The Data Quite Clearly Support a View of Skill from Chess and Music to Baseball and Tennis

The Data Quite Clearly Support a View of Skill from Chess and Music to Baseball and Tennis

The data quite clearly support a view of skill—from chess and music to baseball and tennis—that is based on a paradigm not of “hardware not software,” but of both innate hardware and learned software (37).

This theory leads to an ever-increasing discussion: how do stellar athletes acquire their skills? In The Sports Gene, David Epstein, senior writer for Sports Illustrated, analyzes a broad range of studies—from developing toddlers to Olympic champions—in order to develop a thesis for the cause of athletic success.

Epstein precludes The Sports Gene with a short introduction: a narrative from his high school track years in which he was outperformed by what we call the “naturals”. We remember who those athletes were. The ones who made it look so easy and effortless. But what made them so successful? As Epstein asked, “Did Ken Griffey Sr. gift his boy with baseball batter DNA? Or was the real gift that he raised Junior in a baseball clubhouse? Or both?” (xii) This emphasizes the major point of his conclusion: sport skill acquisition does not happen without both specific genes and a specific environment.

Throughout chapter one, Epstein proves the importance of perceptual expertise. For example, major league baseball players found it impossibly difficult to hit off of Jennie Finch: Team USA softball pitcher for the 2004 Olympics. Not only was she throwing at top speeds, the baseball players lacked the knowledge for detecting clues from the ball. Meaning this: the seams of both softballs and baseballs serve an important purpose. They allow the hitter to read the spin of the ball and determine whether or not it may curve or break at the end. Without the seams, hitters would be dependent only on body position of the pitcher. The difference between major league stars and amateur players is their ability to read these clues. Here is where perceptual expertise comes into play and distinguishes between levels of success.

Dutch chess master and psychologist Adriaan de Groot, concluded that these perceptual sports skills that separate experts from dilettantes are learned via practice (14). Therefore, although genes may play a small part in one’s athletic ability, practice is the primary component of success. Chapter two—entitled “A Tale of Two High Jumpers (Or: 10,000 Hours Plus or Minus 10,000 Hours)”—introduces the “magic number of greatness”, otherwise known as the 10,000-hours rule. This is simply an average for the number of hours it takes to become an expert in a particular event. Therefore, what may look like unfair hereditary genes at work is essentially the affect of hours of practice accumulated over the years. This rule not only pertains to athletics, but education as well.

Unfortunately, no one is born with a brain full of knowledge. Therefore, we attend years of schooling in order to learn and become well-informed individuals. Without endless hours of studying and countless dreadful tests, we would lack much of what we call “common sense”. The 10,000-hours rule is everywhere, although we do not label it as such. We are able to read and write because we practiced. Your driving skill-level improves with every trip you take. When it comes down to it, practice could very well be the greatest contributing factor for success.

Although practicing is beneficial, how soon should strict deliberate training begin for athletes? Needless to say, certain skills require immediate practice—gymnastics, for example. However, on the contrary, early specialization in other sports may actually be detrimental. Take sprinting for example. Doing specific workouts for speed development may cause an individual to plateau early in their career. That is, they reach their maximum speed and constant rhythm and are unable to progress any further with their skills. Consequently, this prevents the natural build-up of muscle and general body development. Therefore, although practice is essential, over-training may prevent athletes from reaching their maximum potential.

So if practice (as opposed to genetics) is the overwhelming factor in athletic performances, why are we separated based on gender? Epstein mentioned a journal in which a team of UCLA psychologists wrote an article entitled “Will Women Soon Outrun Men?”. They graphed men’s and women’s world records throughout history for every running event ranging from the 200-meters to the marathon. It was determined that the rate at which women improved was far steeper than that of men. Therefore, in the first half of the twenty-first century, women would beat men in all running events. It turns out this theory was false: from the 1950s to the 1980s, women had an explosion of speed (perhaps due to performance-enhancing drugs) which would follow with a plateau (63). The difference with the men is that they have yet to reach said plateau. Therefore, they continue to inch forward with their times.

But why does this gap exist in the first place? What makes women slower or less athletic than men? Unsurprisingly, males tend to be taller and heavier with longer arms and legs relative to their height. A larger body often means a larger heart and lungs. This leads to more blood flow and easier respiration, which is beneficial for endurance. Another obvious difference is testosterone level. Professional athletes sometimes take drugs to increase levels of testosterone. That being said, it must play some role in the functioning of athletes. In fact, Epstein noted that there are small DNA differences that will ultimately affect one’s ability to be trained.

Chapter five evaluates this trainability. Sometimes an athlete needs to be challenged in order to discover their hidden talents. Often times we reach our full potential by taking risks. Epstein’s example is a boy who yearned for a letterman’s sweater. He quit baseball once the baselines were extended. His legs turned to bricks after sprinting 200 meters. However, he would not be discouraged. The boy decided to go out for the cross country team as a freshman in high school. Low and behold, at nineteen years old, he is asked to join the U.S. Olympic team and will later set the world record for the mile. He shaved off ninety seconds of his mile time from fall to spring the previous year. The question here is, how could he have progressed so quickly? A collective of five universities in Canada and the United States will conduct a project known as the HERITAGE (HEalth, RIsk factors, exercise Training And GEnetics) Family Study in order to discover this cause.

After studying ninety-eight two-generation families, the HERITAGE Family Study introduced the importance of aerobic capacity: a measure of the amount of oxygen a person’s body can use when they are running or cycling full out. Despite previous experience, athletes have the tendency to improve their aerobic capacity drastically. Consequently, stamina and endurance also increase. This was the case for Ryun, the boy who goes on to set the world record for the mile. As athletes go through puberty, their body begins to grow and strengthen. Therefore, repetition of workouts will cause an increase in aerobic capacity. But when does this amount max-out? Are individuals born with greater capacities than others?

As a track participant, I know very well that my endurance is much lower than that of the long-distance runners. I am winded after running 400 meters. Is this because I have had little experience with distance training or due in part to a small aerobic capacity? Perhaps both. Epstein realized that some of the world’s greatest endurance athletes seem to come out of the box in far better shape than others. He goes on to describe this occurrence in chapter seven: “The Big Bang of Body Types”.

Weight room training and skillful coaching play a huge part in the development of athletes. I noticed a huge difference in my performance after having lifted in the off-season. I was able to jump significantly higher and move much quicker. As a female, I also know I have to work that much harder in order to gain muscle. College athletic programs have massive weight rooms for their athletes because they know how important it is to be strong. All of these factors—lifting, coaching, aerobic capacity, perceptual expertise, and practice—contribute to the success of our athletes today. Without such benefactors, we would not continue to break world records and push the limits of our expectations.

Epstein concludes the first half of The Sports Gene with a great transition into further perspectives: It would be blind and silly to ignore the importance of access to equipment and coaching … and it would be just as blind to ignore the conspicuously thorough dominance of people with particular geographic ancestry in certain sports that are globally contested and have few barriers to entry (141). As one can assume, the next chapter will likely be about race—primarily blacks. What sets them apart from others? Epstein noted that practice was the leading cause for differentiation in skill level; however, blacks seem to dominate during competition. What role does racial diversity play on an athlete’s performance?

I am eager to finish the second half of The Sports Gene and hopefully have some of my questions answered. Epstein has done a superb job of approaching athletics from all perspectives. The reason behind variations in sports performances is fascinating. I can only wonder how many individuals are exceptions to these paradigms.

Permalink Reply by Katey Trecker on October 17, 2013 at 10:23am

Delete

The book blog was excellent and very informative, but I kept wondering about practicing.

"Practice makes perfect." If the statement is true. How can I only work on track during the season and see improvements in just a short three months than one who practices year round not see the amount of improvements? How can that be? I am still wondering if talents of sports just comes naturally to those who are in the Olympics or televised sports, or there is a gene to those that are exceptional. Or is there a type of level for some that others just do not contain?

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Message
  • Edit

Permalink Reply by William Polking on October 17, 2013 at 11:01am

Delete

The clear metamessage here is that Katey Trecker does not like to practice.

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Edit

Permalink Reply by Lauren Janning on October 30, 2013 at 8:54am

Delete

I must start by saying that I do not in fact think this statement is true. Unsurprisingly, I am sure many athletes would agree. I think it just gives people a reason not to give up. We know the contrary is true (if you don’t practice, you won’t get better) but we cannot promise that practicing will make us perfect. In regards to the comparison between two athletes, it is important to keep in mind the training they undergo. As previously stated in my first book blog, doing specific workouts for speed development can cause an individual to plateau early in their career. That is, they reach their maximum speed and constant rhythm and are unable to progress any further with their skills. Therefore, an individual who takes a small break in the off-season may be better off when it comes time for practice in the spring. It is extremely difficult to see constant improvements if you continue to train for months and months; at some point, you reach your limit. Therein lies the distinction.

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Message
  • Edit

Permalink Reply by Colton Thompson on October 17, 2013 at 10:25am

Delete

The book talks about how professional athletes are separated by having both genetic ability and incredible work ethics. From your experience at the high school level, do you think that the difference between "great" athletes and the "good" athletes is because of work ethic and practice, or simply a lucky roll of the genetic dice?

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Message
  • Edit

Permalink Reply by Lauren Janning on October 30, 2013 at 8:54am

Delete

I would like to say that the success of athletes here at the high school is based on their work ethic and determination, but I do not think that is necessarily the case. Take myself, for example. I know of individuals who put forth five times the amount of effort I do and cannot seem to obtain the results they are hoping for. That is what makes it so hard to be an athlete sometimes: the ones who work their tails off can never seem to outperform those with “natural talent”. Unfortunately, at the high school level, the naturals may often trump the hard-workers.

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Message
  • Edit

Permalink Reply by William Polking on October 17, 2013 at 11:00am

Delete

The 10,000 hour rule has become widespread in its acceptance, but as with most such things, key components are often lost in the translation.

For instance, does the rule argue that anyone, regardless of genetic ability, can practice for 10,000 hours and become expert at any skill?

And, isn't the real rule 10,000 hours of deliberate practice? It matters how and what you practice, yes? As a student and athlete, you surely recognize your classmates/teammates are not always focused in the classroom and/or practice, yes? So how much of that 10,000 hours is simply about the time, and how much is about the willingness (which itself might be genetic--some psychologists call it volition) to focus on improvement during that time?

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Edit

Permalink Reply by Lauren Janning on October 30, 2013 at 8:56am

Delete

I was recently thinking of this idea as a spoke with a friend. They were incredibly frustrated because they said it wasn’t fair: how can someone who practices for years and spends countless hours training not see the same results as those who work very little? What allows people to be so diverse in their ability? Unfortunately, I do not think every individual has the capability to become an expert at any skill. This is partially due to genetics. In the case of Olympic distance runners, their aerobic capacity exceeds that of most average athletes. For those with less than average capacity, it is likely that they are unable to perform as well as the elites in a long-distance race. Genetics are what make each individual unique, allowing us to specialize with our talents and stand out among a group of competitors. They create an athletic hierarchy.

“Don’t just go through the motions.” This statement directly emphasizes the importance of “deliberate and guided practice”. While being present and accounted for at practice or in the classroom may be beneficial, it in no provides the individual with the greatest experience available. Common sense tells us this is a simple cause and effect situation: no practice means minimum success, practice with lack of focus and determination leads to improvement but not full potential, and deliberate practice reveals expertise and possesses the greatest chance of success. As Epstein stated in the first half of The Sports Gene, “Studies of athletes have tended to find that the top competitors require far less than 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to reach elite status” (34). That being said, one’s focus and commitment can outweigh the time spent on perfecting a specific skill.

Top of Form

▶ Reply

Bottom of Form

  • Message
  • Edit

Permalink Reply by Lauren Janning on October 30, 2013 at 9:05am

Delete

Acknowledging the existence of talent and of genes that influence athletic potential in no way detracts from the work it takes for that talent to be transformed into achievement (284).

Epstein continues the second half of The Sports Gene with chapter nine, regarding race and genetic diversity. Kathryn North, along with her colleagues, studied the ACTN3 gene, which codes for the production of the alpha-actinin-3 protein in the muscles (152). They discovered that this was a gene for speed: it may have a structural impact on how explosively a muscle fiber can contract. However, it seemed that the gene was favored by natural selection only in non-African environments. That is, African Americans lacked this gene and therefore certain variants of the alpha-actinin-3 protein. It turns out that an absence of the protein may make the fast-twitch muscle fibers more efficient. This would explain why the majority of elite athletes tend to be of African descent. Rather than being a cause of genetics, their speed may come from their unique cultural background.

“No one can argue that there was selection of the fittest slaves” (165). Chapter ten talks about how being a slave actually benefited the Jamaican culture. Epstein explained how the strongest and fittest were brought onto the ships for slave-trading and eventually ended up in the west quadrant of Jamaica. Coincidentally, this is the exact region where both Usain Bolt and Veronica Campbell-Brown grew up. Despite their ancestors, Jamaicans are raised learning to sprint. Every child is taught at an extremely young age that running (sprinting in particular) is important. Therefore, they see a lot more talent coming through because there is a considerable amount of participants. This occurrence is the reason for separation by class in American high school athletics. Each school district is classified based on their student population. A larger number of students increases the chances of having more athletes with potential. Therefore, Ankeny, whose senior class contains upwards of 700 students, is ranked as a 5A school while Carroll, with a senior class of roughly 120 students, sits comfortably in class 3A for most sports. This segmented idea is equivalent to divisions in college sports as well. While keeping this theory in mind, it is no question why Jamaicans have a dominant lead on the Olympic podium.