Is talent irrelevant for great success?

Is natural talent largely irrelevant to great success? Or is it "you've either got it or you don't"? Everyone can improve. Everyone can get better. How good you can actually become depends on innate God-given talent. Some people might be able to improve to a :55 100 yard free. Others improve, with the same amount of training, to a :51. The difference is talent. I could train for 100 years and never go a :22 in the 50 meter freestyle. That's okay - God has gifted me in other areas. Smart training with proper rest can help anyone make improvements of which they can be proud.

I may be reading this part incorrectly. It seems to imply that talent is all or nothing - you have it or you don't. Are there degrees of talent? I think there are degrees of talent. I was quantifying the unquantifiable by saying "there is no overlap in the range of talented and untalented swimmers," only because we can agree that there is such a thing as an "untalented" and "talented" swimmer. Though noone knows what the proper definition is. Ankle flexibility, height, hand size I think those are natural talents. Feel for the water, the will not to lose etc. those are just talents. Anyhow, a spin-off subject. The best swimmers I know hated losing more than they enjoyed winning. Which is a bigger motivator, fear of losing or desire to win?

Anyhow, a spin-off subject. The best swimmers I know hated losing more than they enjoyed winning. Which is a bigger motivator, fear of losing or desire to win? Hmmm----I think a fear of losing is a greater motivator. No one likes to lose. Think about your races. For me, I am always a little nervous before a race, but when I know I'm racing a rival or someone who has a very close time to mine, I feel more edgy - thinking thoughts like "I will not lose" or "she won't beat me, I won't let her." that fear of losing really lights a spark in me. anyone else the same way?

Talent??? Some have it all but cannot use it because of other problems. We often hear if he or she had only trained more what would he have done. I heard this so many times when I was younger. Here I am 73 and Herb Jones came up to me this summer in his wheel chair (he is 96 years old) and said "George if you had only trained more". Two of my daughters had this, what I call natural talent for swimming they were dreams in the water. Linda was hit by a car and ever after that as soon as she attained the times that would get her a championship in her age group she had to stop swimming because her knee would swell like a ballon. So we did not continue. Janis was amazing at 10 but we moved to a town no pool for 200 miles end of swimming career.

To me, the "take away" from the article was that the fastest way to improve is to deliberately set out to find ways to improve. Last year I had the opportunity to watch some of the national team members working out and to chat with a couple of them. One of the interesting things one of them told me was if you watch the level of effort of the swimmers the ones that consistently push hard in every set in practice are never the ones that make it to the highest levels. He said the very best swimmers will often appear to be totally slacking off for some sets and then blow everyone away on others. I thought that was pretty interesting. Lindsay: I found this very interesting too. I have observed the same thing with age groupers and masters swimmers as well. I think the best swimmers know that there is "a time to go fast and a time to go slow." Killing yourself on every set does not always yield the best results. When I was an age grouper, my best friend was the absolute hardest worker on the team. But she would consistently do her best times at practice and get beat by the "slackers" in meets. It seemed unfair, and still does, but it just proves that "natural ability" is indisputably necessary to achieve "great success" and trumps plain old hard work. Of course, "great success" is susceptible to multiple definitions too. Only .00001% of current age groupers will become Olympians. Very few will ever go to senior nationals. I think swimmers that are not as naturally gifted can nonetheless have rewarding and good careers in swimming. Those will be the ones following the advice in the cited article and purposefully setting out to make the most out of their individual phsyiological and psychological gifts. I do think that hard work, determination and pure grit, combined with some innate talent, can take an aspiring athlete pretty darn far. Perhaps farther than a naturally talented athlete who has neither the desire or the discipline. And of course, as Terry pointed out, those are the ones that are the most fun to coach.

I think for swimmers most would agree it helps to be tall with long arms, big feet, and have a metabolism that avoids gaining weight. Look at the NCAA Division 1 rosters and you will see this. I agree with this. Don't forget big Brendan Hansen hands. Sometimes there are exceptions for the short axis strokes like our own Allen Stark. And I was just reminded by the head coach of my daughter's USS team that there are many, many 5'10" men getting college scholarships in swimming through sheer determination. I don't look anything like you described. Neither does my swimming daughter. But we hold our own. (We do avoid that weight gain thing.)

Hoffam: I hope you're not a sprinter like me.

Either you have it or not I believe this is true. If we followed this pricipal of the selected few we return to the Russian, East German days. I prefer everyone thinks they have a chance, even if they don't.

I agree that physiology is perhaps a better way to look at this than talent since it is not easy to define talent. I think for swimmers most would agree it helps to be tall with long arms, big feet, and have a metabolism that avoids gaining weight. Look at the NCAA Division 1 rosters and you will see this. I too have seen many cases where the best practice swimmers were not good meet swimmers. I think these people spend all their energy (including mental) in training and have nothing left for competition. I tend to think these swimmers could be coached to perform differently - so they focus less on winning warmup and more on beating someone in a race. I train with a guy close to my age - who regularly kicks my ass in practice. He can repeat 100s on 1:10 while I need 1:20. He is a great kicker. He beats me in meets too - but not by as much as he beats me in practice. I have seen some age groupers who seem to have extraordinary balance and control over their bodies at an early age. I think that is a gift. I don't believe they learned it in the crib. The Natalie Coughlin book implies that Natalie has a special ability and feel for water that allows her to move extra fast compared to others. I don't doubt this - and see no reason to doubt it is inherited as much as math problem solving is.

Watching people preparing to race can be very strange. Some get angry, some look very relaxed, some anxious. When I go to the horse races I look for the relaxed ones that are not frothing.