UKC

There have been many debates at UKClimbing.com about climbers with 'natural talent' postulating that some top climbers are born with natural talent and that no matter how often you train, how often you climb outside, without the necessary 'genetics' you have no chance of reaching the dizzying talent of climbers like Chris Sharma or Steve McClure.

Not so explains an article in todays New York Times...........

Read the report at the news page of UKClimbing.com.. http://www.ukclimbing.com/news/

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I thought this bit was especially interesting:


'Deliberate practice means working on technique, seeking constant critical feedback and focusing ruthlessly on improving weaknesses.
"It feels like you're constantly stretching yourself into an uncomfortable area beyond what you can quite do," Ericsson told me. It's hard to sustain deliberate practice for long periods of time, which may help explain why players like Jimmy Connors succeeded with seemingly paltry amounts of practice while their competitors were hitting thousands of balls each day. As the tennis commentator Mary Carillo told me, "He barely practiced an hour a day, but it was the most intense hour of your life."'

In reply to gingerkate:

Some discussion here

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.html?topic_id=334563

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Unfortunately I haven't been able to read the actual article, only UKC's summary.

From what I can ascertain though, this whole issue is hot air. Any geneticist worth his salt would laugh in your face if you suggested to them that there's no such things as genetic differences in ability; the fact that such differences exist is an axiom of evolution and developmental biology.

Furthermore, it is common sense that if you train and work hard at something, you will reach levels that the majority of the population cannot reach - and the harder/longer you train, the higher your ability level above that of the general populace will be.

Saying "I will never be able to climb x grade because I'm just not genetically gifted" is bollocks, and a useful excuse for those unwilling to the effort in. But trying to extend that argument to suggest that some people are not more naturally talented than others (at anything, let along climbing) is equally rubbish.

In reply to Alun:

Try this Alun

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?_r...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Don't you need a genetic predisposition to put the effort in?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
Thanks for the link, will read when I have more time...8 pages!

In reply to Alun:

Worth it though Alun.

Like I said in the news:

"This article and research goes far beyond climbing of course. If you are a parent or a student, read it, it may reinforce views you already have or might be a complete revelation."

In reply to Jimmy D:

He covers this...that may be part of it. But also to do with parental support, centres of sporting excellence (acadamies etc), passion and love for a sport or activity...........and also the culture you live in. Apparantly the USA is not making as many top athletes these days because of too many cultural distractions....or distractive youth culture and too much focus on the glamour of winning.

He lists:

Driven Parents
Early Starts
Powerful, Consistent Coaches
Cultural Toughness

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:
So I skim-read it.

Most telling paragraph for me was this one, on page 6:


...which in actual fact, is what he is trying to insinuate through the whole article, though never actually being bold enough to state it as fact because...


Jolly good. So basically, the article can be summarised by "practice something lots from a very early age and you will (probably) be very good at it later in life.

Linford Christie only took up athletics when he was 20 though...

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: The mental side to sport is also key and the difference between a good sports person and a great one is most likely psychological rather than physical. I expect the mental side of sport is dictated by a combination of genetics (how you brain responds to stress hormones), experience and culture (why does the English football team always fold under pressure?).

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

IMO an overlong, confused and unoriginal article. It takes him 8 pages to say both inheritance and training are important - something Alun expressed in a few lines above.

In reply to Witkacy:

....and more importantly why, backed up with lots of examples, scientific and anecdotal.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

Also it does not answer whether "no matter how often you train, how often you climb outside, without the necessary 'genetics' you have no chance of reaching the dizzying talent of climbers like Chris Sharma" - to do so would be an illogical generalisation.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com: Of course both genetics and environment are important, but how do you explain the talent maps discussed in the article if DNA is the only answer? You can't change your DNA, so how are you going to reach excellence? The important message from Dan's article is that training appropriatly at an early age and dedication make the difference. He backs this up with the latest in scientific research showing that the brain is molded physically and functionally by the environment in early life, and he presents the discovery of a new process of leaning skills that involves changing insulation on nerve fibers controlling the speed of impulse conduction. This is learning beyond synapses--even beyond neurons.

In reply to Doug Fields:


Everyone I’ve known involved in competitive sports already knew that training, dedication, etc are important. It’s also common knowledge that starting young helps, although this is presumably more of a requirement the more complex the skill. No-one thought that with the right set of genes you just ‘got it’ and didn’t have to learn or train. Please explain better than that article did what the practical applications of your neurological research are for training.

In reply to Alun:

And how old was he when he won Olympic gold ?

Mid 20's like most sprinters or a few years older ? I think it would be roughly the same amount of years that he was late in taking up the sport.

In reply to Witkacy:

Now we have more answers as to the why and that is surely very important.

I was watching a senior ice hockey game with my son on Sunday. We were in awe at the puck handling skills of one of the players - he used his stick and skates so deftly that he made others fall over. My son said I want to do that. He trains regulary with his Pee Wee team but they concentrate on stamina training and team plays rather than puck skills. I discussed this article with him, telling him that he would have to spend long hours on the ice doing 'tricks' with the puck and get some coaching advice on what personal drills to do.

My daughter, she's 6, plays violin. She's enrolled in the Suzuki method where again, for several years emphasis is on small skills rather than the finished performance; how to hold the bow, small movements, parts of scales, her stance....all done in a fun manner.

In the article they give an example of a country that has many top golf pros, but few golf courses compared top places like the USA. What they do have is a lot of driving ranges....the essential skills are practiced again and again.


I'm always wary of the phrases, 'common knowledge' and 'everyone knows that'....as if we are all on the same page. For me Doug's research has given evidence, understanding and emphasis on practicing core skills before venturing out into the 'bigger' picture. Further I can imagine that such research also is very valuable to sports administrators as to where they put there money and talent.

I'm damn sure it goes much wider than that.

Thanks for posting Doug and happy climbing.

Mick

In reply to biscuit:

early 30's I think.


No thats rubish. Linford was fastest in his mid 20's just like everybody else. He managed to clip a tenth or so off his pick up time in the latter part of his carear by practicing starts in his late 20's early 30's when coached by Colin Jackson amoungst others. He was also lucky in that when he was 30 there wasn't another equaly talented athelate who was 25. When he was 25 he was up against Carl Lewis who was slower but quicker out of the blocks.

In reply to Doug Fields:

You could start by looking at sports where we can see the actual influence of genetics without the bias given by 95-99% of the worlds population never having the opertunity to take them up. So forget ice hockey where your "talent map" shows very nicely population concerntrations in coutries that play ice hockey. As for womens golf it does make me wonder why Polo and 3 day eventing weren't used as examples instead, could it be that the authors were looking for a sport with the narrowest participation that would sound creadable? Look instead at football or better still take athletics where mens 100m, 10km Xcountry and marathon those 3 events span a range of types require no special facilities to train, we can objectivly measure performance and in the last 2 team places are not unduely limited by country. Actualy lets be as biased as the original authors seam to have been. Can you explain why the world champion at 3000m s/c has come from the south kenya highlands almost since the inseption of the compertion often with demonstatably less technical ability and specalist training than there rivals with out using the words DNA, genetics, physiology or talent?

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

And another thing, there's knowing something and really knowing it — you can know/believe something on a superficial level but not really believe it in your core. Some lessons take a lot of learning to really internalise. Some of the advice on here recently from MacLeod and others and now this article, has been really useful to me, my climbing is progressing because of it, and yet there's maybe not one piece of practical info that I didn't already sort of 'know'... sometimes you need to know stuff deeper before it works — before you really listen and use it and apply it effectively to yourself.

In reply to davidwright: Actually I suspect the other form of selection bias is that golf has a very high skill component so lends itself to constant practice and refinement. As you say, I think the gap between the cutting edge and the merely excellent is explained mainly by genetics.

Mick, I liked your last post but could you please, please refrain from the sensationalist reporting:
"no matter how often you train, how often you climb outside, without the necessary 'genetics' you have no chance of reaching the dizzying talent of climbers like Chris Sharma or Steve McClure.

Not so explains an article in todays New York Times"

The article suggests no such thing.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:ps thanks for drawing attention to the article, it is very interesting.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

fundamentally, it's down to one thing; biomechanics.