5263
G.O.A.T.
Very easy to learn and play with good coaching, but as most things, very tough to be real good. Imo that is partly because the bar is always moving just out of reach. At each level you attain, you can see another level to strive for.
Talent Exists And Practice Is Overrated
- Thread starter Coolio
- Start date
Raul_SJ
G.O.A.T.
Article says practice only accounts for a 4% difference in education domain. That does not make sense from my experience.
For example, those students in our math study group (basically all equally talented), who put in extra hours of study, always did much better in exams. I would usually score in the middle of the pack, around 75, as I always waited till the last moment to cram.
But once, I put in more hours days before the exam and everyone was surprised that I scored a 95, the highest, not only in our study group, but in the entire class. Even higher than the other students in the class who were perceived to have a natural math aptitude.
Last edited:
10isMaestro
Semi-Pro
That one person on some occasion happens to experience a large effect is not inconsistent with their result, yet even this statement would be a bit presumptuous: indeed, who is to say that you would have done so much worst with your usual habits on this specific test? Sometimes, tests do happen to target what we specifically studies more in detail and, as a consequence, we tend to do better on those tests. Or, in given subjects, we simply do get things clearly very early on and also test better on those occasions. Some tests also are plain easier than others. Indeed, how do you expect teachers, be they distinguished professors or seasoned high school professionals, to keep things perfectly levelled? They likely don't. Of course, there is always the possibility that you are right, as I said earlier. And I could go on and on...
However, as far as mathematics are concerned, it depends on the sort of mathematics you are doing. When you are asked to provide formal demonstrations in abstract settings, given the syntaxical nature of the exercise and the consequent lack of reliable algorithm for demonstrations, it can be very tricky. It sometimes require a bit of ingenuity and of creativity. However, if we're talking about linear algebra or calculus, the examinator asks of you that you be able to vomit formulas on the exam day... Given that requires repetition and that six year olds throughout the whole western world have for several decades demonstrated they can learn and vomit sequences of actions on exams, that can explain a lot too -- if you're asked something very technical, very much applied, there are reasons to believe repetition looms large in the quality of your performance.
10isMaestro
Semi-Pro
(my bold)
If you actually really do think about it, it's not obvious at all. The explanation you propose involves a causal relationship which can only be assessed empirically by structuring an adequate counterfactual scenario, but you will obviously lack the ability to carry out an experiment. Your next best bet is to open an econometrics textbook, find lots of data and apply a suitable method to overcome your number one major problem with field data: there is a selection bias in the application of the treatment (quantity and quality of practice). Even for a trained applied econometrician with expertise in his own field of inquiry, that type of exercise is hard -- in no small part because you have absolutely no choice but to justify assumptions you can never test and making a solid case in that direction is very far from being something anyone who ever tried it would call obvious.
It's not that people "get it," it's just that many people work from the presumption it's probably right. I personally have nothing against the principle of holding to beliefs that seem reasonable to us, even if that amounts only to a gut feeling. The cost of actually doing things up to the standard of science is way too high for many tasks of ordinary life and it can render decisions and discussions cumbersome. However, that suppose at least being conscious of what we're doing and attributing to those beliefs a much bigger question mark than we would if we bothered doing things right. It also means that we need to be disposed to revise those beliefs and that we should bother looking when the consequences of making a bad choice are sufficiently grave.
The Unknown
Semi-Pro
Easy to learn and play? Im not sure I agree with that
The Unknown
Semi-Pro
Personal anecdotes v evidence based, peer reviewed research. I know what way I'd go...
JohnYandell
Hall of Fame
Many years ago I was in Jim Loehr's office with him and Jim Courier. Jim L. had some training device with like 30 squares. When a square lit up the game was to see who could touch the square first. Usually my hand had moved only a few inches when Jim's finger was in the center of the square. If you get a chance to watch pro matches from the front row or better practice from point blank range you will conclude there is something god gifted going on. No amount of practice is going to compensate for huge talent disparities like we see in tennis.
Last edited:
dominikk1985
Legend
http://www.psychologicalscience.org...oming-an-expert-takes-more-than-practice.html
Interesting podcast talking about the subject: http://sportscoachradio.com/?powerpress_pinw=2375-podcast
Interesting study that Deliberate Practice only accounts for only 18% of individual differences in sports and less in other domains.
Other factors such as genetics, intrinsic motivation, innate abilities matter far more.
So much for the American dream, you can be anything if you work hard enough. This throws the 10,000 hour rule out the window.
