Hours to reach certain NTRPs: Statistical Evidence

mightyrick · May 15, 2011

HunterST said:
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".

HunterST said:
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 · May 15, 2011

WildVolley said:
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 · May 15, 2011

HunterST said:
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 · May 15, 2011

HunterST said:
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 · May 15, 2011

mightyrick said:
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 · May 16, 2011

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 · May 16, 2011

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 · May 16, 2011

Hunter why are you still chasing your own tail here?

Could have put some hours in on the court.

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

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 · May 16, 2011

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..

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

GuyClinch said:
Because the real equation is X amount of practice * Y amount of talent = Z NTRP

After this statement, the thread should die. The above is so simple, obvious, and reasonable that nobody should argue against it. I wish I could have put it so simply.

ProgressoR · May 16, 2011

well....don't we all know people who have just maxed out in terms of acheivement, no matter how much they practice they just cannot get better beyond a certain point....

5263 · May 16, 2011

HunterST said:
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.

IMO this above is the correct point here. I won't worry about whether you said something somewhere which did fit exactly, but the Lesson here is in the importance of Quality Practice and how there is really no shortcut. I hate to admit there is no shortcut, but think their case is very compelling.

Some discuss talent and it's role, which is significant. Part of the talent code message is to give hope to those who have great desire and determination to be outstanding, but may not have been pegged early on as talented. I have seen talent breakout at different points in training and often it's not the ones who show it early, that show it strongest further into training. Sometimes there is an accumulation phase or a restructuring phase that has to be accomplished due to what they have done before.

Bill Tilden (pretty sure it was him) was known to have stated that it took 10 yrs to train a 7.0 level player, so this idea is in line with what he was thinking.

As for this being a "duh" topic; I disagree strongly, because many are so taken with early talent or what is considered early talent, that they tend to be negative about what people can accomplish. I think the talent code supports the idea that hard work/ quality training, can often trump what is perceived as early talent. Chuck Norris was described as a little on the slow side in karate in his first couple of years, but went on to a World Champion. Charles Barkley is another with limited skills, limited height and overweight, who went of to be MVP of the famous Dream team Gold Medal winners. I think it is important to know and realize what dedication brings to the table and how it may just be way more important that what is perceived as talent.

5263 · May 16, 2011

ProgressoR said:
well....don't we all know people who have just maxed out in terms of acheivement, no matter how much they practice they just cannot get better beyond a certain point....

No, I really don't think I've ever met one.

IMO talent is more like lucK, where Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.
Sometimes the where and how of the preparation for talent is not so obvious, but usually it's tucked away in there somewhere. (I also don't see height or size as a talent)

maggmaster · May 16, 2011

An interesting point made in another thread was, what do I get to count towards that 10,000 hours. For instance, I played soccer on a high level which surely helped with my footwork and stamina, can I count that? I have spent at least an hour in the gym every day since I was 14 can I count that? I have a lot of hours in on the table tennis table, can I count that? What percentage of that can be counted? Will I get to my maximum potential faster than someone who has 10,000 hours in on TV watching?

HunterST · May 16, 2011

GuyClinch said:
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.

Okay, bro. First of all, you're taking this ENTIRELY too seriously. The thread with the hours to have a certain NTRP is just a fun way of thinking about how these studies apply to tennis. I never said the system was infallible. To get as serious as making attacks on me like "don't try to argue your way out of this - because we can tell you don't have 10,000 hours of doing that" just shows immaturity on your part. We should be able to have a discussion without you trying to make it contentious.

By the way, I took 4th at the state debate tournament, so I'm actually pretty good at it.

I'm interested in what your, and other people arguing this point's, definition of talent is. I've been very explicit is saying that I think physical attributes are the most credible definition of talent. However, people on the other side seem to want to hold on to the idea of it as some natural affinity to acquire skill. THAT is what has been disproven!

I do think the studies reveal an interesting insight. The discovery is that no one is so "talented" that they can get away with putting in less than 10,000 hours and becoming an expert. If you asked people this question: "It takes an average master musician 10,000 hours of practice to reach the expert level. Do you think Mozart achieved the expert level in less time?" I think 99% of people would say yes. However, studies have shown this to be false. Because if flies in the face of what most people believe, it is an interesting insight. If you don't think so, fine.

