I have long been persuaded of the merits of the nurture side of the nurture v nature debate.
As a coach I have always believed that hard work will beat talent when talent doesn’t work. I have seen it over and over, a hard working athletes that could be seen as less talented rising to the challeged while othersince refuse to do what is required.
Books like ‘the talent code’ and ‘bounce’ convinced me of the myth of natural talent, that there may not be any such thing.
I am comfortable with the thought that everyone can, given the correct stimulation at the correct time, achive all their goals.
The frustrating bit for me has become the reality that as a coach I see my athletes 4 hours a day, from the age of about 12……windows of trainability are narrowing for skill acquisition and I cannot control the stimulation they get outside swimming or before they even start swimming.
Then I read that the 10000 hour ‘rule’
10000 hours or 10 years (20 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, 10 years)
was something that ‘just sounded good’
The truth is, I don’t know if talent exists, and I don’t care. We could spend our entire careers waiting for that special talent to walk through into our program and miss the hard working athletes that we can encourage and motivate to be the very best athlete they can be.
The 10000 hour rule may not be a rule in the strictest sense but it can’t hurt.
Personally I’m still a nurture kinda guy