

The excellence myth: Why 10,000 hours isn't enough - cwan
http://www.sportsscientists.com/2011/06/10000-hours-doping-sports-science-in.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FcJKs+(The+Science+of+Sport)

======
msie
The following comment is a good summary:

 _Having said that, I don't totally disregard Bounce, Outliers and those
theories of practice. I just think it's ludicrous to say that "practice is
sufficient". And that's the crux. It's not about dismissing the role of
practice, it's about asking the right question. And it's pretty crazy to ask
"Is practice important?" That's obvious, particularly at the elite level. And
if you read Bounce and Outliers, then you'll see that they argue this - their
position is that practice will get anyone to the level of the best performers.
Can't be true.

So basically, I'm just calling for moderation, a more balanced view. There's
not a decent physiologist in the world who would argue that it's ONLY genes,
so why argue that it's ONLY practice. In fact, I have data from research that
shows that practice is very poor at explaining performance, that if anything,
practice is less important than some other, unmeasurable factors.

I'm getting into the details, and as I said, I'll get this done as a proper
series, but the bottom line is that it must be both - you must be born with
the right genes, then train in the right environment. Gladwell and co are
addressing only the latter part, and sure, it's important and helpful, but
it's also wrong to be exclusive... _