Now, the hours and practice refer to skill level, not absolute playing ability. It's entirely possible and plausible for a person to have expert level skill and still not make it as a professional. Things like height, muscularity, build, etc. can hold them back from that level. Again, if you want to call that talent, I agree that it's important. However, rarely do I hear physical attributes alone thought of as talent.

So, we know that to reach an expert level takes 10,000 hours, regardless of talent. Moreover, there are very strong correlations between other skill levels and hours spent practicing, as is shown in the study I cited, and in many others. I just made this thread as a fun way of extrapolating these results to tennis. Am I going to make it into a doctoral thesis? No. However, if you studied 4.5 players, 4.0 players, and 3.5 players, I think you'd find a fairly close and predictable range of hours spent practicing.

5263 · May 16, 2011

maggmaster said:
An interesting point made in another thread was, what do I get to count towards that 10,000 hours. For instance, I played soccer on a high level which surely helped with my footwork and stamina, can I count that? I have spent at least an hour in the gym every day since I was 14 can I count that? I have a lot of hours in on the table tennis table, can I count that? What percentage of that can be counted? Will I get to my maximum potential faster than someone who has 10,000 hours in on TV watching?

You make an excellent point here it to some extent it should clearly count. How much is probably well beyond the scope of the book or any info we have other than opinions.

IMO could clearly see counting support work like that for up to a quarter of the time required.

HunterST · May 16, 2011

maggmaster said:
An interesting point made in another thread was, what do I get to count towards that 10,000 hours. For instance, I played soccer on a high level which surely helped with my footwork and stamina, can I count that? I have spent at least an hour in the gym every day since I was 14 can I count that? I have a lot of hours in on the table tennis table, can I count that? What percentage of that can be counted? Will I get to my maximum potential faster than someone who has 10,000 hours in on TV watching?

Well, the stamina wouldn't count, because that fades, and is really more of a physical condition than a skill.

For the other things, I'd say they make you more proficient at individual skills that are part of tennis. The time spent acquiring skillful footwork would simply move you toward being an expert at footwork, but that ability would help you with tennis. Same thing with table tennis and hand eye coordination.

Really, you're showing that the world is not as neat and tidy as studies would have you think. A person like you would already have meylinated many hand-eye coordination and footwork neural pathways. Even if you'd never played tennis, you'd be able to apply these things to tennis.

This is probably where the idea of natural talent comes from. People seem to have a natural affinity for certain tasks, but really they've acquired those skills in their past.

r2473 · May 16, 2011

HunterST said:
Hours to reach certain NTRPs

You can probably find a good mix of NTRP's within a half hour of you. Just do a search:

http://findapartner.usta.com/

maggmaster · May 16, 2011

You are a very funny man.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
I think the talent code supports the idea that hard work/ quality training, can often trump what is perceived as early talent.

Yet again... duh. And often times early aptitude can trump quality training. I'm pretty sure Shaquille O'Neal only needed 30 minutes of quality practice in order to dunk a ball. Whereas Spud Webb probably needed a bit more than that.

5263 said:
Charles Barkley is another with limited skills, limited height and overweight, who went of to be MVP of the famous Dream team Gold Medal winners. I think it is important to know and realize what dedication brings to the table and how it may just be way more important that what is perceived as talent.

Again, duh. Sometimes dedication and hard work is sometimes way more important than talent. Sometimes not.

You cannot get away from the simple fact that aptitude and work (practice) are necessary to be good at any skill. Varying levels of aptitude and work can provide the same outcome.

5263 · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
Yet again... duh. And often times early aptitude can trump quality training. I'm pretty sure Shaquille O'Neal only needed 30 minutes of quality practice in order to dunk a ball. Whereas Spud Webb probably needed a bit more than that.

Again, duh. Sometimes dedication and hard work is sometimes way more important than talent. Sometimes not.

