New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Athletic Ability - Page 3

post #61 of 84

Intersting about the Mahres. Never had heard that before. The French must have been hiding or something ending up at obscure White Pass!

post #62 of 84

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/becoming-an-expert-deliberate-practice-part-1.html

 

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/training/becoming-an-expert-deliberate-practice-part-2.html

 

Interesting reading on the role of practice and becoming an expert.

 

Two books for a more in depth reading. Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin and The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle.

 

Deliberate Practice:

  1. Is not inherently enjoyable.
  2. Is not play or paid practice.
  3. Is relevant to the skill being developed.
  4. Is not simply watching the skill being performed.
  5. Requires effort and attention from the learner.
  6. Often involves activities selected by a coach or teacher to facilitate learning.

Edited by BillA - 11/16/10 at 4:39pm
post #63 of 84



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post

Genetics sets the range of our potential.  Encouragement, practice, and coaching determines how much of that range we actualize.


From CRG

As in similar threads, I still say that those that have to work harder, do more drills, and train longer to achieve competitive levels at any activity usually make better coaches and teachers than those that it comes so naturally to.

 

3 T's ... classic! 


I think if ya put the two of you guys together you make one genius!!

post #64 of 84

 

Is there more than one edition of this book?   B&N want $290 for an e-book   of something with the same name but a different editor, E. Kordexl?
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nolo View Post
. Those who are so prone might want to look at this article, from Science and Skiing, and learn "swing turns." 
post #65 of 84

To become an expert, I think anyone can do it with dedicated practice and proper training.  Some may get there faster than others.  To become world class...that's a whole different ball game.  Out of 6.5+ billion people in the world, you have to be at the top...that is not something that practice alone can give you.

 

1. Physical attributes.  Let's face it - certain activities require you to have certain physical attributes.  A 4' tall person will never ever ever become an NBA player no matter how much he practices.  A 7' tall person will never become a jockey.  Every activity has a specific body type that it favors.  The further you are from this type, the less likely you can become world class in that activity.

2. Natural skill.  Why is it some kids pick up certain things faster than others?  Why is it that when they put Mozart on a piano, it was immediately obvious that he was a musical genius whereas when you put most kids on a piano, they sound terrible?  To some extent, you can make up natural skill with hard work, but you can never catch up to someone who has that natural skill and puts in the same amount of hard work...which brings me to the next point.

3. Hard work.  No matter how perfect your body is for something and how naturally talented you are, you still need to put in TONs of hard work and start at an early age.  Nothing comes easy.

4. Mental attitude.  You need to want it more than anything else.  It's the only way survive the insane amount of hard work that goes into achieving world class abilities...AND...you need to enjoy putting in the hard work, not just survive it.  Because it's just not possible to survive something like that without enjoying it.

 

so what's the verdict?  If you want to become good at something, don't let lack of talent discourage you.  If you want to be the best.....sorry..maybe in your next life.

post #66 of 84
Quote:

1. Physical attributes.

2. Natural skill. 

3. Hard work.

4. Mental attitude.

 

There's been a fair amount of research (many pieces quoted/linked in this thread) suggesting that "Natural Skill" or "talent" is overrated.  It can give you a leg up early on, but at high levels of performance, skill refinement usually becomes much, much more important.  If there's any "talent" that most world-class competitors have, it's the ability to work really, really hard at something for a long time (ie, what you called "mental attitude".)

 

An oft-cited figure is that you need 10,000+ hours of training to reach peak performance at a complex skill.  If you train 40 hours per week, 50 weeks per year, that's five solid years (or more) of training.  At half that number of hours/week, which is more realistic for someone not training full time, that could easily be 10-15 years.

 

In most sports, to really become world-class before you start to decline physically you'd have to start that kind of fairly dedicated training in your teens.  Olympic hopefuls live and breathe their sport throughout high school and college (if not even earlier), and then supplement that with a few years of full-time training if their means allow it.  The vast majority of people simply wouldn't have the willpower and competitive drive to stick with it for that long and give up so much else, even if physically they *could* do it.