Sorry to all you talentless posters out there working your as$ off on the practice courts!
you still Need to put in those 10K hours (or whatever) because other guys are talented too. a well trained average athlete with good technique will beat a super talented guy with crappy technique every time.
however to make the top500 or so of course great stroke mechanics but average athleticism is not going to cut it. those guys Need both, but you still can get to a pretty good Level with Training and good mechanics as an average athlete (at least 5.0 or so).
if you are a totally crappy athlete that runs the 100m in 17 seconds your ceiling gets lower of course but I think an average athlete can become a good Player with great Training and technique (not not world ranked obviously).
I think if you give an average athletes federers or djokovics strokes he could still become at least a D2 Player with enough Training.
2forehands
Rookie
To me, what the paper highlights (and some of the extreme opinions posted reflect) is the range of views on what is talent and the other factors that may affect development. It is interesting that some people immediately go to the 'some are born superior to most others and there's nothing you can do about it at the top end' approach to skill/sport development. Whilst I'm not going to argue with this approach; I am glad that you are not my coach or my children's (think I've said that somewhere before). To me, its too easy to take this view, especially when faced with a challenging situation that proves difficult to overcome (oh well I'm/your just not cut out for X, move along and try Y). This may be damaging to a child's development are all experts were children once.
One theoretical approach to natural gifts, developed talents, and chance factors is Gagné’s Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent (DMGT).
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/587306/Giftedness-and-Talent.pdf
Personally, I do not think that it actually helps instruction or learning to have this view but it seems to be more and more popular in the sport domain (in my country).
One theoretical approach to natural gifts, developed talents, and chance factors is Gagné’s Differentiated Model of
Giftedness and Talent (DMGT).
http://www.det.act.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/587306/Giftedness-and-Talent.pdf
Personally, I do not think that it actually helps instruction or learning to have this view but it seems to be more and more popular in the sport domain (in my country).
MisterP
Hall of Fame
Statistics would show that a majority of players fall into the same relatively talentless region of the bell curve. They'll always be 3.5's, but between those players, those who commit time to practice most certainly would play better and win against their equally talentless but less practiced peers.
Agree for the most part - only with the caveat that most rec players are likely around 1 standard deviation above the norm - not below. Otherwise they would never pick up rec tennis. On another thread a poster called Taiss 'the most talentless they have ever seen on this board' - might have been in jest - but the idea they were expressing is that Taiss falls in the 'below normal' talent range - that is rarely seen on the tennis court..
It's the same with almost all hobbies IMHO. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover that a lot of the guys at gold's gym were stronger then average guys before they took up weight lifting. A lot of the guys that took up long distance running had better then average endurance and so on and so forth. In the book the 'sports gene' the author talks about how people can be well suited to something (body/brain type wise) and how they can also make rapid adjustments too something. So for example you can find ethiopian runners who with no training can run 4 minute miles. And SOME of those guys can improve fairly quickly from that. Those guys are the gifted long distance runners..
There was a champion powerlifter who the first time trying a deadlift was at over 500lbs. Most people - even dedicated lifters will never reach those numbers. Not only did he start at 500lbs he rapidly improved. It's the same with tennis - people want to deny the athletic gifts of the greats and chalk it up to mental makeup and such. I have heard people claim Federer was a great athlete and so on. In reality Fed said once that he was always athletic and felt he would have done well in a number of sports. The tennis problem is that for some a guys like Fed's athleticism is not abundantly clear - its not all speed quickness or strength.. so people right it off.
5263
G.O.A.T.
I did say with good coaching. The way my org teaches makes it easy to get a good start.
5263
G.O.A.T.
Yes, you are mostly right here, as that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. They have belief and a good head start.....But...
I knew and trained with the Legend of Powerlifting, Bill Kazmaier. He says his first effort on the bench was 300 and he hit 400 within 2-3 months. He was the first man to bench over 600 officially and 705 unofficially. Interesting things is though....while he IS the amazing one, His coach was the real Master of the lifts and training. His coach was a little guy who struggled with gains, but kept at it over the years and became a champion record holder himself. No, the coach was not the super heavyweight legend Kaz was, but he was the real Maestro and master of all things in the power game. He was the one Kaz listened to and learned from on his way up the ladder. While Kaz became quite a master himself, I don't think he ever quite mastered all the facets of powerlifting to the level of his main coach.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, powerlifting is not a good analogy. The ratio of natural ability to skill needed to be a champion powerlifter weighs heavily in favor of natural ability in comparison to tennis which requires a much higher level of acquired skill. Olympic style lifting would be a bit closer in terms of the ability-skill ratio, but still, not a good analogy. In my opinion, the only sport that compares to tennis in that respect is golf.
