>Serena and Venus were clearly phenomenal pure athletes I don't think it's helpful to assert true the point that's trying to proven. The point is Richard Willi

>Serena and Venus were clearly phenomenal pure athletes I don't think it's helpful to assert true the point that's trying to proven. The point is Richard Williams made a decision before it could possible be known that both daughters just happened to be pure phenomenal athletes at that young an age for that specific sport. There is no evidence that this is not s case of nuture overcoming nature since the absence of similar successes could just as easily be chalked up to shitty coaching of what were incredibly talented youths who were more pure athletes than either of the Willams sisters instead of an indictment of the lack of god given talent those other failed youths originally possessed. >But look at Nick Krygios. I don't follow the guy's training, but it's pretty clear that he is as apathetic a top player as there is. The point of contention is not whether naturally talented athletes can become pro with minimal effort, which I think hardly anyone would disagree with in theory. The contested point is whether the parent is condemning their children to failure if they do not rack up successes at a very young age. There was a piece a while back ago attributing the success of notable famous people like Einstein to the presence of all consuming private tutors, where the tutor in question was either a very close family friend, a family member, or a relative. These people just didn't quit when other tutors with less skin in the game would. How do we know 50% natural talent is not enough and the rest cannot be overcome by nuture, and that it has to be 90% natural talent from the get go? I agree that regardless of success such a life might be subpar. But whether a parent should subject their kid to such a life is a related but a separate issue to the question of their potential success.