Talent vs. Practice

[joemcq51]

This is all about a talent vs practice question. The reality is 99% of the girls playing, if they work hard enough, could play at some level of college. I would say that a fully matured girl who is 3.2 sec home to first could train for as many hours as humanly possible and never reach 2.7 sec. Her natural atheletic ability has a ceiling. Now take the same girl and teach her a skill, like hitting or fielding. She can absolutely work hard and achieve the same skill level as a top level player. But again, the natural ability ceiling will prevent certain things. For example, two players with the exact skill set playing shortstop. The better athelete will be quicker to the ball and cover more ground then the lesser athelete. They both could field exactly the same way, but the better athelete would simply get to more balls.

 

[Ken Krause]

I don't buy it. This wasn't just exercise, but mind-numbing "deep practice". I take it that running around the playground doesn't count. Shagging balls doesn't count; standing in the infield while the coach hits balls doesn't count; sitting on the bench during a game when someone else is batting doesn't count; standing in the outfield during a game doesn't count; etc. etc. 1000 hours per year is 20 hours per week. But 20 hours per week of "deep practice" probably means 30 to 40 hours on the softball field. A professional can do that, but an 8-year old can't, neither physically nor mentally. I doubt that anyone can do that until they're at least 15, but which teenager or college student has that many hours available? 28-30 is more realistic than 18. And that matches when most professionals in MLB, NFL, NBA reach their peak.

Read the books, they'll give you more insight. But that's exactly what the top performers in any field do. Many, of course, are driven by their parents to put in those hours early in life. Some parents are better at it than others and make it more fun. But the kids who do it also tend to be wired that way.

One example I recall is the Bronte sisters, who became renowned writers. They were writing (and illustrating) books and stories from a very young age. They did it constantly with the encouragement of their parents. It wasn't "practice" or a chore to them. It was just how they liked to spend their time, and they did a lot of it.

Then there's the whole Tiger Woods story. His father had him on the golf course constantly, from a very early age, and essentially programmed him to become what he was. The current Tiger Woods is probably a great illustration of how it isn't just innate talent, because if it were he wouldn't be struggling now.

Closer to home, I remember Bill Hillhouse answering a question about how often a pitcher should practice. He said when he was young he pitched every day, and felt like something was missing if he didn't pitch. (Bill, if you're reading this I hope I'm quoting you correctly.) It was inconceivable to him not to do it because he enjoyed it so much.

Some people are more obsessive than others. Chess "prodigies" tend to play for hours on end, even when they're young. They have a compulsion, a need to play. That's how they get to be Grand Masters when they're in their teens. It would be no different for a softball player.

In Talent is Overrated, they talk about how this type of deep practice is not fun. That's why most kids wouldn't do it. It's also why you wouldn't want to force most kids to do it. But for the very few who are wired that way, that's how they are. You may not know any -- I certainly don't, and I can state for a fact I wasn't personally -- but they are out there. It's what makes them elite, while others are "merely" very, very good.

 

[LAdad]

[...] But the kids who do it also tend to be wired that way.

[...] It was inconceivable to him not to do it because he enjoyed it so much.

[...] They have a compulsion, a need to play.

All these sound rather unusual. So from studying kids like that the authors you quote concluded that they were just like the other kids? That's bizarre. Why not say that that drive was an early manifestation of their talent? Or that the drive itself is their talent?

If you believe in the existence of talent, you'll still believe that someone with talent who also puts in the work is going to be better than someone with talent but lazy. The fact that the top players work really hard doesn't prove anything about talent. It's when you compare two equally good players where one puts 4 times as much effort in it, that we tend to describe the difference as talent. And that's where the problem is: you can't look at someone and tell that she is talented. Only in some cases can you find a situation that forces you to admit that someone maybe just has more talent than another.

 

[Ken Krause]

LADad, it depends on your definition of talent. Most people think of talent as something you're born with. For example, being a top-level piano player. The premise is that if it is talent that separates the high achievers from everyone else, that talent would manifest itself from the beginning -- because they were born with it. But it doesn't. When the researchers looked at the high achievers as youngsters they weren't particularly better than anyone else. It wasn't until much later that they stood out.

In The Talent Code, the author visits several supposed hotbeds of talent around the world. In each, he finds the same sorts of conditions -- conditions that nurture their abilities and light a spark in a different way than happens with other people from other areas. Another factor that goes into it is a willingness to fail. High performers sacrifice short-term wins for long-term improvement. That again is something that goes against our culture, as has been pointed out in other threads.

Again, I suggest you read the books before making any decisions. They are based on research, not opinion, and can explain the premise far better than I can in a forum post.

I think (and this is my opinion only) that people like the idea of "talent" because it provides an explanation for why some people don't measure up to others. That kid has more talent than my daughter, that's why she's a better player. If talent doesn't exist, there must be some other reason. That can get uncomfortable for some.

 

[Lozza]

I'm not scientific in the slightest, so mine is all pure anecdotal. But I played softball with a girl from the age of six. We did the exact same trainings until we were 16 years old. This girl is simply put, the worst player I've ever seen. She never improved. She got the same coaching I did. Yet I played rep from age 9, played state league and am still one of the top players in my current comp, despite being almost twice the weight of the people I play. (and it's quite fun to watch them get frustrated at the 'fat girl' striking them out every week. My only weakness, strangely enough is speed) She, who has played the sport for 20 years, can barely throw a ball. It's insane to watch.

Conversely, I had the natural talent as a pitcher to go far. At age 11 I was the top pitcher on my primary school team, tons better than the number 2 pitcher. I never put the effort in. Number 2 pitcher? Ended up pitching for Australia. She worked her arse off, as she decided early on that she was going to be the best pitcher she could be.

Hard work always wins. Always.

 

[FPMark]

I played baseball form an early age and remember other kids on my teams, who were no different physically than I was, but just couldn't play the game. But durring HS they could solve math problems in a matter of seconds that took me hours to understand. I have also seen people who could play the piano without ever taking lessons because it just made sense to them when they looked at it the first time.

I believe that what we call talent is more in the way our brain is wired for comprehension. Some kids can see the correct way to throw a ball, field a ball, or hit a ball, and do it without much instruction (natural tallent). Others have to learn to do it through much practice and instuction, with a desire to learn (coachable). Some will never learn no matter what we do, and they usually quit early on. Which one is better, a player with natural tallent, or one who is coachable is really tough to say IMHO. It depends on goals and willingness to work hard to acheve them.

 

[darken]

Hmm. I read the OP's question differently than you all did. The thread seemed to turn into more of a question about which type of athlete (talent vs. hard worker) would eventually be "better" or achieve a higher level of excellence.

This being in the coaching forum, not the Crazy Daddy forum, I read it as which type of player would you rather have on your team. For me, there is no question - a hard worker makes for a better team player, a player than challenges a coaches ability to develop a player's skill, and generally makes coaching more rewarding. Give me the hard worker over the more talented player every time.

BTW, why is there no Crazy Daddy forum on this site?