PS: Bill Kazmaier was a freak of nature. But, I think it was Ted Arcidi who first bench pressed over 700 lbs.
Last edited:
The Unknown
Semi-Pro
I don't think you are giving tennis players enough credit - guys at the top tend of the sport are very athletic now - and would have done well in another sport - maybe even better. I am a big hoops fan - and honestly a guy like Del Potro moves tremendously well - even compared to NBA guys. How many guys are 6'6" and can move like that? And have the hand eye coordination he has?
The good part about tennis Is that at the rec level - skill matters some. This means that the less athletic guys - sometimes stand a chance. The fatter slower weaker guys can use skill and hang in there some. But as the levels rise - the skill gap closes and the unusual athletic abilities of the players start to shine through.. Comparing tennis to a sport where Chuck Daly can dominate is a little far fetched.. You don't even have to be able to run or change direction at all to play golf. Even disabled people can compete against able bodied and win..
I don't think this is really true. It may seems so from one perspective but the the skill gap at higher levels can be even more real than the gap at the lower rec level, where improving by lessons and practice and overcoming the gap is not that hard. But, significant improvements when you are already playing close to your believed skill limit is so hard we don't see the rankings change that much once the players settle into their places.
Here's an analogy. Imagine this very long ladder and one person is at the height of 1000 ft and another at 2000 ft on the same ladder and you look up from the ground. They both will look so small they'll appear about the same, just two specks.
That's what I see when top players like Fed plays many lower ranked players. Their skill gap is so huge, he doesn't seem he's even using fraction of his skills to make the other guy lose hope completely. I doubt most of those guys can ever think they can overcome such a gap with a player like Fed no matter how many times they play.
To me the gap in raw athleticism becomes less meaningful as the level goes up, but the skill level which reflects the quality of their technique and style becomes the deciding factor.
I get your point.. That the other guys aren't obviously slower or weaker then Fed.
But athletic talent is more complex then that.. So while it might not seem that there is a athletic gap - there is and its huge. Fed is far more elegant and graceful in his movements. Superior hand eye lets him choose a set of strokes that are varied and complex but beyond the grasp of other less talented players.
Fed's skill might be superior - but he developed that skill because he is a superior athlete..And Fed has never dodged that truth. The game came EASY to him.. It never feels hard. He doesn't get particularly stressed. He was able to master the more difficult 'all-court' game is far less time then his less talented opponents.
Do you really believe that say Roddick was as talented as Fed? I don't not for a minute..
Fed is the last person that should be reframed as some hard working underdog. Sure he works hard - but so does the other guys... He is about as close as you get in tennis as a 'natural' IMHO.. And he knows it..
But athletic talent is more complex then that.. So while it might not seem that there is a athletic gap - there is and its huge. Fed is far more elegant and graceful in his movements. Superior hand eye lets him choose a set of strokes that are varied and complex but beyond the grasp of other less talented players.
Fed's skill might be superior - but he developed that skill because he is a superior athlete..And Fed has never dodged that truth. The game came EASY to him.. It never feels hard. He doesn't get particularly stressed. He was able to master the more difficult 'all-court' game is far less time then his less talented opponents.
Do you really believe that say Roddick was as talented as Fed? I don't not for a minute..
Fed is the last person that should be reframed as some hard working underdog. Sure he works hard - but so does the other guys... He is about as close as you get in tennis as a 'natural' IMHO.. And he knows it..
Ash_Smith
Legend
You obviously didn't see him when he was a teenager... or when he destroyed the locker room at the Paris Masters a few years back after a loss
As a sort of sports psychologist type - you should know getting pissed off isn't the same as lacking confidence. <g> Come on now.. MJ would get pissed off all the time - his superior talent made him supremely confident.. Fed is cut from the same cloth.. I get that some people want to deny the existence of talent - but Federer - that's just going to far..
Ash_Smith
Legend
^^^ You didn't say confidence, you said he doesn't get particularly stressed. Breaking racquets and locker rooms is a stress response - whet Fed is brilliant at now is managing his stress in public, although when he was a teen he was not so proficient at it - it is a learned behaviour.