You cannot get away from the simple fact that aptitude and work (practice) are necessary to be good at any skill. Varying levels of aptitude and work can provide the same outcome.

I do get away from it and don't believe it is a fact.
I respect that you feel otherwise and are probably in the majority on this.

None the less, IMO this is the point of the OP (or at least the point of the talent code),
to disagree with what you are saying in general, that talent is a major factor in mastery.
I also don't buy that height is a talent.

Quite simply, Shaq had very limited mastery of basketball skills, despite collecting some nice paychecks in the pros, and at least some pretty good practice.
I don't know of any "Greats" that just plodded along to greatness, but know of story after story of how the greats earned their abilities.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

HunterST said:
I'm interested in what your, and other people arguing this point's, definition of talent is.

I've given you my definition of talent. I'm interested in what your definition of quality practice is. Make sure you are very detailed, too. Let's quantify the borderline between what deep practice and non-deep praactice is.

Up to this point, "quality practice" sounds equally mystical.

HunterST said:
I do think the studies reveal an interesting insight. The discovery is that no one is so "talented" that they can get away with putting in less than 10,000 hours and becoming an expert.

So what? DUH. And nobody get away without having any aptitude whatsoever. What is your point?

HunterST said:
Now, the hours and practice refer to skill level, not absolute playing ability. It's entirely possible and plausible for a person to have expert level skill and still not make it as a professional. Things like height, muscularity, build, etc. can hold them back from that level. Again, if you want to call that talent, I agree that it's important. However, rarely do I hear physical attributes alone thought of as talent.

What exactly do you hear of people defining as talent? Is it magic? Whenever I hear people speak of talent, it usually is mental or physical aptitude. "The guy is built to be a linebacker." "The guy has incredible court IQ." "The guy seemed to take to piano incredibly fast. Faster than most."

HunterST said:
So, we know that to reach an expert level takes 10,000 hours, regardless of talent.

No we don't know that. Stop saying it. They are not mutually exclusive. Reaching an expert level takes a combination of work and talent/aptitude.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
Quite simply, Shaq had very limited mastery of basketball skills, despite collecting some nice paychecks in the pros, and at least some pretty good practice.

If you think Shaq had limited mastery of basketball skills, you know nothing about basketball. The guy is arguably one of top-5 players at the center position -- of all time.

You don't get that with height alone. He wasn't the tallest center. He wasn't the biggest center, either. And believe it or not, Shaq had to work at his skill.

5263 · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
If you think Shaq had limited mastery of basketball skills, you know nothing about basketball. The guy is arguably one of top-5 players at the center position -- of all time.

You don't get that with height alone. He wasn't the tallest center. He wasn't the biggest center, either. And believe it or not, Shaq had to work at his skill.

And if you think he was one of the most masterful center's, I question your knowledge of Basketball. He was a big guy who did work on his skill to some extent, but his impact was more related to size than refined skills. His free throws (read skills) were terrible and was fortunate to play with excellent coaches and teammates as well.
Very avg skill wise.
Maybe top 10 impact on games or something.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
And if you think he was one of the most masterful center's, I question your knowledge of Basketball. He was a big guy who did work on his skill to some extent, but his impact was more related to size than refined skills. His free throws (read skills) were terrible and was fortunate to play with excellent coaches and teammates as well.
Very avg skill wise.
Maybe top 10 impact on games or something.

Well, we'll disagree on that. And you're probably in the vast minority on that perspective, too.

tlm · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
If you think Shaq had limited mastery of basketball skills, you know nothing about basketball. The guy is arguably one of top-5 players at the center position -- of all time.

You don't get that with height alone. He wasn't the tallest center. He wasn't the biggest center, either. And believe it or not, Shaq had to work at his skill.

Ya what was his main skill being able to throw his big bubble butt into the opponent and then jumping up and slamming. Ya right if the nba was not like the wwf and officiated the game by the rules shaqs sorry limited talent ass would be fouled out before the first half was over.

gahaha · May 16, 2011

ssonosk said:
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

Yea, unless you film yourself and painstakingly scrutinize every single detail afterward a coach would save you a lot of time lol.