 

Of course, in certain sports, you may not be able to reach elite levels of performance no matter what if your physical makeup holds you back.  And when two highly-skilled competitors face off, small differences in ability (which may be due to innate traits) can be magnified.  The guy who gets crushed by Roger Federer in the first round of a televised tennis tournament can probably beat anyone who's not internationally ranked without breaking a sweat.

post #67 of 84

I love this discussion!   I was just talking about something similar on a different board...however it was regarding multi-sport athletes and sport specific athletes. (since the multi sport athlete at the HS level seems to be a dying breed)

 

Which would you rather have on your team?  The multi-sport pure athlete or the kid who plays that one sport/activity alone and might not be as pure an athlete? 

Is one better than the other?
 

Is Phelps (or the like) a natural athlete or just good at his one sport due to being sport specific?  Would they have excelled at any other sport?

 

 

 

post #68 of 84

When I first joined this forum, about a year ago, one of the topics I thought of starting was the question of how long the group of instructors here thought it would take for an individual of "average" athletic ability to become an "expert" skier. I recognize that "average" and "expert" are subjective characterizations. My own view, informed entirely by informal observation, is that it would require about 10 years of skiing, 3 months a year, with enough competent instruction to ensure consistent progress. Based on the information posted in this thread that seems to be close to the mark.

 

As an aside, balance and proprioception are distinct. Specifically, proprioception refers to the ability to determine where one's body parts are in space. It is subserved by specialized receptors in joints and tendons. It appears to be largely innate.

post #69 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

It is subserved by specialized receptors in joints and tendons. It appears to be largely innate.

If we refuse to conflate balance and proprioception as effects, then we also must needs distinguish between the information gathering and arrangement role of the proprioceptive center, and the combined information gathering/arrangement role and command role of the balance center, no?

Taking for a moment that the number and distribution of specialized receptors is innate, the question becomes one of whether the brain section that processes the inputs of these sensors is susceptible and responsive to training.
post #70 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

When I first joined this forum, about a year ago, one of the topics I thought of starting was the question of how long the group of instructors here thought it would take for an individual of "average" athletic ability to become an "expert" skier. I recognize that "average" and "expert" are subjective characterizations. My own view, informed entirely by informal observation, is that it would require about 10 years of skiing, 3 months a year, with enough competent instruction to ensure consistent progress. Based on the information posted in this thread that seems to be close to the mark...


Probably fair enough assuming athletic adults who ski weekends plus a couple week-long vacations and a few long weekends a year.  "expert" is to me, and I think most, a very different thing from great, though, in the way it's used for skiing...for an athletic adult with gonads who moves to a ski area and rides or skis 4-5 days/week 5 months/year, you can shorten that to 1 season for raw but accomplished "expert" assuming they stay out of the park to lessen their chances of getting hurt, and 2 seasons for them to be at a level that 97% of the level 33s on here can't touch.

 

There are people who do this every year... the general path is they end up on patrols or as guides, etc., and may never be real purty even though they are very accomplished on skis or boards.  The not real purty aspect reflects the fact that they will never catch up with someone who, say, went to a ski academy in their formative years and then also skis regularly, even though relative to "average Joes" they will seem like great skiers. 

 

I've seen several kids end up as "experts" as the term is used for skiing by 10, without skiing every day, even though they're a long way from truly accomplished.

 

For the average office worker, the reality is that unless they can check one of a few boxes to give them reason to think they're different, they'll very quickly plateau even with 3 months/year of skiing, and should just be comfortable with it and have fun.

 

 

 

post #71 of 84

What do you guys think about cross training in hockey? I have played hockey since I was 5 and just made the varsity team as a freshman. I picked up skiing 2 years ago and wasn't very good the first time but the second time I was doing blues. Now after roughly 30 ski days I can ski nearly anything, except jibs and pipe. How much did Hockey help in my skiing?

post #72 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowMaestro View Post

What do you guys think about cross training in hockey? I have played hockey since I was 5 and just made the varsity team as a freshman. I picked up skiing 2 years ago and wasn't very good the first time but the second time I was doing blues. Now after roughly 30 ski days I can ski nearly anything, except jibs and pipe. How much did Hockey help in my skiing?



