training:practice:ability

[Sal Picante]

Well said and I completely agree. I pretty much see this argument literally as the struggle between free will and determinism. I don't care whether determinism is true; I simply find it repugnant and think it is unproductive as a personal philosophy.

Wow. Least number of words you've ever used...

[Sal Picante]

Most of the modern studies I've read seem to go against that idea. Yes, it's what we've all been told our entire lives, but it doesn't seem to hold up to scrutiny.

"work hard, and you can achieve anything!" The mantra of the lost-cause, the need to have one's achievements be about their effort not their ability, and the attempt to motivate everyone in the can-do society.

But it's not true.

The narrative isn't as fun if you say Mike Tyson was just predisposed to knock motherfuckers out, and that all Cuss did was find him and polish him up. Or that Tiger was predisposed to hit balls long and accurate, and that all his dad did was keep making him do it.

Which isn't to say that someone is going to simply walk onto the range and win the game. There is, obviously, some amount of specialized fine-tuning of natural ability that is required even to participate, let alone win. But while I don't believe someone with zero training or practice is going to win Nationals, neither do I believe that someone lacking the natural ability (and the joy that comes from exercising said ability) is even capable of doing so no matter how much "work ethic" they have.

Interesting sentiments...

Anecdotally, I never knew about shooting, not having grown up with it. I tried it a few times and somehow, after I figured out how to aim, I was hooked; I just loved pulling the trigger.

I think that a person has to see some sort of value in what they're doing. It makes the bromides about hard work/etc besides the entire point: you'd do it if it were even harder.

Shooting is such an unnatural endeavor, though, that I really don't think you could point to anybody having "natural ability". Is it the hand-eye thing? The grip thing? The ability to keep eyes open and not flinch? Etc... The "motions" are fairly simple processes, but layered up in a rather complex fashion.

[Paul Sharp]

I think I've had this type of conversation at least a hundred times since I started coaching. It's the Gordian Knot in the sports world, and to some in the self protection world. Surprisingly I've had the conversation far more frequently in the BJJ/MMA/Judo/Wrestling/Boxing world. The sports world seems to understand a direct correlation between performance and survivability, (however we choose to define it; making it to the next bracket or making it home.)

What does it take to be great? Is it natural or something that's nurtured?

What element is most important? Heart? Raw natural talent? Work ethic? And how does a coach determine how much natural talent an athlete possesses? (Specifically beginners. Intermediate to advanced guys are easy to assess..., but then we're back to the original point which is how much of them getting to an advanced level was natural or hard work or both.)

We do know a solid starting point is almost mandatory. Strong fundamentals, deeply ingrained are more important than almost anything else. Flawed fundamentals are almost impossible to overcome, it involves rewiring years and years of pathways that are beat into place through lots of reps in practice and competition. That can be almost insurmountable and one of the first things to limit a guys growth.

We also know a certain level of intelligence is necessary. Randy Couture used to say it was God's way of leveling the playing field; guys with unbelievable natural abilities can be dumb as rocks and lazy because everything comes easy for them whereas the guys with less physical ability were a little more intelligent in their approach, and learned to work hard to master things since nothing ever came easy to them. I realize this is a broad brush but it was based on decades of watching athletes at all levels and observing how things played out. Think about how many times you've asked someone how they did something they were really skilled at and they responded with; I don't know, I just do it. Now think about the ones you asked that had a detailed answer, including books they read, coaches they've consulted and a few practice regimens they've used. Same skill level, very different approaches. Both worked, but one approach can be duplicated, the other... not so much.

It's definitely an interesting discussion, one I've participated in way too many times to only be able to say, I'm not sure... we're still trying to figure it out.