4 ms·

You don't have to believe it for it to be true. Maybe swimming is an outlier, though I kind of doubt it. TFA is about basketball. It's obvious that a 7' athleti

You don't have to believe it for it to be true. Maybe swimming is an outlier, though I kind of doubt it. TFA is about basketball. It's obvious that a 7' athletic guy with good coordination will be a better basketball player the first time he touches a basketball than a slow 5'5" dude with poor balance would be after ten years of grinding. The long tail dominates competition. All elite swimmers look the same to you, so we can safely conclude that you are neither an elite swimmer nor an elite swimming coach. You seem to think it's possible to buy one's way into swimming dominance. It's not. Michael Phelps didn't win 23 gold medals by being rich and getting better coaching than all the competitors in 23 different Olympic fields. He is the child of a teacher and a cop (divorced), who held a national record by the age of 10, having learned to swim at age 7. He is a supremely talented swimmer.

tsimionescu 7y ago
Sure, Michael Phelps is extremely talented and physically fit. But do you think he could be an excellent marathonist as well? Or that he could become an excellent sprinter without training for sprinting every single day and (re-) dedicating his life to this? The GP post indicated was mentioning not that raw talent is unimportant, but that it is assumed at the top level. All of Phelps' competitors are extremely talented swimmers. Training and diet and dedication in general are also extremely important, and the final difference may well end up being there (assuming you have enough raw talent). Of course, it is also important to remember the incredible amount of medical technology thrown at these competitors, and the difference that things like clothing can make even for swimming.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  All I'm saying is that Phelps would have still been a champion swimmer if he had also played other sports. He might not have been a champion marathoner (a sport which seems specially selected to disadvantage his long-arms short-legs physique), but his time spent running would not have kept him out of the Olympics as a swimmer. I suspect he probably did all sorts of regular-kid activities between the ages of seven, when he learned to swim, and ten, when he set a national age-group record. I personally learned to dog-paddle at three, so we know that some of his 10yo competitors had years more practice than he had. Others ITT overestimate the importance of practice. Yeah, sure, Phelps practiced swimming a great deal. We know for a fact that he practiced each particular event less than most of his competitors in that particular event, just from the sheer range of different events he dominated. He only has the same 24 hours in a day that anyone else has. Perhaps there is a symmetry between "many competitors with maximum talent, differentiated by preparation" and "many competitors with maximum preparation, differentiated by talent". I would nominate auto racing, modern yacht racing, or doping-allowed bicycle racing as sports that fit in the first category, although I'm sure there are aficionados who would disagree. Swimming, and any sport that features human bodies without chemical modification maneuvering under their own power through some medium, is firmly in the second. That comes both from nature and from our collective sense of fairness. Fortunately they've outlawed the polyurethane suits, in no small part due to Phelps's boycott of events allowing them. When he claimed that his records had only been broken through the use of technology, most swim fans agreed. In fact, in most sports, talent varies to such an extent that superior talent dominates superior preparation, so long as the preparation varies only by a limited amount.
puranjay 7y ago
I'm a part-time musician and nowhere is this "native talent" more visible than in music. I've been grinding at the guitar for years and can only call myself above average at best. Yet, there are musicians I know who can literally pick up a brand new instrument, fiddle around for a couple of hours, and start playing intricate melodies on it all within a day. Native talent is definitely a thing and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or trying to sell you something. Doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, of course. But a natively talented guy with 10 hours of grinding will somehow be better than the untalented guy with 100 hours of grinding
- darkpuma 7y ago
  > " anyone who says otherwise is either lying " Often to themselves in my experience. People who've not yet discovered any of their own talents are sometimes bitter at the suggestion that talent is a real thing.
  - dragandj 7y ago
    I think it is the opposite: there is a huge number of people in any nation, so talent is abundant. The thing is that at the top tier everyone is talented, and usually the dedication and factors other than talent, including luck, is what makes the difference.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      FWIW, it’s pretty clear to anybody who watches pro sports that talent differs dramatically even at the highest level.
      - dragandj 7y ago
        I am not sure that most people that watch pro sports have knowledge to judge the fine details. What is pretty clear to anybody is that someone plays better, but what is not clear is why is that so. For every dominant pro athlete there might be many that were injured or had other problems that degraded their performance.

tsimionescu 7y ago

Sure, Michael Phelps is extremely talented and physically fit. But do you think he could be an excellent marathonist as well? Or that he could become an excellent sprinter without training for sprinting every single day and (re-) dedicating his life to this? The GP post indicated was mentioning not that raw talent is unimportant, but that it is assumed at the top level. All of Phelps' competitors are extremely talented swimmers. Training and diet and dedication in general are also extremely important, and the final difference may well end up being there (assuming you have enough raw talent). Of course, it is also important to remember the incredible amount of medical technology thrown at these competitors, and the difference that things like clothing can make even for swimming.

jessaustin 7y ago
All I'm saying is that Phelps would have still been a champion swimmer if he had also played other sports. He might not have been a champion marathoner (a sport which seems specially selected to disadvantage his long-arms short-legs physique), but his time spent running would not have kept him out of the Olympics as a swimmer. I suspect he probably did all sorts of regular-kid activities between the ages of seven, when he learned to swim, and ten, when he set a national age-group record. I personally learned to dog-paddle at three, so we know that some of his 10yo competitors had years more practice than he had. Others ITT overestimate the importance of practice. Yeah, sure, Phelps practiced swimming a great deal. We know for a fact that he practiced each particular event less than most of his competitors in that particular event, just from the sheer range of different events he dominated. He only has the same 24 hours in a day that anyone else has. Perhaps there is a symmetry between "many competitors with maximum talent, differentiated by preparation" and "many competitors with maximum preparation, differentiated by talent". I would nominate auto racing, modern yacht racing, or doping-allowed bicycle racing as sports that fit in the first category, although I'm sure there are aficionados who would disagree. Swimming, and any sport that features human bodies without chemical modification maneuvering under their own power through some medium, is firmly in the second. That comes both from nature and from our collective sense of fairness. Fortunately they've outlawed the polyurethane suits, in no small part due to Phelps's boycott of events allowing them. When he claimed that his records had only been broken through the use of technology, most swim fans agreed. In fact, in most sports, talent varies to such an extent that superior talent dominates superior preparation, so long as the preparation varies only by a limited amount.

puranjay 7y ago

I'm a part-time musician and nowhere is this "native talent" more visible than in music. I've been grinding at the guitar for years and can only call myself above average at best. Yet, there are musicians I know who can literally pick up a brand new instrument, fiddle around for a couple of hours, and start playing intricate melodies on it all within a day. Native talent is definitely a thing and anyone who says otherwise is either lying or trying to sell you something. Doesn't mean that hard work isn't important, of course. But a natively talented guy with 10 hours of grinding will somehow be better than the untalented guy with 100 hours of grinding

darkpuma 7y ago
> " anyone who says otherwise is either lying " Often to themselves in my experience. People who've not yet discovered any of their own talents are sometimes bitter at the suggestion that talent is a real thing.
- dragandj 7y ago
  I think it is the opposite: there is a huge number of people in any nation, so talent is abundant. The thing is that at the top tier everyone is talented, and usually the dedication and factors other than talent, including luck, is what makes the difference.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    FWIW, it’s pretty clear to anybody who watches pro sports that talent differs dramatically even at the highest level.
    - dragandj 7y ago
      I am not sure that most people that watch pro sports have knowledge to judge the fine details. What is pretty clear to anybody is that someone plays better, but what is not clear is why is that so. For every dominant pro athlete there might be many that were injured or had other problems that degraded their performance.