BoxRec

I was going to mention this on the Adam Smith thread as it was heading towards the nature vs nuture debate, but thought it was worthy of its own thread...
Basically I've been reading 'Bounce - How Champions Are Made', by Matthew Syed, the former Bristish table tennis champion and Times columnist, and it's the most stimulating book I've read in ages.
I won't bore you all the detail, but suffice to say he makes a compelling argument for how 'natural talent' is largely a myth and uses plenty of case studies to prove his point, including his own career - he points out that at one point, his street and the surrounding streets in Reading had an insane number of the best table tennis players in the whole of the UK and that if things really were largely based on genetics it would have been impossible for that to occur.
In terms of boxing examples, his theories explain why Sheffield produces so many more top class boxers than Bristol, for example, despite them being similar sizes. It can't be because the inhabitants of Sheffield are somehow more genetically 'endowed' than their West Country counterparts, it because of a myriad of factors including the number of good gyms/coaches, the role models of previous boxers etc, etc, etc.
Anyway, I can't recommend it highly enough - I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's really stimulating to read. Has anyone else checked it out and if so what did you think?

Deserter wrote:I was going to mention this on the Adam Smith thread as it was heading towards the nature vs nuture debate, but thought it was worthy of its own thread...
Basically I've been reading 'Bounce - How Champions Are Made', by Matthew Syed, the former Bristish table tennis champion and Times columnist, and it's the most stimulating book I've read in ages.
I won't bore you all the detail, but suffice to say he makes a compelling argument for how 'natural talent' is largely a myth and uses plenty of case studies to prove his point, including his own career - he points out that at one point, his street and the surrounding streets in Reading had an insane number of the best table tennis players in the whole of the UK and that if things really were largely based on genetics it would have been impossible for that to occur.
In terms of boxing examples, his theories explain why Sheffield produces so many more top class boxers than Bristol, for example, despite them being similar sizes. It can't be because the inhabitants of Sheffield are somehow more genetically 'endowed' than their West Country counterparts, it because of a myriad of factors including the number of good gyms/coaches, the role models of previous boxers etc, etc, etc.
Anyway, I can't recommend it highly enough - I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but it's really stimulating to read. Has anyone else checked it out and if so what did you think?

personally i think its a combination of talent and enviroment,ie it doesnt matter if you grow up in a brilliant enviroment suited to table tennis if you have no hand-eye coordination

lefty wrote:personally i think its a combination of talent and enviroment,ie it doesnt matter if you grow up in a brilliant enviroment suited to table tennis if you have no hand-eye coordination

You'll have to read the book Lefty (never too late to start your education ), but his whole premise is that any normal person can acquire ability through purposeful practice e.g. people would see him as a youngster and say he had natural hand-eye co-ordination, but he says what they didn't realise was that it had only come about through years of practice against an older brother from a young age.

Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

Deserter wrote:

lefty wrote:personally i think its a combination of talent and enviroment,ie it doesnt matter if you grow up in a brilliant enviroment suited to table tennis if you have no hand-eye coordination

You'll have to read the book Lefty (never too late to start your education ), but his whole premise is that any normal person can acquire ability through purposeful practice e.g. people would see him as a youngster and say he had natural hand-eye co-ordination, but he says what they didn't realise was that it had only come about through years of practice against an older brother from a young age.

il have to check it out,sounds good!Actually when i was about 10/11 i was very good at tennis and was told by this guy who had come in to our school to assess a tournament that i should get private coaching as i had potential.Never did though as didnt have the money.I also lost by a point to a guy who was a former county champion in table tennis and to be honest i wasnt playing full out,just enjoying the game.I didnt know he had been a county champion until after the game either.

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

like ive already said,for me its a combination of the two.Maybe even 50/50

lefty wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

like ive already said,for me its a combination of the two.Maybe even 50/50

I was asking OP but I guess it's open to anyone. It's an interesting wider question.

orbtastic wrote:

lefty wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

like ive already said,for me its a combination of the two.Maybe even 50/50

I was asking OP but I guess it's open to anyone. It's an interesting wider question.

my apologies

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

I'd always thought it was a mixture of the two, but after reading both this and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers I'm strongly leaning towards nature being the dominant aspect.
The one caveat I'd sound is that there are clearly areas where predetermined factors play a huge part - rowing, basketball etc.
However, if you take rowing for example, if you've got individuals within that subset of a similar physical make-up in terms of height, weight etc, then I think nuture takes over again in separating them - more intensive practice, access to better coaching and competition etc.
Too complex to distill into a single post, but fascinating subject though isn't it?

