BoxRec

Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

A myth ? Nonsense !
Talent exists, but without hard training, talent means nothing.
Simple.... Very, very simple..............

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

Have you read Syed's book? Because that isn't exactly what he says. He doesn't say 'natural' talent is irrelevant. More hat people underrate the importance of learned skills.

Nothing mythical about talent. Some people have great reflexes, coordination, power etc. and some don't. Talent only gets you so far but you can't say it doesn't exist

I've not read the book, but to suggest talent does not exist is silly. My daughter is a dancer and very athletic and graceful by nature. She could spend half the time practicing dance than most of her class and still be better. That's due to talent. But, I guess it's in how he defines talent I suppose. I define it as a natural ability.

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

Have you read Syed's book? Because that isn't exactly what he says. He doesn't say 'natural' talent is irrelevant. More hat people underrate the importance of learned skills.

Yes, I was trying to simplify the concept, he does argue that talent is largely irrelevant.
It's a fascinating concept and incredibly thought provoking to think that with enough practice any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

Noxy wrote:Nothing mythical about talent. Some people have great reflexes, coordination, power etc. and some don't. Talent only gets you so far but you can't say it doesn't exist

Things like reflexes I believe to be a myth, most humans have pretty much identical reflexes.
In boxing it's about being able to read the opponents movement and being agile/quick enough to avoid the punch, that comes with thousands of hours of sparring

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:Anyone who has read the Matthew Syed book bounce or other books that argue the same theory will be aware of the theory that innate talent is a myth.
It argues that no one is born superior in skill than anyone else, and that everything is down to hours and hours of purposeful practice.

I am interested to hear people's opinions on this as I forever hear "that boxer wasted his talent" or rjj was naturally gifted etc.

Have you read Syed's book? Because that isn't exactly what he says. He doesn't say 'natural' talent is irrelevant. More hat people underrate the importance of learned skills.

Yes, I was trying to simplify the concept, he does argue that talent is largely irrelevant.
It's a fascinating concept and incredibly thought provoking to think that with enough practice any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

He is also very clear to stress that no amount of training will turn a Tony Sibson into a Marvin Hagler. So it is not the case that 'innate talent is a myth' nor does Syed say so.

There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

Again, not really the point he makes. It is not the case that 'any of us' could be elite, say, National-level or even professional level, at any complex tasks

Just for starters a bloke 5'6/ 125lbs is not going to be an elite rugby player

A bloke without at least a certain level of pace is not going to be a professional football player.

Syed is biased against athletic talent as he comes from a sport where physicality is not a factor and reflexes/technique are key.

samdance wrote:There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

Only true to an extent.
Both have naturally occurring physical attributes that impact their success heavily. (Ronaldo - power, acceleration, Messi - agility, balance...these are areas where they are genetically predisposed to success)
This is not to say they don't train hard - but they are predisposed physically to be gifted athletes.

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
Have you read Syed's book? Because that isn't exactly what he says. He doesn't say 'natural' talent is irrelevant. More hat people underrate the importance of learned skills.

Yes, I was trying to simplify the concept, he does argue that talent is largely irrelevant.
It's a fascinating concept and incredibly thought provoking to think that with enough practice any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

He is also very clear to stress that no amount of training will turn a Tony Sibson into a Marvin Hagler. So it is not the case that 'innate talent is a myth' nor does Syed say so.

Ok, but using your example the book states that with enough purposeful practice Tony sibson would have been exceptionally good

samdance wrote:There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

Absolute nonsense.

Ronald was born with he ability to run very fast. The idea that mere hard work is what made him the best is simply stupid.

Gary Neville could work his entire life and he would never be Ronaldo

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:
Yes, I was trying to simplify the concept, he does argue that talent is largely irrelevant.
It's a fascinating concept and incredibly thought provoking to think that with enough practice any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

He is also very clear to stress that no amount of training will turn a Tony Sibson into a Marvin Hagler. So it is not the case that 'innate talent is a myth' nor does Syed say so.

Ok, but using your example the book states that with enough purposeful practice Tony sibson would have been exceptionally good

Only in a sport where physical attributes are not critical - as they are in boxing

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:
Yes, I was trying to simplify the concept, he does argue that talent is largely irrelevant.
It's a fascinating concept and incredibly thought provoking to think that with enough practice any of us could be elite at any complex tasks.

He is also very clear to stress that no amount of training will turn a Tony Sibson into a Marvin Hagler. So it is not the case that 'innate talent is a myth' nor does Syed say so.

Ok, but using your example the book states that with enough purposeful practice Tony sibson would have been exceptionally good

Lol

How do you know Sibson didn't have enough purposeful practise? He boxed from age 11 and took it very aeeiously

cpfc_fan wrote:

samdance wrote:There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

Only true to an extent.
Both have naturally occurring physical attributes that impact their success heavily. (Ronaldo - power, acceleration, Messi - agility, balance...these are areas where they are genetically predisposed to success)
This is not to say they don't train hard - but they are predisposed physically to be gifted athletes.

I disagree, do you think Ronaldo would have been as fast as he is without working hard? Balance can be learned, tightrope walkers are not born with that ability, they have to learn it.

Jesus wept

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:
He is also very clear to stress that no amount of training will turn a Tony Sibson into a Marvin Hagler. So it is not the case that 'innate talent is a myth' nor does Syed say so.

Ok, but using your example the book states that with enough purposeful practice Tony sibson would have been exceptionally good

Lol

How do you know Sibson didn't have enough purposeful practise? He boxed from age 11 and took it very aeeiously

Read the book again, there are too many examples to make me believe that it is probable that he didn't.

It's just wrong. For example things like proportions just allow people to get better leverages than other, and practice can't change that.

Honing your craft, mental toughness, learning, it all matters, but so does talent. More complex sports like boxing allow you to learn to your talents more than a more one dimensional sport like say sprinting where one talent set is fairly ideal.

samdance wrote:

cpfc_fan wrote:

samdance wrote:There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

Only true to an extent.
Both have naturally occurring physical attributes that impact their success heavily. (Ronaldo - power, acceleration, Messi - agility, balance...these are areas where they are genetically predisposed to success)
This is not to say they don't train hard - but they are predisposed physically to be gifted athletes.

I disagree, do you think Ronaldo would have been as fast as he is without working hard? Balance can be learned, tightrope walkers are not born with that ability, they have to learn it.

You missed my point - or I didn't explain it well enough
I'm sure Ronaldo works hard
But he is genetically predisposed to be an exceptional athlete.
No matter how hard I worked I would never be as quick as him because, sadly, I am not genetically predisposed to be.
And balance is the same - we have a genetic predisposition that can be improved slightly but some people have it and some dont

Counter-puncher wrote:

samdance wrote:There are so many examples that back this up. Think of the best footballers in the world, messi and ronaldo were not born to be better than the rest, all of their teammates continuously state that they work the longest and hardest.

Absolute nonsense.

Ronald was born with he ability to run very fast. The idea that mere hard work is what made him the best is simply stupid.

Gary Neville could work his entire life and he would never be Ronaldo

I understand that there is things like fast twitch fibres that are natural but that is one aspect to football and is not a necessity to be a world class player (teddy sherringham)

How many examples does the book give of people who manifestly try as hard and train as seriously as possible but still fall short of others? I can give millions of them. Doubtless you'll parrot that they obviously didn't actually try hard enough and had Dave Boy Green only tried harder he'd have been as good as sugar ray Leonard.

So Gary Neville, you're saying the only reason he wasn't as good as ronaldo is that ronaldo trained harder?

I've listened to Matthew Syed on his radio show a lot, and the irony of your evangelical fervour for his theories is he would disagree with your arguments himself

Counter-puncher wrote:How many examples does the book give of people who manifestly try as hard and train as seriously as possible but still fall short of others? I can give millions of them. Doubtless you'll parrot that they obviously didn't actually try hard enough and had Dave Boy Green only tried harder he'd have been as good as sugar ray Leonard.

So Gary Neville, you're saying the only reason he wasn't as good as ronaldo is that ronaldo trained harder?

No but I believe both those players are what I consider to be elite in their own roles

samdance wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:How many examples does the book give of people who manifestly try as hard and train as seriously as possible but still fall short of others? I can give millions of them. Doubtless you'll parrot that they obviously didn't actually try hard enough and had Dave Boy Green only tried harder he'd have been as good as sugar ray Leonard.

So Gary Neville, you're saying the only reason he wasn't as good as ronaldo is that ronaldo trained harder?

No but I believe both those players are what I consider to be elite in their own roles

What would you say made Ronaldo a better player on the pitch?