5263 · May 16, 2011

tlm said:
Ya what was his main skill being able to throw his big bubble butt into the opponent and then jumping up and slamming. Ya right if the nba was not like the wwf and officiated the game by the rules shaqs sorry limited talent ass would be fouled out before the first half was over.

Yep, if they didn't have a "call to protect the stars"
Ref policy, I'm not sure he could finish the 1st quarter!

5263 · May 16, 2011

HunterST said:
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.

So I guess this topic was not a "duh" after all, because
it seems that there are several on here that argue that
natural talent can substitute for practice/training.
My experience in over 40 years of involvement agrees
with the findings of the talent code and Hunter's general
point.

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

To get as serious as making attacks on me like "don't try to argue your way out of this - because we can tell you don't have 10,000 hours of doing that" just shows immaturity on your part. We should be able to have a discussion without you trying to make it contentious.

OMG. Sensitive much? I was joking because you are so fond of this 10,000 hours argument. But now are badly trying to 'argue' your way out of it. With the "I never said that card" - clearly you DID say that x amount of hours would lead to x skill level.

Maybe you 'meant' to say that x hours with "max" talent level would lead to x level of tennis. But you did not write that in your first post.

Now, the hours and practice refer to skill level, not absolute playing ability. It's entirely possible and plausible for a person to have expert level skill and still not make it as a professional. Things like height, muscularity, build, etc. can hold them back from that level. Again, if you want to call that talent, I agree that it's important. However, rarely do I hear physical attributes alone thought of as talent.

Both the physical and mental sides are lumped together as one 'talent' factor in sports. People will refer to D. Rose as talented. Kevin Garnett was known to be 'talented' as well as Larry Bird.

Honestly I do agree with the general idea of the book - people chalk up too much to 'talent' that was actually hard work. But keep it mind this is probably alot more true in Music, Math, Chess (which is mostly about brain functioning) then Sports.

The big difference is that while alot of people have the physical talent to play the Piano or Violin or Guitar not everyone is going to be 6'9" or have double joints for swimming like Michael Phelps..

And that these physical differences trickle down. A VERY easy way to see this in tennis is the difference between men and women.

Some women even with 10,000 training will achieve pro status. These women though will struggle to beat men Tony Lars (5.5, 6.0) status and above.

This is not a women hating point - just a very clear example of how less physical talent will hold people back irregardless of the practice time in athletics. So its unlikely the studies that got you so 'geeked' up really apply to sports, IMHO.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

tlm said:
Ya what was his main skill being able to throw his big bubble butt into the opponent and then jumping up and slamming. Ya right if the nba was not like the wwf and officiated the game by the rules shaqs sorry limited talent ass would be fouled out before the first half was over.

You really need to watch Shaq passing and his moves underneath the basket. Especially when he was with the Magic and Lakers. You guys are giving no credit where credit is due. Saying these kinds of things is as dumb as saying... "What does Ray Allen do other than run down the court, get open, jump, and throw up the ball."

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
His free throws (read skills) were terrible and was fortunate to play with excellent coaches and teammates as well.

Ah. Free throw skills? Let's look at some percentages:

Wilt Chamberlain - .511
Shaquille O'Neal - .527
Bill Russell - .561

I guess all of them suck. You're right. Terrible skills. Just medium. Lucky enough to play with great coaches and teammates.

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

Shaq does have skill - it's a bit easier to see once you get him on your team though. I was impressed at how much better he looked then Perkins playing the same spot at the start of the year on the Celtics.

Unfortunately he body was too far destroyed and he was carry too much weight to make it work. But his skill level is underrated because of his size.

jht32 · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
IMO this above is the correct point here. I won't worry about whether you said something somewhere which did fit exactly, but the Lesson here is in the importance of Quality Practice and how there is really no shortcut. I hate to admit there is no shortcut, but think their case is very compelling.

Some discuss talent and it's role, which is significant. Part of the talent code message is to give hope to those who have great desire and determination to be outstanding, but may not have been pegged early on as talented. I have seen talent breakout at different points in training and often it's not the ones who show it early, that show it strongest further into training. Sometimes there is an accumulation phase or a restructuring phase that has to be accomplished due to what they have done before.

Bill Tilden (pretty sure it was him) was known to have stated that it took 10 yrs to train a 7.0 level player, so this idea is in line with what he was thinking.

As for this being a "duh" topic; I disagree strongly, because many are so taken with early talent or what is considered early talent, that they tend to be negative about what people can accomplish. I think the talent code supports the idea that hard work/ quality training, can often trump what is perceived as early talent. Chuck Norris was described as a little on the slow side in karate in his first couple of years, but went on to a World Champion. Charles Barkley is another with limited skills, limited height and overweight, who went of to be MVP of the famous Dream team Gold Medal winners. I think it is important to know and realize what dedication brings to the table and how it may just be way more important that what is perceived as talent.

Excellent post!

5263 · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
Ah. Free throw skills? Let's look at some percentages:

Wilt Chamberlain - .511
Shaquille O'Neal - .527
Bill Russell - .561

I guess all of them suck. You're right. Terrible skills. Just medium. Lucky enough to play with great coaches and teammates.

Ok, so they all were very poor at that skill, but not all big centers are. Whose point does that support?
I know Bill Russell had great defensive skills from his rep, and am inclined to think Wilt dominated with his size and had offensive skills that matched his time in history, but was known to be pretty slack of defense, right?
Kareem had some mad skills.
Honestly, doesn't playing center usually mean you were a big player, but without the skills to play forward?
Yes, they had very skilled coaches and teammates.

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

So I guess this topic was not a "duh" after all, because
it seems that there are several on here that argue that
natural talent can substitute for practice/training.
My experience in over 40 years of involvement agrees
with the findings of the talent code and Hunter's general
point.

No. It's Hunter that was arguing that you needed x amount of hours to achieve x level of play. The rest of us argued that you need y amount of talent as well.

And by 'talent' I mean the combination of physical and mental ability needed to compete at tennis. Can 'talent' shorcut practice time - absolutely. Especially initially..

You are kidding yourself if you don't think a pro NFL cornerback, NBA point guard, world class squash pro or NHL hockey player could come in and start right out and beat 3.5 tennis players with just HOURS of practice time - instead of the 1000 hours or so your average 3.5 has had.

The squash pro can probably beat 4.0's and some 4.5s - but that's not quite fair because of the huge crossover any racquet sport would have..

I get what you are arguing - I agree that hard work and dedication is paramount for achieving success in nearly any activity in which it is difficult to master. I still think this qualifes as a 'duh' observation. Sorry.

And Hunter is taking the talent code too far and trying to adapt it to something like sports.. It just doesn't work.
It probably doesn't work for music either. My guess is that a concert Pianist could pick up the violin a heck of alot faster then a layperson.

Sreeram · May 16, 2011

I am playing tennis only for little over 2 years. I am a 3.5 now. Infact even 1 year before I have beaten a 3.5 for qualifying a 3.5 level league. The guy i beat is a verifier who is computer proved 3.5. Since the match went too close and I also told him that I have been playing only for a year, he adviced me to play 3.0 league. Last 1 year I have been playing tennis almost 4 times a week and I do lot of Wall practice.
I started tennis with swining the racquet (not human racquet!) and never pushed at a ball. And slowly added components into my game like topspin, core roation, split step etc. The reason people take more than 5 years to come to a decent level is they dont watch tennis much and they start pushing the ball which will never improve their racquet head control.

Sreeram · May 16, 2011

The talent people are refering here is hand eye coordination or default timing. I have seen few people have excellent timing sense and can use it in any sport. You can develop timing by practice that helps you to find out the best contact point and swing plane that helps you to get the ideal timing. On the other hand there might be a guy blessed with natural timing skills who can start timing the ball well within few hours of practice. But swing maturity and technique definitly takes time to develop.

HunterST · May 16, 2011

GuyClinch said:
No. It's Hunter that was arguing that you needed x amount of hours to achieve x level of play. The rest of us argued that you need y amount of talent as well.

And by 'talent' I mean the combination of physical and mental ability needed to compete at tennis. Can 'talent' shorcut practice time - absolutely. Especially initially..

