There is always a case of a child in sports that seems almost super human for their age. Look at the Minnesota Gopher's hockey team. Kyle Rau is only a freshman yet is a 1st line starter. Travis Boyd is a 2nd line player as a freshman, but he is the age of a high school senior. How did these players get so good? Is it a matter of their physical and genetic qualities? Or is it all due to the fact that they train harder than all the other hockey players that try to play at a D-1 school? The answer is hard to come by, but it could be a result of either or, or a combination of the two. Take for example Micheal Jordan, arguably the greatest basketball player of all time. He did not make his high school basketball team for the reasons of being too short and not having the skills necessary to play at that level. The next year Jordan grew 4 inches. That took care of the height issue but what about the skills issue? Jordan practiced more in the off season than any other player and made the team. This is more of an example of how nurture prevailed. Sure Jordan grew 4 inches, but if he hadn't have practiced and been coached he never would have developed the skills to become that great basketball player. There is also the case of Usain Bolt. A freak of nature that shatters records in sprints. "Bolt was born fast though". He does not have to train for the as much as other athletes and he will still win. This is the example nature prevailing. Can you figure out the answer to the question, are great athletes born or made?
Are Great Athletes Born or Made?
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/177016
Hard work can only get an athlete so far. There are always the players who are just forced into a sport by their parents because the athlete shows a natural talent for it. Sometimes the laziest athletes who do not give effort at practice are still the best ones on the team. Also hard work can be beneficial but genetics can still influence the outcome. An athlete can work but it may be pointless if he/she has a a genetic problem such as weak bones or their body frame.
This is a good debate. I think that in the case of athletes, one can't state one thing for every athlete. There are a lot of kids that I know that on paper should be great athletes but then they go out and they do not play up to expectations. I do think there is a correlation of nature and nurture. You can be born athletic but you have to work at whatever you do. You can't achieve greatness by just showing up. For example, in my family my parents were both athletes yet my brother and I are very different in our athletic endeavors. He was not born an "athlete" but he has worked at his sport and ended up becoming very successful in his career.
I like such idea that you are expanding the idea of nature and nurture issue in sports.
It is really enjoyable to read. It is true and most of people would agree that the nature or nurture is debatable but cannot be concluded into one factor.
There should be some cases that nurture influences a lot to the athlete to be a great performer.
However, as there are many cases in drug abuse among the athletes to run faster that enhance the level of adrenaline. For example in 1988, Ben Johnson won the 100m race in Seoul Olympic by cracking the world record, but his running had been turned out with taking of prohibited drug. (CBS sports online, 2003).
Not only Johnson but many of athletes have been caught for similar issues and there are strict regulations have been set nowadays.
Check out if you want to see Ben Johnson's final sprint on you tube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTM_mvA4kas
This is definitely a controversial issue and I think that a lot of people will disagree with each other on whether its natural talent or hard work. I think that in order to be a star athlete it needs to be a combination of both determination and genetics. For example, when i played goalie in hockey and one of my friends was the other goalie for the team. My friend would travel all over the country and even to Canada to receive training from NHL goalies and professional goalies and had been doing this for years. When tryouts came around we both made the team, but i ended up becoming the starting goalie even though I did not nearly have as much training as my friend. This is just one example of how you may work very hard at becoming the best, but if you do not have natural talent all the hard work might not make you a pro. I think that this discussion of natural talent and hard work can be applied to other professions too. Such as a natural talent to draw or to be good at working with your hands. Overall, I think that hard work does play a major role in the development of an athlete, but natural talent plays a key role in how quickly an athlete progresses and develops those skills.
Very interesting topic! I definitely think that athletes are born with some sort of "raw" talent and that through hard work they continue to get better. I do believe that nurture determines this however because if two different people were to work hard to the same extreme and be in the same environment, there will still be one of the better than the other at some athletic talent.
I agree with the previous comment. Its a combination of "raw" talent and an incredible work ethic that gets people to the top level. I could have trained everyday of my life to be a pro basketball player but I would not even come close to having the ability to be in the NBA. At the same time there could be an athlete with incredible natural athleticism but does not practice and that person would get no further than me. My reasoning is that both traits are necessary in order to be an athlete at the highest levels.