Probably a fair bit.

 

Skating provides a sense of gliding.  This is often challenging sensation to get comfortable with for new skiers, especially adults.

Skating is good at teaching fore/aft balance...somthing hard for many skiers to grasp

Skating is good for inclination/angulation...somthing forgien to many people

 

 

Plus "hockey" means you are not a wuss, so that is good for confidence...that goes along way too...fear is very debilitating for many.

post #73 of 84

I don't know about skiing, but both running and skiing at an elite (national class) level has taught me that there are simply huge gaps in ability, even at this level. Plenty of guys ride all of the time, live with their girlfriend, have no job, and still can't get past Cat 2, some even can't get out of being a Cat 3.  Guys like me can ride part time, have a full time job, play all winter, and get solid results as a Cat 1, and have the talent to be a domestic pro on a team you probably haven't heard of.  Then, there are guys like a buddy of mine, who in his second season of being a full-time racer (although he did race a few years prior, riding in the summers), just turned 20, and took 3rd at the Tour of Utah, behind Leipheimer and Mancebo.  Ridiculous level of talent. And, according to him, he is pack fodder more often than not when racing Espoirs in Belgium, so there are more than a few guys like that in Europe.  How far can he go?  Probably as far as his body takes him. Nobody is proclaiming him to be the next coming of Merckx, or even Armstrong, but a very solid pro career in Europe is likely attainable, and maybe more.

 

Another example: in college (I ran cross country and track at Oklahoma State), a teammate of mine, fresh off of running a bunch of international meets in Europe (he was Scottish) came over and was entering grad school and running for us.  He was injury prone, and suffered a stress fracture setback.  After 8 weeks of not running (just doing a nordic trainer), he comes back immediately and does a 6x1 mile workout on rolling dirt roads, averaging 4:29 per mile with around 3 minutes of rest, and polishes it off with a 4:09 mile. Those of us that were fit were doing like 4:36's, and that includes a couple of sub 14:00 5,000 meter guys.  Talk about talent: he then ran a 3:42 1,500 the next week, did a sub 13:30 5,000, and then got hurt again. While those times are very good on their own, they are downright amazing when I consider that he hadn't run in 2 months just prior.  Of course, being injury-prone, he was soon hurt again. His 6 foot 3, 146lb body couldn't stand up to training, unfortunately. 

 

Hard work is what separates the best from the simply elite athletes, but if you don't have the genes and the engine, you aren't going to get far.  In my experience, there are tons of people out there killing themselves (talking cycling again) that just don't have the talent to ride at the top level, and 25 or 30 hours a week on the bike isn't going to change that.

post #74 of 84
Quote:
Hard work is what separates the best from the simply elite athletes, but if you don't have the genes and the engine, you aren't going to get far.

 

I think a lot of that comes down to whether the sport you're talking about places extremely high demands on your body.  Most sports are at least somewhat physically demanding at the high end, but there's a lot of variation.  If the limiting factor in performance is something like how fast your muscles can flush lactic acid, that's very different than if what matters is how quickly and precisely you can execute a skill.

 

I fenced in college.  It takes some endurance to last through a full day of competition, and it helps to be fast and strong (and having a long reach doesn't hurt).  But physical dominance usually wasn't the determining factor in a bout, at least at the NCAA level.  There's a reason they call it "Physical Chess".

 

At the pure skill end you'd be looking at things like darts, or billiards, or trap shooting.

 

Alpine skiing's in the middle somewhere.  Alpine's interesting in that the more skilled you get, generally the more efficient your technique is.  So you can make up for differences in endurance with better skills, at least to a point.

post #75 of 84



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

Quote:
Hard work is what separates the best from the simply elite athletes, but if you don't have the genes and the engine, you aren't going to get far.