The Unknown
Semi-Pro
Djokovic might be one of the fittest athletes in the world, when holistically considering all of the components of fitness (cardiovascular endurance, muscular strength, muscular endurance, flexibility, body composition, agility, balance, coordination, power, reaction time, and speed)
You can break things out of anger as well. Let's not descend into bad armchair psychology..
With Fed my point is clear enough player x + top flight training = all time great. player y + top flight training = good college player. player z + top flight training = teaching pro..
The difference here is talent - that's what the OP is saying. You can try to spin psychology or point to skill or whatever you want. But for most the difference is plain as day.. Serena makes it almost hilarious on the women's side.. It's - player x + mediocre training = best player ever. Her dad predicted this - owning up to her vastly superior athletic talent..
Unlike the men with her the gap in basic speed/strength is enormous - it's like a man playing against boys..
Ash is a coach. He's not a sports psychologist. It's something he picked up recently, and something that's contributes to better coaching.
Point is, players (even rec) can use sports psychology and pick it up too.
I get this. He claimed that Federer getting angry proves he was stressed. You can be angry without being stressed in match play in tennis. Federer losing his temper after a match does not mean that during the match his nerves were killing him. That's possible -but far from the only explanation. You can get angry from underperforming - even if you didn't feel stressed at all during the match.
I think of it more as black box kind of scenario - talent is all variation not related to training/practice.
That is what the OP is claiming that the 'variation from practice' only amounts to 14%. Talent is the rest.
If you want to know if talent is all genetic - probably not entirely. Epigenetics is considered an extremely strong factor in development. This is changes in the expression of the genome - not related to actual changes in the DNA sequence. So two people might have identical DNA - but different expressions of those genes because of enviromental considerations.
That's sounds 'fuzzy' but its really not. A very crude example is women drinking during pregancy. Prior to the research on epigenetics it is well known that drinking effects the IQ of the children. Its not that they have DNA coded to being 'dumb' its that the drinking effected the brains development - and thus the IQ was lowered. Other toxins likely have similiar effects of course. But epigenetics has shown some fascinating things like mice who pass on a fear of a smell based on shocking their parents when they smelled rose flower..
The long shot of this is that variation in talent levels can be related to 'nature' but not the precise DNA sequence as the expression of those sequences can vary tremendously.. While scientifically interesting..
From a tennis standpoint there is still this variation that is not related to practice/training/childhood exposure to sports. Give another kid Fed's exact upbringing and you might not have Fed. Give a kids Fed exact DNA and his exact unbringing and even then you might end up with Fed if you give them a different mother because of epigenetics.
Even if we don't know the exact factors involved in cultivating this talent - that does not mean its not real. Research seems to indicate it is..
I don't think anybody is denying there's a such thing as talent. But, we all have various idea what it is and how much it contributes in skill development. I personally don't think it will ever be accurately determined because there are too many factors that originates from the human psyche that shapes the talent.
A big factor is how one sees things and chooses to believe how things work. Some gives too much credit to talent and want to believe there's nothing more you can do. I get the feeling the OP is frustrated and wants to believe the talent is a huge unsurmountable limiting factor. If that'll give him peace of mind he should believe that.
I see value in considering both perspectives since both could be true and false depending on many things. You can take one side over the other for personal reasons but there's no point proclaiming one over the other since the evidence for both sides are many but pretty thin to stand on. Whatever works, whatever works.
A big factor is how one sees things and chooses to believe how things work. Some gives too much credit to talent and want to believe there's nothing more you can do. I get the feeling the OP is frustrated and wants to believe the talent is a huge unsurmountable limiting factor. If that'll give him peace of mind he should believe that.
I see value in considering both perspectives since both could be true and false depending on many things. You can take one side over the other for personal reasons but there's no point proclaiming one over the other since the evidence for both sides are many but pretty thin to stand on. Whatever works, whatever works.
Were you not reading this thread? Its full of the denial of the very concept of talent. The 10,000 rule is all about denying the existence of talent - (the book - not the study)..
I didn't get the impression that the OP was frustrated at all. Point of the OP is that we don't have 'see both sides' we have an answer - and that answer is talent is king. Hardly surprising in sports..
I been following rec tennis for years now - and contrary to the belief (and needs) of coaches you see a very familiar pattern.. Guy picks up tennis - advances up to 1 NTRP level in under 5 years. Does not advance from this level ever.. Sure I don't think this rule is ironclad - there are likely exceptions - guys with enormous talent who didn't play tennis - or guys who spend enormous amounts of money..and time. Basically after a point - depending on talent level advancement is still possible but the growth in time/money/effort becomes exponential. It's a talent ceiling so to speak. For most players that around 4.0 - but it could be lower or higher depending on natural talent..
The OPs advice to ignore Malcolm Gladwell and not sink enormous amount of time and effort into something you will not be great at (If your goal is to be great) is actually sound advice. For untalented players its rather like banging your head against the wall.
This is why - in another thread - I suggested that fun has to be the reason to play tennis. Fun that you get to run around - hit a ball like a little kid. If you don't enjoy that - I don't think you should play. Because for most adult players - you aren't going to end up looking like 45 year old Federer..
Don't read the OPs initial post as a negative message - its more of a warning and a dose of reality. You can believe that or believe Taiss. I know which one has it right..
Op wants confirmation so that if he fails (to get better), than he can blame it on bad genetics (or other innate factors).
There is a big Point! Believing in the wrong things can lead to bad results., esp. when there isn't any strong evidence. Like I said, that is the big cultural diff. between western culture and other cultures. If you have a culture that believes in hard work, then maybe the op would stop asking so many doubting Q's.
You are assuming we all or even majority of us agree on what talent is.
To me, choice of techinque and style is also part of the talent. It requires you to understand the techniques and yourself, which also is part of the talent. Ability to continuously ask the right questions and find the answers is also part of the talent.
People may not agree with me and I know that because 'talent' is hard to define.
It's a famous video around these parts because Novak says the serve is all in the wrist... Which is pretty much the opposite of what the 'serve scientists' say - yet Novak serves much better then any of them.. I like Novak too - good guy. But he has a limited understand of tennis - in that he understands that if he moves his body like x - he gets y result. He does not 'understand the technique and himself' like you think he needs to. In short he makes a mockery of your theory..
There's a Boris Becker video (with Annabelle) where he says pretty much the same.
I went to a few adidas tennis camps decades ago where serves were taught by some highly ranked collegiate players. The ones who emphasized wrist snap and pronation were all capable of serving 120+ mph serves.
Pretty sure they all do the ISR unbeknownst to them.
But the fact is, whether Talk Tennis coaching gurus agree with their teaching or not, they can actually hit those serves.
Yes much to the chagrin of the 'can't do - but I teach' crowd the wrist snap lives on.. It's just a good example of how tennis is a sport and an understanding of the technique involved isn't really necessary - beyond a kind of 'calling' system.
The way I think about it..
Your conscious mind says hey body hit a forehand - that passes off the info to another part of the brain - the cerebellum (which is actually considered 'primitive' ) and then it tells the muscles want to do.. This of course explains why in reality a guy can be 'dumb as a rock' and say hit tons of home runs. His frontal lobe might be not as well developed as a 'tennis scientist' but their cerebellum seems to function at a much higher level.
Obviously a bit of an exaggeration - but generally true in sports Manny Ramirez for example was smarter then a rock - but not a go-to scientist type. You don't have to know the biomechanics to hit good shots. In fact it seems to be a negative with most of the 'experts' being quite awful.. Is biomechanics helpful in fixing technical problems - I think it could be - provided they scientist really understands the movement.. But they still tend to lag behind..
This is why for decades people were already hitting great biomechanically correct serves before anyone 'understood' the wonders of ISR. Talented athletes don't need an understanding of biomechanics. They are talented.
The way I think about it..
Your conscious mind says hey body hit a forehand - that passes off the info to another part of the brain - the cerebellum (which is actually considered 'primitive' ) and then it tells the muscles want to do.. This of course explains why in reality a guy can be 'dumb as a rock' and say hit tons of home runs. His frontal lobe might be not as well developed as a 'tennis scientist' but their cerebellum seems to function at a much higher level.
Obviously a bit of an exaggeration - but generally true in sports Manny Ramirez for example was smarter then a rock - but not a go-to scientist type. You don't have to know the biomechanics to hit good shots. In fact it seems to be a negative with most of the 'experts' being quite awful.. Is biomechanics helpful in fixing technical problems - I think it could be - provided they scientist really understands the movement.. But they still tend to lag behind..
This is why for decades people were already hitting great biomechanically correct serves before anyone 'understood' the wonders of ISR. Talented athletes don't need an understanding of biomechanics. They are talented.
5263
G.O.A.T.
serving was also the most lagging part of his game until only the last few years
Boris Becker says the same thing about how to serve, and serving was never the lagging part of Boom Boom's game.
5263
G.O.A.T.
he may not have learned it using biomechanically, but it was clearly biomechanical changes he made. I wasn't disagreeing with your point, but just thought DJ and the serve was a poor example of your good point.
Answer me this though. How do you learn and it not be biomechanical? If you mimic another persons action, is that biomechanical? If you do what feels right or powerful is that biomechanical? Just asking, because I don't understand the concept of these learning classifications. To me, you learn it or you don't. THanks
digidoc15
New User
This thread is very helpful.. But I have some questions troubling me.. If talent is the main factor.. And some are arguing that 'talented' players are fast at progression.. Why don't we see any top players who started playing tennis after 10 years of age and reached the top? Imagine a talented kid starting at 10 still should have time. Why is that all have started around 4-6 years of age? And why is that a majority of these were related to a coach or had one very easily accessible? I understand athletic qualities definitely help.. And a good athlete can fit in many sports and probably excel if he focuses and gets the right coaching on one.. If kids these days start so young won't they end up developing most of the qualities we are considering under talent? Provided they like the sport and stick to it..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
5263
G.O.A.T.
Imo you make excellent points. I think instead of looking for talent, its likely more about making sure one is not handicapped in some particular way. Even players with certain handicaps can be outstanding, but clearly, some things can hold you back more than others. My point is, if there is nothing about you that is a big impediment, then great effort and coaching should be able to produce stellar results, given time and resources.
The coach's kid is almost always a top player on HS teams, even if he seems to lack talent. And like you say, the kids that are starting with good coaching at 5 and stay with it will nearly always be good. People will all say the have talent when they see them at 14. Few make it to #1 on the world, but lots of people who put in the effort become outstanding or even Masters.
digidoc15
New User
That is exactly what I am observing.. Just look at Djokovic's 7 year old video, he didn't look more talented than some other prodigies.. But he focused on the sport and probably got the right coaching.. So many talented prodigies don't make it because they get distracted or misguided..
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
@Coolio, of course talent matters. Has anyone disputed that, ever? What's less obvious is that talent AND hard work is not enough. There are thousands of talented and naturally athletic guys who have worked hard since they were 8 years old (and many started much earlier), to be the best they can be, and only a small fraction of them will ever get into top 200. You need a lot more than talent and hard work to get there: the right kind of parents, a great coach, access to good players to practice with, money, the right kind of nerves (so you can get fired up enough to fight, but still keep your cool under pressure), and plenty of luck. When you have all that, you will probably get into top 200. I don't even know what's needed to get higher than that, tennis at that level is like GM level chess.
I've known two players who got into top 20 (Volkov and Cherkasov) - they have always been better than everyone around them in everything sport-related (both mentally and physically). I've also known a few players who spent 20 years trying to do the same, and despite obvious talent, lots of hard work, lots of money, and even the same coach, they couldn't even break into top 200 (one spent a decade on the Challenger tour).
I've known two players who got into top 20 (Volkov and Cherkasov) - they have always been better than everyone around them in everything sport-related (both mentally and physically). I've also known a few players who spent 20 years trying to do the same, and despite obvious talent, lots of hard work, lots of money, and even the same coach, they couldn't even break into top 200 (one spent a decade on the Challenger tour).
Click to expand...
Krygios got started quite late.. He didn't get serious about tennis till he was 14 - mostly focused on hoops. When you are talking about a talent athlete - they have tried just about every sport.. So I suppose you could cop out and claim that he doesn't count - but in my view he does..
You just aren't going to find any talented athletes who don't pick up a tennis racquet before the are 10.. That's just way to old..
Krygios got started quite late.. He didn't get serious about tennis till he was 14 - mostly focused on hoops. When you are talking about a talent athlete - they have tried just about every sport.. So I suppose you could cop out and claim that he doesn't count - but in my view he does..
You just aren't going to find any talented athletes who don't pick up a tennis racquet before the are 10.. That's just way to old..
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, talent is inherent, skill is acquired.
Limpinhitter
G.O.A.T.
In my view, for tennis, acquired skill is more essential than any other sport except for golf, and, acquired skill is at least as important, if not more important, than inherent talent.
digidoc15
New User
He actually Started tennis at 6. Playing some of the other sports actually helps a lot at younger age. It helps then develop movement and they don't get bored of one sport. He never quit tennis. http://www.atpworldtour.com/en/players/nick-kyrgios/ke17/bio
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk