one day. But then you go away, you work on your technique, use weight training, plyometrics, drills, proprioceptive cues for your form. And then you come back and race the same guy again but beat him. It took work, but you got there, you can even the playing field.
But again I'd say why not choose to believe that instead of choosing to believe that you have to be born fast and thats it? I think thats the question thats actually relevant.

gerard65

So, I get it now, Usain Bolt has no natural genetic talent, he just trains harder than anyone else.
Of course genetic talent has a massive impact on how good a human will be in not only sport but many other aspects of life, arts, intellect etc. No matter how hard you practice most will never be able to sing opera like the great tenors or create art masterpieces like Michelangelo.
Hard work will only get you so far, for the rest, well, 'you can't put in what God left out'.
'Champions are born, not made'.

walshb

tunguska wrote: »

You dont have to be born fast to become fast. Maybe the guy next door can skin you in a 400 race one day. But then you go away, you work on your technique, use weight training, plyometrics, drills, proprioceptive cues for your form. And then you come back and race the same guy again but beat him. It took work, but you got there, you can even the playing field.
But again I'd say why not choose to believe that instead of choosing to believe that you have to be born fast and thats it? I think thats the question thats actually relevant.

Well, I could use many examples of raw and natural talent in so many areas. But, just one: Bolt could take a whole year off and still beat Paul Hession over 100 and 200.

To be great you have to be born with the raw talent. In general for the average man on the street, yes, training and technique can help, but still, if another average man is just naturally that bit faster, he most likely beats you without having to put in much effort. Genes!

tunguska

gerard65 wrote: »

So, I get it now, Usain Bolt has no natural genetic talent, he just trains harder than anyone else.
Of course genetic talent has a massive impact on how good a human will be in not only sport but many other aspects of life, arts, intellect etc. No matter how hard you practice most will never be able to sing opera like the great tenors or create art masterpieces like Michelangelo.
Hard work will only get you so far, for the rest, well, 'you can't put in what God left out'.
'Champions are born, not made'.

But how much do you know about Usain bolts training regime? You dont know if he trains harder than the next guy or not. Ger we've been here before, if you choose to believe that natural talent is the limiting factor and your race times are tumbling, and it works for you, then great, Im delighted for you.

tunguska

walshb wrote: »

Well, I could use many examples of raw and natural talent in so many areas. But, just one: Bolt could take a whole year off and still beat Paul Hession over 100 and 200.

To be great you have to be born with the raw talent. In general for the average man on the street, yes, training and technique can help, but still, if another average man is juts naturally that bgit faster, he most likely beats you without having to put in much effort. Genes!

Just suppose that it was proven for 100% certainty that natural talent has nothing to do with it, that anybody who puts the work in can be as fast as the next guy. How would that change things for you?
Why not take the shackles off and say to yourself that if you put the work in and gave it your absolute all, that you could run those times you currently believe are beyond you? Why not just leave things open ended instead of limiting yourself?

walshb

tunguska wrote: »

Just suppose that it was proven for 100% certainty that natural talent has nothing to do with it, that anybody who puts the work in can be as fast as the next guy. How would that change things for you?
Why not take the shackles off and say to yourself that if you put the work in and gave it your absolute all, that you could run those times you currently believe are beyond you? Why not just leave things open ended instead of limiting yourself?

Because nature has decided that humans do have limits. Some are slower, faster, taller, stronger etc than others. Hard workd and training can close the gap, but ultimately, the raw and natural talent is the key!

ecoli

walshb wrote: »

Because nature has decided that humans do have limits. Some are slower, faster, taller, stronger etc than others. Hard workd and training can close the gap, but ultimately, the raw and natural talent is the key!

Just to throw a spanner in the works is it really nature?

http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/03/central-governor-and-athletes-clock.html

http://fastforwardtriathlon.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Central-Govenor-Theory-of-Fatigue.pdf

tunguska

walshb wrote: »

Because nature has decided that humans do have limits. Some are slower, faster, taller, stronger etc than others. Hard workd and training can close the gap, but ultimately, the raw and natural talent is the key!

We're going around in circles, think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But have a read of "Bounce how champions are made" by Matthew syed. I'd be interested to hear your opinion after you've read that book.

TFBubendorfer

gerard65 wrote: »

'Champions are born, not made'.

I'm sorry, but this is the daftest quote I've read in a long while.

RandyMann

Training will bring you to the limit of what your natural talent will allow, simple.

walshb

tunguska wrote: »

We're going around in circles, think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
But have a read of "Bounce how champions are made" by Matthew syed. I'd be interested to hear your opinion after you've read that book.

Not sure we completely disagree. I am all for hard work and dedication; a motto of Floyd Mayweather, but I guess I lend a lot more weight to raw talent and genes than you do, that is all.

walshb

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is the daftest quote I've read in a long while.

You musn't read an awful lot!

YFlyer

There is the 10,000 Hour Rule


http://blog.axonpotential.com/the-10000-hour-rule-and-expert-athletic-performance/

TFBubendorfer

walshb wrote: »

You musn't read an awful lot!

Quite the opposite, my friend.

I guess tunguska is right, we'll all just have to agree to disagree. As it always happens on that subject.

walshb

YFlyer wrote: »

There is the 10,000 Hour Rule


http://blog.axonpotential.com/the-10000-hour-rule-and-expert-athletic-performance/

Not sure anyone disagrees here. Of course practice makes perfect. Take two fairly equally talented men. One puts in 2000 hrs per year and the other 1000 hrs per year (identical training). I will hedge my bets on the 2000 hrs per year, providing it's efficient training and not overdoingt it!

corny

Laszlo Polgar basically set about and succeeded in building himself a genius in his daughter Judit. There are loads of other cases where a nurturing backround could easily be taken over the born 'genius' business.

I'm not sure where i fall on this issue but until someone can measure or quantify innate 'talent' for me i'm prepared to believe in the power of practice. My believing that, with conviction, improves performance btw!

Clearlier

If you haven't got nature then there'll be nothing to nurture. You cannot have nurture without nature in the first place but to say that nature is everything is equally misguided.

You have your abilities and you make the most of them. You have no way of knowing what your limits are so you shouldn't put any on yourself. That doesn't mean to say that you can't recognise that different people have different limits. When competing the result will be determined by the combination of talent and hard work not simply one or the other.

On the speed question of course you can't increase whatever genetic limits you have for speed but you can train to increase your raw speed from what it is right now. I ran 25 seconds for 200m when I was 15/16. Last year I ran 29.7 for 200m. I'm nearly 20 years older but more importantly I'm also 20kgs heavier. Does anyone seriously think that I couldn't improve on 29.7?

From a training/personal motivation point of view it makes sense to believe in Syed and his 10,000 hour theory but from an objective perspective his theory is readily discounted.

Pherekydes

Clearlier wrote: »

From a training/personal motivation point of view it makes sense to believe in Syed and his 10,000 hour theory but from an objective perspective his theory is readily discounted.

How?

corny

I'd like to know too?

TFBubendorfer

corny wrote: »

Laszlo Polgar basically set about and succeeded in building himself a genius in his daughter Judit. There are loads of other cases where a nurturing backround could easily be taken over the born 'genius' business.

Actually, that case is even more astounding than that.

He had announced even before his first baby was born that she would become a Grand Master in chess. He didn't just deliver on that promise, her 2 younger sisters achieved the same status, with Judit becoming the strongest female chess player in history.

Laszlo Polgar wanted to prove that excellence, even up to world class level, is made, not born.

Of course one is still free to argue that lessons from chess do not necessarily apply to other fields. :rolleyes: