My perspective regarding talent has not really changed. My believe that people can maximize THEIR performance given their talent level has also not changed.

From my personal experience, I believe that certain physical and mental characteristics are critical as baselines in sports.

For example, there are no 4 feet tall NBA basketball players, Spud Webb at 5’2″ was the was smallest in modern history. In the NFL few quarterbacks make it successfully who do not have average or above average IQs.

Given you are “in the range” I believe that focused, deliberate practice can allow you to maximize your performance based on your potential. Can we all achieve NBA, NFL, PGA, tennis championship status,… I dont’ think so. What I do know is that if you are not in the range and you do not invest SIGNIFICANTLY in practice and have a great coach, you will probably not make it.

So practice, coaching, “being in the range”, are all neccessity but maybe not sufficient to real world class. BUT the journey is a tremendous learning experience that can positively shape your life.

No matter what Dan achieves, I am his fan and I know that he will be a better person AND more successful as a result of this fantastic journey.

Cheering him on from Tampa.

I’d be very interested to hear more of your reflections on both your own experience as a young athlete and about particularly your early days of coaching.

I went to see my old primary school teacher a few days ago – she was an excellent teacher and taught for about 40 years – and I asked her about talent. Did she believe some kids were just talented? She was certain that some kids just “have it”.

I played a pretty good level of amateur sport for many years and had the opportunity to play with and against some very good players. I knew I didn’t have the natural ability to go and make a career of it, but I saw some who did. I think it took me most of my playing career before I clearly recognised that some people were really doing very well with apparently very limited talent. Perhaps they were “dumb enough” to keep plugging away, even though they didn’t have that magic. There were also a good number of players who seemed to “over-perform” – they had a level of “confidence” beyond that which their level of ability warranted, yet this confidence (if that’s what it was) seemed to carry them to achievement. Of course, I also saw a few people who seemed almost supremely gifted, yet wasted it. I would sometimes hear people say, “Oh, if I had half his talent, I’d be a world-beater.” I just admired such people, as much for their inconsistency as for their occasional brilliance. Finally, watching players at the highest level, there were one or two people who played extremely well *and* made it look extremely easy. When things went badly for them (as it must for everyone at some point) they would be criticised for “not trying”. Yet I would occasionally hear mutterings that, “They only make it look easy, because they work so hard.” Obviously, I found that very hard to swallow!

I eventually decided that to some extent, one needed to be “dumb enough” (to keep plugging away) and have a certain faith or confidence (that results will eventually follow).

But then, as a coach, I was presented again with one or two exceptional people who just seemed to “get it” right away. When taught a new technique, they would just be able to do it (pretty much) right off. Others would take hours of coaching to get close to what those “talented ones” achieved in a few minutes. Despite everything I’ve learnt in the past few years, it’s very easy to believe my primary school teacher is right. Some people just “have it”.

I’d love to know how your view of talent (Charlie, or anyone else) has changed with your experience. Were you told that you were “talented”? Did you believe you were? Did you see others who seemed to be more talented than you? Did you believe you could surpass those more talented that yourself, if only you put in enough work? Have your ideas about talent changed significantly over your years of coaching?

Thank you for piping up on this! I tend to agree with you, especially about the unfortunate situation of having an experiment with an N of 1. If only there were funds to have 10,000 people do this for 10,000 hours, that would tell a great story, but would also break many a bank. You have a very unique situation in that you had a serious pursuit of your own and then have been coaching for years since then. I appreciate your insight and am glad to have you in my corner as this pushes forward.

Thanks again and talk with you soon!

Dan

Now, thanks to Dan, we are engaged in a great, civil experiment, testing whether 10,000 hours of deliberate practice will be sufficient to ensure “distinction” or “mastery” of one measurable skill for one particular individual. The weakness of the experiment, of course, is that even if Dan succeeds, we don’t know for sure whether he possesses some extraordinary innate gift for golf. If he succeeds, though, I think many people will be persuaded of the power of the 10,000-hours-as-sufficient argument. If he doesn’t succeed, many people will conclude that this counterexample disproves the entire theory. Perhaps, after all, there’s such a thing as an inborn gift for golf greatness (not Jones/Hogan/Nicklaus/Woods greatness, just top-200 in the world greatness) and that no amount of practice can elevate to that level a person who lacks the gift.

I apologize for being so long-winded here, but as Dan knows, in my twenties I invested a lot time and energy testing the theory in my own way. Since then, as a high school coach for a couple of decades, I’ve thought about it more. On the one hand, I’ve seen kids with average “talent” become, through hard work, top-of-the-league good at distance running, defeating far more naturally “talented” runners in the process. On the other hand, most of the top marathoners in the world — who’ve trained very hard indeed, for 10-15 years — seem to possess raw speed that made them exceptionally good high school runners at the beginning of their careers. Could they have become NBA players if they’d played basketball instead of running? Could Charles Barkley have become a sub-2:20 marathoner if he’d run instead of playing hoops?

In golf there are thousands of scratch players, many of whom haven’t practiced for 10,000 hours. The question is, are there (m)any golfers who HAVE practiced (deliberately) for more than a decade without being good enough to make a living on the mini-tour circuit, let alone the PGA Tour? I think there are, but who knows?

Thank you, Dan, for being willing to invest 6-7 years of your life to provide the world with a fascinating story and one small but priceless point of reference.

In your opinion, why would the results be this way if you had a sample of 500 kids who were equally excited about training and who had the same coach and put in the same amount of quality time? Seems like most of the studies that I’ve read the main difference between eventual results was in number of hours put in as well as passion for the activity. There is going to be a debate on “talent” this weekend on http://www.creativitypost.com/ Not sure of the exact time or date yet, but will let you know.

Thanks for the comments!

Dan

Wow, a reader in Borneo. That’s cool! Good to know others go through the same predicaments when changing climates. It’s a tough switch!

Big Nike deal, haha, yeah. If there was a budget of any kind I would love to play in different countries. Australia, Ireland, Scotland, New Zealand, Dubai…. Lots to learn in these places!

Cheers,

Dan

[img] http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8c/Standard_deviation_diagram.svg/325px-Standard_deviation_diagram.svg.png [/img]