Hours to reach certain NTRPs: Statistical Evidence

Discussion in 'Tennis Tips/Instruction' started by HunterST, May 14, 2011.

  1. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Most people have heard the 10,000 hours saying. That is, it takes 10,000 hours of practice (specifically, deep practice) to become world class at any given skill.

    A study at a renowned school of music asked top teachers of music to rate violinists. It was found that the students who were rated "best" (meaning they would go on to have careers as international soloists) and current professional players had accumulated 10,000 hours. However, students that were studying to become professionals and were rated "good" (could be pro players, but not soloists) and practiced less than 8,000 and 5,000 hours respectively.

    I think we can apply this result to tennis. The average amount of practice for a musician who would go on to teach was around 4,000 hours. To be a tennis pro, the PTR requires that a player is 4.5. Therefore, I'd say it's reasonable to assume that it takes around 4,000 hours of practice to reach 4.5.

    The "Good" group could be pros, but not soloist. They had obtained just around 7,000 hours of practice. This is level of skill is about equal to a college player, or around 5.5.

    So, if this is accurate, to reach 4.5 (4,000 hours of practice) would require 8 hours of practice per week, every week, for 10 years. Sounds fairly reasonable.

    To be a 5.5 (7,000 hours) one would have to practice about 13.5 hours per week, every week, for 10 years. Also sounds plausible.


    Unfortunately, to reach 7.0 (10,000 hours) would require about 20 hours of practice per week for 10 years. Sounds likely, but I don't think any of us will find the time for that. :(

    http://expertadvantage.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/10000hours1/
     
    #1
  2. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    well, if your techniques are flawed, this concept would not work because, after 10,000 hours, your techniques would still be flawed and the good players will pick them apart.

    it's kinda like at work, someone would do something totally wrong for years. a new person would come in and tell that person the correct way to do it. experience in doing something wrong doesn't count.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2011
    #2
  3. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    I accounted for that by qualifying that it was deep practice. Deep practice refers to intense focus on fixing flaws and achieving goals. Also, it's almost always done with the help of a "master coach."
     
    #3
  4. dozu

    dozu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,546
    as ball park figures, these are reasonable... certainly there are many other factors... athletic ability, cross training background before tennis (other racket sport, or soccer), coaching.... etc.

    but who knows, dozu, after playing racket sport for 35 years, and tennis for 20 years, on average 8 hours a week, plus another few hours reading up biomechanics stuff on golf and tennis..... after ALL of that, is still a 4.0

    so Hunter, you just defeated your own theory.
     
    #4
  5. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    yeah. that would make sense. if you have have good techniques and spend time perfecting it, combine with physical conditioning you would go far. however, it could be quite expensive since you indicated that the assistance of a "master coach" is required :)
     
    #5
  6. ssonosk

    ssonosk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    Paulding County, Ga
    So these are if you practice by your self no teacher, and practice your strokes correctly?

    I think this time could be cut down when you add what duzo said
     
    #6
  7. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    generally speaking, the more time you spend on the tennis court will work to your advantage. if you only play tennis on the weekends, your chance of beating a player who would play every day is very slim, unless he's very bad or you're very good.
     
    #7
  8. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Sigh. Another flawed study. Results oriented. It only considers those who actually stuck with their instrument or skill for those many thousands of hours. It doesn't take into account the violinists who only practiced for 1,000 or 2,000 hours and sucked so badly that they gave it up because they were tired of being 8th or 9th chair. I'm willing to bet that is a sizeable amount.

    What would be an interesting study is to take a bunch of 5,000 hour students of the same age. Have them play against each other. Record the results of each set. According to this study, with a few given outliers, all of the set scores should hover around 7-6 or 7-5 with minimal deviation. I'd be curious if that were true.
     
    #8
  9. eliza

    eliza Guest

    Not necessarily, Dozu, it might be that his rating is not correct (maybe somebody can get a thread on it).....
     
    #9
  10. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    a guy from work told me he's a 4.0 and he had only been playing for 2 months :)
     
    #10
  11. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    The study doesn't say all set scores would be 7-6. Just that the players would be roughly the same skill level. Top 100 players are pretty close to equal in skill set, but there are still blow out sets.

