|
|
question of talent |
Post Reply | Page <1 89101112> |
Author | |||
NextLevel
Forum Moderator Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14822 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Tassie52,
Can genetic advantages be mental/psychological in nature? Or are they all just physical gifts? Thanks, NL |
|||
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
|||
Sponsored Links | |||
jrscatman
Premier Member Joined: 10/19/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Well said. Also in the case of Waldner, I don't think he was physically the most gifted player during his era. He appeared to win more with strategy than sheer speed or power. |
|||
Butterfly MPS
FH: Donic Acuda S1 BH: Palio CK531A OX |
|||
AndySmith
Premier Member Joined: 11/12/2008 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 4378 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I just don't like certain words, totally at random. I pick a new one from the dictionary every day and decide that this is the one I don't like now. I really must get myself checked out at some point. Ha! No, you just don't understand my point, as you have admitted! My point is not that anyone is saying that it's ALL about talent. That the sum total of everything is just talent. That would be total nonsense, of course! Ha hahahaha! Crazy talk! Sounds like another straw man, but I've seen so many that I can't see the straw men from the men of straw. (And your moving goalposts on JO's talent - wow. So you're now saying that JO's talent could be a talent, or it could be "strange" events (LOL - strange like doing more training, or doing improv sessions at the table while everyone else was robotically doing counter-hits - these are strange to you?), which doesn't matter to you because it's ALL talent, even when it's not talent, but it is, because....ah! My head fell off. Apologies.) My point is that people are incredibly intractable on the issue that they can see and evaluate talent, like some magical talent whisperer. They look at groups of people and just know that talent is there, going on, doing it's thing, making the difference. This last bit is key. It's popped up several times on this thread! And yet, even though the sensible, reasonable approach is to say it's all talent and practice combined, people just know that any differences between (to give an example given here) FZD and his peer group are all down to talent! Nothing to do with training, nope. Nothing to do with anything interesting or special in FZD's life experience. And that we don't even have to look to find out! Because we would be in danger of learning something useful, and we can't have that! Imagine if we learned the source of JO's ability and could do something with it. Modify our training approach to include some innovative techniques which shook out of our analysis. But no! It doesn't matter, let's not look, because it's all talent, even when it's not and ah! My head fell off again. This is my issue. And yet, everyone keeps totally missing my point, and saying that I'm arguing about something different. I might be losing my mind. Incredible. It doesn't matter how any times I say it, or how differently I phrase it, it just doesn't seem to register. It is the assumption that, when you look at a group of people, talent will be the thing that separates the top from the rest. The assumption is what I'm arguing about. Not the reality of talent/training coexisting. Not that it exists, or not. The tendency of people to assume that talent is the thing they see making the difference, and for them to not even realise that they are making an assumption at all, because it's all so obvious, apparently! I can't spell it out any clearer than that. I await someone else to say "But Andy, how can you think that talent doesn't matter" or "It can't just be all training" or "That doesn't mean that the difference is down to training" or "You haven't made the case for wearing blue underwear on tuesdays" or some other, equally unrelated comments. Please forward these posts to my therapist, once I appoint one. (I actually don't like the word talent, but only because the use of it has become so unbearably, insufferably ridiculous to me that it has been ruined in my brain. People say "oooh talent", like that actually says something interesting about what they're seeing. It's so high-level and non-descriptive that it's like saying "ooooh purple" or "ooooh concrete" to me. Purple and concrete both exist, but telling me that you find them interesting would probably make me ask you for more detail, or I might think that it was a waste of good air saying it. It's also a bit like when people insist that TT equipment has "control" - that makes me itch my own face too. You either detail what's at work to produce the appearance of "talent", hence making it a description so broad that it could mean anything and what was the point of saying it in the first place (unless it's a time-saver, or to start a conversation about the detail I suppose), or you can't detail what's at work and then realise you were guessing in the first place. But just saying "that FZD, he's got talent!"....gah. My brain just died a little bit typing that last one in.)
|
|||
This was a great signature until I realised it was overrated.
|
|||
wturber
Premier Member Joined: 10/28/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3899 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
And what if there is? Someone here would likely call them an outlier and dismiss their relevance. As for the "glasses" question, maybe I missed something but shouldn't the question be more specific? Shouldn't we be asking about the actual visual acuity of those players and then checking to see whether that is innate or augmented?
|
|||
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX |
|||
berndt_mann
Gold Member Joined: 02/02/2015 Location: Tucson, Arizona Status: Offline Points: 1719 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Hi Jay,
Is being an "outlier" any more linguistically accurate than being an individual with a particular aptitude, knack, proclivity, or shall we say "talent" for extraordinary success at a particular discipline, art, or sport? I don't know. I suppose I'm an outlier, but I''m not sure what being an outlier means. And after reading every post to this forum regarding whether or not talent does or doesn't exist, I'm finding myself more confused than ever. It's a fascinating discussion, recapitulated now on the MyTableTennis forum. Table tennis players, at least those who post to forums such as this one, are a highly intelligent and disputatious lot. Some of you know so much about so much stuff I'm amazed that you can actually find time to play table tennis. Alex Trebek |
|||
bmann1942
Setup: Mark Bellamy Master Craftsman blade, British Leyland hard rubber |
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Instead of wasting time debating, I just won our college's badminton doubles' tournament after just eight weeks of learning. I must be freakin'ly talented. Yes.
Edited by roundrobin - 05/05/2015 at 6:46pm |
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
wturber
Premier Member Joined: 10/28/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 3899 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Seems likely. What is harder to say is which particular individuals have more or less of the advantages. It might be pretty reasonable in sports or activities with high rewards to point to top achievers and say that it is very likely that they have a high proportion of advantageous "innate"(genetic/epigenetic) attributes. This seems reasonable given that we know that genes and innate traits have influences, that high desire and effort are virtually givens for elite athletes, and that good fortune in regards to injuries and circumstances of birth and location are also likely at play. When the rewards are extremely high every advantage would surely seem to count. With a small edit, I think Andy's (APW46) belief matches my view. (The "At the very top of the sport, the players have something extra, My personal view from experience is that reasonably often the players with more gifted touch progress quicker and are seen as 'talented' but if they lack dedication they are soon overtaken by the dedicated workers. If you get both you get a good player, then it comes down to other factors such as nationality, funding, mental strength, luck ( being around the right players/coaches) as to how far they go." And that's the practical problem with the notion of talent IMO. Perhaps you can say after the fact that J.O. Waldner probably has a good mix of the traits that would help a player to become a world champion - even without knowing what those particular traits are. You might even be able to say that this is true once he breaks the top 50, but you would/should be less certain even at lower but still quite high level. As a sidenote, people should keep in mind Ericsson's 10,000 hours (popularized by Gladwell) referred only to achieving an expert level. He didn't really have much to say at all about the most expert/accomplished of experts. At a practical level coaches and sports organizations have few options but to support/promote players that exhibit actual skills, achievements and other characteristics that are highly correlated with high level success. That's the best we/they can do. But at these earlier (pre-world elite) points in time, they don't know whether a player has a particularly favorable mix of attributes, if they are a harder/smarter worker, of if some other advantage is a greater proportion of the success so far. In a sport like table tennis, it can be very hard to say how much current success is due to "innate advantages" and how much is due to other factors. You have to try to make the journey to have a shot at knowing. And if you do make the journey and fail to become world champ or maybe even land in the top 10, you'll still never know for sure if you "failed" because you didn't have a good enough gene mix or if it was some other combination of factors that kept you from being that little bit better that might have made the difference. But let's be clear. Every activity is different. The simpler the activity, the easier it is to narrow down specific advantageous traits. Though, even then it is possible to fall into a trap of making inferences based more on correlation than on actual understanding of what is at work. Usain Bolt's success at 100M defied the ideas at the time of what makes an ideal sprinter. He was too tall to be "ideal." So maybe we can still say that he probably has a good mix of the right attributes, but he has surely made us rethink how the basic attribute of height attribute factors in to things. So I tend to agree with the other Andy about the use of the concept, talent (note, it's the concept that "talent" represents and not the term per se), and very much do not like the way I see it frequently used in regards to individuals and even narrow groups of individuals ... for instance the way it was used/meant by the originator of this thread. |
|||
Jay Turberville
www.jayandwanda.com Hardbat: Nittaku Resist w/ Dr. Evil or Friendship 802-40 OX |
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
As if the word "talent" will ever disappear from the English lexicon, or "God's given gift" from Mandarin or Japanese LOL ...what a massive waste of cyber ink. No one ever agreed to change their beliefs on an online forum on anything. EVER.
|
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
Baal
Forum Moderator Joined: 01/21/2010 Location: unknown Status: Offline Points: 14335 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Actually there were two I can think of who were that tall in last 30 years or so: Kalinic (whose son plays on Serbian national basketball team now) and Thierry Cabrerra. But in any case, the paucity of really elite players who are in that size range suggests it may not be ideal for our sport. In any case, I said what I wanted to say about this. |
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
6 Reasons Why "Talent" Is Not A Factor
See, no need to invoke the gods of talent at all. |
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Every study I have read on reaction time states quite categorically that reaction times are sport specific; that is, they are trained. Syed talks about Desmond Douglass's reaction times and how they were not superior in any way for anything other than table tennis. And they were superior there because he trained in a way which decreased his reaction times (i.e. made him faster). F! racing drivers are no faster at dodging a punch than you are, but their driving reactions are trained to be lightning fast. Boxers are slower than you at returning a TT ball. And so on and so on. Not a single person been born with superior reaction times. Try taking a swing at a baby and see if it ducks! Pick the infant born to a boxer and an F1 driver. Still won't duck. If ZJK marries LXX and they have a child, it still won't have "superior reaction time".
|
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Nah, I am simply talented, Tassie. |
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I will not let an Internet hack deny my greatness. I believe in Lord.
|
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
|
|||
jrscatman
Premier Member Joined: 10/19/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Depends who was your partner Lin Dan?
|
|||
Butterfly MPS
FH: Donic Acuda S1 BH: Palio CK531A OX |
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I wish! Just some beginner named Chen Long...l think I could beat him in singles. |
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
ttTurkey
Silver Member Joined: 09/07/2010 Status: Offline Points: 516 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Oh noes, after all this time believing that you were a real person, you have just outed yourself as Igor's sock puppet! |
|||
jrscatman
Premier Member Joined: 10/19/2008 Status: Offline Points: 4585 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
If you are able to beat Chen Long in singles - definitely "talented" till then we'll reserve judgement! BTW: Congratulations on winning the gold.
Edited by jrscatman - 05/05/2015 at 11:24pm |
|||
Butterfly MPS
FH: Donic Acuda S1 BH: Palio CK531A OX |
|||
NextLevel
Forum Moderator Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14822 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
This is very much untrue. Yes, anticipation within a sport is sport specific, but psychologists have a way of testing reactions of the nervous system, which are very separate from the physical response to the stimulus. If I remember rightly, this statistic had a fairly high correlation with some other tests of quick mental skills.
|
|||
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
|||
Speedplay
Premier Member Joined: 07/11/2006 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3405 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Andy, this isnt my native tongue, so I might be wrong here, but when I said new stroke, that sort of excludes previous training. So, JOs talent was that he could learn new strokes much faster then his brother. The strange events comment was made especially towards you, since you refuse to accept talent. Or, wait, you do accept it, you know it exists and plays a part, you just dont like that the rest of the world assumes that talent is what seperates the best from the rest. Despite your dislike for it, Im going to continue to believe that the top players all have talent and that is what have made it possible for them to become top players. If two players both receive 10,000 hours of virtuellt the same training, Im going to assume that the one who is better have more talent. |
|||
The holy grail
|
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
I have decided that I am perfectly happy to ascribe to talent everything that is not learnt (i.e. skills such as strokes, touch, anticipation, strategy, emotional control, footwork, balance, timing, reflexes, etc.) or genetic (i.e. height, weight, body type, eyesight, muscle profile, handedness, intelligence, flexibility, etc.) or psychological (resilience, optimism/pessimism, adaptability, confidence, humour, aggression, etc.) or some combination of these. Anything that isn't learnt, genetic or psychological is talent.
|
|||
Ringer84
Silver Member Joined: 04/12/2014 Location: West Virginia Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Richard Prause's thoughts on "talent" in table tennis, and recognizing early talent in Timo and Ovtcharov.
