Chris Olson SSC: Are You Training Effectively for Your Sport? Part 3

[Mark Rippetoe]

Are You Training Effectively For Your Sport? Part 3 | Chris Olson

[Mark Rippetoe]

If you've read the excellent series of articles from Chris Olson, you may be thinking "Why was it necessary to write this? Is it not obvious?"

It's not obvious to everybody:

POV: Hitting the weight room with Aliyah Boston, Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever �� - YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZNo...l=IndianaFever

And this is why these articles are necessary.

[novicejay]

Are You Training Effectively For Your Sport? Part 3 | Chris Olson

"Not only are they more skilled from birth. . ."

Just in case some folks are reading and believe that these guys were skilled at playing soccer when they came out of the vagina, this is incorrect.

Perhaps Chris is referring to the fact that he believes these gentlemen have some genetic factor they were born with which makes them faster or more explosive but I'm not sure and I'm not aware of any study on any of these players that supports that conclusion.

This is the most important part for me: "If you’re seeking external help in this area from a qualified coach, make sure you’re only receiving SKILLED coaching."

Finding the right coach who knows what they are doing is incredibly difficult.

[Mark Rippetoe]

"Not only are they more skilled from birth. . ."

Just in case some folks are reading and believe that these guys were skilled at playing soccer when they came out of the vagina, this is incorrect.

Perhaps Chris is referring to the fact that he believes these gentlemen have some genetic factor they were born with which makes them faster or more explosive but I'm not sure and I'm not aware of any study on any of these players that supports that conclusion.

I think it's clear that Chris was referring to the advantages he possessed from having the right parents. And do you really need a "study" to tell you that some kids are better at sports than other kids?

[Jason Donaldson]

Jay - suppose you were observing an athlete performing a skill, say it's throwing a ball to someone a long distance away, and saw that the athlete performed the skill very effectively. How would you discern how much of that performance was acquired behavior vs. natural ability?

The answer, of course, is that you couldn't. You need historical information to make that determination. It's not a performance based distinction, while skill inherently is. Did the person throw the ball with sufficient power and accuracy?

Some athletes are more naturally gifted the first time they pick up a ball or whatever. Of course they learn and get better at it from observation, teaching, and practice, but there are innate advantages and disadvantages across individuals - i.e. ones idiomatically describable as being "from birth".

(Bonus word nerd point: When we speak of "natural talent", we're using a term that came from root words meaning, "from/by birth": natural | Etymology of natural by etymonline )

[novicejay]

Jay - suppose you were observing an athlete performing a skill, say it's throwing a ball to someone a long distance away, and saw that the athlete performed the skill very effectively. How would you discern how much of that performance was acquired behavior vs. natural ability?

The answer, of course, is that you couldn't. You need historical information to make that determination. It's not a performance based distinction, while skill inherently is. Did the person throw the ball with sufficient power and accuracy?

Some athletes are more naturally gifted the first time they pick up a ball or whatever. Of course they learn and get better at it from observation, teaching, and practice, but there are innate advantages and disadvantages across individuals - i.e. ones idiomatically describable as being "from birth".

(Bonus word nerd point: When we speak of "natural talent", we're using a term that came from root words meaning, "from/by birth": natural | Etymology of natural by etymonline )

I read what you wrote but I want to make sure: Are you suggesting that someone is "naturally gifted" the "first time they pick up a ball or whatever"? If you mean they can do certain skills that are necessary for performance in a sport better such as the ability to swing a golf club or the ability to shoot a basket, you are incorrect.

I think it's clear that Chris was referring to the advantages he possessed from having the right parents. And do you really need a "study" to tell you that some kids are better at sports than other kids?

You need a study to determine what makes people experts. This has been studied exhaustively by what I consider the godfathers of how experts become experts, Dr. Anders Ericsson (deceased now) and Dr. Robert Pool.

And I think I've read every book and every study on this subject that has ever been published not just by them but others.

[Yngvi]

I read what you wrote but I want to make sure: Are you suggesting that someone is "naturally gifted" the "first time they pick up a ball or whatever"? If you mean they can do certain skills that are necessary for performance in a sport better such as the ability to swing a golf club or the ability to shoot a basket, you are obviously correct.

I think you made a typo in your original post.

[novicejay]

I think you made a typo in your original post.

Please cite any study, book, etc., that supports your opinion.

I think I've read all of them and all of the books and I have not found any credible one that actually supports your claim.

But, I'm happy to see if something else has popped up that I may have missed.

[Yngvi]

Please cite any study, book, etc., that supports your opinion.
I think I've read all of them and all of the books and I have not found any credible one that actually supports your claim.
But, I'm happy to see if something else has popped up that I may have missed.

When your books disagree with the observable phenomena, it is the books that are wrong.
This is how science works; your theory must conform to reality, not the other way around.

[novicejay]

When your books disagree with the observable phenomena, it is the books that are wrong.
This is how science works; your theory must conform to reality, not the other way around.

This is exactly what I thought.

You haven't actually read any of the studies or books and have nothing to refute any of the actual science.

Instead, you have guesses and conjecture.

I don't deal with those when it comes to studying how experts become experts.