Natural Talent Vs. Hard Work

pa4

I think there was a thread like this before from a few years back but I didn't want to go dragging it up again.

I just finished reading the book 'Bounce' by Mathew Syed and it really got me think about the whole talent vs hard work thing. This guy used to be a professional table tennis player and tries to convince us that practice rather than talent creates an elite athlete and uses examples to back up his claims.

Personally I like to think that its pure hard work that creates an elite athlete. Everyone is born with a blank slate and its up to us to develop our own abilities with the right mind set.

My question is are Olympic champions born or are they made?

RoyMcC

Here's the thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056663067

pa4

RoyMcC wrote: »

Here's the thread http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056663067

Thanks I didn't realize there was a similar thread done so recently the one I found was from 4 years ago.

Pisco Sour

You can't put in what God left out. I won't be running sub 45 seconds no matter how hard I try.

adamski8

Wheather actual talent exists im not sure but physical gifts are something real that cant be changed by hard work

RayCun

Pisco Sour wrote: »

You can't put in what God left out. I won't be running sub 45 seconds no matter how hard I try.

What if you started trying when you were 6?

drquirky

RayCun wrote: »

What if you started trying when you were 6?

I think most people, starting at 6 and working hard consistently from that age could run realistically a sub 47 400 or a sub 1:50 800 or a sub 4:05 mile or a sub 14 5000m.... I think where genetic ability comes in is that last 10% that brings you down to Olympic champion level.

dna_leri

drquirky wrote: »

I think most people, starting at 6 and working hard consistently from that age could run realistically a sub 47 400 or a sub 1:50 800 or a sub 4:05 mile or a sub 14 5000m.... I think where genetic ability comes in is that last 10% that brings you down to Olympic champion level.

Not most people, not even most males, possibly most male runners could do it with 20 years of training but by saying "male runners" we have already selected those with a certain level of genetic ability.

The easiest one of that list is the sub14 5K, according to IAAF tables. The sub47 400m is outside the potential scope of most of us - that is the equivalent of a 10.5s 100m !

Why do we always try to look at this from a perspective of either talent or hard work that you either have or don't have. Can we not accept that there is a broad spectrum of natural talent (natural ability) and a broad spectrum of hard work. We all fit somewhere along those spectra.

To be an olympic champion you have to be at the top end of both spectra. To be an olympian you need above average talent and above average hard-work i.e to qualify a man needs to run 13:20 for 5K which I could not achieve in 20 years or even 10000 hours (20 yrs * 50 weeks * 10 hrs).

Ans: Olympic Champions are both born and made - you need both talent and hard work.

Timmaay

dna_leri wrote: »

Ans: Olympic Champions are both born and made - you need both talent and hard work.

And even then you need luck, have the right coach, no injuries in the leadup to Olympics, luck in the races themselves, when to kick etc etc, I'd say mo farah counts his lucky stars he just about got it right in both the 5k and 10k for London! No matter what, winning a t&f olympic medal in most events is an incredibly unlikely combination of many many different things, including the three mentioned, talent, hard work and luck!

huskerdu

Timmaay wrote: »

And even then you need luck, have the right coach, no injuries in the leadup to Olympics, luck in the races themselves, when to kick etc etc, I'd say mo farah counts his lucky stars he just about got it right in both the 5k and 10k for London! No matter what, winning a t&f olympic medal in most events is an incredibly unlikely combination of many many different things, including the three mentioned, talent, hard work and luck!

All very true, plus the right mental attitude to do the work when it is hard and boring and take the knocks and keep going and the right people around you when young to help you develop.

mikehammer67

drquirky wrote: »

I think most people, starting at 6 and working hard consistently from that age could run realistically a sub 47 400 or a sub 1:50 800 or a sub 4:05 mile or a sub 14 5000m.... I think where genetic ability comes in is that last 10% that brings you down to Olympic champion level.

no chance whatsoever that most people can get to that level

pa4

I agree with most of whats being said, obviously if somebody were to take up running in their 20's it would be next to impossible for them them to even qualify for an Olympics. I think for someone 5-10 years old even up to their mid teens with the right environment, coaches and mental attitude and who are willing to make the sacrifices it is possible for them to at least qualify for a major tournament such as the Olympics.

Its interesting to hear other peoples opinions about this because I had this conversation with a few lads in training recently and I found that its easier to tell if somebody will never qualify for the Olympics rather than somebody who might be able to qualify. One lad in his mid teens said that nobody in the club will ever qualify for the Olympics, whereas another lad argued that there is every possibility that somebody might if they work hard enough. These two lads are at the same level but if I was to bet on which one would even have the slightest possibility of getting to the Olympics I certainly know which one I'd pick purely based on their attitudes.

dna_leri

pa4 wrote: »

I agree with most of whats being said, obviously if somebody were to take up running in their 20's it would be next to impossible for them them to even qualify for an Olympics. I think for someone 5-10 years old even up to their mid teens with the right environment, coaches and mental attitude and who are willing to make the sacrifices it is possible for them to at least qualify for a major tournament such as the Olympics.

.

It is not possible for everyone, even in 5-10 yr range to qualify for olympics even with the right environment, coaching, attitude etc. It still depends on having some talent.

If you spend even a little time with young athletes (age 10-14), you will quickly see Athlete A who possibly has the ability to succeed at a higher level but his brother Athlete B will never reach the olympics no matter how hard or smart he works.

drquirky

mikehammer67 wrote: »

no chance whatsoever that most people can get to that level

Don't agree- with hard work from an early age all those times are reachable- most people just aren't willing to put in the work required to get there, or get injured

mikehammer67

drquirky wrote: »

Don't agree- with hard work from an early age all those times are reachable- most people just aren't willing to put in the work required to get there, or get injured

lol 47s 400m

dna_leri

drquirky wrote: »

Don't agree- with hard work from an early age all those times are reachable- most people just aren't willing to put in the work required to get there, or get injured

In my experience, people who make statements like that under-estimate their own "natural talent". They think they have achieved a certain standard themselves by hard work and if they worked harder could be even better. They do not realise how much work it is for some people with less ability to achieve less.

Brianderunner

mikehammer67 wrote: »

lol 47s 400m

I started aged 8, trained 3 or 4 times a week as a sprinter/400m for 13 years until the age of 21 and my fastest time was 53.8 secs. I was always the fastest kid in school, in all my teams etc and i was still 6 plus seconds short of 47 secs. Why? Genetics, plain and simple.

Very different conversation if we're talking about a sub 3 hr marathon but a 47 second 400m is on another planet.

mikehammer67

Brianderunner wrote: »

I started aged 8, trained 3 or 4 times a week as a sprinter/400m for 13 years until the age of 21 and my fastest time was 53.8 secs. I was always the fastest kid in school, in all my teams etc and i was still 6 plus seconds short of 47 secs. Why? Genetics, plain and simple.

Very different conversation if we're talking about a sub 3 hr marathon but a 47 second 400m is on another planet.

it sure is lol
it's insanely fast
i'd say a tiny percentage of the population can reach that from training at a young age?

Timmaay

dna_leri wrote: »

It is not possible for everyone, even in 5-10 yr range to qualify for olympics even with the right environment, coaching, attitude etc. It still depends on having some talent.

If you spend even a little time with young athletes (age 10-14), you will quickly see Athlete A who possibly has the ability to succeed at a higher level but his brother Athlete B will never reach the olympics no matter how hard or smart he works.

This is the harsh reality, and shows the need to have as good, wide and open juvenile section, its all about numbers, get as many kids into the system from the age of say 8-12, the more talented will become evident at that age, after this the effort goes into looking after the cream of the crop as such!

rom

dna_leri wrote: »

In my experience, people who make statements like that under-estimate their own "natural talent". They think they have achieved a certain standard themselves by hard work and if they worked harder could be even better. They do not realise how much work it is for some people with less ability to achieve less.

self sabotage is the reason why most people don't succeed in most things in life. I don't believe in talent as there is no benefit to do so.

dna_leri

rom wrote: »

self sabotage is the reason why most people don't succeed in most things in life. I don't believe in talent as there is no benefit to do so.

LOL

Enduro

rom wrote: »

I don't believe in talent as there is no benefit to do so.

I don't believe in battling reality as it's a battle you're inevitably going to lose.

guinang

I wasn't involved in the previous discussion on this topic so maybe my question has already been answered. Anyway, here goes.

If we are to assume that we are all created equally, and hard work will produce all the results rather than genetic ability, then surely women would be running at the same speeds as men? There must be very many women olympians who train just as hard as men but never achieve the same times. In my opinion, genetics counts.

When I was a kid there were a couple of kids on my road really in to their football. One kid who was a friend of my younger brother had exceptional talent. This kid stayed out on the road playing football all day - quite often on his own. I had a friend who similarly had a keen interest. this guy used to over to our local field with a football on his own. He'd kick the ball at the goal for at least an hour trying to hit the crossbar/post. Summary: both of these guys worked hard - my younger brother's pal went on to play at under age level for Ireland, the other guy couldn't kick sh1t off a rope.

I also coached kids at a youth level. I was taking kids as young as six in to our soccer tots groups. There were varying degrees of capability and I can guarantee no matter how hard some of those kids worked they were never going to be capable of playing football.

I know both analogies relate to football, but since I wasn't invovled in athletics at a youth level I can't comment on that side.

tunguska

rom wrote: »

self sabotage is the reason why most people don't succeed in most things in life. I don't believe in talent as there is no benefit to do so.

+1.
I see it every day, in every aspect of life not just in sport.

ChickenTikka

I agree with many of the points of the previous posters about an Olympic champion being a combination of hard work and physical ability and a bit of luck.

The ability to work hard at something is itself a talent and is probably a much rarer talent than having the raw athletic potential.

While I don't think "most people" have the raw physical ability to be an Olympic champion, I do think that many people have the physical ability to qualify for an Olympics **if** they found the event for which they are most physically suited ... i.e. many more than the tiny % that currently qualify for an Olympics.

T runner

ChickenTikka wrote: »

I agree with many of the points of the previous posters about an Olympic champion being a combination of hard work and physical ability and a bit of luck.

The ability to work hard at something is itself a talent and is probably a much rarer talent than having the raw athletic potential.

While I don't think "most people" have the raw physical ability to be an Olympic champion, I do think that many people have the physical ability to qualify for an Olympics **if** they found the event for which they are most physically suited ... i.e. many more than the tiny % that currently qualify for an Olympics.

I think you're arguing against yourself there. The % who qualify for the olympics is independent of the external standard. It is constant. If there are more people of a higher standard trying to qualify then the Olympians who actually qualify will be of a higher standard.

As only a handful from each discipline can qualify per nation you are looking at a tiny percentage. A country might be poor at certain disciplines making it easier to qualify, but all other things being equal only 2-3 people per country will be good enough...and that takes talent i'm afraid.

ChickenTikka

T runner wrote: »

I think you're arguing against yourself there. The % who qualify for the olympics is independent of the external standard. It is constant. If there are more people of a higher standard trying to qualify then the Olympians who actually qualify will be of a higher standard.

No ... you're confusing qualification with selection. If you achieve the qualifying standard, you have qualified. A country can only send 3 athletes with the A standard or 1 with the B standard.

Pisco Sour

There's a fine line between believing in yourself and being away with the fairies and threads like these generally cross that.

T runner

ChickenTikka wrote: »

No ... you're confusing qualification with selection. If you achieve the qualifying standard, you have qualified. A country can only send 3 athletes with the A standard or 1 with the B standard.

I know...but the qualifying standards are not set in stone either. They are de facto based on how many people can attain them. If many ordinary people can attain them in their correct discipline as you argue, and all these people are trained to their potential in those disciplines....then the standards will rise accordingly and they will become (relatively) ordinary again. Im just questioning that aspect of the point you made.

Even if an oridinary individual did train to his max in his most suited sport i contend he would be well short of the required (current) standard. Talent is the essential prerequisite. Hard and smart work is just about maximising that talent.

roseybear

huskerdu wrote: »

All very true, plus the right mental attitude to do the work when it is hard and boring and take the knocks and keep going and the right people around you when young to help you develop.

Mental attitude is key! Iv been informed by many ppl that I could b a great athlete and had flashes of it at times but mentally I just dnt gt it

Clearlier

Can't believe I'm letting myself be dragged back into this hoary old chestnut... again.

It's not nature v nurture. It's nature + nurture.

As an athlete and/or a coach you shouldn't give a d**n about talent because you can do nothing to influence how much of it you have. It's worth mentioning that you can have a long argument about what talent consists of without coming to any conclusions. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

In an objective intellectual discussion it's fantasy to dismiss the existence of talent. I really enjoyed Syed's book but it's just plain wrong to say that success compared to others, is entirely down to hard work (not saying that Syed says this exactly althought he certainly heads in that direction). Success for yourself is down to hard work but when comparing to others the differences that we are born with have a part to play.

Incidentally, just because you acknowledge that talent has a role to play in objective sporting success doesn't mean that you have to accept that you won't be the best. We don't know definitively what talents are most useful for generating success and it could well be that you have the peculiar mix of genes and environment to be the best.

I grew up hearing about how the Kenyans had all the advantages, they had some kind of magical genes, they lived and trained at altitude, they had dirt road that they could run on all day. Then I discovered that the Kenyans and the Ethiopians have very different (within a human context) genetic traits/material/features (not sure what the correct term is) so I knew it couldn't be the genes. I read that Moses Kiptanui got sick every time he tried to train at altitude and there are lots of people who live and train at altitude who aren't nearly as successful. Paula Radcliffe gets no physiological benefits from altitude (although she still likes to train high). The one that tipped the balance though was Sammy Wanjiru talking about how it was great to run in Japan because he got to run on smooth tarmac all the time. That reminded me that seeing the advantages and opportunities that your environment provides is key to your own success. Faraway hills are not always greener and we spend too much time thinking about what we haven't got. The more I learn about Kenya the more I understand how big a part culture has to play - specifically poverty. It seems to me even that Kenyan training methods are generally poor but they throw a lot of mud at the wall and some of it sticks. I know much less about Ethiopia but I understand that their training methodology is quite different. I'm curious to know how the number of runners trying to make it compares to Kenya and if their training methodology actually might get a lot more success per runner.

To summarise that lot a little bit: if you think that talent has no part to play in success you are delusional. If you think that that should influence you in you trying to determine how good you can be you are just as delusional.

token56

I do think this whole debate is a bit flawed from the beginning because the ability and drive to put in the hard work, apply yourself get and the most out of your body is a natural talent in itself, it is not something everyone has. Both mental and physical talents can be nurtured to help performance, and nurture both and you will achieve your best, nurturing one over the other will not achieve the same results, plain and simple.

T runner

token56 wrote: »

I do think this whole debate is a bit flawed from the beginning because the ability and drive to put in the hard work, apply yourself get and the most out of your body is a natural talent in itself, it is not something everyone has. Both mental and physical talents can be nurtured to help performance, and nurture both and you will achieve your best, nurturing one over the other will not achieve the same results, plain and simple.

Again not sure i agree 100% with that. Most people can work hard as a profession. Prtofessional marathon training for example, is a matter of putting in the required work consistantly and completing each session prescribed correctly. Training too hard in sessions is actually counterproductive as specific paces are important. And the pros can deal with the overall volume. Completing this professional task does not require particularly a great amount of talent. (amateurs are different as the work is entirely voluntary)

The mental talent comes from the ability to win races against physically equal opponents whether it be by strategy, tactics, mental toughness etc.

A champion may not necessarily need to possess any of these facets if he is ahead physically. But against a runner of equal physical ability, superiority in the relavant mental facet for that discipline will make him more talented for sure.

mrak

Maybe slightly off topic but a few posts above saying "if an athlete started training hard at aged 6 they would run X time when they are 20, etc".

This is probably covered in another thread, but what age do you think people need to start to reach their potential? In distance running, I've seen a few lads start late and become decent. I have always felt that if you are reasonably active/sporty till say, 16, that 6 years of hard training would bring you to your potential. That said I don't have any stats to back that up and am too lazy to google . List of olympic champs that took up running in their late teens anyone..?

mikehammer67

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Ngeny

one i recall

took up running 1996

set 2 wjr records 1997

beat that

TFBubendorfer

mrak wrote: »

List of olympic champs that took up running in their late teens anyone..?

Not an Olympic champion, but a former world record holder.

Paul Tergat did not start running until after he had left high school.

mikehammer67

bit of a dodgy era 90s-early 00s

not always easy to read real talent

pa4

Not an Olympic champion but two time Olympian and former world record holder for the 25km road, Peter Maher.

Stopped running at 19 after getting injured, ended up weighing over 18 stone smoking 40 cigarettes a day and regularly drinking up to 15 pints in one sitting. Came back to the sport at the age of 23 and ended up running for Canada.

mikehammer67

pa4 wrote: »

Not an Olympic champion but two time Olympian and former world record holder for the 25km road, Peter Maher.

Stopped running at 19 after getting injured, ended up weighing over 18 stone smoking 40 cigarettes a day and regularly drinking up to 15 pints in one sitting. Came back to the sport at the age of 23 and ended up running for Canada.

ya 10th in the world champs mar

2-11 in london i think

which marathon did he lead halfway in like 2-03 or something
i remember it on telly

RandyMann

If we are talking about talent/genetics just look at the 100m final in the last olympics, all black guys. They obviously have something more than just a hard work/training ethic.

RayCun

RandyMann wrote: »

If we are talking about talent/genetics just look at the 100m final in the last olympics, all black guys. They obviously have something more than just a hard work/training ethic.

Eastern Europeans are always very good at the throwing events. Is that genetic?
Hungary has been producing good hammer throwers for years. If you're a 6 year old starting athletics in Hungary, you're going to see throwers winning medals on tv, you're going to see lots of older kids throwing the hammer in training, you're going to have a coach who threw, that's the direction you'll be pushed in. (And there's no local rugby or GAA team looking for strong kids who are light on their feet)

drquirky

RandyMann wrote: »

If we are talking about talent/genetics just look at the 100m final in the last olympics, all black guys. They obviously have something more than just a hard work/training ethic.

If you look at most CEO's of international banks- they're all white guys, must be something genetic as well.

menoscemo

RandyMann wrote: »

If we are talking about talent/genetics just look at the 100m final in the last olympics, all black guys. They obviously have something more than just a hard work/training ethic.

Ireland could prove this to be untrue.
There are lots of young Black lad's (mostly nigerian origin) sprinting at the junior levels in clubs round the country; yet there are still lot's of young white lads holding their own if not doing better.

RandyMann

menoscemo wrote: »

Ireland could prove this to be untrue.
There are lots of young Black lad's (mostly nigerian origin) sprinting at the junior levels in clubs round the country; yet there are still lot's of young white lads holding their own if not doing better.

I agree, I see that myself at the meetings. I really do look forward to a day if/when Ireland becomes more competitve.

RandyMann

drquirky wrote: »

If you look at most CEO's of international banks- they're all white guys, must be something genetic as well.

No I dont think so.

RandyMann

RayCun wrote: »

Eastern Europeans are always very good at the throwing events. Is that genetic?
Hungary has been producing good hammer throwers for years. If you're a 6 year old starting athletics in Hungary, you're going to see throwers winning medals on tv, you're going to see lots of older kids throwing the hammer in training, you're going to have a coach who threw, that's the direction you'll be pushed in. (And there's no local rugby or GAA team looking for strong kids who are light on their feet)

No I dont think it is genetic, its their sporting culture I believe.
With regard to sprinting and 100m, 9 of the fastest sprinters of all time are all black and 6 of them are Jamaican.
With a look at wikipedia for info, it says that of all the 86 people(all of them male) that have broken the 10 second barrier, only four of them are not of west african descent. The world is a big place, you can't really ignore these statistics.
It also says that no athlete of east african or asian descent has done it yet. However I do believe that an asian will do it soon.
Maybe if there is a turnaround in more white europeans breaking 10 seconds, I may start to change my opinion but the fact that there has only been one guy to do it to date, being Lemaitre, I will have to stick with the genetics factor.

RayCun

The level of genetic diversity in east Africa is enormous.
Why do you accept 'sporting culture' as a reason for Hungarian success in the hammer throw, but not for Jamaican success in the 100m?
Black people make up 13% of the US population, but over 80% of the NBA. Is that genetic? (White men can't jump!)
More generally, non-whites are over-represented in american football and boxing, and under-represented in ice hockey, tennis, and golf. Genetic?

RandyMann

RayCun wrote: »

The level of genetic diversity in east Africa is enormous.
Why do you accept 'sporting culture' as a reason for Hungarian success in the hammer throw, but not for Jamaican success in the 100m?
Black people make up 13% of the US population, but over 80% of the NBA. Is that genetic? (White men can't jump!)
More generally, non-whites are over-represented in american football and boxing, and under-represented in ice hockey, tennis, and golf. Genetic?

I do accept that sprinting is the sporting culture in Jamaica.
Do you not accept the worldwide statistics on sprinting in my post? They are worldwide, you cant ignore that surely?

RayCun

RandyMann wrote: »

Do you not accept the worldwide statistics on sprinting in my post? They are worldwide, you cant ignore that surely?

'West African descent' is doing an awful lot of work in that post. Africa is very genetically diverse, much more than Europe or Asia, and I don't think there has been much genetic analysis done on those sprinters to see what, if anything, they have in common. Another way of describing the situation is that most of the best 100m times have been recorded by the descendants of slaves.
If we look at US society today (and even more the further back into the past we go) we can find lots and lots of areas where the descendants of slaves are dramatically over-represented or under-represented. It seems odd to pick out one of them and say the difference must be genetic.

ChickenTikka

Closer to home .... are Kilkenny men genetically programmed to be great hurlers and crap footballers and the genes reversed down in Kerry?

RandyMann

RayCun wrote: »

'West African descent' is doing an awful lot of work in that post. Africa is very genetically diverse, much more than Europe or Asia, and I don't think there has been much genetic analysis done on those sprinters to see what, if anything, they have in common. Another way of describing the situation is that most of the best 100m times have been recorded by the descendants of slaves.
If we look at US society today (and even more the further back into the past we go) we can find lots and lots of areas where the descendants of slaves are dramatically over-represented or under-represented. It seems odd to pick out one of them and say the difference must be genetic.

So are you saying that genetics has nothing to do with the above statistics?
Are you arguing with me over the fact that you disagree with the genetics factor and that these guys just put more work in? If you are saying that, fair enough.
I just cant see it myself when I look at the facts and figures to date with regard to the 100m event.