Hours to reach certain NTRPs: Statistical Evidence

[HunterST]

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...9/10000hours1/

[Mick]

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.

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

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."

[dozu]

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.

[Mick]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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."

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

[ssonosk]

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

[Mick]

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.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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.

http://expertadvantage.wordpress.com...9/10000hours1/

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.

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

[Mick]

Originally Posted by dozu

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.

a guy from work told me he's a 4.0 and he had only been playing for 2 months

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by mightyrick

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.

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.

[ssonosk]

Originally Posted by Mick

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.

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 -...-

Originally Posted by Mick

a guy from work told me he's a 4.0 and he had only been playing for 2 months

L oh man he could go pro in 2 years

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by ssonosk

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

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.

[dennis10is]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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...9/10000hours1/

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.

[ssonosk]

Originally Posted by dennis10is

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.

If someone had connections like that, and practice/played every day that could probably cut the time in half

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by ssonosk

If someone had connections like that, and practice/played every day that could probably cut the time in half

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.

[Netzroller]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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'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.

Originally Posted by Mick

a guy from work told me he's a 4.0 and he had only been playing for 2 months

^^
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.

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by Netzroller

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.

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.

[nabrug]

Originally Posted by Netzroller

One problem is that it might be hard to determine what actually counts as practicing.

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. "

[ZPTennis]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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...9/10000hours1/

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.


.