Sounds like an interesting read my type of book. I think its important that we are able to examine the exact methods and routes needed for success and how we can replicate it obviously not only in boxing but in all sports football etc etc.

Its certainly not coincidence when all of a sudden there is a good group of youngsters all coming up from the same gym at the same time. Excellence breeds excellence.

Deserter wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

I'd always thought it was a mixture of the two, but after reading both this and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers I'm strongly leaning towards nature being the dominant aspect.
The one caveat I'd sound is that there are clearly areas where predetermined factors play a huge part - rowing, basketball etc.
However, if you take rowing for example, if you've got individuals within that subset of a similar physical make-up in terms of height, weight etc, then I think nuture takes over again in separating them - more intensive practice, access to better coaching and competition etc.
Too complex to distill into a single post, but fascinating subject though isn't it?

My one argument for it being a combination of the two is how comes you have some people who come from horribly abusive upbringings,etc who go on to be serial killers but you then have others who come from a very similar background who end up psychologically damaged and needing alot of therapy but dont go on to be violent?

Deserter - doesn't he argue that the north African countries' success at long distance running also has nothing to do with genetics?

He's very hit and miss as a columnist is Syed - some great observations and then talks utter bollocks as well.

Deserter wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

I'd always thought it was a mixture of the two, but after reading both this and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers I'm strongly leaning towards nature being the dominant aspect.
The one caveat I'd sound is that there are clearly areas where predetermined factors play a huge part - rowing, basketball etc.
However, if you take rowing for example, if you've got individuals within that subset of a similar physical make-up in terms of height, weight etc, then I think nuture takes over again in separating them - more intensive practice, access to better coaching and competition etc.
Too complex to distill into a single post, but fascinating subject though isn't it?

Sure is. I've a rather unique position where I've an identical twin so can often ask myself if the differences between the two of us are down to nature or nurture. As my mum says - Life can often be very different from one end of the dinner table to the other.

orbtastic wrote:

Deserter wrote:

orbtastic wrote:Book aside, how far do you weight nurture over nature?

I'd always thought it was a mixture of the two, but after reading both this and Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers I'm strongly leaning towards nature being the dominant aspect.
The one caveat I'd sound is that there are clearly areas where predetermined factors play a huge part - rowing, basketball etc.
However, if you take rowing for example, if you've got individuals within that subset of a similar physical make-up in terms of height, weight etc, then I think nuture takes over again in separating them - more intensive practice, access to better coaching and competition etc.
Too complex to distill into a single post, but fascinating subject though isn't it?

Sure is. I've a rather unique position where I've an identical twin so can often ask myself if the differences between the two of us are down to nature or nurture. As my mum says - Life can often be very different from one end of the dinner table to the other.

you're probably more qualified than any of us to talk about it then

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Deserter - doesn't he argue that the north African countries' success at long distance running also has nothing to do with genetics?

He's very hit and miss as a columnist is Syed - some great observations and then talks utter bollocks as well.

Ian, the honest answer is I haven't reached that point in the book yet if he does - however, literally just about to get on a 14-hour flight so suspect I'll be able to tell you the answer once I've landed

Deserter wrote:

Ian 'Mr' McNeilly wrote:Deserter - doesn't he argue that the north African countries' success at long distance running also has nothing to do with genetics?

He's very hit and miss as a columnist is Syed - some great observations and then talks utter bollocks as well.

Ian, the honest answer is I haven't reached that point in the book yet if he does - however, literally just about to get on a 14-hour flight so suspect I'll be able to tell you the answer once I've landed

14 hours?!Jesus where you off to antartica!

Boxing, MMA, Karate, Kickboxing Judo etc talent (Ill stick with fight sports for my 2 cents worth of opinion) is usually possessed by people who had to learn to fight.

I know that people will say that its not true, but you rarely see a top class fighter that hasnt been motivated by wanting to really hurt his opponents. Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Gerald McClellan, Mike Tyson etc had a desire to send people to sleep for the 10 count.
Even the nice polite fighters have a deep rooted vein of mean in their arsenal, if you scratch the surface, that pushes them to beat the other man.

I read recently that Chuck Norris was picked on as a kid for being mixed race Irish and American Indian, Bruce Lee was constantly fighting at school, Naseem Hamed was first noticed by Brendan Ingle as a kid fighting on a bus, MMAs Wanderlei Silva was bullied as a kid the list goes on and on. These are lads that motivated themselves by using that chip on their shoulder.

Hard times breed hard people.

Broc wrote:Boxing, MMA, Karate, Kickboxing Judo etc talent (Ill stick with fight sports for my 2 cents worth of opinion) is usually possessed by people who had to learn to fight.

I know that people will say that its not true, but you rarely see a top class fighter that hasnt been motivated by wanting to really hurt his opponents. Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Gerald McClellan, Mike Tyson etc had a desire to send people to sleep for the 10 count.
Even the nice polite fighters have a deep rooted vein of mean in their arsenal, if you scratch the surface, that pushes them to beat the other man.

I read recently that Chuck Norris was picked on as a kid for being mixed race Irish and American Indian, Bruce Lee was constantly fighting at school, Naseem Hamed was first noticed by Brendan Ingle as a kid fighting on a bus, MMAs Wanderlei Silva was bullied as a kid the list goes on and on. These are lads that motivated themselves by using that chip on their shoulder.

Hard times breed hard people.

I think this is an excellent post. Some nurture, some nature (the comment on polite fighters).

Seconded, interesting stuff.

IMO, as has been pointed out, success breeds success in those around it — Manchester being a case in point. It also breeds a sense of competition, as we see in cities such as Sheffield and Liverpool. My own city, London, is too big to be affected by these factors, but within London you get large areas such as the East End where similar factors have traditionally applied, and more recently West and North West London, where the success of — don't laugh — Audley Harrison at the Olympics can be viewed as a contributing factor to the emergence of James DeGale and George Groves.

I'm not convinced by the theory that hard work is always able to replicate natural talent. I believe some people are just physically more suited, genetically. I don't think you could work hard and be Roy Jones or Naseem Hamed, for extreme example. And certainly a tone deaf person cannot be taught to sing. I truly believe in the powers of hard work, but then I also believe in the concept of 'God-given' talent.

Glyn Leach wrote:I'm not convinced by the theory that hard work is always able to replicate natural talent. I believe some people are just physically more suited, genetically. I don't think you could work hard and be Roy Jones or Naseem Hamed, for extreme example. And certainly a tone deaf person cannot be taught to sing. I truly believe in the powers of hard work, but then I also believe in the concept of 'God-given' talent.

Mate, if I had a quid for every time I've tried to explain that, in the most polite way possible, to a kid or a parent, you could keep the enormous fees I get for my work on your organ.

You don't want to rain on people's parades - you chase your dreams young uns, go for it and I'm with you all the way - but sometimes it just ain't possible. I would say (given that I'm about 5' 9") 'If I dedicated my whole life to doing the high jump, could I win an Olympic gold medal?' The answer is no, as we all know.

Still, it's great to see kids with fire in their eyes who say 'Yes, you go for it, sir!'

God loves a trier Ian, I think we all do. You've got it spot on, ambition and effort should always be encouraged. It's a big ask for some people to accept that being the best you can be is as good as being the best full stop, but the reality, for the vast majority of us, is that there's always someone better — I suppose how you react to that, whether that concept inspires or defeats you, is one of the things that define you as a person.

(This is too deep, let's talk norks with Chinny )

King Geedorah wrote:Question answered below:

'Now, my bonny lad, you are mine! And we'll see if one tree won't grow as crooked as another, with the same wind to twist it!'

Terror made me cruel . . .

I remember reading an article by Matthew Syed, which was a very honest account of how he made the Olympic table tennis finals, then completely froze under the lights - it was a great description of a nightmare experience, how his co-ordination went and it was like he was trying to hit the ball under water. I imagine that must be in his book.

"Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell is a great read and puts forward a similar idea, looking at outrageously successful people and arguing that a great part of success can be attributed to circumstantial luck - where you're born, when you're born, etc. For example, it looks at how a ridiculous percentage of football and hockey players are born in September and October, meaning that they are the oldest in the school year, are bigger than the other kids, get picked on the teams due to physical size and therefore get more coaching, etc.

To say that success is part talent part coaching/nurture is fairly obvious and not particularly insightful. I suspect the role of "talent" or "nature" is overplayed and that success, sporting or otherwise, is much more about being in the right circumstances and having the correct level of application - i.e. hardwork.

One interesting idea in the book is that it takes roughly 10,000 hours of practice to become an expert at something, whatever it is.

I believe that nurture is the biggest factor, though nature plays a part. Lots of psychology suggests that genius is learned through constant practice.

The media love the genetics argument and will always spin a story in that direction but whenever you actually follow such stories up and check the evidence then it’s part is usually overblown.