Hours to reach certain NTRPs: Statistical Evidence

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by Nellie

with the difference in results being mental and physical skills.

Skills which are/can also be learned and practiced.

Cheers

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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.

That is your definition. That isn't mine.

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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!)

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*.

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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.

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.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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.

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.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by Nellie

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.

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.

[Ash_Smith]

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?

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by mightyrick

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.

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.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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.

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.

[tenapasi]

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.

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by mightyrick

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.

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.

[WildVolley]

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.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by HunterST

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.

Just like "deep practice" and "master coaching" isn't defined. You are referring to terms that are equally "mystical".

Originally Posted by HunterST

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.

As I've said all along, I won't disagree that people with aptitude still need to practice in order to be successful. But what I will say is that two people who both put in 10,000 hours will not necessarily be equals at the end of their journey. One might be significantly better than the other due to differenes in physical aptitude and mental aptitude.

Nonetheless... I definitely won't argue that even someone who is born with physical or mental aptitude walks into an arena and crush everybody. It takes practice still, even for those with aptitude, to succeed.

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by WildVolley

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.

What is natural aptitude? In what department have they hit the genetic lottery? Is there a basketball or tennis gene?

I would say that these individuals have just partaken in activities that have meylinated the appropriate circuits early in their lives and, thus, they can perform tasks more efficiently. This seems much more plausible than the idea that they were simply born with a gene that makes them good at tennis.

I agree that aptitude plays a big roll. By my definition, aptitude his having the physical attributes that make preforming a skilled task more effective. For example, John Isner's serve is a huge weapon largely because of his height. If I had his exact same motion, the result would not be nearly as effective. However, John still had to put in a ton of practice and hours to acquire the skill of serving.

[WildVolley]

Originally Posted by HunterST

What is natural aptitude? In what department have they hit the genetic lottery? Is there a basketball or tennis gene?

I would say that these individuals have just partaken in activities that have meylinated the appropriate circuits early in their lives and, thus, they can perform tasks more efficiently. This seems much more plausible than the idea that they were simply born with a gene that makes them good at tennis.

It is strange that you used basketball as an example, as that is a sport for which genetic aptitude plays a huge role - most obviously in height. But beyond height there are also issues of fast twitch muscle fibers (helps with jumping) hand size, arm length, vision, etc. Genetics plays a big role in all these things.

Let's look at world class 100meter sprinters. Almost all the top 100 meter times in the world are by sprinters with West African genetics. The assumption at this time is that genetically they tend to have a higher number of fast-twitch muscle fiber and smaller calve muscles.

I can't prove my belief, but I still assert that some people have a genetic advantage in terms of an ability to quickly burn pathways for athletic movements. Anyone who has watched little children of the same age will see some move better, have better balance, visually track motion better, etc. People will call this coordination. I think genetics play a roll, though it may be a number of years until we can prove or disprove this view.

[mightyrick]

Originally Posted by HunterST

What is natural aptitude? In what department have they hit the genetic lottery? Is there a basketball or tennis gene?

C'mon. Height is a basketball gene. If you are tall, then you will have physical aptitude to play basketball that short people don't have.

Can't we just all agree that the three factors that affect overall performance in any sport are: 1) Mental aptitude, 2) Physical aptitude, 3) Practice.

And just leave it at that?

[HunterST]

Originally Posted by mightyrick

C'mon. Height is a basketball gene. If you are tall, then you will have physical aptitude to play basketball that short people don't have.

Can't we just all agree that the three factors that affect overall performance in any sport are: 1) Mental aptitude, 2) Physical aptitude, 3) Practice.

And just leave it at that?

I just really don't understand this. You guys are debating against a point no one ever made. We can't really leave it at the 3 factors you mentioned because that was never what we were talking about. No one ever said that 10,000 hours would make any one a professional athlete.

If you define talent as physical attributes then I'm with you. However, I hardly ever hear this used as the definition for talent.

When I hear people talk about talent, they act like it is some natural, inborn ability to master a skill more easily than others can. Haven't we heard stories like "the first time the guy picked up a basketball, he was a complete natural!" The point is, no one is naturally a basketball genius. No matter how tall they are or how high their fast twitch muscle fiber percentage is, they have to put in the 10,000 hours to develop the skills.

Once again, the breakthrough is NOT "10,000 hours and anyone can be a millionaire basketball player!" The discovery is that all experts have accumulated a huge number of hours of practice (almost always around 10,000). Moreover, they exhibit a very specific kind of practice.

That is the fact. The implications are up to you. Personally, I just think it gives us an idea of what we need to do to become the best we can be at whatever task we choose.

Where the idea that we are saying anyone can achieve anything with 10,000 hours of practice came, I'm not sure.

[tenapasi]

Natural talent or not, practice is a must.

That one particular guy on my tennis circle reach that far not only because of his natural. He does drills, practice together with us, and play often. And he told me, he likes to watch pros on youtube so he can learn from them.
His serve particularly, he told me how he learn how to hit it by watching pros does it. At 1st it feels akward to him. But gradually, he understand how to do it.
And there are other player on my tennis circle that do the same (praticing, drills, play often) for about 7-8 months. But he still doesn't have a good forehand.

So 10.000 hours or not. It depends with the person in terms of talent, motivation, seriousness, etc.

[GuyClinch]

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.

If that is the case you are exceptionally poor at making your arguments. That is probably the root of most of the conflict on this thread. If you are saying you need to be talented AND have thousands of hours to practice to acheive pro like status - I don't think anyone has an issue with that. That falls under the catergory of "duh" knowledge. And this is why the talent code (and Malcolm Gladwell rip off it) is junk.

it's not even an interesting insight. Yes anyone who has studied music knows that in the real world it takes RIDICULOUS amount of practice time for even concert Pianists to shine.. So what?

But if you are saying that with x amount of practice you can achieve X skill level - well that's something most of us on this thread will deny.

And low and behold I remember reading this:

"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. "


This is the meat of your argument and its entirely wrongheaded. You can't claim that x amount of practice is going to lead to x level of play. Because the real equation is X amount of practice * Y amount of talent = Z NTRP

There are numerous players with NO amount of practice that will ever achieve 5.5, IMHO. So as soon as you start spouting off that with X amount of practice guys will achieve X level of player - you are going to get blowback. Don't try to 'argue' your way out of it - because we can all tell you don't have 10,000 hours doing that.

[dozu]

Hunter why are you still chasing your own tail here?

Could have put some hours in on the court.

[GuyClinch]

I just really don't understand this. You guys are debating against a point no one ever made. We can't really leave it at the 3 factors you mentioned because that was never what we were talking about. No one ever said that 10,000 hours would make any one a professional athlete.

I guess 'no one' = HunterST. Please read your own posts - like maybe the first one in this thread.

No one would care if you said 'gee it takes along time to acheive pro status - at least 10,000 hours'. But to spice things up you went and said there was 'statistical evidence' for how much practice time you needed.

There is none. If the base talent level is not specified its impossible to predict how much practice it will take someone to achieve the NTRP levels - and many of the higher levels are not possible for some people EVER.

[GuyClinch]

Nonetheless... I definitely won't argue that even someone who is born with physical or mental aptitude walks into an arena and crush everybody. It takes practice still, even for those with aptitude, to succeed.

No doubt - no one with a brain would argue against this - and most people knew this before the 'talent code' came out. We just didn't have some specific hour number in mind.

Truth is the OP got all geeked after reading the talent code - went out on a limb and later in the thread realized the error in his ways.

Yes it takes practice and talent to achieve stardom. It takes talent and less practice to be great. It takes talent and less practice still to achieve good play etc etc..