You are kidding yourself if you don't think a pro NFL cornerback, NBA point guard, world class squash pro or NHL hockey player could come in and start right out and beat 3.5 tennis players with just HOURS of practice time - instead of the 1000 hours or so your average 3.5 has had.

The squash pro can probably beat 4.0's and some 4.5s - but that's not quite fair because of the huge crossover any racquet sport would have..

I get what you are arguing - I agree that hard work and dedication is paramount for achieving success in nearly any activity in which it is difficult to master. I still think this qualifes as a 'duh' observation. Sorry.

And Hunter is taking the talent code too far and trying to adapt it to something like sports.. It just doesn't work.
It probably doesn't work for music either. My guess is that a concert Pianist could pick up the violin a heck of alot faster then a layperson.

With all due respect, you have not read the book (or at least not in its entirety). You say I'm taking it too far by adapting the talent code to sports, but how talent relates to sports is a huge, if not the main, focus of the book.

As far as super-athletes coming into tennis and climbing the ranks quickly, those types of individuals have already meylinated circuits that are closely associated with tennis and athletic ability in general. Thus, they have already practiced many skills associated with tennis before they start.

Take the exact same person with the same physical qualities. If he has never participated in any kind of sports in his life, he will NOT climb the ranks significantly faster. They may have better results based on things like having longer levers or more fast twitch muscle fibers, I suppose, but they will not be more skilled.

The discovery is that no one is so talented that they can become an expert in less than around the 10,000 mark. You make think this is obvious. However, I think most people would guess that someone like Mozart or Michale Jordan reached the expert level with less practice than other experts. The point is, they did not.

Once again, the hours practiced for a particular NTRP was not meant to be incredibly serious. Really, it was just trying to come up with a ball-park area for each level based on this study I saw. It was supposed to be kind of fun.

Ash_Smith · May 16, 2011

It seems the argument of the detractors has now moved onto something more like "Okay, so it sort of makes sense, but not for sports" - well for those people - read Bounce, by Matthew Syed.

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

5263 said:
Ok, so they all were very poor at that skill, but not all big centers are. Whose point does that support?

Look, you used it as an example of why Shaq is a mediocre player with no real skills. At least be man enough to admit when you realize that the argument you put forth around free throw skills wasn't a good one.

5263 said:
I know Bill Russell had great defensive skills from his rep, and am inclined to think Wilt dominated with his size and had offensive skills that matched his time in history, but was known to be pretty slack of defense, right?

Wrong. Where are you getting this information? Certainly not from career statistics.

Russell and Chamberlain were both monsters of defense. The big defensive statistics are blocks, defensive rebounds, and steals.

Chamberlain was the best rebounder ever. In Wilt's era, they did not measure blocks or steals. But he was also a monster blocker -- supposedly nobody was better. Not to mention that Chamberlain was an unsurpassed offensive force. If he wasn't the best player ever, he's definitely #2.

Russell was also an incredible defender -- fantastic blocker and rebounder.

Shaquille was/is also an excellent defender. Not as great as Chamberlain or Russell, but still dominant in the paint. Shaq was also an offensive force in his prime. In his prime, the guy would get you 20/10 almost every night, plus a few blocks.

Again, your argument about the mediocrity of three of the greatest NBA players of all time is amazing to me. I can only chalk it up to you not understanding the nuances of the center position.

If you want a good idea of who are the best and most skilled centers ever, and you are going to ignore career statistics and performance indicators, just read what the NBA experts (or hell the players themselves) say about it.

They are going to know far better than yourself and probably have a more informed opinion.

HunterST · May 16, 2011

I'm always amazed that any debate, no matter how tame the topic, becomes bitter in tone.

HunterST · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
Look, you used it as an example of why Shaq is a mediocre player with no real skills. At least be man enough to admit when you realize that the argument you put forth around free throw skills wasn't a good one.

Wrong. Where are you getting this information? Certainly not from career statistics.

Russell and Chamberlain were both monsters of defense. The big defensive statistics are blocks, defensive rebounds, and steals.

