BoxRec

Dioufy wrote:

DaveBoyMorrison wrote:

Dioufy wrote: Jesus. From the age of 8 till the age of 16 I was seriously into amatuer boxing. I had a few fights - lost more than I won, but I enjoyed it regardless. I trained my arse off, but the fact remains, I didn't have the speed (no matter how hard I would have ever worked, because that again is a NATURAL given gift to people who possess it), nor the brain to box clever. My main strengths are my fitness (which incidentally I trained effing hard for) and and my strength (again which I trained effing hard at). My footwork, and believe me when I say this, improved a lot from the age of 12 till 16, but again, no matter how hard I practiced I'd never have the fleet of foot like some of the lads in the gym. I was NATURALLY heavy on my feet (nothing I could do, but make very slight improvements). I think in the end, I was naff at boxing, but I gave my all for quite a few years and shadow-boxed 1000's of rounds to get my feet working the way I dreamed of, but alas it wasn't to be. If I estimated how many rounds I spared, and still occasionally do, you wouldn't believe me.

I find you very patronising, and there isn't anymore to say on the subject. Top, elite boxers like Mayweather and Pacquiao and countless others are born with things that mere mortals cannot learn. Yes, they can improve on weaknesses, but that's all. Improvement isn't the same as having something which others excel at.

Good honest post mate. It's very true what you are saying, my brother trains much harder than me and is much stronger, fitter etc but even when I don't do nothing for years I'm still faster in both hand and foot. That's just an example that's very easy for me to see. It's much more obvious in high level sports.

Exactly, mate. And I damn all those with naturally fast hands and feet. Damn you to hell.

Frankie Gavin wrote:Hopefully be out early next year, gone back with amateur trainers in Birmingham an moved back home,

states wrote:I can't believe some people are arguing that natural talent doesn't play a huge part. Wayne Rooney and Michael Carrick, to use an example from another sport, train together every day, presumably putting in almost exactly the same hours and work, yet one of them is considerably better than the other.

If just hard work was the answer we'd have an awful lot of fights ending in draws.

Dioufy wrote:You do the Enzo?

jessi wrote:If you had to put a number on natural ability and fitness I would say 80% natural ability, someone mentioned other sports earlier, I think a good example would be Ronnie o Sullivan, even if he didn't practice I'd say his natural ability alone would put him in the world top 8, of course boxers need to be fit but heart, fitness and ambition alone doesn't take you to world class level In any sport !

Deserter wrote: I'd not as radical as some who believe it's almost entirely nuture, but the more I read by the experts, the more it's clear that so many people massively underestimate the importance of environment.

Dioufy wrote:Kevin Davies is the hardworking pro in the last decade at Bolton in my opinion. I have seen him train - he's like a demon. He was born into a very well off family. He has the right mind-set, as been nurtured perfectly, but is he the best footballer at Bolton in the past 10 years? No. He's very good at what he does, but he lacks that NATURAL talent that would help him develop into a truly top class forward. He does very well because he plays to his strengths, which ironically is his strength, fitness and work-rate - all abilities which CAN be taught and radically improved on. Having speed, a NATURAL talent with the ball at his feet and the eye of goal like top-class strikers, plus many more God-given abilities would of course help. That one thing is just an example - I could give plenty more.

I'm not saying you're doomed for failure having not much natural talent, as of course you aren't, but to get to the top, you need something you're born with to help you. KD, bless him, is the slowest player I have seen, so imagine how much he'd improve as a player just with that ONE talent.

Nevermind countless more.

Deserter wrote: I'd not as radical as some who believe it's almost entirely nuture, but the more I read by the experts, the more it's clear that so many people massively underestimate the importance of environment.

Maybe I am guilty of underestimating nurturing. But one thing that's for sure, some people are truly underestimating the gift of God-given abilities in sportsmen that get to the very top. It's a combination of all these facets that help someone dominate their sport. It's inconceivable to think otherwise, IMO.

Crazyboy wrote: I would rather see a player like him up front for England than darren Bent or any of the other mugs now that Rooney is suspended.

Dioufy wrote:

Crazyboy wrote: I would rather see a player like him up front for England than darren Bent or any of the other mugs now that Rooney is suspended.

I am a Bolton fan and love KD to bits but that is effing stoopid.

Dioufy wrote:My point is, Kevin Davies trains harder than most pros, has had the right environment, been nurtured and comes from a good home. But that still doesn't make him one of the best footballer's in the world as he lacks certain God-given abilities. The only way I can make my point again is by writing it on the wall in crayons.

Cardiff-Lad1 wrote:Kevin Davies went downhill upon leaving Chesterfield IMO

Crazyboy wrote: I don;t knwo what you mean? messi can dribble around 400 players and score amazing goals, he has a god given ability

Dioufy wrote:

Crazyboy wrote: I don;t knwo what you mean? messi can dribble around 400 players and score amazing goals, he has a god given ability

That was my whole point all along - that that exists. And I don't need a signed shirt, mate, I have one, plus I don't know him but I have met him a lot and seen him train. Kevin Davies is immense, and my man-crush on him continues, but to say he has more ability than previous Bolton players over the years is nonsense.

MachoMan09 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

jessi wrote:If you had to put a number on natural ability and fitness I would say 80% natural ability, someone mentioned other sports earlier, I think a good example would be Ronnie o Sullivan, even if he didn't practice I'd say his natural ability alone would put him in the world top 8, of course boxers need to be fit but heart, fitness and ambition alone doesn't take you to world class level In any sport !

Go and read 'Bounce - How Champions Are Made' by Matthew Syed. Then come back to us on that breakdown.

As for the earlier mention of Ledley King and McGrath, it's what they did in their formative years pre-injury and pre-alcoholism that allowed them to reach that level.

I'd not as radical as some who believe it's almost entirely nuture, but the more I read by the experts, the more it's clear that so many people massively underestimate the importance of environment.

One of the biggest problems that exists around this subject is polarisation. By that I mean people tend to put themselves in one camp or another, put their fingers in their ears and start going "nah, nah, nah, I'm not listening". This is clearly stupid but it is pretty much what happens. It used to really get on my wick, but I've mellowed in recent times and these days accept that people are entitled to their opinions even if they are completely, or partly, wrong.

The logical thing to do is to get as much exposure as you can to the multitude of competition data, scientific study, anecdotal evidence, random musings, etc... and develop your own rational conclusions. I've stated before that I agree with you that "Bounce" is a decent book that contains some stuff I agree with wholeheartedly.

Whatever happens, though, I will never change my opinion that the underlying requirement for truly elite sporting performance is a genetic make-up suited to the particular endeavour. For example - and at the simplest level - if Howard was correct and genetics were unimportant, Lance Armstrong could, in theory, have been born with a muscle fibre ratio similar to Usain Bolt's and still won Le Tour, likewise Usain could have the high percentage of slow twitch muscles fibres that Lance has and still broken the 100m world record. This is clearly a ridiculous notion but if people want to completely write off the relevance of genetics, they would have to adopt this line; which instantly blows their argument out of the water.