    What I think is mind blowing (I can remember if this was in this article or another) is that there are NO individuals with extraordinary talent who reach the level of the 10,000 hour players with only 5-7,000 hours. Natural talent is really a myth.

    Check out the book The Talent Code if you are interested in this stuff, guys.
     
    #11
  12. ssonosk

    ssonosk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    Paulding County, Ga
    that's if you practice the right strokes

    this one guy once told me if you practice for hours the wrong way you wont learn anything, then he rolled his window up -...-
    L oh man he could go pro in 2 years
     
    #12
  13. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Yep, practicing improper technique wont help. Even practicing with good technique but without adequate focus wont work. You have to be concentrating on achieving goals and making corrections.


    Now, now guys, it's plausible he could go pro in 2 years. He'd just have to practice 15 hours per day, every day, for 2 years straight.
     
    #13
  14. dennis10is

    dennis10is Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,033
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    10,000 under the guidance of an expert, while being immersed in the subject matter, suppported by a social network of fellow apprentices and masters.
     
    #14
  15. ssonosk

    ssonosk Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2011
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    Paulding County, Ga
    If someone had connections like that, and practice/played every day that could probably cut the time in half :eek:
     
    #15
  16. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    That's the amazing part. They couldn't. Many studies have shown that no one can reach an expert level without 10,000 of committed practice. This applies to playing an instrument, sports, chess, and pretty much any skill.

    I think the only thing that can make a difference is physical attributes. John Isner and another player may have the same skill level on the serve, but John's height makes his much more effective.
     
    #16
  17. Netzroller

    Netzroller Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    I've read about that before. And I don't find it that surprising actually.
    You don't spend 5000 or even 10000 hours of committed practice on something that you are not very talented at. So you have a pool of people who are about equally talented. You sort out those who have to quit for various reasons.
    And you look at fields that are highly competitive and being played all over the world. That means there are already a very high number of talented people doing it. It seems pretty clear, that talent alone doesn't suffice and it takes a lot of practice to be at the top of that field. Moreover given similar talent that those who practice more end up being more successful seems clear.
    That certain number of hours required could probably be explained by some basic human factors. You have a certain age that you are able to practice properly and a certain age that you can start being competitive. There is a certain amount of hours that you can spend practicing effectively each week. Add that all up and that's how you might get the 10000 hours.

    ^^
    Though, I do believe there are people who can play at a much higher level than their hours on court would indicate.
    One problem is that it might be hard to determine what actually counts as practicing.
    Let's assume someone is a very good athlete who has done various kinds of sports but never held a tennis racket in his hands. However, this guy has lots of talent, great stamina and explosiveness and good hand eye coordination. Of course he needs less hours to reach a cerain level than someone who lacks those basics. If you somehow count in the numbers the guy spend running, lifting weights or playing squash (multiplied by some weighting coefficient), things might even out.
     
    #17
  18. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Good points. Like you said, there's a limited amount of deep practice one can "take." It appears that between 3-5 hours per day is as much meaningful practice as one can accomplish.

    Also a good point that people who were not good at a task would probably not accumulate 5,000 hours. However, the studies found that there were NO players with 7,500 hours able to play at a 10,000 hour level.
     
    #18
  19. nabrug

    nabrug Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Messages:
    155
    Sleep and the Time Course of Motor Skill Learning

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC202318/

    "Most recently, sleep has been implicated in the continued development of motor-skill learning following initial acquisition. "
     
    #19
  20. ZPTennis

    ZPTennis Semi-Pro

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2006
    Messages:
    628

    I'd agree with the 7.0 and 5.5. For a 4.5 that comes to 52 minutes a day. I would think a 4.5 could be reached with 20 minutes per day easily.


    .
     
    #20
  21. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I've read Talent Code as well as Bounce. Honestly, I think they're both garbage. I don't believe natural talent is a myth. I believe it is very real.

    To your point, I believe that reaching anything close to professional level with 10,000 hours of practice takes natural talent. There are those who will practice for 10,000 hours and never reach anything close to professional.

    To be anything close to professional takes a lot of work, but it also takes a lot of talent. The two are not mutually exclusive -- rather they are mutually inclusive.

    Talent Code and Bounce try convince everyone that with enough work and dedication, they can achieve anything. That is bogus. Aptitude is a real thing and it has to be factored into the equation.
     
    #21
  22. dozu

    dozu Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,546
    to deny 'talent', is like saying everybody's IQ is 100. which is ridiculous.
     
    #22
  23. tlm

    tlm Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,519
    He is full of cr@p!!!!!!!
     
    #23
  24. Mick

    Mick Legend

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2006
    Messages:
    8,363
    haha. he's a 4.0 in his mind but i am sure one of these days, someone will show him what his real life level is :)
     
    #24
  25. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Well, it's your opinion that it's junk. However, many experts have praised the work, including the Department chair of Psychology at UCLA.

    Talent as the book says, is probably real. However, the question is: what is it? Are we referring to physical attributes and abilities like fast twitch muscle fibers, height and size? If so, I definitely agree those are big factors in determining success.

    However, most people tend to think of talent as some mystical, undefined trait that makes an individual a natural genius. This is the definition that the research cited in the Talent Code seems to disprove. This is evident in the studies that reveal there are no individuals who have reached expert levels of skill but not put in the adequate amount of practice.

    I'd have to disagree that there are individuals who have practiced (in the proper way) for 10,000 hours and not reached close to a professional or expert level. To say so, we'd have to have actual examples of people who had done so. Otherwise, it is pure speculation. The research shows, simply, that a certain amount of practice is required to reach an expert or professional level. It doesn't really comment on individuals who have not achieved success. It's really beyond the scopes of the studies.
     
    #25
  26. ProgressoR

    ProgressoR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,005
    Location:
    No Man's Land
    My previous coach was top 200. He told me he started the game at about 9 years old and couldn't hit the ball. Not just failing to get over the net. He literally could not hit the ball. He stressed he had little talent but worked very very very hard to get where he did.
    Talent certainly accounts for how fast you pick it up. But if you can complete 10k hours of dedicated practice it is not talent that enables you to do that but pure drive and determination.
    It is not clear that all current pro's are highly talented. They reach an elite level and put in tons of hard work. Hard to say how much talent has to do with that.
    At the rec level talent will show. Put on court 2 players with say 500 hours if 1 wins 6 0 then you can say he is more talented for sure.
     
    #26
  27. aimr75

    aimr75 Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2007
    Messages:
    3,333
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Since around 2007 when I started playing tennis with more interest I've estimated I've put in around 260 hours on the court. Based on those hours required, I am a relative beginner :(
     
    #27
  28. GuyClinch

    GuyClinch Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2004
    Messages:
    4,891
    I think you are manipulating the results of that study to form a false impression about tennis - and probably about alot in life.

    1) The study is self selecting - that is to say as another poster pointed out - alot of the guys who aren't talented don't put in the 10,000 hours. Untalented musicians won't even put in a 1000.

    So it's not so much that with 10,000 you are good - that to be good you have to practice 10,000 AND have talent.

    2) Even if for the sake of argument we assume all individuals have musical talent and that with 10,000 hours could achieve excellence..

    It does not follow that with regards to athletic endeavours the same kind of 'track record" of sucess will follow. A very simple example of this might be powerlifting. A top powerlifting might have put in 10,000 before he deadlifted 800 pounds. With no amount of training 10,000 - 100,000 etc could my girlfriend deadlift 800 pounds.

    It's likely folly to think that all that is seperating you from tennis achievement is hours of effort or even deep pratice. There is a large amout of the population that can never achieve 5.5 and above...IMHO. The athletic ability is not there regardless of the deep practice..

    I'd say the more interesting observation (not a direct contradiction of the practice theory) is that guys who do something ALOT still suck.. A prime example is taxi drivers in NYC. When I first moved here I thought - well these guys drive all the time - they must be whizzes behind the wheel. Within my first month I had TWO cab drivers who had trouble with a three point turn..

    The "everyday' version of this for tennis players are the multidues of tennis players stuck at 3.5 despite being tennis bums. And FWIW - no I don't consider it uncommon at all for a occasion player to beat an every day one.

    Take a world class athlete - give him a tennis racquet and a few weeks of lessons and he Will be beating guys who have played for 1000 hours, IMHO. Yes tennis is a skill sport but it also factors in athleticism.

    Golf is the sport that more pratice oriented. An NFL CB OTOH is going to be out running and out pusing 4.0's in now time at all..
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
    #28
  29. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    For sports, of course that is what talent is. There are also mental equivalents of fast twitch muscles. Some people have unbelievable hand-eye coordination. Some people have unbelievable IQ for one or more sports.

    And there is MENTAL talent. Otherwise, there would be no such thing as the paralympics and all of their athletes would be competing against people with normal mental capacity.

    So if you want to define talent, then here is my definition (which is pretty much the same as "aptitude"):

    Talent is the natural mental and physical characterstics of a person which help them perform a task better than others.

    That is my whole point. In order to practice "the proper way" for 10,000 hours and reach a professional status, you have to have talent. Many will simply quit after a thousand hours or two thousand. Because they absolutely stink, don't have the aptitude for it, and don't have what it takes to get themselves to the next level.

    I'm an example in baseball. I practiced for well over 2,000 hours. (At 40 years old, I probably could still throw a fastball better than the vast majority on this board). However, I am one of those individuals who joined the large union of people who can only throw a baseball at 82 to 84 mph. Is that because I can't practice 10,000 hours? No. I could EASILY have kept praticing for 10,000 hours. It is because I simply don't have the physical talent to do it.
     
    #29
  30. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    Talent is defined by the speed or rate of improvement. The faster a person improves at a given task, the more "talented" they can be said to be.

    Mightyrick, maybe you should re-read Talent Code. You say that a person may quit after a few hours - re-read the chapter on Ignition.

    In your baseball example - what age did you start to practice? Had you practiced another 8000 hours of deep practice, with a master coach to guide you maybe you could have hit 90mph (or however fast a "fastball" should go - I have no concept of baseball!)

    The question is why do some people have unbelieveable hand-eye coordination as you state. The answer, during their development conditions were such that they developed this skill. They were not born with it, it developed due to whatever unique combination of circumstances they were born into.

    Cheers
     
    #30
  31. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    Whilst these guys are driving, they are not "practicing" driving, they are driving subconsciously and likely thinking about something else (if they're anything like London cabbies probably how much money to fleece you out of!). This is very different to the concept of purposeful(deep) practice.

    cheers
     
    #31
  32. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    Just read your post again. At this point your whole argument becomes invalid. That has got to be the most ridiculous/un-educated thing I've read on this forum.
     
    #32
  33. ProgressoR

    ProgressoR Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2010
    Messages:
    2,005
    Location:
    No Man's Land
    Yes, I just read that and almost dropped my tea.
     
    #33
  34. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Lol that I've manipulated studies to give a false impression about life is a pretty serious accusation.

    Also, the "to have 10,000 hours who have to be talented" argument doesn't hold up. If that were the case, wouldn't there be exceptionally gifted practitioners who could reach expert level in only around 7,500 hours? Well, there are no such people.

    Really, you guys are arguing a very different point than either I or the studies are making. You are arguing against the idea that anyone with 10,000 hours can achieve anything. No one said that.

    The claim is that there is no one that is born with the inherent ability to reach an expert level of skill without putting in the practice. That is, no one is so "talented" that they can achieve a 10,000 hour level of skill in 5,000 hours. Therefore, it becomes clear that practice and adequate conditioning of neural pathways is more important that genetics.

    Does that mean that genes are a complete non-issue? Absolutely not. However, if two people were playing a tennis match and one had 10,000 hours of focused, committed practice and another was a outstanding athlete with 2,000 hours of practice, I know who I'd put my money on.
     
    #34
  35. dennis10is

    dennis10is Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2005
    Messages:
    2,033
    Location:
    Long Island, NY
    If you are a genius you could come close to reducing the amount of time to achieve mastery. However, people tend to forget to note that mastery and "world class" are too different things. I don't know what the equivalent of mastery would be in tennis but somewhere around 5.5 -6.0 would probably is a reasonably mark to consider somebody a master tennis player.

    It is the difference between just having a PhD to being acknowledged by your fellows peers as one of the experts to having say the Nobel Prize.

    Take Mozart, a child prodigy, he achieve mastery very quickly but of course, he didn't reach his prime until he grew into adulthood
     
    #35
  36. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    Very good point. I'd agree that mastery of tennis would be around that range.

    It's interesting you mention Mozart. People often say he had amazing talent that allowed him to become a master in a very small amount of time. However, they've shown that, by the time he was 7, he had already accumulated 3,500 hours of practice!
     
    #36
  37. Barfy

    Barfy New User

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    56
    I actually agree that sure a bunch of hours of practice helps but it's about the quality of practice with a good coach that is more effective. I have accumulated about 4,000 hours of practice over 4 years and I still lose to kids who are 3 years younger than me that have 4,000 hours of club pro instruction when I only have about 500 hours of actual teaching pro time the rest is high school coaching and self practice.
     
    #37
  38. MyLifeIsBro

    MyLifeIsBro Banned

    Joined:
    May 10, 2011
    Messages:
    7
    Tennis is much more than just practicing strokes. You NEED to be more than just physically fit, you need to be in phenomenal shape. If you don't have the body to use what you have been taught, everything you learn is about as useful as trash
     
    #38
  39. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    @mylifeisbro

    So, how do you get that body? Training of course!

    Cheers
     
    #39
  40. Nellie

    Nellie Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,773
    This assumes, of course, that tennis is entirely a skill based and not a physical and mental activity. I think that if you look at many college players/semi-pro players versus pros at 18, they all have similar levels of training and time on the court, with the difference in results being mental and physical skills.
     
    #40
  41. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    Skills which are/can also be learned and practiced.

    Cheers
     
    #41
  42. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    That is your definition. That isn't mine.

    Maybe, maybe not. We have many pitchers in the minor league -- well into their 30s -- with lots of great coaches who still cannot throw a ball 90mph. And they do this *as a job*.

    I don't disagree that people cannot improve their hand-eye coordination. My disagreement is that having a master coaching is the sole factor. I believe that natural aptitude and talent are a factor.
     
    #42
  43. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Really? Why? Because it invalidates your argument? Your entire argument presumes that every single human is 10,000 master-coaching-deep-practicing-ultra-thinking hours away from being the best there is at anything.

    How can you not realize how simplified and ridiculous that is? I can't even believe I'm having to argue about things like aptitude, natural skill, and tendency.

    I'm sorry, but the basis of the whole thing is bogus. Every human is not the same as every other human. There is such a thing as instinct. There are such things are natural aptitude and tendencies and predelections. There are such things as capabilities and things being more evolved than other things.

    You can read all the books you want stating something as overly-simplified as 10k hours of practice makes you a professional. I would only encourage that you read other books in the same section of the book store. Flat-earth theory. Hollow earth theory. Maybe even perpetual motion books.
     
    #43
  44. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    No really, it isn't. The difference is that some have had better, deep practice than others. The ones with super-ultra-deep practice will do better than those with only super-deep practice.

    Of course, the only way to measure this is to purchase a practice-deep-o-meter to measure all of this. It hooks up to the player's heads and measures what they are thinking about every second of every practice. It measures the heart rate and stress levels during the practice. It has an optional attachment which attaches to the coaches mind to measure the level of mental dedication of the coach.

    If you get 10k hours of practice with the practice-deep-o-meter staying in the "professional" range... you are guaranteed to be on your way to making millions at whatever you are doing.
     
    #44
  45. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land
    So by your logic, some people are just born with special genes or something like that? So where do these special genes come from? Surely the parents would also have to be superstars in order to pass their super genes onto their offspring.

    Aptitude, natural skill and tendency? not exactly sure what your point is here - where do you think these things come from, do you not think that the environment into which you are born have some bearing on these factors?

    Are you a creationist by any chance?
     
    #45
  46. Ash_Smith

    Ash_Smith Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    A green and pleasant land

    Re-read my post. Nobody said coaching was the only factor.

    And your statement about the paralympics was just incredibly insulting to people with disabilities. Your statement read that you think all disabled athletes are incapable of mental agility, reasoning, rational thought etc - because otherwise they would be "normal"

    Having coached several disabled tennis players I would say they have at least an equal if not sometimes greater mental capacity for sport in the sense that they have greater mental barriers to overcome, before even thinking about playing the game.
     
    #46
  47. mightyrick

    mightyrick Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2010
    Messages:
    4,859
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Of course I don't think that all disabled athletes are incapable of mental agility, reasoning, rational thought, et cetera. Ridiculous.

    Your reasoning is that 10,000 hours of quality practice and coaching is all you need. And I used the point of paralympic athletes to show that 10,000 hours of quality practicing isn't going to bring them to the level of other athletes who don't have their barriers to overcome. You *know* exactly what I meant.

    It isn't to say that they aren't heroic for dealing with their barriers head on and trying to be the best they can be.

    And my point is that those barriers exist -- at varying levels -- in everyone. Some are born with IQs of 140. Some are born with IQs of 80. Some are born with IQs in between. Those IQs allow individuals to only do certain things at certain levels.

    Some are born with incredibly advanced frames and physiques. Some are born with deformed frames and physiques. Some are born anywhere in between. Likewise, those physical attributes will allow individuals to only do certain things at certain levels.

    It isn't some magical spiritual thing. Every person is a fingerprint. They have a mental capacity, physical capacity, perception capacity, intelligence capacity... and tons of other capacities. Each one different in everyone.

    So here is a statement that I think you can I can agree on:

    "10,000 hours of quality practice in an activity will enable someone to be as good as they can be at that activity."

    Completely reasonable. You and I can agree on that statement, but we will disagree on what "as good as they can be" means. Fair enough.
     
    #47
  48. tenapasi

    tenapasi Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    301
    I think natural talent is very real.

    In my tennis circle, there are this particular player whose known have a big serve, big forehand, with solid backhand and volley.
    When he's on form, no one in my tennis circle can return his serve. His forehand is so good that we usually avoiding setting a good ball on his forehand side.

    What surprises me, he only started playing tennis for about a year. But he can beat players that already play tennis for years.
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2011
    #48
  49. HunterST

    HunterST Hall of Fame

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    3,412
    I've said this several times but you haven't been going back and forth with me, so you probably didn't see it.

    The claim is NOT that 10,000 hours will make anyone anywhere the best in the world.

    The claim is that there are no "special" people or genes that make someone able to reach the top WITHOUT having put in the 10,000 hours. This implies that practice is more important than genes. Naturally, however, there are other factors, such as physical traits, that will affect an individual's success.

    My problem with your argument for talent and aptitude is that the terms are completely undefined. A lot of people say "talent" and refer to it like some mystical attribute that make people naturally amazing at a given activity.

    No one will disagree with you that a person's physical qualities will affect their ability to reach certain goals. However, we're saying that there ARE NOT individuals who are just naturally predisposed to become geniuses of music or tennis. Instead, some are born with tools (such as height or muscularity) that will help them. However, they still MUST put in the 10,000 hours.
     
    #49
  50. WildVolley

    WildVolley Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    5,899
    This seems to just be the nature vs. nurture argument all over again.

    Since tennis is such a technique based sport, years of practice are going to be necessary (perhaps 10,000 hrs is it, but that sounds too round for my liking) to reach the world class level. However, if a number of people practice the same hours under the same coach, you'll still get a divergence based on natural aptitude, which is probably a combination of genetics and other environmental factors.

    The danger of the 10,000 hours rule is the it is leading people to do stupid things, like the guy who has quit his job to put in 10,000 hrs of practice at golf to be a touring professional.

    Anyone who has seriously competed in athletics knows that there are freaks who have a very easy time compared to the rest of us most likely because they won the genetic lottery.
     
    #50

Share This Page