Chamberlain was the best rebounder ever. In Wilt's era, they did not measure blocks or steals. But he was also a monster blocker -- supposedly nobody was better. Not to mention that Chamberlain was an unsurpassed offensive force. If he wasn't the best player ever, he's definitely #2.

Russell was also an incredible defender -- fantastic blocker and rebounder.

Shaquille was/is also an excellent defender. Not as great as Chamberlain or Russell, but still dominant in the paint. Shaq was also an offensive force in his prime. In his prime, the guy would get you 20/10 almost every night, plus a few blocks.

Again, your argument about the mediocrity of three of the greatest NBA players of all time is amazing to me. I can only chalk it up to you not understanding the nuances of the center position.

If you want a good idea of who are the best and most skilled centers ever, and you are going to ignore career statistics and performance indicators, just read what the NBA experts (or hell the players themselves) say about it.

They are going to know far better than yourself and probably have a more informed opinion.

Speaking of seeking the opinions of experts who know far more than yourself and have a much more informed opinion...

"This is a remarkable--even inspiring--book. Daniel Coyle has woven observations from brain research, behavioral research, and real-world training into a conceptual tapestry of genuine importance. What emerges is both a testament to the remarkable potential we all have to learn and perform and an indictment of any idea that our individual capacities and limitations are fixed at birth."
-Dr. Robert Bjork, Distinguished Professor and Chair of Psychology, UCLA

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

The discovery is that no one is so talented that they can become an expert in less than around the 10,000 mark. You make think this is obvious. However, I think most people would guess that someone like Mozart or Michale Jordan reached the expert level with less practice than other experts. The point is, they did not.

That's all well and good - but has little if anything to do with your theory that X amount of time practiced will lead to Y NTRP.

As far as super-athletes coming into tennis and climbing the ranks quickly, those types of individuals have already meylinated circuits that are closely associated with tennis and athletic ability in general. Thus, they have already practiced many skills associated with tennis before they start.

Oh myelinated circuits eh? You might want to spell it right if you are going to try to impress us by throwing in unnecessary scientific concepts. What studies have directly linked athletic activities to myelination?

Sidestepping that for the sake of this argument let's just say that playing other sports can count as practice for a sport like tennis. I'd buy that - but I'd also counter that being a superior athlete genetically for a sport is a huge plus.

That's why I pointed to NBA PG - not NBA centers - as centers would be too big and wouldn't change direction well enough to be world class tennis players..

ALOT of the sucess in sports is about having the right body type for the sport. I know this spits in the face of your 'hardwork' theory. But you still need the hardwork to maximize the potential.

We don't really disagree. I just don't think its terribly interesting or helpful. For starters is seems the REAL takeaway message from the talent code isn't that you need x amount of practice to achieve Y amount of proficency.

It's that with as X approaches 10,000 hours you are about as good as you will ever get. Lucky for us most of realize we aren't every good before putting in 10k hours - and quit (or play less) if we realize we won't reach a high level of proficency.

And this is the real reason why it likely takes "experts' around that time to achieve greatness. Federer had a ton of talent - and with that 10,000 hours he was able to maximize his potential. But without his talent he might just be some 5.5 teaching pro off somewhere teach kids.. I think everyone who plays tennis kind of figures this out. Both players are WAY better then average - and will smoke almost all the rec players who play. But that talent is the difference between being a star and scraping by a living..

GuyClinch · May 16, 2011

I'm always amazed that any debate, no matter how tame the topic, becomes bitter in tone.

I am amazed that anyone who discovers the whole world doesn't agree with them mistakes that for a bitter tone. That's why we have such trouble with debate in this country people can't admit they might be wrong and get angry when they face disagreement.

You got blowback from your X hours practiced = Y NTRP rating and now you are the one that's bitter.

And FWIW I won't even take credit for thinking that the conclusions of the talent code are 'duh' stuff. That attack has been out there for a while and was made by far more insightful people then me.

It's like a book on the beauty of women that tells us that they are more sought after by men..

HunterST · May 16, 2011

GuyClinch said:
I am amazed that anyone who discovers the whole world doesn't agree with them mistakes that for a bitter tone. That's why we have such trouble with debate in this country people can't admit they might be wrong and get angry when they face disagreement.

You got blowback from your X hours practiced = Y NTRP rating and now you are the one that's bitter.

And FWIW I won't even take credit for thinking that the conclusions of the talent code are 'duh' stuff. That attack has been out there for a while and was made by far more insightful people then me.

It's like a book on the beauty of women that tells us that they are more sought after by men..

Lol I need you to look back at your posts and tell me you're not being bitter and combative. You point out meaningless typos (I purposely ignored yours) and made personal attacks and assumptions about me (I stuck to the topic).

Seriously, man. Cool it.

The fact of the matter is, my position has evidence behind it. You're entitled to your opinions, but they are based merely on speculation and your personal experiences. You need to read the book before you start making statements about its worth.

As for the topic of the thread, again it was
1. Not meant to be as utterly serious as you're making it
2. A ball park estimate.

Since I just looked at a study and made this up, I didn't expect it to be accepted as doctrine. Once again, though, I'll bet you there is a very clear range of time spent practicing for each level. My guesses probably aren't it, but it's there.

For your opinion to be proven, you'll need to provide some actual evidence that people can achieve high levels in less time than other, less "talented" people. Hypothetical situations don't really cut it.

HunterST · May 16, 2011

Another article about the topic.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/sports/tennis/20070302_BRAIN_GRAPHIC.html

mightyrick · May 16, 2011

HunterST said:
For your opinion to be proven, you'll need to provide some actual evidence that people can achieve high levels in less time than other, less "talented" people. Hypothetical situations don't really cut it.

Understand that your opinion is not proven either. A proven hypothesis would be officially published and recognized by a standard scientific body as proven. So until you get that... all you have is just another study.

As I think we all know already, nothing will be proven or disproven in this topic. Because nobody will agree on what talent, aptitude, or quality practice means. Especially since Coyle himself redefined talent as "...the possession of repeatable skills that don't depend on physical size." He completely redefined a word in order to meet his own agenda. That would be like me writing a book on economics, but redefining what currency means in order to support my position. The entire premise itself is based on a non-sequitor.

Worse yet, the second that someone provided evidence to attempt to contradict the study's findings, it would be dismissed with: 1) They probably didn't truly have quality practice, or 2) They aren't talented in the real sense of the word, or 3) Their coaching was probably not true master coaching.

See how subjective all of this is? Nobody can prove or disprove anything. It turns into a religious argument.

And as we all know, arguing religion is a fairly pointless exercise. So why even try?

5263 · May 16, 2011

mightyrick said:
Look, you used it as an example of why Shaq is a mediocre player with no real skills.

I didn't say mediocre player, I made a point that he was not highly skilled.
I'll man up and admit I'm not to sure about the historical players, as I've only seen highlights for them. I'll also admit you are correct that they are outstanding players; Shaq included. The difference is that I still don't agree that Shaq's skill level was anywhere near the type mastery being discussed here.
It's one of the things I don't like about basketball, in that some guy 7' tall, 350 lbs can stand there and push everyone away, stand on his tip toes and dunk. Or push everyone away and catch the rebound. I can do all that quite well too if I play with 5th graders where I would have a similar size advantage.

Maybe you contend he dribbled well or shot ok for a 7 foot center. I just don't share that perspective when it comes to mastery. Like Jordan who dribbled, moved, and passed like a 6 footer, but at 6' 6", Kobe at 6' 7" or Lebron who is much the same at 6' 8". For me these are the guys who have mastered most of the basketball skills. Yes, center skills are different, sort of like lineman in football where the skills are demanding, but more brute force than the refined skills being discussed here. If you think a offensive guard is as skilled as a QB, you are entitled to your POV, but they call the backs and receivers spots the skill positions for a reason.

Hours to reach certain NTRPs: Statistical Evidence

Legend

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Rookie

Legend

Banned

Legend

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Legend

Legend

Legend

Rookie

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Professional

Professional

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

Legend

Hall of Fame

Hall of Fame

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads