Michael Johnson slams Michael Gladwell - talent is key

Guppy wrote:

I thought he made a solid argument for success being a combination of talent, training, luck, and circumstance.

Um, if that really was his argument, no one would buy his book. Who doesn't already believe that?? People sell books by writing about "new" exciting ideas that overturn the conventional wisdom. For instance, speaking of Gary Taubes (we were, weren't we?), would he sell a book that said: "there aren't enough long term clinical trials to REALLY know what is the best diet. Probably a balanced diet of moderation in grains, meat, veggies and fruit, with a focus on not eating more calories than you burn, and getting enough activity is likely a good idea for good health" ?? No of course not. That's, to quote Homer Simpson, "booooor-innnnng." So he wrote "GOOD calories, BAAAAD calories", overturning (in his mind) the status quo of nutrition advice. Now that will sell you some books!

Iiii wrote:

Dewey_Runner wrote:

So two World and Olympic records qualifies as underachieving?

Underachievement means failure to reach your potential as an individual, you stupid, ugly faggot.

Ha ha, you are hilarious.

Iiii wrote:

Dewey_Runner wrote:

So two World and Olympic records qualifies as underachieving?

Underachievement means failure to reach your potential as an individual, you stupid, ugly faggot.

So Iiii, assuming Johnson truely 'reached his potential', what else could he have done?

rekrunner wrote:

Most of what is wrong with Gladwell is how he presents himself as an adept in science, but cherry picks and interprets his data, while ignoring contradicting data.

You just described what the majority of "scientists" do.

iCurious wrote:

Iiii wrote:

Underachievement means failure to reach your potential as an individual, you stupid, ugly faggot.

So Iiii, assuming Johnson truely 'reached his potential', what else could he have done?

He was focused on the 200m (better relative time than the 400). Not sure it means that Clyde Hart was a bad coach as no one else has been able to get anyone to that performance level (for 400m) or even close. Certainly one could claim that a 19.32 might lead to a faster 400m (2.2-2.15 x 200 = 400), of a range of 41.5-42.5, but that requires getting away from speed, making 19.32 less likely, and it's not like MJ had any competition to push him to a faster level for 400m anyway. His form always looked a bit awkward, but it worked for him - some coaches may have played with that too much, to his detriment, more to make it "prettier" rather than functional.

The problem with Hart, and many coaches fall into that trap, is too much of a system that works for some, even many, but not for everyone. The more people you deal with the easier it is to rely on that rather than realize that some individuals will not respond well to that system, so you have to figure out something for them without compromising the system for others for whom it does work.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

Guppy wrote:

I thought he made a solid argument for success being a combination of talent, training, luck, and circumstance.

Um, if that really was his argument, no one would buy his book. Who doesn't already believe that?? People sell books by writing about "new" exciting ideas that overturn the conventional wisdom.

Apparently you haven't read the book.

Without Mercy wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

What are you smoking? He doesn't slam Gladwell anywhere in there.

"The four-time Olympic and eight-time world champion insisted that natural ability was “first and foremost” in the makeup of a great athlete. “You can practice for 10,000 hours but it’s (still) critical to have talent,” said Johnson."

Pretty qualified "slam".

BS. Not even close to a 'qualified slam'.

I doubt it. In any case most scientists don't become best selling authors by trying to pass off exceptions as fundamental laws. Here's a good critical slam of Gladwell. It shows how sometimes he pretends to pass himself as a scientist, while at other times pretends to be a story teller.http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/10/malcolm_gladwell_critique_david_and_goliath_misrepresents_the_science.single.html

eedca wrote:

rekrunner wrote:

Most of what is wrong with Gladwell is how he presents himself as an adept in science, but cherry picks and interprets his data, while ignoring contradicting data.

You just described what the majority of "scientists" do.

Who would you say is the most well known Michael?

Johnson

Gladwell

McGwire

Jordan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AggeSjZwx6s

on my high school track team there was a kid that never took anything seriously or trained outside of official practice, yet got 3rd in state in his event junior year before quitting the team. I on the other hand, trained hard all offseason for 3 years and barely qualified for the state meet my senior year.

For the record:

1. My name is Malcolm.

2. The 10,000 idea doesn't apply to running, and doesn't rule out the idea of talent.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/2013/08/psychology-ten-thousand-hour-rule-complexity.html

3. If you would like to write about what I actually said in Outliers, I'd be happy to send you a copy. :-)

Much of this was covered in "The Sports Gene". http://thesportsgene.com/

Then you trained in a stupid and inefficient manner... And you have inferior talent

talent wins wrote:

on my high school track team there was a kid that never took anything seriously or trained outside of official practice, yet got 3rd in state in his event junior year before quitting the team. I on the other hand, trained hard all offseason for 3 years and barely qualified for the state meet my senior year.

Some fun facts: my middle name is "X," and the sitcom "Malcolm in the Middle" is a fictionalization of my youth.

Here is a good video of coach Jack Daniels on the ingredients of success. He lists #1 as "ability".

Daniels is actually consistent with both Gladwell AND Epstein. All give weight to the "opportunity" and "motivation" part of the equation. Gladwell never discounts ability (talent, genetics). Epstein never discounts practice time.

An experiment is done on most HS and College cross country teams every year. The experiment goes like this. 15+ guys do EXACTLY the same training for ~4 months. Amazingly, they do not end up running EXACTLY the same time for the cross country 5k, 8k or 10k. Conclusion? There are lots of factors, but talent/ability/genetics is an important one.

Never heard of him wrote:

Who is Michael Gladwell?

OP, please answer this question. Your thread title references a person who doesn't exist and you deserve to have your nose cut off with a rusty bread knife.

Please Address wrote:

Never heard of him wrote:

Who is Michael Gladwell?

OP, please answer this question. Your thread title references a person who doesn't exist and you deserve to have your nose cut off with a rusty bread knife.

Um, ever heard of Mike McGwire?

Swingliner wrote:

In Gladwell's case, he figured out that he needed to write journalism rather than anything rigorous or substantive.

Johnson and Gladwell--different from each other, but both sellouts. We will never know if Johnson had the native talent to excel in the 400 without the drugs, but we do know for sure that Gladwell lacks the native talent to be a serious essayist or author.

Relative to, presumably, the literary achievements of anonymous Letsrun poster Swingliner.

Perhaps unknown to you, Gladwell has been read and reviewed by serious essayists and authors by the dozen. Insubstantial potshots like this probably mean as little to him as...well...Letsrun potshots regarding 200/400m coaching do to Clyde Hart.

Gladwell is almost certainly a more talented runner and writer than you. You may be a better internet troll with another 5,000 hours.

CriticalThinking101 wrote:

Here is a good video of coach Jack Daniels on the ingredients of success. He lists #1 as "ability".

Daniels is actually consistent with both Gladwell AND Epstein. All give weight to the "opportunity" and "motivation" part of the equation. Gladwell never discounts ability (talent, genetics). Epstein never discounts practice time.

An experiment is done on most HS and College cross country teams every year. The experiment goes like this. 15+ guys do EXACTLY the same training for ~4 months. Amazingly, they do not end up running EXACTLY the same time for the cross country 5k, 8k or 10k. Conclusion? There are lots of factors, but talent/ability/genetics is an important one.

Talent's certainly important, but nobody is doing the same training and recovery across an entire team.