Hopefully this hasn't been posted already. |
|||
USATT Rating: 1785
Timo Boll Spirit FH: Andro Rasant BH: Baracuda |
|||
roundrobin
Premier Member Joined: 10/02/2008 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 4708 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
That's asinine. Some people just think they are so brilliant, they get to redefine words as they please. |
|||
Current USATT Rating: 2181
Argentina National Team Member, 1985-1986. Current Club: Los Angeles Table Tennis Association. My Setup: Yinhe Q1 / T64 2.1 black / Saviga V 0.5mm red |
|||
Speedplay
Premier Member Joined: 07/11/2006 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3405 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Nice to be back and actually agree with you RR! strange if we dont consider learning ability to be a talent, and that genetiks arent talent. |
|||
The holy grail
|
|||
Tassie52
Gold Member Joined: 10/09/2010 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1318 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
RR, I'm very happy for you to point out my ass-like features. However, I am going to disagree with you on the question of whether or not I'm redefining the word "talent. According to a reliable source, "talent" means:
Secondly, all of the psychological factors are also learned - "resilience, optimism/pessimism, adaptability, confidence, humour, aggression" - so they cannot qualify as "talents" either. And you may want to refer to Martin Seligman, Zellerbach Family Professor of Psychology in the University of Pennsylvania's Department of Psychology, should you want to claim otherwise. Thirdly, we need to consider the Collins phraseology "aptitude, or faculty, esp. when unspecified". Not one of the physical attributes that I listed would qualify as a talent, even though they are by definition "innate": height does not presuppose aptitude (tall people who suck at basketball); great eyesight (people with 20/20 vision who can't track a ball); muscle profile (people with fast twitch muscle fibre who can't jump). And when these things are present in an elite athlete, no one identifies those things as talents; they simple identify them as physical attributes. And finally, the clincher: "esp. when unspecified", which is the whole point of this debate. All of the things I have listed can be specified. Most of them can be scientifically identified and measured. My comment remains entirely valid: "You show me something which is unspecified and I'll happily call it talent." But first, you're going to have to specify what it is. |
|||
NextLevel
Forum Moderator Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14822 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Having read Seligman, I seriously doubt he would describe his position as you do. While those things are learned, many of them have genetic underpinnings. It's no different from saying you need to eat food to become tall. |
|||
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
|||
Speedplay
Premier Member Joined: 07/11/2006 Location: Sweden Status: Offline Points: 3405 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
Tassie, you mentioning learning, but the ability to learn can in itself be a talent.
|
|||
The holy grail
|
|||
VictorK
Silver Member Joined: 08/08/2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 647 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
What's frequently "not specified" and very difficult to identify and measure is WHY certain individuals have higher baselines, and acquire certain abilities, traits and skills at faster rates, and/or take them to often extraordinary levels. |
|||
99% practice
1% equipment 0% ratings |
|||
NextLevel
Forum Moderator Joined: 12/15/2011 Location: Somewhere Good Status: Offline Points: 14822 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
||
And since we are unable to measure or specify them in detail, dome of us would rather pretend they are not there until we can.
|
|||
I like putting heavy topspin on the ball...
Cybershape Carbon FH/BH: H3P 41D. Lumberjack TT, not for lovers of beautiful strokes. No time to train... |
|||
Post Reply | Page <1 89101112> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Forum Home | Go to the Forums | Forum Help | Disclaimer
MyTableTennis.NET is the trading name of Alex Table Tennis Ltd. |