[Robsons]

I am currently doing some research into "natural talent" and climbers.
This is a term brandished about without thought at many climbing centres.

I have been contacting many of the world's most influential climbers to gauge their opinions and beliefs, but would also like your help?

Do you believe in natural talent? Obviously we can see Sharma went from novice to 8c+ in three years and there are many a story like this - but was he "born gifted"?

If you have read the book Bounce by Matthew Syed, then there is an obvious counter study, but it is very interesting to see what the consensus on this subject is...

Thanks,

Robin

[abarro81]

Do you believe in natural talent?

Yes. Whether we're talking about natural levels of strength, anaerobic capacity, aerobic capacity etc, response to training, propensity for getting injured, kinaesthetic awareness, etc. etc...

Saw this the other day, probably of interest to you if you're into this sort of stuff:
http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html?page=all

[r-man]

Interesting subject. Is there a difference between talent and natural talent? Is talent something you can acquire, or is acquisition of ability the key talent?

I suppose I think talent is how well someone is naturally suited to a particular activity, both in body and mind. If the hand fits the glove, it's easier to wear.

Looking at top climbers is obviously only useful in comparison to ordinary climbers. An interesting question might be: why do ordinary climbers struggle to do the things that top climbers do? If you could take away their restrictions, would they then have talent?

[Boredboy]

I think there's definitely a lot of natural talent in climbing and it probably has something to do with the individual make up of the nervous system and it's ability to adapt, along with all the other stuff of course e.g. Time spent training / environment / diet etc. I guess it really depends on how you objectify the term natural talent. I quite like the idea of it being something of an unknown, like some climbers just have it and it's good to see in action. Also there's quite a few naturally talented climbers I can think of who've never bothered to achieve what the not naturally talented have.

[Doylo]

An interesting question might be: why do ordinary climbers struggle to do the things that top climbers do? If you could take away their restrictions, would they then have talent?

No. Some people just haven't got it, my old mans been climbing for 30/40 years and he's hardly improved.  Take away the physical restrictions and there still isn't the innate ability. 

[andy popp]

I'm sure I remember Jerry saying somewhere that he felt he had little 'natural' talent - just huge reservoirs of determination and ambition. Of course, that determination/ambition should probably be conceived of as an element of his talents. We tend to think of talent as being mainly in the physical realm, whether kinaesthetic ability or capacity to respond to training.

[IanP]

If you have read the book Bounce by Matthew Syed, then there is an obvious counter study, but it is very interesting to see what the consensus on this subject is...

Haven't read the book but have heard him interviewed and thought his arguments came over as a somewhat simplistic and his conclusions appeared be given an unwarrented degree of certainty.

Interesting critique here:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html

[Wood FT]

I'm sure I remember Jerry saying somewhere that he felt he had little 'natural' talent - just huge reservoirs of determination and ambition. Of course, that determination/ambition should probably be conceived of as an element of his talents. We tend to think of talent has being mainly in the physical realm, whether kinaesthetic ability or capacity to respond to training.

exactly, as much as Andy Kirkpatrick is king punter he has a real talent for suffering

[r-man]

If you have read the book Bounce by Matthew Syed, then there is an obvious counter study, but it is very interesting to see what the consensus on this subject is...

Haven't read the book but have heard him interviewed and thought his arguments came over as a somewhat simplistic and his conclusions appeared be given an unwarrented degree of certainty.

Interesting critique here:
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html

Good link. Always thought that 10,000 hours idea was a bit shaky.

[Doylo]

Having the necessary genetics to get strong as fook are just as important as talent in climbing hard (probably more so if you're a limestone climber).  If i wanted to improve on grit then its 'talent' holding me back, to tick my dream routes on limestone then it's largely physical attributes.

[Fiend]

Most important natural talent is the predisposition to be utterly dedicated and work extremely hard towards improving. HTH.

[r-man]

Having the necessary genetics to get strong as fook are just as important as talent in climbing hard

Hang on, aren't genetics talent?

If i wanted to improve on grit then its 'talent' holding me back

What does talent mean for you? Balance and flexibility?

[highrepute]

http://www.theguardian.com/volvo-design/natural-born-winners-genetics-sport

I'm nurture over nature. Mainly because it takes away the excuse; "I don't have the natural talent", leaving the onus to improve on yourself.

My arguement for is that when I look at people in similar social situations (work/free-time, sporting background etc). The ones better than me have done more hours/more dedicated, the ones I'm better than have done less.

I believe mental aspects - dedication and hard working are not natural talents but nurtured too.

The pro-nature riposte tends to draw upon a particular nation's dominance in certain athletic events, such as East African runners' dominance in middle- and long-distance running or Jamaican athletes' dominance in sprinting. But this is a flawed argument. On closer examination, it's clear certain nations were not born excelling, but, rather, have been developed by their environment. Do we really believe British middle-distance runners' dominance in the 1980s – with the likes of Coe, Ovett, Cram, Elliot and McKean – was due to a spate of spontaneous genetic mutations that were neither present before nor since? And have East African women suddenly begun to bear genetically modified children predisposed to endurance running? Of course not. This excellence is the result of a complex interaction of bio-social events

[Doylo]

Having the necessary genetics to get strong as fook are just as important as talent in climbing hard

Hang on, aren't genetics talent?

If i wanted to improve on grit then its 'talent' holding me back

What does talent mean for you? Balance and flexibility?

I guess i think of talent as ability - movement, balance, flexibility, footwork, positioning, execution. To me strengths different. I wouldn't regard a weightlifter as talented but there you go!

edit:actually weightlifters need a bit of execution don't they, arm wrestlers then 

[gardinrm]

I spent quite a bit of time researching the concept of talent for my masters in music. Obviously this is a different subject, but the principals i think are largely the same. Both disciplines require a large amount of skill and physical ability gained through practice. I think the clearest place to identify the idea of 'talent' is in children because there is little chance for there to have been years of experience which can somewhat cloud the issue. In music the term 'prodigy' is constantly thrown around for those children who found it very easy and advanced super quick (the Sharma scenario etc) but is often misleading. These children often spend all of their time doing that particular activity (something adults don't have the liberty to do) and are backed by 'supportive' parents. That being said, as a teacher of music, some children simply don't have the motor function to learn the finite body movements needed for advanced skill in a physical activity, and no amount of practice will enable the 'super-human' development of certain child prodigies. However, the main issue comes with time. Prodigies very often (in music at least) disappear and do not in fact reach their seemingly fantastic potential. It is indeed possible that they did reach their potential but could not move beyond this with time (perhaps due to lack of will, or the determination to keep trying at something they used to find to easy). In this sense 'nurture' comes to the forefront whereby those who are willing to keep persevering often become just as 'able' as the talented. In fact, one could argue that their talent was in continued determination. All in all, it seems clear to me that the very best (or most talented) are those who have an innate ability but who also have the desire to continue to work at getting better. Of course this is all very general and there are so many facets that convolute the argument. A really nice book on musical development is "Musical Beginnings" from Oxford University Press, i got a lot out of it. There is a mass of stuff on talent in the developmental psychology literature.

[r-man]

I guess i think of talent as ability - movement, balance, flexibility, footwork, positioning, execution. To me strengths different. I wouldn't regard a weightlifter as talented but there you go!

I think all those individual things can be boiled down to basic strengths and weaknesses which can be improved just like the ability to lift a big weight, or pull on a small hold. But few people work on them as methodically as they work things like finger strength.

Having said that, execution is a big one - the instinct to make your body do the right thing in response any given challenge. That's probably harder to train (though perhaps not impossible) and maybe what most of us notice first about a talented climber.

[mr__j5]

I am fairly sure that not everybody has the same potential maximum physical attributes.

So if 2 people do all the same training together all the time, one will probably collapse injured in a heap, whilst the other will become a wad.

There ends to be a point where the elite athletes can keep training and improving, whilst the normal people either see no more improvement or their body's start to fail on them.

[IanP]

All in all, it seems clear to me that the very best (or most talented) are those who have an innate ability but who also have the desire to continue to work at getting better.

Indeed, which is pretty much what the article I linked above says  'The importance of practice: Practice is vital, but extremist arguments just don't work'.   

Looking at other sports does anyone really believe that for example Usain Bolt, Mo Farah (in relatively low skill level sports), Rodger Federer or Lionel Messi (relatively high skill level sports) don't have some talent advantage of the vast majority of people?  With climbing probably sitting somewhere in between in its mix of physical and skill requirements it seems to me unlikely that natural talent doesn't play a significant role in the ultimate climbing capability of a person even if the exact extent / nature of that talent is difficult to measure. 

[Nibile]

Of course I believe in natural talent, but it's not enough to reach the maximum. Hard work AND natural talent do the magic, but I think it's quite obvious.
Just with talent you can become good, but not great.
One thing is to climb 8a in your first year, one other is to climb 9a in your entire career: the first one does not imply the second. There are many studies in other fields, like many Noble Prize winners having been average students or sport superstars who were poor players at the beginning. I remember Michael Jordan speaking in favour of his former Uni coach who cut him, saying that the coach was right, he was actually a bad player in that moment.
I believe that natural talent shows from the start.

[tomtom]

There are lots of things that combine to make the best climbers - and this varies slightly from type of climbing (sport/trad/bouldering) though of course there are overlaps.. For example physical attributes

1. Height & Ape index - there seems to be an optimum height (about 6ft) and combined with a +ve ape index can certainly help...
2. Small fingers with unbreakable tendons!
3. Bullet proof elbows...
4. Muscles/muscle types that respond/develop well to strength, explosive power and/or endurance
5. Not being too big (lets face it if you have tree trunk legs or a barrel chest its not going to help lunking all the weight around..)

Mentally:
1. Attitude - determination and single mindedness - yet balanced with knowing when to walk away and spend your time being more productive on a different activity/training
2. Aptitude - so hard to define, but how you move, balance, read the rock, think about things...

Probably the most important to all of these is bloody hard work. No leader in their field gets where they are on just talent or ability - it takes years of hard practice and training. This is the same whether you're David Beckham or Pablo Picassso - everyone who is at the top of their game has to work bloody hard at it. Of course having some natural ability to work with helps alot!

[abarro81]

I disagree Doyle - 'talent' has to include a,bility to tolerate and respond to training, natural strength levels etc, or its missing the most important stuff in many ways. I would certainly rather have the talent to train 10 hard sessions per week without breaking and whilst recovering as have any amount of dawes-esque innate understanding of movement and balance. Your weightlifter might not look talented to your mind, but if that could bench their older brother from the age of 2 without training youd have to say they had a talent for lifting heavy shit.

[abarro81]

Where did you pluck 6ft from?

[Nibile]

As human beings, everything for us - even talent - is genetic. But I consider talent that thing that separates two people that are genetically even. When it comes to how one responds to training and the likes, I don't like to call it real talent, but good genes.
Call me a romantic. 

[tomtom]

Where did you pluck 6ft from?

Thin air I seem to remember an article yonks ago saying 5'11" was the optimum height (tall enough to reach, not too tall to get clobbered by being too bunched up etc..)

[abarro81]

Probably an article from Jens based on 8a.crack statistics taking no account of how many people there are at each height etc etc. I'm sceptical that there's an 'optimum' height in general, though obviously there may/will be for specific routes.