1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Champions are made, not born!

Discussion in 'Physical education' started by FemaleFitnessCoach, Mar 31, 2011.

  1. Ooh I like this thread.[​IMG]
    I read something interesting just the other day which went something like this.....
    In Western Society we decide very early whether we're good or bad at something whether this is physically or maths or cooking or whatever - we talk about having strengths and weaknesses.
    In Japan they take the opposite approach and say that anyone can be good at something if they practice it.
    Guess which country has the better grades over a range of subjects......
     
  2. codswallop.
    And they are wrong. And it has had some pretty unattractive consequences, historically...
    Well focused bunch who indoctrinate at an early age resulting in fulfilling potential, or closer to it.
    Apart from small tribes who still communicate with grunts and clicks, every bloody country has higher grades than the UK! The ethos of the quick fix/easy life with no process in the UK leads to all sorts of downward spirals. In Japan, that just doesn't exist. Very methodical and thorough bunch, they are.
    It still doesn't explain that if everyone fulfilled their potential they would all end up the same. In Japan, they have national teams for sports that the better players (naturally gifted) get to represent. And ones that get nowehere near it. Ooh, I wonder why?
    Smoke that in your pipes.
    [​IMG]
     
  3. Er, no. You might presume that - I don't. It is simply not the case!
    Again, I disagree. Have seen it many times. Pick up racket, play, perform well! And I thought the word was talented, gifted is for the swots and nerds [​IMG]
    That's a contradiction.
    No. You would have had the natural ability to play cricket, tennis, football....perhaps not the same opportunity, but the same ability/ies. And once those opportunities arrived would have made super progress.
    MG - you only started another hread on this beacuse everyone disagreed with you on the first one you started! What do think is going to happen here?
     
  4. Nadia Comaneci - the judges thought so.
    9 dart finish. "Well, he's bombed them in like a German PanzA division!"??????
    147 Break?
    Archery/shooting - perfect scores?
    Any model accepting my offer of a dinner date....


     
  5. I'd forgotten about Knapp! Duh! So good she is standard in every textbook [​IMG]
    I always hold that perfection is impossible to achieve but should always be a goal for those wishing to attain elite performence.
    I doubt Komenich saw her 10 performance as perfect - watch it back now and you can see the errors! Teeny tiny wobbles that had no real effect on body line but were not perfect!
    I would say that no one performer has a perfect skill though many have a model technique! I know it is a bit semantic but I really do think that in competitive activities perfection should remain unachievable.... almost an ever moving goal!
    Striving for perfection is, I think, vital for the physiological development and mental health of an athlete!

    Good grief! That sounds so pompous [​IMG]

     
  6. No i started this thread becuase i find it a very intersting issue, and i wanted to get a lot of PE teachers opinions...im not here just to try and prove everbody wrong or for tit for tat argument.....im itnerested in the extent to which natural talent (if it exists!!) outwighs practise.
    Read Bounce, by Matthew Syed, and ex-olympic tabletennis player. Its very interesting.
     
  7. Im afraid I am..degree n everything.
    But, I have an open mind, and am willing to look at things afresh everynow and again.
    My inital response was to Foney who basically said that you couldnt improve skills kids achive a level that is innate.
    Mt assertion is that natural ability is far les important than we all think, and that practise, if it is done correctly can lead to some remarkable outcomes.
    Look into the story of LAzlo Polgar, and how he raised 3 female chess champuions.
    I would paste a link, but I dont have the innate ability.....
     
  8. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    ... or the inate ability to spell correctly - another thing which irks our friend FP.
    I have said it in a previous posting, you have got it wrong.
    Practice can lead to improvement, which on occasion can be amazing. However the level to which this improvement happens is defined/limited by innate ability.
    (PS this opinion is not based on the writings of anybody in particular)
     
  9. But we dont know what their early experiences are...just becuase they turn up to school appearing to be a natural, doesnt mean to say they havent honed their skills in an appropriate environment.
     
  10. bigfatgit

    bigfatgit Occasional commenter

    The answer to nature versus nurture is Andy Ripley.
     
  11. Jahangir Khan used to give up squash for three months of the year because he found beating people too easy. Pop back onto the squash scene and win again. Wasn't/Isn't there a 50 metre British WC (and WRH) from a few years back, who didn't want to train because of having to get up early etc so he opted for the 50 metres and not longer events?
    Steve Ovett said he used to run to get fit and that Seb Coe got fit to run. Ovett was (innately?) lazy but cardio vascularly (surely not a word) incredibly fit.
    And won gold. And was my hero.
    I don't disagrre with you, rohirrim, but there are exceptions...
     
  12. stopwatch

    stopwatch Established commenter

    ......and Linford Christie said that when he was a yoiung sprinter in his late teens/early twenties there were people training iwth him who were inately (naturally) faster.
    He acknowledged that it was due to his commitment to training, particularly early morning training, which eventually gave him the edge.
    These other people basically couldn't be bothered getting up to catch the training bus.
     
  13. bigfatgit

    bigfatgit Occasional commenter

    Yes, I remember when he was found to have 100 times the normal amount of "commitment" in his urine (oops! Allegedly")
     
  14. I think that it is worth opening up the discussion and that we should not be so harsh on MG. It is not an English lesson after all!
    Anyway, my belief is that there are children who train hard from an early age and initially are better than the rest. However, the children who have natural ability often catch them up and overtake them. To be at the top of your game, you have got to have some natural ability and then train harder to push yourself to the top. In elite sport, everyone has different levels of natural ability v learned skills. I don't believe that there is anyone in elite sport who was the worst in their class at their sport and then trained to become the best. I'd like to think there is because it gives everyone hope but I can't see it.
     
  15. I doubt that will be a comfort to him!
    It's not the English (well, it is a bit), it's the belief that we are all equal other than phyiologically. Nunsunse.

     
  16. "GIVE ME AN 'S'!"
     
  17. No it does.......please more comforting.
    Is there any proof that we are not equal, other than physiogically?
     
  18. But will some train harder/better than others?
    How do you measure if each individual is actually training at the same rate?
    How do we know Tiger is naturally gifted (sorry but he seems to be the best example of starting early), how can we be sure that his apparantly natural gifts are not the result of years and years of dedicated training.
    I am slightlyplaying deveils advocate, as im sure you will have got, but i find it fascinating to think that everything we have thought about natural gifts could be bullsh**t
     
  19. I don't find it fascinating at all.
    Until you have irrefutable proof that we are all the same, I shall watch my Year 1s for the next ten years (like the last lot, and the ones before them...) to show me that we are not.

     
  20. I suggest you read Matthew Syeds "Bounce"
    As a sports teacher, you will defo enjoy it.
    I didnt agree with all of it, but it makes you think.
     

Share This Page