 

I think a lot of that comes down to whether the sport you're talking about places extremely high demands on your body.   

 

 

 

 

From my experience 99% of the time the differentiator is money.

post #76 of 84


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude72 View Post



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthias99 View Post

Quote:
Hard work is what separates the best from the simply elite athletes, but if you don't have the genes and the engine, you aren't going to get far.

 

I think a lot of that comes down to whether the sport you're talking about places extremely high demands on your body.   

 

 

 

 

From my experience 99% of the time the differentiator is money.



Are you referring to the money it takes to get in the coaching, travel, and racing it takes to become elite?  Definitely true with skiing. I think with cycling, you get picked up by a decently funded team if you are showing talent in smaller races (U-19 teams like HotTubes), and if you continue to move up the ladder with your results, you end up on Garmin's U-23 or Livestrong pretty quickly. Even the small elite development teams have a $150k budget.  Skiing doesn't have the financial backing of cycling, unfortunately, and I know more than one talented racer who just couldn't afford to travel when they hit the NORAM level.  It is probably the same in tennis and soccer (at least in the US, there are well funded development programs paid for by teams in most countries), but for other sports like football and baseball, most athletes are going to go through the NCAA route and have their travel and expenses paid by the school.  For all the money we have here in the US, support for athletes is really lousy.  My wife is the friend of a Japanese national class XC racer and olympic hopeful: she gets all kinds of financial support. The Americans here in Bend, racing at that level, mostly scrape by.  Maybe they just take sports more seriously in Japan, but if that were the case, why don't get they get much in the way of results?  Aside from winning the WBC, they really don't do much on an international level, especially at the Olympics, considering their population and wealth.   

post #77 of 84
Quote:

Originally Posted by ElhoChick View Post

Is Phelps (or the like) a natural athlete or just good at his one sport due to being sport specific?  Would they have excelled at any other sport?

 


Phelps is not human. Have you seen his training diet? All those calories have to be going somewhere. He just happens to be physically built for breaking Olympic swimming records, but there are probably several athletic fields he could excel in.

post #78 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

When I first joined this forum, about a year ago, one of the topics I thought of starting was the question of how long the group of instructors here thought it would take for an individual of "average" athletic ability to become an "expert" skier. I recognize that "average" and "expert" are subjective characterizations. My own view, informed entirely by informal observation, is that it would require about 10 years of skiing, 3 months a year, with enough competent instruction to ensure consistent progress. Based on the information posted in this thread that seems to be close to the mark.

Kids can learn much faster than that. In my opinion, the average adult can easily go from never ever to expert level in two seasons of  once a week skiing with coaching over a 3 month season. In my experience, less than 1% of never evers ever come close to this. Keep in mind that with modern gear and private instruction it is very easy to get an average first timer to intermediate level in 1-3 days.

post #79 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post

. Keep in mind that with modern gear and private instruction it is very easy to get an average first timer to intermediate level in 1-3 days.

Including tactics?
post #80 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

When I first joined this forum, about a year ago, one of the topics I thought of starting was the question of how long the group of instructors here thought it would take for an individual of "average" athletic ability to become an "expert" skier. I recognize that "average" and "expert" are subjective characterizations. My own view, informed entirely by informal observation, is that it would require about 10 years of skiing, 3 months a year, with enough competent instruction to ensure consistent progress. Based on the information posted in this thread that seems to be close to the mark.

Kids can learn much faster than that. In my opinion, the average adult can easily go from never ever to expert level in two seasons of  once a week skiing with coaching over a 3 month season. In my experience, less than 1% of never evers ever come close to this. Keep in mind that with modern gear and private instruction it is very easy to get an average first timer to intermediate level in 1-3 days.



Agreed.  Have you ever seen an average adult try and pick up golf?  He/she will be lucky to ever break 90, let alone 80.  My brother and I grew up golfing and doing the junior competition circuit (we lived next to the course in a little logging town, there was nothing else to do but play every day) and the pro always said that due to starting at a young age, we would always have our swing and be able to shoot a good score, while when he teaches older golfers, especially those getting into the sport late in life, they just can't develop a less than mechanical swing.  I think it is that way with many sports that require unique movements or coordination.  Probably much less of an issue for endurance sports like running and cycling, although starting young is always helpful, as long as burnout doesn't occur first.  I think my skiing is quite mechanical, as I didn't spent alot of time on the snow until my mid 20's, and didn't have the fluidity of someone who grew up on skis, so I guess I know what I am talking about here!  

post #81 of 84



 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post

. Keep in mind that with modern gear and private instruction it is very easy to get an average first timer to intermediate level in 1-3 days.

 




Including tactics?


I try to teach tactics even to first timers. A newer skier will be weak on tactics due to lack of exposure/experience. If you look at "intermediate" and "expert" skill levels as a sum total of parts vs completing a checklist, then yes this is possible. If you look at intermediate as must have these items on a check list, then no.
 

post #82 of 84
Quote:
Originally Posted by dawgcatching View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheRusty View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by HardDaysNight View Post

When I first joined this forum, about a year ago, one of the topics I thought of starting was the question of how long the group of instructors here thought it would take for an individual of "average" athletic ability to become an "expert" skier. I recognize that "average" and "expert" are subjective characterizations. My own view, informed entirely by informal observation, is that it would require about 10 years of skiing, 3 months a year, with enough competent instruction to ensure consistent progress. Based on the information posted in this thread that seems to be close to the mark.

Kids can learn much faster than that. In my opinion, the average adult can easily go from never ever to expert level in two seasons of  once a week skiing with coaching over a 3 month season. In my experience, less than 1% of never evers ever come close to this. Keep in mind that with modern gear and private instruction it is very easy to get an average first timer to intermediate level in 1-3 days.



Agreed.  Have you ever seen an average adult try and pick up golf?  He/she will be lucky to ever break 90, let alone 80.  My brother and I grew up golfing and doing the junior competition circuit (we lived next to the course in a little logging town, there was nothing else to do but play every day) and the pro always said that due to starting at a young age, we would always have our swing and be able to shoot a good score, while when he teaches older golfers, especially those getting into the sport late in life, they just can't develop a less than mechanical swing.  I think it is that way with many sports that require unique movements or coordination.  Probably much less of an issue for endurance sports like running and cycling, although starting young is always helpful, as long as burnout doesn't occur first.  I think my skiing is quite mechanical, as I didn't spent alot of time on the snow until my mid 20's, and didn't have the fluidity of someone who grew up on skis, so I guess I know what I am talking about here!  



 

post #83 of 84
Out of curiosity, have any of you run into this before:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9630027
Quote:
We conclude that symmetry in traits such as nostrils and ears indicates good running ability. It may therefore be useful in predicting the future potential of young athletes.
post #84 of 84

It actually makes a lot of sense.  Most sports require us to use both our legs and arms and a lot of them require mirrored motions from left and ride side of body.  symmetry in the ears/eyes/nose probably also indicates symmetry in the legs and arms.

 

I've found that with anything I learn, if I learn to do it with my right hand first, my left hand is already halfway there and much further ahead than my right hand when I first started.  This is probably due to my brain realizing the symmetry and just mirroring the motions.  A lack of symmetry would require one side to have to compensate for the other.  It also means when I'm training, I have to train both sides of my body slightly differently, making the training inefficient.  (i.e. my left ski turns and right ski turns are different due to lack of symmetry in my legs/knees.  I end up spending a lot of time focusing on working on a problem in my left turns that just happens naturally for my right turns.  I could be spending this time working on something else if I didn't have this problem.)
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post

Out of curiosity, have any of you run into this before:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9630027


Quote:
We conclude that symmetry in traits such as nostrils and ears indicates good running ability. It may therefore be useful in predicting the future potential of young athletes.

 
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching