Re: Nature, Nurture, and SolutionTemplates

[Guest guest]

> Is there indeed some mechanism at work where the athlete or player

‘reads

> the field of play' and then instinctively ‘chooses’ or selects

a ‘solution

> template’ that enables the technical skill to be carried out at a

much higher

> level of success?

>

Practice makes perfect. Once you have a considerable experience into a

certain sport, you acquire a considerable repertoire of motor patterns

to apply in different situations, which enables you to perform at a

" higher level of success " .

Take climbing for example. If you " dont have the moves " , there is

little hope for you to advance too much on a rock wall. you simply

have to learn enough patterns to allow you to " survive " on the rocks.

Or the jiu-jitsu fighter, who due to the countless sparring sessions

during the years managed to acquire a technical proficiency which

allow him to actually fight. He 'senses' the fight , he senses every

move his opponent does, and is able to take advantage by mistakes,

because he has a vast repertoire of experiences.

Same holds true in a different way with chess players. Many

accomplished players learn a lot of different " moves " , by studying

hundreds, maybe thousand of predetermined situations on the board.

Because they do that, they are able to recognize a lot of emerging

gameplay patterns and take advantage of them.

Its all learning. Motor learning, in the case of sports.

But performance in itself is limited by other factors.

Strength and conditioning for one, which enable one to display

technical skill in many different energetic regimes, without loosing

skill.

Psychological aspects, which may protect against deterioration of

technical skill in stress conditions. Motor patters degrade rapidly

at higher degrees of arousal and anxiety. It serves no practical use

to have godly skills, if you cant use them. For example the fighter

who is good in sparring in his club, but can do nothing in an actual

official fight due to loosing skill to psychological pressure.

Dan Partelly

Oradea, Romania

[Guest guest]

The article raises many interesting and compelling points. It seems the " elite "

level athletes or " ultra " skilled individuals, at some point, separate

themselves from " average " or " ordinary " indivduals by simply putting in more

hours. BUT before we get caught up in a specific number of hours that determine

" greatness " in a specific skill we need to also consider other important

factors. The specific actions one does during ones allotted practice time as

well as the quality of those actions counts as much, maybe more, than the actual

duration of the practice. During a given an hour long practice session two

different individuals may actual have two different standards in regards to not

only content but also quality. Some people settle for mediocre whereas some have

a much higher standard for themselves.

Furthermore some people actually extend their practice beyond the formal

setting. In other words, some people continue the formal practice in informal

settings. While some people will spend their " free " time doing some recreational

activity such as watching T.V others may spend that time practicing their

skilled activity or sport and practicing their skilled activity or sport, to

such an individual, may actually be recreational and fun. 

Gallant

Bachelor of Science Exercise Science

Denver, Colorado

________________________________

To: Supertraining

Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 11:05:34 AM

Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and " SolutionTemplates "

I'm rather surprised that no one has pointed to this link yet. It may

not be " sports specific " , but it does make a compelling point.

http://www.guardian .co.uk/books/ 2008/nov/ 15/malcolm- gladwell- outliers-

extract

Salisbury

Boulder, CO

USA

Extracts:

.......This idea - that excellence at a complex task requires a critical, minimum

level of practice - surfaces again and again in studies of expertise. In fact,

researchers have settled on what they believe is a magic number for true

expertise: 10,000 hours.

" In study after study, of composers, basketball players, fiction writers,

ice-skaters, concert pianists, chess players, master criminals, " writes the

neurologist Levitin, " this number comes up again and again. Ten thousand

hours is equivalent to roughly three hours a day, or 20 hours a week, of

practice over 10 years.... No one has yet found a case in which true world-class

expertise was accomplished in less time. It seems that it takes the brain this

long to assimilate all that it needs to know to achieve true mastery. "

This is true even of people we think of as prodigies. Mozart, for example,

famously started writing music at six. But, the psychologist Howe writes

in his book Genius Explained, by the standards of mature composers Mozart's

early works are not outstanding. The earliest pieces were all probably written

down by his father, and perhaps improved in the process. Many of Wolfgang's

childhood compositions, such as the first seven of his concertos for piano and

orchestra, are largely arrangements of works by other composers. Of those

concertos that contain only music original to Mozart, the earliest that is now

regarded as a masterwork (No9 K271) was not composed until he was 21: by that

time Mozart had already been composing concertos for 10 years.

To become a chess grandmaster also seems to take about 10 years. (Only the

legendary Bobby Fischer got to that elite level in less than that time: it took

him nine years.) And what's 10 years? Well, it's roughly how long it takes to

put in 10,000 hours of hard practice.

Ten thousand hours is, of course, an enormous amount of time. It's all but

impossible to reach that number, by the time you're a young adult, all by

yourself. You have to have parents who are encouraging and supportive. You can't

be poor, because if you have to hold down a part-time job on the side to help

make ends meet, there won't be enough time left over in the day. In fact, most

people can really only reach that number if they get into some kind of special

programme - like a hockey all-star squad - or get some kind of extraordinary

opportunity that gives them a chance to put in that kind of work....

=================================

[Guest guest]

Because most coaches do NOT see the type of activities their players engage in

BEFORE they come to their formal sports program most coaches CANNOT tell whether

a given players " innate " ability is actually a result of  certain activities or

not.

Physical ability is honed and developed through physical activity including

informal and passive physical activity. Many athletes come from an environment

where physical activity is simply more common. Greater perception awareness may

be " naturally " developed in some environments more so than others only because

some environments are such that one HAS to develop higher perception arwareness

in order to " survive " in that environment.

Gallant

Bachelor of Science Exercise Science

Denver, Colorado

________________________________

To: Supertraining

Sent: Friday, December 5, 2008 11:42:09 PM

Subject: Re: Nature, Nurture, and " SolutionTemplates "

On Dec 4, 2008, at 3:44 PM, CoachJ1aol (DOT) com wrote:

> I still don't know to what extent this is trainable.

Hi Ken,

Everything is trainable -- but as we are both aware only to potential

limit -- what ever that is??

The best example I can think of is that todays caucasian dribblers are

approximating yesteryears

black athletes. I think zuzu can be trained -- to a much greater

extent than one might think -- with innovative perception awareness

and movement exercises.

============================