Talent vs training

[jigglypuff]

Originally Posted by maggmaster

Vision, body composition, height etc

Maybe, but you left the most important one out... speed.

[jht32]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

...
I think you diminish the hard work these people put in when you say it is all genetics. It makes it sound like they dropped out of the womb and were given a free pass. There is nothing more insulting than listening to some coach potato wishing he were as “gifted” as a top, take your pick, tennis player, violinist etc.

True, but I don't know anyone who says that is is ALL genetics.

[maggmaster]

Originally Posted by jigglypuff

Maybe, but you left the most important one out... speed.

Speed is a strange thing. In tennis it does not necessarily refer to sprint speed, although that can be one component of it. Tennis speed is a combination of reaction time, muscle fiber recruitment and positional understanding. In my opinion those things can all be trained, the genetic difference will be in the number of fast twitch type muscle fibers available. I could be wrong.

[CoachDad]

Originally Posted by maggmaster

Speed is a strange thing. In tennis it does not necessarily refer to sprint speed, although that can be one component of it. Tennis speed is a combination of reaction time, muscle fiber recruitment and positional understanding. In my opinion those things can all be trained, the genetic difference will be in the number of fast twitch type muscle fibers available. I could be wrong.

Yup, tennis speed is a unique thing. I see player after player who might not win any 40 sprints but get to ball after ball. Some players just have a knack for getting a head start to the next ball.

[CoachDad]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

Somebody forgot to tell Olivier Rochus about the whole genetics thing. At 5’4” and 135 lb I don’t think he matches anyone’s ideal tennis player body. He has been in and out of the top 50 for 9 years reaching #24 at one point. He also won the French open in doubles not to mention pocketing $4.5 million dollars in prize money.

I think you diminish the hard work these people put in when you say it is all genetics. It makes it sound like they dropped out of the womb and were given a free pass. There is nothing more insulting than listening to some coach potato wishing he were as “gifted” as a top, take your pick, tennis player, violinist etc.

There are many more people with the required genetic profile than there are with the dedication and work ethic required. Many more.

But I think Rochus proves genetics is huge. At 5'4" he has outworked everyone, has a brilliant tennis mind, keeps his body in amazing shape, does everything possible to maximize his abilities. Yet despite all that he has a losing record overall in singles and never rose above #24.

In the end no matter what he did he could never, nor could any other may 5'4", be # 1 in the world.

This proves a base level of genetics is required to be the very best.

[Love10s]

I think there's a third element here that people don't talk about much. I'll call it "environment." Does a kid have an environment/culture around him/her that facilitates trying to maximize their athletic potential? That encourages and values this process? That doesn't create additional roadblocks (psychological/emotional or more pragmatic ones, like financial constraints)?

For example, what if Maria Sharapova had been adopted at birth by your typical nice, upper middle class Manhattan Beach family. She grows up a few miles from where Robert Landsdorp teaches. Her parents have the economic capacity to pay for tennis. She has the same genetics. Does she ever get beyond a few tennis lessons at the park? Does it even occur to her adoptive parents that she has the genetic capacity to be a professional tennis player, let alone #1 in the world? Or does she spend her childhood going to birthday parties and a variety of activities and teams and lessons, then goes to college, etc.? (Not saying there's anything wrong with that path, it's just not a path that leads to pro tennis, regardless of genetics.)

I think what makes a top athlete is a complicated equation of talent/genetics + hard work/the RIGHT training + an environment that supports and values trying to become a top athlete. (I'm putting intangibles like "heart," "desire," "competitive nature" in with genetics and environment.)

Many people assume that it's just the amount of genetic talent that is unusual in these top athletes. I disagree. A lot of kids have raw talent. Rather, it's the proper aligning of ALL these planets (talent/training/environment) that is rare.

[Misterbill]

A couple of posters have said some people are claiming that it is "just genetics" or are "diminishing" hard work. I don't read any posts here that way.

I think the gist of the thread is:

special genetics/talent (ok and environment) + hard training = good shot to go all the way

special genetics/talent and environment (SGTE) - hard training = little shot to go all the way

no SGTE + hard training = very little shot to go all the way

no SGTE - hard training = no shot to go all the way

[InspectorRacquet]

Originally Posted by Love10s

I think there's a third element here that people don't talk about much. I'll call it "environment." Does a kid have an environment/culture around him/her that facilitates trying to maximize their athletic potential? That encourages and values this process? That doesn't create additional roadblocks (psychological/emotional or more pragmatic ones, like financial constraints)?

For example, what if Maria Sharapova had been adopted at birth by your typical nice, upper middle class Manhattan Beach family. She grows up a few miles from where Robert Landsdorp teaches. Her parents have the economic capacity to pay for tennis. She has the same genetics. Does she ever get beyond a few tennis lessons at the park? Does it even occur to her adoptive parents that she has the genetic capacity to be a professional tennis player, let alone #1 in the world? Or does she spend her childhood going to birthday parties and a variety of activities and teams and lessons, then goes to college, etc.? (Not saying there's anything wrong with that path, it's just not a path that leads to pro tennis, regardless of genetics.)

I think what makes a top athlete is a complicated equation of talent/genetics + hard work/the RIGHT training + an environment that supports and values trying to become a top athlete. (I'm putting intangibles like "heart," "desire," "competitive nature" in with genetics and environment.)

Many people assume that it's just the amount of genetic talent that is unusual in these top athletes. I disagree. A lot of kids have raw talent. Rather, it's the proper aligning of ALL these planets (talent/training/environment) that is rare.

Bingo. I think there is a small, but good amount of kids who have the talent to play tennis. However, there are so many factors that need to line up perfectly if these kids have a chance at pro tennis, let alone world #1.

The planets need to align in a certain way.

[justinmadison]

Originally Posted by jht32

True, but I don't know anyone who says that is is ALL genetics.

Good point. Ok, how about these questions

1) Which is more rare, the genetics or dedication/work ethic?
2) For players that do not make it what is the lager part of the problem genetics or dedication/work ethic?

My answers are

1) It if more difficult to find someone who can put in the necessary hard work for the 10 years it takes not make it big.
2) More kids loose the desire to work than fail due to lack of genetics.


It is usually some color of gray in real life.

[tennis5]

Originally Posted by justinmadison

Good point. Ok, how about these questions

1) Which is more rare, the genetics or dedication/work ethic?
2) For players that do not make it what is the lager part of the problem genetics or dedication/work ethic?

My answers are

1) It if more difficult to find someone who can put in the necessary hard work for the 10 years it takes not make it big.
2) More kids loose the desire to work than fail due to lack of genetics.


It is usually some color of gray in real life.

That's very accurate.
Kids can burn with intensity for long periods of time, but ten years?
Especially when the rebellious, moody, teenage years come with the draw of the opposite sex.

[CoachDad]

Originally Posted by tennis5

That's very accurate.
Kids can burn with intensity for long periods of time, but ten years?
Especially when the rebellious, moody, teenage years come with the draw of the opposite sex.

Yup, as others have said, all the stars have to align...talent, desire, opportunity for expert training, etc.

As you said, the teenage years are the key. Here a typical kid starts worrying about who likes who at age 8 and then obsesses about school dances, prom dates. I bet you Sampras, Fed, Graf, Sharapova, Williams sisters, and other top players had pretty much zero interaction as far as dating during their teen years. Their focus was tennis, tennis, tennis.

[andfor]

Came across this great video associated with the book. When reading the reviews notice who the person is who gave the latest review today, 3/26. I have not read the book but plan to now.

http://thetalentcode.com/2012/03/26/how-to-be-brave/

[BMC9670]

Originally Posted by CoachDad

Yup, as others have said, all the stars have to align...talent, desire, opportunity for expert training, etc.

Don't forget health and luck. One injury can throw off an otherwise perfect path. Part of the "stars aligning".

[MarTennis]

Originally Posted by jht32

True, but I don't know anyone who says that is is ALL genetics.

We Americans will never give up our assumptions and perceptions. Dang place was founded and fought for to be that way.

[tball2day]

........................

[counterpuncher64]

I don't think, if you expect to be ultra successful at anything, that one or the other is better. You really need both in order to be the next big thing. One can be super talented, but eventually they will lose out to people who are reasonably gifted but also maximize their potential by actually working hard. Similarly, one can work their butts off, but there will be others who are just simply better (i.e. faster learners, better genetics, etc.) and still work as hard that will beat them out eventually.

In terms of mortal standards, however, where it's unlikely anyone will be world class at anything but good enough to be recognized, I'd pick the person who works hard to be more successful, because most of the people who are so gifted that they can get by without trying will be pushed by their surroundings to maximize their talents, at least in my experience.