UKBouldering.com
the shizzle => diet, training and injuries => Topic started by: Robsons on August 09, 2013, 11:47:11 am
-
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
-
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 (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html?page=all)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html)
-
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
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
Most important natural talent is the predisposition to be utterly dedicated and work extremely hard towards improving. HTH.
-
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?
-
http://www.theguardian.com/volvo-design/natural-born-winners-genetics-sport (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
-
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 :P
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Where did you pluck 6ft from?
-
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. :boohoo:
-
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..)
-
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.
-
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.
Yeah - if you have a good ape index you get the best of both worlds.. reach but no bunch problems..
-
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"?
Yes, I believe in natural talent.
Yes and no. I think Sharma ticked many boxes that positioned him to excel. He grew up surfing and skateboarding and his parents were pretty liberal. His mindset was very playful and experimental, plus he likely had developed a good kinaesthetic awareness from surfing and skateboarding. This set the stage for him when he started climbing to be relatively fearless and willing to try anything. He didn't let anyone tell him what he could/couldn't do. He quickly connected with Tommy Caldwell, who came from a completely different background, but with equal potential. I really think they two of them spending those early years climbing together really allowed both of them to develop the opposite parts and Chris learned the rest of the "non-natural" skills that allowed him to reach the highest levels.
So are these top class climbers one-off natural freaks? I don't think so. I think alot of it boils down to right time, right place, right person.
As other have mentioned, the right balance of a natural proclivity plus an environment that rewards hard work and you get phenomonal results.
-
Oh yeah, Don't underestimate the difference the pool of talent makes. Being surrounded by other strong climbers makes a HUGE difference. I think this is why you see these hotspots of talent develop from time to time. Think Yosemite in the 70's, Sheffield in the Late 80-early 90's, Salt Lake City in the mid 90's, the Hueco group in the early to mid 90's, the Swiss/Austrian powerhouses of the late 90's, the Spanish enduro monsters of the early 2000's, etc.
Being the biggest fish a really small pond (I'd be a minnow in a real pond :) ) has really helped me understand the difference it makes to be surrounded by that type of talent/competition/knowledge/etc.
-
as much as Andy Kirkpatrick is king punter he has a real talent for suffering
I have a sneaking urge to email Andy and ask him, since he's Hull's Second Best Climber, whether it's Joe Tasker or John Redhead he's better than ;)
-
as much as Andy Kirkpatrick is king punter he has a real talent for suffering
I have a sneaking urge to email Andy and ask him, since he's Hull's Second Best Climber, whether it's Joe Tasker or John Redhead he's better than ;)
I think he probably didn't realise redhead was a Hullian, he deffo must've known about tasker as they have his picture up in the covered market hall of fame (along with that chap from the fine young cannibals and the beautiful south)
-
Most important natural talent is the predisposition to be utterly dedicated and work extremely hard towards improving. HTH.
I would tend to believe that there is a mental predisposition which fits climbing perfectly, and this may be put down within the 'natural talent' idea. The Steve Mcclure 'grim determination' 'ability to hold on and keep going' thing, or Paxti's ability to train himself into oblivion.
Good genetics is (almost) a scientific fact, and I suppose that it fits the obvious elements of natural physical talent.
However, I have never met a top level performer (musical, sport etc) who didn't put 100% of their effort in physically and mentally over years of hard work.
Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.
So I agree, that there is natural talent in these forms; physical (i.e. good genetics) and mental (i.e. that grim determination to push yourself through any barrier and work 100% of your ability and energy towards whatever you focus on).
This 'natural talent' is effectively the ability to apply yourself to reach goals effectively.
I wouldn't ever say that Joe Blogs could be born to climb 9b+ with little adaptation, in that form of 'natural talent'.
-
I wouldn't ever say that Joe Blogs could be born to climb 9b+ with little adaptation, in that form of 'natural talent'.
Not knowing Joe Blogs, i would like to state it a little differently;
if, 16 years ago, you took 1000 children who were crazy about climbing, and one of them was Adam Ondra, and you had them all climb the same hours and "training-intensity" as Adam Ondra, would they all be climbing 9b+ and bouldering 8C+?
would 100? or just 2 ? or just 1?
i'd hope there would be at least two or three.
but i'm not at all sure.
is it then "talent" that set Adam Ondra apart from the rest of the field?
is that the definition of talent: that which makes you better than the rest WITH the same training?
i know that the drive to train (or at least to climb as hard as possible as often as possible, in the case of the young Sharma and Ondra) is essential for progression, but i find it hard calling that a talent.
it is a talent, but not a specific one, the talent to train hard can make most people a better cyclist than a good climber.
-
Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.
Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like gibbons!
-
I'm gradually coming to think it might be more mental than physical.
Watching the good, next to the exceptional; I think I see a focus in the best that is absent from the good.
They are all competitive, but the best seem quietly so. Not ribbing their fellows, but sometimes clearly angry with themselves.
The variety of body morphology within that group, though, suggests to me that it is less important than mental attitude.
-
Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.
Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like Willackers!
(one small edit) ;)
-
Remembering that we are basically designed to climb, and that I cannot think of a single faculty of human physiology/base level psychology (obv referring to the obvious parts) that isn't involved in climbing in some way shape or form.
Could you expand on this? If we were designed to climb I think we would still look more like gibbons!
Things like the way we recruit power in our muscles when we hold and pull on something.
How our legs work (or the entire skeleton for that matter); or if we evolved only to walk and run, why do we have such a range and stretch (relative flexability considered).
Having opposable thumbs to grasp tree branches and other objects, for whatever purpose; but they suit climbing very well. Even toes seem like quite a good idea in climbing, if we hadn't spent so much time walking around would they be more like fingers?
The way the central nervous system behaves and responds to holds and movement, seems to fit the bodies requirements when climbing quite well.
Call it romanticised dross; but when I climb or watch others climb, everything seems to work pretty well for it.
We may not be graced with the greatest ape index (with the exception of Willackers, Napier et al) of climbing-centric animals, but we do pretty well at it. We aren't all that dissimilar to gibbons, sloth, apes etc.
-
Thanks for all the responses so far...almost a never ending debate, hence why it is so interesting. I think there is truth in every aspect. Genetically, I will be seeing what the pros' generations were doing in the past. There could be a similarity making sense of their finger strength? The obvious look at Sharma and Ondra highlights the differences in body type, and when you throw in Ramon Julian (5"2), there is no clear cut answer, making the 10,000 hour argument stronger.
Perhaps as climbing is a fairly young sport (when science is concerned) we, as a race, have not reached OUR potential, meaning that it doesn't take 10,000 hours to be at the top of the sport YET? Perhaps when our sport is more evolved this will be true?
I am looking forward to compiling all of the answers and writing about it. I shall link it up once done.
Does anyone here think they have put in 10,000 worthwhile hours into climbing?
-
Surely there are just too many variables for this to be solved. For instance I understand the 10,000 hours argument, and its got the stats to back it up. But all that says is the people at or near the top have done loads of practice. Not really a ground breaking study.
More important (and covered in that 'Bounce' book) is the quality of that practise. Always do what you've always done etc....
And the environment you train in I believe is at least as important. I remember being a pretty handy badminton player at primary school, until our team was added to by a guy from thailand who could hit shots i'd previously thought impossible. Within about 3 months hes presence alone had raised the level of everyone by an order of magnitude. If we never had that exsposure to the elite performer we'd have happily gone no where and never even had an understanding what was possible - and similarly how easy it was to get there!
Everyone whos joined a club or started competing will have seen the rapid improvement it brings. Just by moving the goalposts. If you imagine in rock climbing everyone starting from the same level (or near enough) and one person goes to the wall twice a week on his own and just measures himself on the grades on the wall. And compare him to someone who goes twice a week, joins a club, gets a coach and measures himself against the best comparable climber, while exsposing himself to the techniques and traits of much better climbers. The gets a companion of similar dedication and aspirations who move together through the grades, and through the available knowledge from their friends of ever ascending climbing ability. Ones Chris Sharma, the other is any number of 'talentless punters across the UK - like me)
For me its neither nature or nurture but a combination of such a wide range of factors you really need (but in my view can make) the stars align.
-
10 000 hours works out at three 2 hour sessions a week, over 33 years :)
I should be elite by the time I'm 50-55 :D
-
Does anyone here think they have put in 10,000 worthwhile hours into climbing?
Have you read the link posted earlier, which criticises the 10,000 hours theory?
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html (http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/08/talent-training-and-performance-secrets.html)
Here are some interesting quotes:
Malcolm Gladwell...[made] this statement in his book "Outliers":
“The striking thing about Ericsson’s study is that he and his colleagues couldn’t find any “naturals”, musicians who floated effortlessly to the top while practicing a fraction of the time their peers did.
Nor could they find any “grinds”, people who worked harder than everyone else, yet just didn’t have what it takes to break the top ranks.” – Outliers, pg 39
Again, I don't know how he arrives at the above statements - Ericsson presented not a single measure to support these claims (and I happen to know that he didn't interview him either).
and
Sports examples: Very rarely do elite athletes need 10,000 hours
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-NfqUDJnqNj0/TkEQUrqlc4I/AAAAAAAACE4/o67Y-Vq5riU/s400/Screen+shot+2011-08-09+at+12.46.59+PM.png)
and
Greatness is recognizable early, long before 10,000 hours are accumulated: Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin
-
I did read it, but where Matthew Syed and Bounce look at a few people at the TOP of their game...IME. the world's best, this looks at "international wrestlers/footballers" etc, not THE best. There are hundreds of top footballers, the worst in the pack is a complete spectrum away from the TOP.
-
Michael Phelps and Missy Franklin? It doesn't get much more elite!
-
True
-
If you guys want to take it one step further there's epigenetics.
genetics is the study of our dna and genes whereas Epigenetics is more about the study of how our genes express, and in fact this expression can actually change base on our environment and experiences.
What does gene expression mean? My basic understanding is that while our DNA is our master program, not every line of "code" is actually run. Some genes are turned off and some are turned on, and this expression, even moreso than the original DNA, is ultimately what makes us who we are. things like your hair, your face, your physical makeup, your propensity for athletics or for disease, even your personality are affected.
However this expression, that makes us "who we are", isn't static -- for instance something like smoking will change it, mostly for the negative (http://smoking will change it, mostly for the negative), whereas exercise would also change it, mostly for the positive. (http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21581700-limbering-up-does-not-just-help-shed-fat-it-also-changes-how-fatty-tissue)
So that confuses the nature vs nurture debate a bit more because who we are, things that you think are fundamental to who you are, are not as fixed as you think, but can change depending on your experiences and environment. Your environment and experiences can literally interact with your dna to make you different from someone with the same exact dna in a different environment, and they've found this is the case in genetically identical twins.
This is theorizing a bit but it's possible for instance, that climbing early in life can trigger developments which predispose someone physically to grow up to be a better climber. Epigenetic changes also can be inherited, so if two climbers have a child, that child can be predisposed to be a good climber simply because of the experience of his parents, even if their dna is not originally particularly suited to climbing.
-
I did read it, but where Matthew Syed and Bounce look at a few people at the TOP of their game...IME. the world's best, this looks at "international wrestlers/footballers" etc, not THE best. There are hundreds of top footballers, the worst in the pack is a complete spectrum away from the TOP.
High level football is one of the best paid and most competive sports there is with the major leagues fed by the best players from all over the world. Is it Matthew Syed's argument that the only thing that random young Johnny Football Mad kid needs to join this elite is lots of quality practice?
-
Great topic!
I think we could possibly split 'talent' into two broad categories:
1. Physiological and mental predispositions - i.e. body shape, insert positions, joint mobility etc. I think mental predispositions could be just as significant, since they will also link directly to physical performance (e.g. adrenal regulation) but also more indirectly - I suspect psychopaths could make great climbers, in all seriousness.
2. Phenotypic plasticity (well, something like it) - here, the ability to change some of the characteristics in 1. as the nature of your environment changes. For simplicity, it could be best to include both a willingness to work and also the natural tendency of the body and mind to respond to this work.
Some things in 1., like inserts and ape index will never change, regardless of latent 'talent' in 2., but some things will.
Dave Macleod strikes me as someone who isn't overly gifted in 1. (by his own admission he holds onto fat, has sweaty skin and gets injured quite a bit). But he clearly has bags of talent in 2. I think this is even reflected in his climbing style - a meticulously learned sort of movement.
In contrast, Ondra clearly has bags of both.
Not surprisingly, I can't think of many top climbers who are entirely the opposite, but there are surely plenty of pretty capable ones ticking all the boxes in 1. but who never achieve everything they are 'capable' of.
-
There also arises the question of whether or not climbing/exercise during childhood/adolescence affects the body morphology?
Can you, in fact, change your ape index?
(Or at least, that of a developing child).
-
Interesting discussion with Malcolm Gladwell (the author mentioned on the sports science page linked on this thread):
http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/jul/26/secrets-of-success/ (http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/jul/26/secrets-of-success/)
-
There also arises the question of whether or not climbing/exercise during childhood/adolescence affects the body morphology?
Can you, in fact, change your ape index?
(Or at least, that of a developing child).
I doubt it, though I have no evidence-based reason to.
-
Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...
-
Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...
Especially given recent suggestions that empathy can be turned on and off by said psychopath (hence their ability to be " charming") and that many go Un-noticed as they have learned how to appear normal (war hero? Athlete?).
-
Ok, this refers specifically to bone accrual (and seems largely to have viewed "impact" related osteogenesis ) but seems to suggest the possibility of exercise induced (or at least, enhanced) morphology.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/4/250.full (http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/36/4/250.full)
Is it possible, that given the prevalence of training facilities and greater access to the sport; that we have created a generation of "Super Climbers"?
Is it because they started younger?
Trained better at an early, formative, age?
-
Psychopaths are an interesting observation... the ability to detach themselves from emotions and feelings is probably useful for hard/dangerous trad. Quite a bit of research on war heroes being psychopaths etc...
Especially given recent suggestions that empathy can be turned on and off by said psychopath (hence their ability to be " charming") and that many go Un-noticed as they have learned how to appear normal (war hero? Athlete?).
War hero is possibly the best analogy - they can turn off their empathy which makes them 'fearless' hence charging the enemy without fear for their life etc.. I think the work comes from a post WW2 study where they suggested that only 10% of US servicemen shot to kill - most shut their eyes/aimed elsewhere etc..
-
We should now speculate on which top climbers would score the highest on the appropriate psychopath test...I reckon Honnold would be up there.
-
I wonder what the relative occurrence percentages of psychopaths are between rock climbing and alpinism. Particularly at higher levels. The top end alpinists seem to regularly put themselves in perilous situations for extended periods of time. I wonder if people put themselves in those positions due to pre-existing psychological makeup, or people undergo changes through the experience they find valuable? Are good alpinists born or made? And stretching the "War Hero" analogy somewhat, can climbing lead to PTSD in certain cases?
All off topic ramblings I'm afraid. On the subject of natural talent I have nothing to say, having never possessed any.
-
There is no question that climbing can lead to PTSD (not in my mind, anyway). Every "Epic" leaves a scar. We've all had close calls, surely?
PTSD is a progressive condition, relative to the severity of the Trauma.
If you we're once stung by a wasp, and now you are scared of wasps; then you have PTSD.
(That's not the best example, but I made it trivial to make the point).
-
From natural talent to war heroes being psychopaths. Fantastic
-
Psychopaths having the ability to turn empathy on and off mmmmm. I think you might find that they simply don't have any but what they can do is pretend to have it. Also Psychopathy is more like a sliding scale, we all can be a bit Psychopathic if it suits us but usually we are aware we are being a bit twatish. Where as someone with an impulsive anti social personality disorder doesn't give shit.
-
Psychopaths having the ability to turn empathy on and off mmmmm. I think you might find that they simply don't have any but what they can do is pretend to have it. Also Psychopathy is more like a sliding scale, we all can be a bit Psychopathic if it suits us but usually we are aware we are being a bit twatish. Where as someone with an impulsive anti social personality disorder doesn't give shit.
But that presupposes empathy to be an innate feature of the human conscious, rather than a learned response? FWIW, I'm inclined to agree, merely citing an article from the science page of a newspaper earlier.
If there was a single "top climber" morphology, I think you could argue for a physical talent. Given the variety of body types and dimensions within the upper echelons of the sport, this is surely harder to assert?
The difficulty for the armchair researcher is, that it's so much harder to deduce personality from photographs and Vimeo clips....
So, Hypothesis is stretching the guess work of this interested party (who is, in fact, laid on a sofa, whilst writing; being a stage down from Armchair researcher).
-
There is no question that climbing can lead to PTSD (not in my mind, anyway). Every "Epic" leaves a scar. We've all had close calls, surely?
PTSD is a progressive condition, relative to the severity of the Trauma.
If you we're once stung by a wasp, and now you are scared of wasps; then you have PTSD.
(That's not the best example, but I made it trivial to make the point).
Sounds more like 'wasp phobia' to me
-
Has this article in support of talent (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html?page=all) / a more nuanced view been posted?
-
Has this article in support of talent (http://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/media/books/How-Athletes-Get-Great.html?page=all) / a more nuanced view been posted?
Yes (http://ukbouldering.com/board/index.php/topic,22784.msg416781.html#msg416781) (I was too lazy to post it to multiple threads though).
-
Over-simplistic notions like the 10,000 hour rule come to prominence in the mainstream media, and also in scientific literature, primarily because we love elegant, parsimonious explanations for the things we observe.
This is well embodied in the principle of Occam's Razor, but William of Occam clearly didn't work with any kind of biological system. At best, they're messy, complicated and vague. For biologists, Occam's razor is a bit of a fallacy.
As a very broad observation, the 10, 000 hour rule has some merit: this may well be the kind of experience that many of the best climbers required to approach the top of their game on average. But the real interest lies in the variance.
-
I suspect it would be all but impossible to determine whether it was the hours put in or the predisposition of the achiever to put in those hours, that was the critical factor.
Surely a study would have to look primarily at the psychology of the achiever versus a control group (significantly larger than the study group)?
Otherwise, you would have to follow a truly massive group, from infancy to mid 20's; with no guarantee that any top sport star or virtuoso would emerge from that group?
And then...
What about the Para-climbers, like Fran?
She's an above average climber, compared to most able bodied climbers and yet...
-
One interesting factor is previous calling
A few of the climbers I know who got strong quick did things before which may have helped
-3 were fairly serious martial artists. 2 kung fu, 1 tae kwon do . I'm not 100 sure of the cross over but i'm not sure it's coincidence either. perhaps the training/discipline aspect?
-1 is a painter/tradesman... does that help??
-1 was a carpenter - hand strength, obviously
-1 did parkour - great dynamic ability
These folks started off climbing just like the rest of us but maybe they had a head start of sorts.
-
Nonsense, painting gets you good at climbing? This isn't karate kid
Carpenters have strong hands? Nonsense
All we're talking about is people who aren't useless lazy fuckers responding to training quicker than people who are
-
Was chatting to a friend the other day who'd read some articles that some people simply do not respond to training whilst others do.
Variability in training-induced skeletal muscle adaptation. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3069632/) (full-text freely available).
Individuals who have a "natural talent" and respond to training will reach the zeniths of performance. Some might have "natural talent" but won't respond so well to training and won't reach the lofty heights of those who do. You might not have any "natural talent" but respond well to training reaching similar levels to those with "natural talent" but with a lot of hard work. Then there are others who have neither who just enjoy the activity regardless of the level of performance.
-
Oh yeah, Don't underestimate the difference the pool of talent makes. Being surrounded by other strong climbers makes a HUGE difference. I think this is why you see these hotspots of talent develop from time to time. Think Yosemite in the 70's, Sheffield in the Late 80-early 90's, Salt Lake City in the mid 90's, the Hueco group in the early to mid 90's, the Swiss/Austrian powerhouses of the late 90's, the Spanish enduro monsters of the early 2000's, etc.
And the societal factors that predisposed to those talent pools forming in those places at those times.
The biopsychosocial model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biopsychosocial_model) suggest health is best understood in as combination of biological, psychological and social factors rather than purely in biomedical terms. Most people overestimate the importance of biological factors (e.g. x-ray findings) and underestimate the effects of psychology (patient beliefs about their problem) and social factors (wealth, education). In reality it is the social factors that are usually the most important in predicting who gets sick, who gets better, and who does not.
The same goes for climbing. We tend to overestimate the importance of biology ('talent', number of seconds hang on the beastmaker) on climbing performance and underestimate psychological factors (belief about what constitutes ‘hard’, acceptance of risk) and especially social factors (attitude of partner to climbing, distance to the crag from home, work demands, societal attitudes to leisure activity). Biological factors are perceived as easiest to manipulate and there is probably the unconscious influence of Comte’s hierarchy of science (mathematics at the top, biology in the middle, sociology barely scraping in at the bottom).
So put most effort into manipulating your limiting social factors (ie retire and move to Squamish). I really should get out of London. Or learn Polish.
-
This is a really good article on the subject of sporting success (and the possible reasons for it):
http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/669963.html (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/669963.html)
-
I remember reading a while back (probably like 10years or so) about the impact physical activity (organized sports or just active play) during pre-puberty ages (6-12ish) had on physical abilities as an adult. I can't recall if it was some rubbish article or if it was based on some type of study, but the general idea was that the level of physical activity during this time period played a massive role in adults ability to learn and improve at sports/physical stuff later in life. I don't recall any discussion about causation, just a correlation, so it could easily be attributal to anything....
-
I remember reading something similar about early development. Also I'm sure it said you couldn't develop faster reflexes past the age of 12, any increase in speed had to come from stronger muscles past this age.
-
Think the 10,000 hour thing has be mentioned somewhere in this thread, bit of discussion from the author:
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/08/psychology-ten-thousand-hour-rule-complexity.html (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/08/psychology-ten-thousand-hour-rule-complexity.html)
-
I really do believe that you can get to a very high level purely on practice and not natural talent. Spend 10000 hours correctly practicing a certain sport and you will achieve an "expert level" of that activity regardless of natural ability. However to be truly exceptional at something needs both. The difference in being expert and the best is often as big as the difference between punter and expert.
I would wager a bet that if anyone spent 10000 hours (20 hours a week for 10 years)hitting golf balls under correct guidance they would reach what would be considered an expert/pro level, however they probably would not be tiger woods.
The only limiting factors are body type and size which do shape which sports are best to pursue. I would suggest that the requirements for a world champion rower and a 9b+ sports climber may differ.
Pick the right one at the right age and put in the hours and you will become and expert.
To bastadise a very famous quote "the more i practice the more naturally talented i become"
-
Spot on.
The golf analogy is obviously true seeing as there are many thousands of pro golfers around the World who will have practiced at least that much but will never have a hope of winning a major, let alone being as successful as Tiger.
-
Does anyone around here actually play golf?
There must be thousands of golfers in England alone who have played 10,000 hours of golf (which equates to 20 years of two rounds of golf and a session on the driving range per week) who have no hope of ever getting a single digit handicap.
Jack Nicklaus hit 70 on his home course at age 13, after having played only three years. By then he was playing off +3.
Don't really know if I would call it talent. It's just the way it is.
-
Those golfers may have spent 10000 hours on a golf course or at the driving range but walking round a course hitting the odd shot taking about 4 hours having a stroll doesn't really constitute as focused training but will rack up the hours, i reckon if they had the feedback and focused training of Tiger woods they would be in single digits, its not just quantity but quality as well. i have just read Bounce by Matthew Syed, really good interesting read on the topic. apologies if this has already been brought up earlier in the thread.
-
No but it's referrred to in that article I linked to on cricinfo.
-
just read that now good article cheers
-
Malcolm Gladwell refers to it as "Purposeful Practice" in Outliers and in that article he emphasises that you need "Innate Talent" plus hard work, social factors and a dose of good fortune, seems people had been jumping on the 10,000 hours thing as meaning anyone could become a world-beater at anything. Basically, what gme said.
-
:agree: According to the original researcher, Dr Anders Ericsson, the ten thousand hours of practice which those in the group of highest-achievers had gone through was actually 10000 hrs of what he calls 'Deliberate Practice'. Deliberate Practice is carried out in solitude and is focused on self-identifying any weaknesses in the skill-set and focusing on working to correct those weaknesses, and it's self-motivated not coach-led. It was this characteristic which separated the very best group from the expert group in Ericsson's study, with the best having double the logged hours of solitary 'Deliberate Practice' compared with the 'expert' group.
Not 10000hrs of just doing an activity, or lower quality 'mileage' (i.e. playing golf with mates/ lighthearted bouldering with mates) or being coached. That's all on top of the 10000hrs solitary practice.
I suppose in climbing it's hard for deliberate practice to be truly solitary if you aspire to lead routes, but if you've got willing trustworthy belayers it's essentially a solitary practice once you step off the ground.
-
:agree: According to the original researcher, Dr Anders Ericsson, the ten thousand hours of practice which those in the group of highest-achievers had gone through was actually 10000 hrs of what he calls 'Deliberate Practice'. Deliberate Practice is carried out in solitude and is focused on self-identifying any weaknesses in the skill-set and focusing on working to correct those weaknesses, and it's self-motivated not coach-led.
So the question for us punters is, what does deliberate practice in climbing look like?
-
Section on deliberate practice from wikipedia:
Deliberate practice
Psychologist K. Anders Ericsson, a professor of Psychology at Florida State University, has been a pioneer in researching deliberate practice and what it means. According to Ericsson:
"People believe that because expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance the expert performer must be endowed with characteristics qualitatively different from those of normal adults." "We agree that expert performance is qualitatively different from normal performance and even that expert performers have characteristics and abilities that are qualitatively different from or at least outside the range of those of normal adults. However, we deny that these differences are immutable, that is, due to innate talent. Only a few exceptions, most notably height, are genetically prescribed. Instead, we argue that the differences between expert performers and normal adults reflect a life-long period of deliberate effort to improve performance in a specific domain."[3]
One of Ericsson's core findings is that how expert one becomes at a skill has more to do with how one practices than with merely performing a skill a large number of times. An expert breaks down the skills that are required to be expert and focuses on improving those skill chunks during practice or day-to-day activities, often paired with immediate coaching feedback. Another important feature of deliberate practice lies in continually practising a skill at more challenging levels with the intention of mastering it.[4] Deliberate practice is also discussed in the books, "Talent is Overrated," by Geoff Colvin,[5] and "The Talent Code," by Daniel Coyle,[6] among others.
Two recent articles in Current Directions in Psychological Science criticize deliberate practice and argue that, while it is necessary for reaching high levels of performance, it is not sufficient, with other factors such as talent being important as well.[7][8]
Behavioral versus cognitive theories of deliberate practice
Behavioral theory would argue that deliberate practice is facilitated by feedback from an expert that allows for successful approximation of the target performance. Feedback from an expert allows the learner to minimize errors and frustration that results from trial-and-error attempts. Behavioral theory does not require delivery of rewards for accurate performance; the expert feedback in combination with the accurate performance serve as the consequences that establish and maintain the new performance.
In cognitive theory, excellent performance results from practising complex tasks that produce errors. Such errors provide the learner with rich feedback that results in scaffolding for future performance. Cognitive theory explains how a learner can become an expert (or someone who has mastered a domain).[9]
Deliberate practice in medical education
Duvivier et al. reconstructed the concept of deliberate practice into practical principles to describe the process as it relates to clinical skill acquisition. They defined deliberate practice as:
repetitive performance of intended cognitive or psychomotor skills.
rigorous skills assessment
specific information feedback
better skills performance[10]
They further described the personal skills learners need to exhibit at various stages of skill development in order to be successful in developing their clinical skills. This includes:
planning (organize work in a structured way).
concentration/dedication (higher attention span)
repetition/revision (strong tendency to practice)
study style/self reflection (tendency to self-regulate learning)[10]
While the study only included medical students, the authors found that repetitious practice may only help the novice learner (year 1) because as expertise is developed, the learner must focus and plan their learning around specific deficiencies. Curriculum must be designed to develop students' ability to plan their learning as they progress in their careers.
Finally, the findings in the study also have implications for developing self-regulated behaviors in students. Initially, a medical student may need focused feedback from instructors, however as they progress they must develop the ability to self-assess.
And Ericsson's original study on Deliberate Practice, here: http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf (http://projects.ict.usc.edu/itw/gel/EricssonDeliberatePracticePR93.pdf)
I'd imagine what deliberate practice in climbing looks like is what Ondra, Sharma, McClure, Patxi, Megos et al's private, away from the public eye, routine looks like - especially the routine they had when they were teenagers developing their skills.
-
This isn't really revolutionary is it? Jerry in Tom's Roof, Malc in his attic- obsessional devotees where the activity is so engrossing it supersedes - even at times precludes- the need for a social context.
Anyone who takes literally the idea that any Joe with 10,000 enthusiastic hours spare will become world class is clearly indulging in wish -fulfillment and equally clearly, has never really tried.
-
The idea isn't revolutionary to me, but perhaps it would be to someone who truly believes that genetics are the be all and end all and that if you're one of the 'genetically chosen ones' all you need do is go climbing, let the genes do their thing and kick ass. It's also interesting to anyone who aspires to be better than they are and who secretly wonders if they have 'it' - it being the quite nerdish desire to dedicate vast numbers of hours in your own company perfecting the various areas of your own climbing. This reminds me of the story told by one of Andy Pollitt's teachers about how, soon after being introduced to climbing in Prestatyn high school, Pollitt would spend endless hours by himself climbing around the school squash court climbing wall practicing movement skills and building 'belays' and teaching himself rope-work.
The idea of solitary dedicated practice also does raise the question of whether there's an ideal personality type for becoming a 'master' at climbing (or anything). It's been suggested (by Susan Cain in her book 'Quiet') that the introverted personality type is the one most attracted to the sort of solitary dedicated practice required to become a master in a field (not just become 'expert').
-
Can't disagree with that. Devotion implies exclusion of other things after all.