question of talent

My friend was in the Army training to become a Marine.  He said the training was definitely the Army's way to id talent, as many of them failed to complete the first stage, including him. 
Regarding table tennis, many Chinese coaches at the highest level believe if you give valuable training to inferior talent, you will definitely waste it...it's way too expensive to do so, but common in many countries where table tennis is less popular.  Most "reasonable" candidates can reach 2500-2600 with consistent, top training, but not everyone can be trained to become 2700-2800.  It's no different than training a person to become a top astrophysicist, pianist or brain surgeon.  Definitely not EVERYONE can do it, no matter how hard they try.  In contrast, most young people can be taught to finish college or become a so-so musician.




Edited by roundrobin - 04/29/2015 at 4:00pm

roundrobin wrote: My friend was in the Army training to become a Marine.  He said the training was definitely the Army's way to id talent, as many of them failed to complete the first stage, including him.  Regarding table tennis, many Chinese coaches at the highest level believe if you give valuable training to inferior talent, you will definitely waste it...it's way too expensive to do so, but common in many countries where table tennis is less popular.  Most "reasonable" candidates can reach 2500-2600 with consistent, top training, but not everyone can be trained to become 2700-2800.  It's no different than training a person to become a top astrophysicist, pianist or brain surgeon.  Definitely not EVERYONE can do it, no matter how hard they try.  In contrast, most young people can be taught to finish college or become a so-so musician.

jrscatman wrote: Actually there was a long thread on about.com about this topic. Sean O'Neil was arguing on the side of hard work over talent. He mentioned, he was asked to train with Swedish National team. He was the hardest working person in group - yet 3 of the Swedish players - Walder, Persson and Applegren all outperformed O'Neil in the professional ranks.  This clearly demonstrates hard work will get you to a very high level but at that level there is something else that differentiates the champions from the rest - I would say "this" can be considered "talent".

My good friend Wei Wang (former U.S. National women's champ) was on the same city team as Deng Yaping back in the days.  The truth is even if you got overlooked by the CNT at one moment, you will still get noticed if you performed well in other venues.  So I think the danger of overlooking talent in almost every field -including table tennis- it's more trivial than some tend to believe.




Edited by roundrobin - 04/29/2015 at 5:00pm

NextLevel wrote:   Yes, but those things are talents in the context of the ultimate goal. The usefulness of the notion of talent is more important that its absolute correctness. Error is a fact of life, not just in table tennis.

NextLevel wrote: I agree with the first part, but I think even if talent is the wrong word, something to predict and assess how people should be selected is necessary and that if it is better than being random, then it ends up being a matter of "talent", even if talent is the wrong word. I think that the second part has too many anecdotes built into it to be credible.  I attached the Michael Jordan article for that very reason.  The assessment against Deng Yaping has far less importance than you are trying to make out and is likely cited more often by people who take the fact that a relatively small mistake like that with little costs is a sign that a system is not infallible - which is not news to anyone who recognizes that infallibility is not the goal of such systems!

DY: Why join the provincial team? All coaches wouldn't accept it. They think I won't be good in the future, no future at all. So even you win the most of championships in the same age in that province, but you haven't a chance to join the team because they think you won't be good. Which is not fair for me personally, but because table tennis such a strong sport in China and the team coach has so many selections and so many candidates to choose good athletes, you have to show you will be good in the future. But technically you have to show some issues. So I cried through the night, but I want to show, but I don't know if I will be good. But I want to try. So he gave me the chance and I joined the Jiangzhou city team, so I trained so hard every day. Get up at 5:45 and we get together at 6 to run and running for about half hour or 40, but it's harder for me because I'm short and smaller."

If you have plenty to choose from, it doesn't matter if you overlook the most talented.

wturber wrote: The mixing of age related effects with "talent" in Canadian youth hockey is a better general illustration of how you might think you've identified talent but the reality is that a good chunk of what you identified is that older kids will tend to outperform younger ones and that kids who receive superior early training will tend to outperform those who don't.

roundrobin wrote: DYP was essentially an outlier who succeeded under particular circumstances (an one-of-an-kind LP bh blocker with 38mm ball in her era).  For sure she wouldn't have been able to succeed with her teammates' style (e.g. Qiao Hong's).  It's hardly a proof that the system grossly miscalculated.  In all likelihood, the other Chinese table tennis greats would have taken up her place in history if she was completely overlooked.

A question for those that believe that there is no such thing as talent or that everyone has the same amount of talent:

Do you think that you would be the same level as Ma Long and Zhang Jike if you had put in the same amount of training, were as motivated as them, received the same coaching, level of competition, level of practice partners etc?

If talent doesn't matter then why the likes of Hao Shuai and Chen Qi couldn't remotely achieve what ZJK did?  These two had more best-of-the-world training and opportunities than ZJK ever had.

ttTurkey wrote: A question for those that believe that there is no such thing as talent or that everyone has the same amount of talent:  Do you think that you would be the same level as Ma Long and Zhang Jike if you had put in the same amount of training, were as motivated as them, received the same coaching, level of competition, level of practice partners etc?

wturber wrote: But what I'm pretty sure of is that I'd be one hell of a lot better player than I am now and that many people would look at me as having been (in my fictitious prime) one of the more talented players in the U.S.  - and the coaches wouldn't have allowed me to play hardbat.  ;^)

It's also an unknown that your body would be able to take the punishment that ML or ZJK could, even if you were selected to train with them at the age of 5, all together under one roof.

roundrobin wrote: It's also an unknown that your body would be able to take the punishment that ML or ZJK could, even if you were selected to train with them at the age of 5, all together under one roof.

If someone has never taken a singing lesson in their entire life nor regularly practiced singing, yet they have a beautiful singing voice, would it be fair to say this person has a "talent" for singing?  I would say many of us know a person like this. I ask this question not to make any kind of point nor to take sides, but because I'm wondering how you would describe such a person if not "talented.

Edited by Ringer84 - 04/29/2015 at 8:23pm