The Larger Lessons from Tiger Woods / Michael Vick fall from grace (and possible redemption)

IT SEEMS FAIRLY EASY, RIGHT?!? - TEN SIMPLE RULES TO FOLLOW. - WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?!?

If we review both cases, we can see from the stunning story lines of both athletes rise and fall from grace a similar, oft-repeated path in their lives--a road-map if you will--that can provide some larger life lessons for those who deal in sports at the youth level.

Sometimes, these negative stories can provide valuable examples of what we need to look out for and prepare for to prevent similar occurrences in the future.

We preach how sports participation can help provide a moral framework for parents to pass on to our children and yet we hear the arguments over whether participation in sports DEVELOPS character or whether it in fact REVEALS character. A nature/nurture type of debate.

Some of the research coming out has pointed in the direction that--in the early stages of participation at the youth level--sports can be a valuable tool to teach strong values that kids can use throughout their lives. As athletes travel further and further up the ladder into the professional ranks however, these values are eroded and deteriorate.

We need to find out why this happens so we can figure out how to avoid this erosion and deterioration in the future. We can't of continually bang our heads against the wall in frustration, continually doing the same things over and over and expecting different results (definition of INSANITY alert).

I submit that the examples provided in the Michael Vick and Tiger Woods sagas provide classic, text book examples of how we get into this mess and how we can get out.

CONFORMING TO THE WORLD'S VIEW OF RIGHT AND WRONG SEEMS TO LEAK IN - TIME AND AGAIN. - RIGHT ?!?

In Michael Vick's example, we find that when Tony Dungy began his involvement with Vick he asked him point-blank "Where was the Lord when all this was happening?"

Vick's respose was very telling.

http://www.bpsports.net/bpsports.asp?ID=6088

Dungy said Vick told him about going to church almost every week with his mother in Virginia and knowing there was a God. He said Vick talked to God while growing up and continued to pray during college at Virginia Tech.

But when he finally made it to the NFL with the Atlanta Falcons, his faith and his life took a turn for the worse.

"Michael said he felt God had answered his prayers by getting into the NFL and maybe he didn't really need Him anymore."

Let's review the key points:

- In the early years, he had a strong value system in place.

- As he advanced, he drifted away from that value system.

- He felt he didn't need it anymore once he reached a certain level.

Now we see that Michael Vick is continuing on the proper path and hopefully he will stay on this path the rest of his life.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/at-super-bowl-breakfast-michael-vick-talks-about-faith

Vick spoke standing beside Dungy before 1,100 fans, in his first-ever retelling of the role faith played in his life at the maximum security prison in Leavenworth, Kansas.

"I wanted to redeem myself," Vick said. “Pre-incarceration, it was all about me. When I got to prison, I realized I couldn’t do it anymore. The one thing I could rely on was my faith in God."

--------

From the Tiger Woods apology:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/02/19/tiger.woods.transcript/index.html

I knew my actions were wrong. But I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply. I never thought about who I was hurting. Instead, I thought only about myself. I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me. I felt I was entitled. Thanks to money and fame, I didn't have far -- didn't have to go far to find them.

I was wrong. I was foolish. I don't get to play by different rules. The same boundaries that apply to everyone apply to me. I brought this shame on myself. I hurt my wife, my kids, my mother, my wife's family, my friends, my foundation, and kids all around the world who admired me.

I've had a lot of time to think about what I have done. My failures have made me look at myself in a way I never wanted to before. It is now up to me to make amends. And that starts by never repeating the mistakes I have made. It is up to me to start living a life of integrity.
I once heard -- and I believe it is true -- it's not what you achieve in life that matters, it is what you overcome. Achievements on the golf course are only part of setting an example. Character and decency are what really count. Parents used to point to me as a role model for their kids. I owe all of those families a special apology. I want to say to them that I am truly sorry.

Part of following this path for me is Buddhism, which my mother taught me at a young age. People probably don't realize it, but I was raised a Buddhist, and I actively practiced my faith from childhood until I drifted away from it in recent years. Buddhism teaches that a craving for things outside ourselves causes an unhappy and pointless search for security. It teaches me to stop following every impulse and to learn restraint. Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught.

Again, virtually the same story,

- Once he got to a certain level of success, the value system eroded and he became disconnected from them.

"I knew my actions were wrong. But I convinced myself that normal rules didn't apply."

"Obviously, I lost track of what I was taught"

- He became self-centered.

"I thought only about myself."

- He was able to justify his behavior to himself because of who he was and what he accomplished.

"I ran straight through the boundaries that a married couple should live by. I thought I could get away with whatever I wanted to. I felt that I had worked hard my entire life and deserved to enjoy all the temptations around me."


We hear a lot about how important these guys are as role models to kids and how sports participation itself is important to kids growth and development. Then we get these rich, powerful teaching moments and what are the top issues the MSM puts the focus on?

- Why wasn't the media allowed to ask questions?

Who cares? Irrelevant!! And yet, that was one of the lead issues these whiny babies brought to the fore. Why were we left out?

- A lot of useless speculation on what he said, what he didn't say, what he should have said, what he was wearing, not wearing, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah.

Who cares? Most of it useless, pointless speculation based on the talking-heads own biases and experiences. Sorry Chief, YOU ARE NOT Tiger Woods!!!

- A lot of useless speculation based on what Elin should do or not do.

Again who cares? That's between Elin and Tiger. I wish them the best of luck. It's pointless speculation from dim-witted talking heads who haven not heard her position in the first place and can not even do enough research to properly pronounce her name. But we should accept that they know exactly what she should or should not do, or will or will not do about such a personal matter. We don't care what you would do, YOU ARE NOT Elin Woods!!!

- The lack of acceptance of said apologies offered by the self-appointed heads of Forgiveness Nation (the MSM). In most cases, this is after the MSM hounds the athletes publicly to ISSUE an apology!!!

WOW!! How forgiving is that? The lame-stream media refuses to accept Tiger's apology since they didn't get a chance to run the inquisition...UH press conference. That's a good example to set for kids. Tiger crafts one of the most complete and comprehensive public apologies yet offered, when in fact--he only needs to apologize to his wife and family--and the media spits on it. Yeah buddy, that's where I want to get my values from--the mass media. Let's stop asking any of these guys to apologize publicly if the self-appointed representatives of public opinion are going to reject all of them. What do they want, for someone to come out and slit their own throats? Oh, wait a minute, that would probably help ratings, wouldn't it?

If they were really concerned about the effect that Tiger's actions had on fans or on the nations youth and anyone else foolish enough to IDOLIZE him or any other athlete (Charles Barkley looking smarter every day) then at least be concerned and intelligent enough to present the core issues that seem to be common and recurring every time the story is told.

- Don't forget who you are or where you came from.
- Don't compromise your values--they were good enough to get you there, they should be good enough to keep you there.
- Build your house on solid rock not on sand.
- Don't let the ways of the world change your value system.
- Your value system requires daily care and maintenance, no matter who you are and what you have accomplished. The high and mighty simply have further to fall.

I guess I expect too much out of the Mainstream Media. It seems so simple, really.

Tiger Woods Apology

This is a scene that nobody who was a Tiger Woods fanatic ever DREAMED they would associate with him either personally or professionally.

And therin lies the crux of the problem we see time and time again when dealing with the crestfallen athlete. We assume that the prodigious character traits and abilities that we see and admire in the field of competition correlates with the same athlete possessing the same qualities and abilities off the field. IT JUST ISN'T SO. LESSON LEARNED, ONCE AGAIN.

He's a golfer. A great golfer. Maybe the best golfer of all-time. He wasn't a god of some sort, worthy of false idolatry. What we should learn from this is not to get too caught up in the "building up" process, so that we are not as crestfallen when the athlete goes through the inevitable "tearing down" process.

They build them up. They team them down. They rebuild them if the circumstances allow it.

It's been going on with superstar players since I don't know when.

This cycle should not come as such a great surprise to us because we've seen it so often and Tiger even touched on it within his apology. He got caught up in the situation. He believed the press clippings. The repetitive cycle includes a process of building a person up as the "next" whatever or whoever. We put too much faith and too much emotion in this part of the process. We want to believe in the inherent greatness of those we admire. Inevitably, the person disappoints in some fashion (what, being human and all) and is torn down as an idol worthy of our praises. Then, if they are fortunate, there is a period of redemption, or a comeback. Tiger is simply moving through the various stages a little quicker than we previously thought he would.

I thought the apology itself was very thorough and comprehensive and very heart-felt, if not somewhat mechanical in delivery.

Like McGwire's apology, it could not have been easy for someone who was at one time on top of the sports world, to find himself almost literally lying face down in the dumpster.

Unlike McGwire's apology, there was no evasiveness, no finger pointing. Tiger's apology should be the template for other athlete's to use in the future.

So WHEREVER Tiger finds guidance to deal with this in the future (elbows Britt Hume in the ribs), I wish him luck.

Agent - Zero (IQ) Update

WHO'S JOKING NOW, GILBERT? IT'S ALL FUN AND GAMES UNTIL SOMEBODY DOES THE PERP WALK

So he's looking at maybe 6 months, if the judge accepts the prosecutors recommendations. Or this judge could go max like the Michael Vick judge did and go to 5 years.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4829508

The NBA has suspended him indefinitely. As part of a plea deal, prosecutors agreed not to ask for more than six months in jail for Arenas. He will be sentenced by Superior Court Judge Robert E. Morin. Morin could sentence Arenas to anything from probation to a maximum of five years in jail.

Here are the details of the incident from the same story. I understand different venues, different prosecutors, different leagues and political climates, but given the prior history with Arenas, if this judge doesn't up the ante, he's making a mockery of the gun laws that will resonate across the country. High profile cases, unfortunately have a tendency to do that.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Chris Kavanaugh, reading in court from a statement of facts that Arenas agreed to, said the charge stemmed from a Dec. 19 dispute with another player over a card game. Kavanaugh did not identify the other player, but authorities have searched the home of teammate Javaris Crittenton for a gun.

Kavanaugh said the disagreement developed during a team flight back from Phoenix. The other player offered to settle matters with a fistfight, but Arenas, 28, said he was too old for that and suggested he would instead burn the other player's Cadillac Escalade or shoot him in the face. The argument on the plane ended with the other player saying he would shoot Arenas in his surgically repaired knee.

Two days later, Kavanaugh said, Arenas brought at least one gun to the Verizon Center in a black backpack. He laid out four guns on a chair in front of the other player's locker with a sign saying, "Pick one."

When the other player asked, "What is this?" Arenas responded: "You said you were going to shoot me. Pick one."

The other player said he had his own gun, threw one of Arenas' weapons across the room and then displayed what appeared to be a silver-colored firearm, Kavanaugh said.

His biggest punishment for the crime could be, like Vick, the voiding of his huge contract by the Wizards. It is also being reported that Adidas has ended its endorsement deal with Arenas.

It's staggering to think back that over the last year or two, almost a quarter of a billion dollars in salary and/or endorsements up in smoke over issues of character, conduct or bad behavior. Actions do carry consequences. Ask Michael Vick, Plaxico Burress, Tiger Woods and now perhaps Gilbert Arenas to follow. Not to mention the troika of college coaches (Mangino, Leach, Leavitt). Granted, some may rehab their reputations or careers and recoup some of the money back, but still, a lot of money just vaporized.

In a bit of irony, I just heard some of the NBA pundits weighing in on the odds of Arena contract being voided (small) and one of them speculated that if the Wizards did successfully void the deal and make Arenas a free agent that the team most likely to be first in line to sign him - THE NEW YORK KNICKS.

Mayor Bloomberg, meet your city's newest sports star.

Sports specialization gaining ground - will it fall victim to economic choices?

Parents may want to do what they perceive as best for their athletically gifted children, but will the current economic crisis cause a shift back to the more traditional youth sports route and away from the elite, club level sports teams? We won't know for sure without the benefit of hindsight as the participation numbers roll in, but the staggering costs of participation will almost have to lead to a shift away from the travel ball teams.

Typical costs for participation in youth sports at high levels:

Softball ~$1750
Admissions - $100
Registration - $150
Tournament Fees - $400
Equipment - $150
Travel Expenses - $350
HS Activity Fee - $150
SB Equipment - $150
HS Travel Expenses - $250

Football ~$1150
Clinics - $50
Speed Agility Camp - $75
Equipment $50
HS Activity Fee - $150
Equipment - $200
Travel Expenses - $200
Admissions - $400

Baseball ~$2200
Tournament Fees - $350
Travel Expenses - $350
Admissions - $200
BB Showcase - $500
BB Clinic - $50
Speed Agility Camp - $75
Equipment - $200
HS Participation Fee - $150
HS Travel Expenses - $300

Basketball seems to be a bit more immune to these accelerating costs, so it seems as if the travel ball, AAU type influence will to continue to dominate the landscape here.

$5,100 per year for a SB playing daughter plus a two sport (baseball and football) son. Typical middle to upper middle class family with money to spend but not money to waste.

** Sports like softball, baseball, volleyball, hockey and lacrosse are becoming too expensive for low to middle income families to participate. They risk being considered "country club" sports like golf, tennis, horse back riding and polo.

** Overall Costs Reduce Participation Rates - The gap between participation and success rates between the haves and the have-nots is clearly widening.

** Time Constraints Reduce Participation Rates - between 24-48 hours per week for practices and games. For a two parent family with more than two kids, the schedules can stretch parents thin. For a one parent family, where the parent works two jobs, parental participation can be near impossible task.

** Increased Participation Fees Reduce Participation Rates - The number of students who do not play high school sports because their families cannot afford the participation fees and are too embarrassed to apply for a fee waiver is growing.

Parents may be seeking some economies of scale by cutting down the number of sports their children participate in rather than eliminate participation entirely, thereby cutting down the number of multi-sports athletes and increasing the number of "sports specialists" to cut overall expenses.
-----------
Benefits of Multi-Sports Participation - Negatives of Sports Specialization

Benefits

** Specialists peak at age 15-16 versus 18+ for multi-spots athletes
** Specialists master their sport skills faster than multi-sport athletes
** HS specialists are WYSIWYG while multi-sports athletes leave room for higher ceiling or projectability
** Specialists tend to have higher injury rates

Negatives

** Added risk of overuse injuries
** Added risk of burn out
** Percentage of College Scholarships awarded is small
** Not achieving full athletic potential

A cursory look at almost any major collegiate baseball teams player bios will show that between 66-75% of the players report participation in multiple sports.

The majority of players drafted in the NFL draft report playing multiple sports in high school.

A majority of draft gurus and GM's from baseball and football default to "taking the best athlete available" after the early rounds.

Most college recruiters look for multiple sport participation and score players who do letter in ore than one sport higher. One of the questions on virtually every college athletic application is "what other sport did you participate other than your primary sport"?

Research continues to pile up showing that multiple sport participation is the better route to athletic success than early specialization.

Research Supporting Multiple Sport Participation:
(Hill, 1988)
(Hill & Hansen, 1988)
(Matheson, 1990)
(Gillis, 1993)
(Cardone, 1994)


Research Supporting Specialization:
(Lord, 2000)
(Hill, 1987)
(Hill & Simmons, 1989)
(Hill & Hansen, 1988)
(Hash, 2000)

We hear a lot about the success stories such as Tiger Woods but not as much about those that went the specialization route and did not succeed.

The great examples of multiple sport participation stretch back in history from Jim Thorpe, Babe Didrickson, Bo Jackson, Deion Sanders, Cal Ripken, John Elway to Joe Mauer. Decades and decades of success stories that continue to this day.

Most think it unwise to specialize at a young age.
Some even think it bad through high school.

With the pot of gold at he end of the rainbow being the allure of a college scholarship, many parents are led to believe that specializing is the best way to become good enough at a sport to have a shot at obtaining one.

Multiple sports participation should be encouraged from an early age though college years. It is better to encourage a wide range of athletic activities to build a solid base of athletic skills that will transfer to a higher level of sports skills in the athletes sport of choice.

Multiple athletic activities -> Higher level of Athletic Skills and Abilities -> Higher Level of Sport Skills and Abilities.
----
From CoachesInfo.com

Specialization in Sport: How early... How necessary?
David Susanj, Butte Public Schools, Mt, USA; Craig Stewart, Montana State University, Mt, USA

http://www.coachesinfo.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=303:specialization&catid=91:general-articles&Itemid=170


References
Bill, A. (1977). The effect of an off-season skill development program on high school basketball players. (Masters Thesis, University of Wisconsin-Lacrosse,1977) pp. 10-16.

Bloch, J. (1992). Illinois school acts on specialization. Interscholastic Athletic Administration, 18 (4) 22-23.

Cahill, B. R., & Pearl, A. J. (1993). Intensive Participation in Children's Sports. Human Kinetics Publishers, Champaign, IL.

Cardone, D. (1994). A.D. Roundtable: Has specialization in sport affected participation in interscholastic programs? Scholastic Coach and Athletic Director, 64 (5), 4.

Coakley, J. (1992). Burnout among adolescent athletes: A personal failure or social problem? Sociology of Sport Journal, 9, 271-285.

Dalton, S. E., (1992). Overuse injuries in adolescent athletes. Sports Medicine, 13 (1), 58-70.

DiFiori, J. P. (1999). Overuse injuries in children and adolescents. The Physician and Sportsmedicine, 27, 1.

Encyclopaedia Britannica Online. [online]. Available: http://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?eu=74141&sctn=1&pm-1 (Accessed 24 March 2002).

Gillis, J. (1993). To play one or several school sports? Such is the issue of specialization. National Federation News, 10 (9), 16-20.

Hammel, B. (1974). The 60 game winning streak: who won, who lost? Phi Delta Kappan, 56 (10), 125-128.

Hash, L. (2000). Sharing athletes. National Federation State High School Associations Coaches' Quarterly, 4 (3), 10.

Hill, G. M. (1987). A study of sport specialization in mid-west high schools and perceptions of coaches regarding the effects of specialization on high school athletes and athletic programs. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1987). UMI Dissertation Services.

Hill, G. M. (1988). Student participation: Directors opposed sport specialization in high school athletic programs. Interscholastic Athletic Administration, 14 (4), 8-9.

Hill, G. M. (1993). Youth sport participation of professional baseball players. Sociology of Sport Journal, 10, 107-114.

Hill, G. M., & Hansen, G. F. (1988). Specialization in high school athletics: A new trend? Clearing House, 62 (1), 40-41.

Hill, G. M., & Simons, J. (1989). A study of the sport specialization on high school athletics. Journal of Sport and Social Issues, 13 (1), 1-13.

Hollander, D. B., Meyers, M. C., & LeUnes, A. (1995) Psychological factors associated with over-training: Implications for youth sport coaches. Journal of Sport Behavior, 18, 3-18.

Kantrowitz, B. (1996, December 9). Don't just do it for daddy: Parents can push. But real success awaits the kids who want to achieve for themselves. Newsweek, 128 (24), 56-58.

Leonard, W. M. II. (1996). The odds of transiting from one level of sports participation to another. Sociology of Sport Journal, 13, 288-299

Lord, M. (2000, July). Too Much, too soon? Doctors group warns against early specialization. U.S. News Online. [online]. Available: http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/issue/000717/athlete.htm (July 19, 2000)

Martin, D. E. (1997). Interscholastic sport participation: Reasons for maintaining or terminating participation. Journal of Sport Behavior, 20 (1), 94-103.

Matheson, B. (1990). Specialization: A detriment to high school sports. Saskatchewan High Schools Athletic Association Bulletin, 14 (4), 5-6.

Micheli, L. J., (2001). Injuries among young athletes on the rise. United States Sports Academy's Sport Supplement, 9 (1), 1,8.

Smoll, F.L., Magill, R.A., & Ash, M.J. (1988). Children in Sport (3rd ed.). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Stevenson, C. L. (1990). The early careers of international athletes. Sociology of Sport Journal, 7, 238-253

Trusty, J., Dooley-Dickey, K. (1993). Alienation from school: An exploratory analysis of elementary and middle school students' perceptions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 26 (4), 232-242.

Weiss, M. R., Petlichkoff, L. M., (1989). Children's motivation for participation in and withdrawal from sport: Identifying the missing links. Pediatric Exercise Science, 1, 195-211.

Yaffe, E. (1982). High school athletics: A Colorado story. Phi Delta Kappan, 64 (3), 177-18.

Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down

THUMBS UP

Bobby Knight for speaking openly, honestly and directly about integrity in college basketball with his rather pointed comments about Kentucky coach John Calipari. Maybe if more coaches had the spine to speak openly about this type of behavior, we wouldn't have the cesspool of conduct that exists today.

----------

Northwestern University for their grit and fight in the Outback Bowl in Tampa versus Auburn University. One of the most entertaining bowl games of the season. NU is another school that does it right academically and still competes well on the football field. Came up a little short at the end, but it was great to see them mixing it up with the big boys.

-----------

Tim Tebow's college football finale. Fitting way for him to go out and even more of an interesting resume enhancer for his future foray into the NFL. Kudos to Brian Billick for pointing out how strange it is that people would root against him to succeed. Maybe all the jealousy is because he takes a little bit of media attention away from other fine role models such as Tiger Woods, Kobe Bryant, LeBron James and the like? Perhaps.




THUMB DOWN

Texas Tech's football program.

We have either on of the following elements at play here, if not some sort of toxic stew of all elements blended together.

1) an old-school, out of control coach overstepping his bounds by dictating medical procedure to his athletic training staff to discipline a player he disliked.

2) a prima-dona player with a hyper-involved, little league parent gone wild.

3) a school with buyers remorse over being taken to the cleaners in recent contract negotiations who no longer wants to honor said agreement.

See y'all in court numb nuts.

---------

Washington Wizards Gilbert Arenas and some other guy I never really heard of carrying, storing and now reportedly brandishing weapons in the locker room.

Now, I seem to recall Plaxico Burress losing his job, let's see how the NBA smooths this one over. Of course, these guys won't have a preening, posturing mayor pushing the so-called Justice system to turn the screw tighter. And these guys won't have to worry about witnesses, because I'm sure there won't be any bitches doing any snitching and junk. Not that there should be any bitches in an NBA locker room, but you know what I'm saying?

Gives whole new meaning to the chatter you hear about a guy being a good "locker room presence". Now you have to know if a guy has a reputation for packing, or if he'll pull his piece and start capping half your team in the ass.

Oh and WTF were we gambling on that allegedly brought on the Gunfight at the Not-OK Corral? Anything to see here?

NBA Basketball, It's FAN-tastic!!!

Patience is a virtue

If there is one quality or character trait that would change the climate in sports it would have to be patience. Patience described by one well-respected author as "that calm and unruffled temper with which the good man bears the evils of life, whether they proceed from persons or things."

Granted, we live in a microwave, point and click society. We want things immediately in many areas of our lives. News, information, products and services. We live our lives looking for instant gratification and when things don't go our way we become angry and frustrated.

If people truly were more patient in the sports arena it would lead immediately to the following positive climate changes:

Improved decorum and sportsmanship at games and increased level of respect amongst players, coaches, fans and officials. Think about it; most of the issues arise from an increased emphasis on winning and achievement pushed down from the professional level to the youth sports level. Parents feel that either they or their children are doing something wrong if they have not produced the next Tiger Woods by two years old or if they have not attained some "McDonald's All-American" type status before puberty.

Some of these national publications that rank athletes prowess on a national basis before they've graduated middle school are ludicrous, as is anybody who puts any stock in them.

Specialization, burnout and overuse injuries would be less problematic as parents and young athletes realize they don't have to peak by the time they are twelve years old. There is a virtual lifetime of participation in most sports after twelve.

Team morale and inter-squad political issues would be reduced making life easier on coaches if kids realize they don't have to be a starter as a freshman in high school or their future in the sports is crushed.

Patience is a major building block in building faith and confidence in an athlete. If the basic ingredient is lacking or has not been developed fully, the athlete may not have deep, total confidence in their abilities. They do not truly trust their skills and abilities. The patient athlete ends up being a more valuable teammate in the long run.

What we see happen many time is the development of a feeling of entitlement among parents and players that prevents them from seeing the process they have embarked on from a long-term standpoint. This short-term thinking results in a tunnel-vision view of the environment around them and they take team situations far too personally.

We see a lot of athletes who are very talented who do not harness their abilities until the "slow the game down" and "allow the game to come to them". In effect, what we are describing to them is to develop PATIENCE.

In baseball, we like to see hitters demonstrate patience and allow the pitcher to come to them. It takes young hitters some experience to learn what that means. The same is true with the development of QB's and RB's as they progress from one level of competition to the next. Point guards in basketball are often better when they grow in patience and don't force the action.

Many athletes have the requisite talent. They have the tools in the tool box in terms of athletic gifts. They players who take care in the formative years to learn the discipline of patience tend to take learn how to use their tools to the fullest extent.

PATIENCE - But endurance must do its complete work, so that we may be mature and complete, lacking nothing - James 1:4

At what age should kids begin to compete in sports?

One of the age-old arguments in youth sports revolves around the question of when should kids begin to participate in sports competitively?

Are we "playing to win" or do we "just let them have fun and be kids"?

Many old-school, traditionalists feel like sports have become emasculated by the current "everyone gets a trophy", no winners or losers philosophy that has infiltrated sports recently.

Some question whether this helps kids make the transition to competitive situations they will certainly face later in life. Teens will compete for the limited numbers of placements in a favored college, for summer jobs, etc. Is sports the proper venue to teach kids how to compete? And if it is when is the proper time, if there is one?

As is true in many areas, experts continue to differ:

Rachael Lever of the Salt Lake City Parenting Examiner says “fun policy” leagues are wrong and teaching children that everything has to be fair sends the wrong message.

“It doesn’t teach them about being a gracious loser. It doesn’t teach them about being a gracious winner. They gain a false sense of fairness. If no one ever gets out, they don’t learn the real rules of the game.”

“People lose games. People have accidents. People die young. You don’t always get an equal portion of ice cream. Sometimes your words are misinterpreted. Sometimes you get blamed for something you didn’t do. Life is not fair. But it’s a great learning experience, and we are taking that away from our children.”

From the same article child psychologist Tamar Chansky, Ph.D., says children are more resilient than we give them credit for.

“If we want kids to see how they can ride out disappointment we need to let them stay on the ride.”

On the other hand, the “just let them have fun” advocates feel that serious competition should not be introduced until age 10.

Before age 10, sports should be about fun, skill development, coordination, and physical fitness.

Before age 10, children should be introduced to the concept of rules and how to cooperate.

Jay Coakley, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Colorado, told the magazine. By age 10, most kids are ready to keep score and compete to win.

“Cooperation is the foundation of ethical competition. Unless they have those kinds of experiences, they’re going to turn into difficult-to-coach 12-year-olds.”

“Kids are going to lose in life. If we explain that that’s a terrible thing, they’re going to become competition-avoidant. Instead, use the opportunity to instill meaning in winning and losing and that the way we improve at anything is by trying.”

-------
The consensus seems to be that somewhere around nine or ten years old is the pivot point where competition can be introduced. The best work I have seen on the subject has been the concept of Long Term Athletic Development popularized by Dr. Istvan Balyi of the National Coaching Institute in British Columbia, Canada.

A summary of Balyi's work provides a common-sense outline for youth sports that I hope catches on south of the border.
- Balyi believes that from ages six to ten the objective should be for kids to have FUN in sports, participate and concentrate on general motor skill development.
- Learn to run, jump, hop, skip, climb, fall, tumble.
- Competition and results are not a priority.
- One or two practice/games per week for six to twelve weeks.
- If the child participates in other sports/activities 2-4 times per week, all the better.

- From ten to twelve fourteen old, INTRODUCTION to competition can begin.
- Some form of general training or sports specific conditioning can begin.
- The season can extend from the 6-12 weeks to as long as 20-30 weeks.
- Training and practicing should occur over game competition at a 3:1 ratio.
- 3-4 games/practices per week is preferred
- Participation in other sports/activities should still be encouraged at this age.

- From fourteen to eighteen years of age, the objective and focus turns more to athletic and sports skills development with competition an increasingly important issue for players and coaches.
- Coaches are focusing on developing and consolidating the physical, mental, technical and tactical skills and abilities of each player so they can compete at the appropriate level.
- Length of seasons progress to 35-45 weeks in length.
- Training/practicing and competing occur at a 1:1 ratio.
- As many as 6-9 games/practices per week are preferred.
- Participation in other sports would still be encouraged, but not during the same season.

- After 18 years of age, competition and high level performance are the objectives. Competing to WIN.
- Physical abilities should continue to be developed and maintained at a high level.
- Mental, technical and tactical skills are improved and developed according to the level of competition.
- Program length can extend to 45-50 weeks.
- Competing and sports specific practice is conducted over training at a 3:1 ratio.

A long-term outlook and commitment to both training, practicing and competing is required to produce elite athletes in virtually every sport. The good news is that the late specialization sports--like baseball--do not require a manifestation of immediate results for success at an elite level.

Your son does not have to be Tiger Woods, demonstrating precocious skills at age 3, to reach the top of the sport.

In sports like baseball, if you have the basic, fundamental athletic skills, you can be up to 16 years old before you start learning the technical aspects of the game itself and still reach your peak.

It is easier to teach an athlete to play baseball than it is to teach a baseball player to be an athlete.

Think Long-Term Athletic Development and not Short-Term Specialization.

It takes ten years of extensive training to excel in anything - Herbert Simon, Nobel Laureate

- Current research indicates that it takes between eight and twelve years of training for a player to reach the elite/expert level.

- Those involved in developing expert performance in sports believe that it generally takes up to 10 years or 10,000 hours of focused practice to achieve elite level of performance in sports activities (as well as playing an instrument, chess, etc.)

- Parents should avoid the tendency to push kids into "peaking by age twelve". Nothing is fundamentally determined by this age that is going to impact the players future.

Conclusions:

- Parents and Players are always searching for the magic drill or the magic coach that is going to take them to the promised land. It's a fallacy.

- There are no short-cuts to success in athletic development.

- An over emphasis on competition in early phases of training or development will always lead to shortcomings in an athlete's abilities later in the process.

- Due to the wide variation in development or maturity for athletes between the ages 10 through 16, any attempts to rank or order players are basically meaningless in the long-term. Some kids are early bloomers, others are late developers.

- Multi-sport participation should be encouraged over early sports specialization in order to develop a wide, solid base of motor skills in young athletes. Guys like Cal Ripken, Carl Crawford, Joe Mauer and many others have not been hurt by multi-sport participation.

I will also say that the biggest fallacy that exists is that some coach or instructor was responsible for a specific player making it to the major leagues. Nothing could be further from the truth, in my opinion. And parents shouldn't rest their hopes and expectations on any one coach or team to elevate the player into being anything he is not capable of being based on his work ethic or love for the game. Those two qualities will overcome a multitude of mistakes.

It is the player who gets himself to the major leagues. In my opinion, the people most responsible for helping a player succeed are his parents. Getting to the major leagues is a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week, 365-day-a-year task. No coach or instructor is capable of making that happen individually. Unless, of course, the coach/instructor is the player's parent. Players will go through many different coaches in their climb up the ladder of success, they will only have one set of parents.

Sadly, in sports it seems as if success has many parents, but failure is an orphan.

The parent-child relationship is more important than any parent-coach relationship in determining the child's future development in and love for the sport. If that relationship is tainted or dysfunctional due to unrealistic or unhealthy expectations, no expert coach will be able to repair the damage.

The Masters & This Weeks Miscellaneous Notes

The Return of Wood Bats to High School Baseball:

One of the more awesome things I saw this week was the use of wooden bats in one of the High School games I umpired. Apparently the Illinois High School Association is funding the use of wooden bats in certain conference games to provide data for comparison against the use of aluminum bats. There were quite a few broken bats in the game, the near arctic conditions may have had something to do with that, as well as for the lack of offense the wood bats are definitely going to bring.

As far as safety, one of the broken bat barrels went flying almost to the infield dirt between shortstop and third base. That's the one detrimental safety issue wood bats bring that aluminum does not (flying shards of wood), but apparently the minus three (-3) length to weight of the aluminum bats may not be as safe as originally believed.

But it was awesome to see the use and the sound of wooden bats in a high school game. I think we went from wood to aluminum bats when I was about 10 years old, which would be around 1969 or '70. I haven't seen many wooden bats used in game situations at the youth level since. In training situations, I try to get kids to at least take BP with wood and swing aluminum in games if they have to. Some are reluctant to go along. They should have seen some of the swings these high schoolers were putting out with the wood in their hands.

Rule of Thumb:
Aluminum Bat Swing Mechanics + Wooden Bat = Low Batting Average.
Wood Bat Swing Mechanics + Aluminum Bat = High Batting Average.

Something about not using the lower half of the body and just flicking the hands, which you can get away with when the power of aircraft aluminum bat technology is in your hands. Remove the "trampoline effect" and most kids can't generate any kind of power.

Kids in this conference who are used to hitting .300 may have to get used to .150 or less. Pitchers will be safer and much happier and may learn to pitch inside a bit and throw less breaking balls and more fastballs. What, those are not some of the residual effects we are tracking and studying, just safety? Oh well, I guess we have to hope that safety somehow rules the day.

The Cubs:

OMG. Where do I start? The over/under on Lou Piniella's first meltdown was ten games. He came in right about on the mark. He may wish he was back managing Tampa Bay in a couple more weeks.

Also coming in under the 10 game over/under mark for going on the DL was Mark Prior.
This time he is sent to the DL after his first appearance in AAA, before he even exceeded his self-imposed pitch count. I think I am in agreement with most Cubs fans who speculate that the mysterious ailment Prior suffers from is a torn labia.

For the anatomically challenged reader, it means that Mr. Prior may in fact be wasting his time seeing Dr. Lewis Yoachim the orthopaedic surgeon, he might be better served seeing a good gynecologist. Rough fans here in Chi-town.

Maybe he should ask Dr. Tom House to tell him the story about how Uncle Tommie's computer told him that Mark had perfect mechanics again. Garbage in, garbage out, I guess. That was a good story though. This guy can't be anymore a doctor than Dr. Suess. Oh and apparently he's not returning Mark's calls since he got hurt. Don't want a failure like that on your most recent marketing materials. Use the towel from the towel drill to cry into, Markie.

The Giants:
OK, so it's not time to panic over the poor start. But it is a good time to get panic warmed up in the bullpen. I'm just saying, fellas. Zito struggles. Bonds a little slow out of the gate, but still looks much better at the plate than last year, for certain. Cain pitches well, no offense. I know, a game or two here and there. A bounce or two. That's the small sample dilemna. But Giants fans are getting loose. That's all I'm saying.

The Masters:

By the way, his name is Zack Johnson, and he WON THE MASTERS. Tiger Woods didn't lose it. Why would he? That's not what he does. All the Tiger apologists, who had their stories written and the results pre-ordained, need to relax, take a deep breath, take off their Tiger Woods Under-oohs, and give Zack Johnson his just due. The kid made the shots he needed to and yes, Tiger folded under the pressure. "What just happened?" You just lost Tiger, it happens.

Of course, you knew most of the mainstream media would bury Zack as a feel-good story as soon as he took the occasion of his winning on Easter Sunday, to thank God. I know I did. No doubt about it. And that is of course what happened. Just calling it as I see it.

Answer:
Don Imus, Keith Olberman, Colin Cowherd, Rosie O'Donnell, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Mike Nifong:

Question:
Who are seven major douchebags in the media this week, none of whom should be heard from again?

You are correct, grasshopper. And thanks for putting your answer in the form of a question.

Wow, where did that come from, huh? Well, my friends, it's so unusual when a perfect storm develops and all the things I've been ranting and raving about for years seems to come together to almost perfectly illustrate why I feel the way I do.

Don Imus: of course for his stupid comments about the Rutgers women's basketball team.
The Rutgers team was my favorite because they represented the State University of New Jersey and took on the Goliath that was Tennessee women's basketball. Imus history of comments and bigotry shows that racism and hatred are prevalant and tolerated in the media from both sides of the aisle, in spite of prior denials. And although this may seem like a borderline sports story, it in reality is the opening salvo of the major issue of the presidential campaign, which is control and composition of the media as it is currently constructed and the way information is disseminated in this country.

Just as the last election was more about the composition of the Supreme Court, even more so than issues like the war, this one will be about left-wing vs. right wing media, the Fairness Doctrine and other things we generally don't want to waste productive time learning about. Learn about it on a slow sport day or the next rain delay at your favorite teams baseball game.

Keith Olberman: who stunningly said this week he believed Rush Limbaugh is a racist, for his views and comment regarding Dononvan McNabb. Using the same criteria of course, one could take Olberman and companies comments regarding Barry Bonds and in a similar, connect the dots fashion, make the same charge. Live by the sword of leaky evidence and supposition, die by the same sword.

Colin Cowherd: ESPN radio talk-show douche who orchestrated his listeners in an attack on an Internet blog site, resulting in that site being put out of commission for a couple of days at least. The blog in question apparently wasn't even critical of Cowherd or ESPN, they apparently just did it for giggles. Of course, this is an illegal act, but why would those in power, employed by the World Wide leader in sports, worry about blog posters? Apparently, they are perceived as a threat to the way information is disseminated in the good-old USA. Of course, when members of the media commit crimes, it's OK or it's just a joke, right?

Remember, watch what they do, not what they say. Actions speak louder than words.
For example, Imus' employers didn't seem to be too insulted about their employees comments until the sponsors started bailing out. That tells you all you need to know.

Rosie O'Donnell: For chastising reports about the pet contamination. Something about it taking valuable media time away from the 24-7 bashing about the Iraq War, blah,blah,blah,blah,blah. It was a public service that was valuable to all pet owners. There will be plenty of time for the various talking heads to go back to the battle of the Blame Game and sicken us about the political process so much that less Americans will vote than voted in the last Iraqi election, even though those folks probably had to worry about getting blowed up on the way to the polling place. And less Americans vote every election. And we wonder why. This smacks of "my agenda and beliefs are more important than your beliefs" that we see in the media all the time.
Rosie, you have your platform, you have your time in the sun. Don't begrudge others their time to speak on issues they deem important, you big, fat bully.

Al Sharpton: who was probably right about Don Imus, but should be the last person on earth demanding an apology from anyone until he apologizes to those he smeared publicly during the Tawanna Brawley fiasco.

And I lump in fellow douchebag and serial extortionist Jesse Jackson, who apparently owes the Duke lacrosse players an apology for his quick trigger conclusions.
One day these race baiting extortionists will get the "justice" they deserve. The fact that they call themselves Reverends is an insult to all members of the clergy.

Show some character and leadership and apologize when you're wrong. You might get more respect that way fellas. At least Imus offered a somewhat weak and combative public apology. And he's out of work.

It has always amazed me that "so-called" black leaders aren't more out front on the issue of (C)Rap lyrics that denigrate women and African-Americans. Some have claimed that they are but the media doesn't give their efforts the same coverage. If that's the case, shame on them, but shame on the results these "leaders" have gotten.

When a Snoop Doggy Poop can go on the air and say his "art" is not comparable to what Don Imus does, he's right, but he's also an idiot. It's not comparable, it's far worse. In case you don't know Snoop, you're black, that's the difference, you piss on your own people, which makes what you do even more shameful. I'm surprised an Oprah Winfrey isn't more out front on this.

It's so shameful that idiots like Snoop and 50 cent (not worth a nickel to me) are more popular cultural icons and public figures than say a Jackie Robinson or a Martin Luther King. And if you don't know who these folks are or what they did kiddies crack open a book once in a while and find out why people are saying these guys should be more of an inspiration than they apparently are.

And how about Mike Nifong, who so ineptly demonstrates and illustrates that even District Attorneys and Prosecuter's put their own special interest ahead of the Justice they took a solemn oath to uphold. So let's not hear anymore that if these guys are investigating somebody, they are probably guilty. That's a perversion of the American system of Jurisprudence that even Edwin Meese would have blushed at.

It's time for the Court of Public Opinion to be closed down for good. It doesn't work, it ruins peoples lives irreparably, in many cases.

It was so rich this week to hear a Keith Olberman explain to his young sidekick Danny Patrick how guys like Nifong couldn't be sued for the damage they caused because of the positions they hold. Not true, there are cases that allow for suits to proceed. Then the diarrhea mouth waltzes into how public figures like an Imus or Kobe Bryant or even to a lesser extent himslf and little Danny Patrick really can't turn around and sue every false accuser, everyone that besmirches their names because it might lend credence to the charges, give them more attention then they are due, are nuisances to pursue, public figures have a higher bar to clear as far as charges being leveled in their direction, etc. All perfectly valid and cogent reasons.

However, he forgets that he and his sidekick strongly condemned Bonds and others for not suing when allegations came out in print. Why is it a perfectly acceptable response in the one instance, but a "strong sign of guilt" in the other instance KO?
Or is this a sign instead of your racist tendencies? Oops I'm applying the standard you used to call Rush Limbaugh a racist. MY BAD.

These ladies and gentlemen of the media (and yes, I use the term very loosely) are all subject to the same pressures to perform, to succeed, to get results, etc., as athletes are. They all need to, in some fashion, get ahead and stay ahead of their competition. For an Imus or Olberman or O'Donnell, it's a race to be the most outrageous, to get the best ratings and sponsorship dollars. And the next good gig or industry award. To cash in on the next contract negotiation.

For a Nifong, it's to get prosecutions, the higher profile the better. To get the better job, the better office, better position, etc. To get elected to the next highest position on the ladder.

For Olberman and his cohort Dan Patrick, it's hosting the Today Show, or Bob Costas Emmy Awards they covet. In the same fashion as they recklessly, and without any basis in fact (how can anyone pass off as known fact what another person feels in his heart and mind), speculate Barry Bonds took steroids because he was jealous of the results of Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire, one could apply the same train of thought to their cases and come to much the same or similar conclusions, now couldn't one?

It's interesting to see them get tangled up in the gnarly web of lies and deceptions they've thrown out there to describe others behavior when events conspire to turn the mirror upon them and their industry and in fact their own behavior. It would be just as interesting to see the same litmus tests applied to them and their own circumstances. See how much they like the bright lights, big city then, huh?

Then they grow weary of talking about the subject after one or two days. But they'll beat the drums for years against Pete Rose or Bonds or Sosa or McGwire. Never get tired when the drum beats up against someone else head.

And it's not a liberal vs. conservative or left vs. right thing for me. A pox on both of their houses as far as I'm concerned.

It is interesting however that those on the left do seem to want to only talk, not listen so much lately. And they seem to favor, shutting down media sources that don't agree with them. The Communists do that don't they? And it's wrong, isn't it?

There's CNN and there's FOX News, and I know where both are on the dial. And I'm happy that both are there, even if I may agree with one somewhat more or less than the other at times. They both should thrive and survive. That's America.

I would liken a lot of the behavior we've seen this week to be be roughly akin to the Performance Enhancing Drugs (PED) problem in sports. This is the PED of the media. The race to get ahead, to be the most outrageous, to be the most colorful, most recognizable, have the highest Q rating.

These guys are all in some way, cheating or bending the rules or conventions or ethics of their chosen profession to get better results vis-a-vis their competition.
Don't just condemn Imus, you all swim in and help pollute the same dirty waters, IMO.
Just as his day has come, it will be interesting to see who is next. And over what comments they are thrown overboard.

What we are seeing here are the opening salvos in the war to control the flow of information to the masses, and that speaks to agenda, big-time. Don't let them fool you when they ALL SAY "I DON"T HAVE AN AGENDA, BUT THAT GUY THERE, HE DOES". They all do!

Interesting that some of these scumbags so readily and and recklessly throw stones at other peoples houses. As they say, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
FASCINATING WORLD WE LIVE IN.

FORTUNE: Secrets of Greatness

What a suprprise, my two favorite four letter words are at the heart of the answer.
HARD WORK!!!

FORTUNE: Secrets of Greatness

What it takes to be great

Research now shows that the lack of natural talent is irrelevant to great success. The secret? Painful and demanding practice and hard work

FORTUNE Magazine
By Geoffrey Colvin, senior editor-at-large
October 19 2006: 3:14 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) -- What makes Tiger Woods great? What made Berkshire Hathaway (Charts) Chairman Warren Buffett the world's premier investor? We think we know: Each was a natural who came into the world with a gift for doing exactly what he ended up doing. As Buffett told Fortune not long ago, he was "wired at birth to allocate capital." It's a one-in-a-million thing. You've got it - or you don't.

Well, folks, it's not so simple. For one thing, you do not possess a natural gift for a certain job, because targeted natural gifts don't exist. (Sorry, Warren.) You are not a born CEO or investor or chess grandmaster. You will achieve greatness only through an enormous amount of hard work over many years. And not just any hard work, but work of a particular type that's demanding and painful.


Woods (pictured in 2001) devoted hours to practice and even remade his Swing twice, because that's what it took to get better.


Quiz launchTake the quiz
What kind of manager are you? A psychologist says whether you take all the credit (or blame) when things go well (or badly) means a lot for you and how best to motivate your team. Answer the following 6 questions, and see how you score.

1. When I succeed at a task, it is usually because I worked hard.
Strongly Disagree
Somewhat Disagree
Neutral
Somewhat Agree
Strongly Agree
Tip Sheet: Perfect Practice
1. Approach each critical task with an explicit goal of getting much better at it.
2. As you do the task, focus on what's happening and why you're doing it the way you are.
3. After the task, get feedback on your performance from multiple sources. Make changes in your behavior as necessary.
4. Continually build mental models of your situation - your industry, your company, your career. Enlarge the models to encompass more factors.
5. Do those steps regularly, not sporadically. Occasional practice does not work.
Video More video
Wynton Marsalis, Google's Marissa Mayer and Craigslist's Jim Buckmaster reveal their personal strategies for success.
Play video

Buffett, for instance, is famed for his discipline and the hours he spends studying financial statements of potential investment targets. The good news is that your lack of a natural gift is irrelevant - talent has little or nothing to do with greatness. You can make yourself into any number of things, and you can even make yourself great.

Scientific experts are producing remarkably consistent findings across a wide array of fields. Understand that talent doesn't mean intelligence, motivation or personality traits. It's an innate ability to do some specific activity especially well. British-based researchers Michael J. Howe, Jane W. Davidson and John A. Sluboda conclude in an extensive study, "The evidence we have surveyed ... does not support the [notion that] excelling is a consequence of possessing innate gifts."

To see how the researchers could reach such a conclusion, consider the problem they were trying to solve. In virtually every field of endeavor, most people learn quickly at first, then more slowly and then stop developing completely. Yet a few do improve for years and even decades, and go on to greatness.

The irresistible question - the "fundamental challenge" for researchers in this field, says the most prominent of them, professor K. Anders Ericsson of Florida State University - is, Why? How are certain people able to go on improving? The answers begin with consistent observations about great performers in many fields.

Scientists worldwide have conducted scores of studies since the 1993 publication of a landmark paper by Ericsson and two colleagues, many focusing on sports, music and chess, in which performance is relatively easy to measure and plot over time. But plenty of additional studies have also examined other fields, including business.
No substitute for hard work

The first major conclusion is that nobody is great without work. It's nice to believe that if you find the field where you're naturally gifted, you'll be great from day one, but it doesn't happen. There's no evidence of high-level performance without experience or practice.

Reinforcing that no-free-lunch finding is vast evidence that even the most accomplished people need around ten years of hard work before becoming world-class, a pattern so well established researchers call it the ten-year rule.

What about Bobby Fischer, who became a chess grandmaster at 16? Turns out the rule holds: He'd had nine years of intensive study. And as John Horn of the University of Southern California and Hiromi Masunaga of California State University observe, "The ten-year rule represents a very rough estimate, and most researchers regard it as a minimum, not an average." In many fields (music, literature) elite performers need 20 or 30 years' experience before hitting their zenith.

So greatness isn't handed to anyone; it requires a lot of hard work. Yet that isn't enough, since many people work hard for decades without approaching greatness or even getting significantly better. What's missing?
Practice makes perfect

The best people in any field are those who devote the most hours to what the researchers call "deliberate practice." It's activity that's explicitly intended to improve performance, that reaches for objectives just beyond one's level of competence, provides feedback on results and involves high levels of repetition.

For example: Simply hitting a bucket of balls is not deliberate practice, which is why most golfers don't get better. Hitting an eight-iron 300 times with a goal of leaving the ball within 20 feet of the pin 80 percent of the time, continually observing results and making appropriate adjustments, and doing that for hours every day - that's deliberate practice.

Consistency is crucial. As Ericsson notes, "Elite performers in many diverse domains have been found to practice, on the average, roughly the same amount every day, including weekends."

Evidence crosses a remarkable range of fields. In a study of 20-year-old violinists by Ericsson and colleagues, the best group (judged by conservatory teachers) averaged 10,000 hours of deliberate practice over their lives; the next-best averaged 7,500 hours; and the next, 5,000. It's the same story in surgery, insurance sales, and virtually every sport. More deliberate practice equals better performance. Tons of it equals great performance.
The skeptics

Not all researchers are totally onboard with the myth-of-talent hypothesis, though their objections go to its edges rather than its center. For one thing, there are the intangibles. Two athletes might work equally hard, but what explains the ability of New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady to perform at a higher level in the last two minutes of a game?

Researchers also note, for example, child prodigies who could speak, read or play music at an unusually early age. But on investigation those cases generally include highly involved parents. And many prodigies do not go on to greatness in their early field, while great performers include many who showed no special early aptitude.

Certainly some important traits are partly inherited, such as physical size and particular measures of intelligence, but those influence what a person doesn't do more than what he does; a five-footer will never be an NFL lineman, and a seven-footer will never be an Olympic gymnast. Even those restrictions are less severe than you'd expect: Ericsson notes, "Some international chess masters have IQs in the 90s." The more research that's done, the more solid the deliberate-practice model becomes.

Real-world examples

All this scholarly research is simply evidence for what great performers have been showing us for years. To take a handful of examples: Winston Churchill, one of the 20th century's greatest orators, practiced his speeches compulsively. Vladimir Horowitz supposedly said, "If I don't practice for a day, I know it. If I don't practice for two days, my wife knows it. If I don't practice for three days, the world knows it." He was certainly a demon practicer, but the same quote has been attributed to world-class musicians like Ignace Paderewski and Luciano Pavarotti.

Many great athletes are legendary for the brutal discipline of their practice routines. In basketball, Michael Jordan practiced intensely beyond the already punishing team practices. (Had Jordan possessed some mammoth natural gift specifically for basketball, it seems unlikely he'd have been cut from his high school team.)

In football, all-time-great receiver Jerry Rice - passed up by 15 teams because they considered him too slow - practiced so hard that other players would get sick trying to keep up.

Tiger Woods is a textbook example of what the research shows. Because his father introduced him to golf at an extremely early age - 18 months - and encouraged him to practice intensively, Woods had racked up at least 15 years of practice by the time he became the youngest-ever winner of the U.S. Amateur Championship, at age 18. Also in line with the findings, he has never stopped trying to improve, devoting many hours a day to conditioning and practice, even remaking his swing twice because that's what it took to get even better.
The business side

The evidence, scientific as well as anecdotal, seems overwhelmingly in favor of deliberate practice as the source of great performance. Just one problem: How do you practice business? Many elements of business, in fact, are directly practicable. Presenting, negotiating, delivering evaluations, deciphering financial statements - you can practice them all.

Still, they aren't the essence of great managerial performance. That requires making judgments and decisions with imperfect information in an uncertain environment, interacting with people, seeking information - can you practice those things too? You can, though not in the way you would practice a Chopin etude.

Instead, it's all about how you do what you're already doing - you create the practice in your work, which requires a few critical changes. The first is going at any task with a new goal: Instead of merely trying to get it done, you aim to get better at it.

Report writing involves finding information, analyzing it and presenting it - each an improvable skill. Chairing a board meeting requires understanding the company's strategy in the deepest way, forming a coherent view of coming market changes and setting a tone for the discussion. Anything that anyone does at work, from the most basic task to the most exalted, is an improvable skill.
Adopting a new mindset

Armed with that mindset, people go at a job in a new way. Research shows they process information more deeply and retain it longer. They want more information on what they're doing and seek other perspectives. They adopt a longer-term point of view. In the activity itself, the mindset persists. You aren't just doing the job, you're explicitly trying to get better at it in the larger sense.

Again, research shows that this difference in mental approach is vital. For example, when amateur singers take a singing lesson, they experience it as fun, a release of tension. But for professional singers, it's the opposite: They increase their concentration and focus on improving their performance during the lesson. Same activity, different mindset.

Feedback is crucial, and getting it should be no problem in business. Yet most people don't seek it; they just wait for it, half hoping it won't come. Without it, as Goldman Sachs leadership-development chief Steve Kerr says, "it's as if you're bowling through a curtain that comes down to knee level. If you don't know how successful you are, two things happen: One, you don't get any better, and two, you stop caring." In some companies, like General Electric, frequent feedback is part of the culture. If you aren't lucky enough to get that, seek it out.
Be the ball

Through the whole process, one of your goals is to build what the researchers call "mental models of your business" - pictures of how the elements fit together and influence one another. The more you work on it, the larger your mental models will become and the better your performance will grow.

Andy Grove could keep a model of a whole world-changing technology industry in his head and adapt Intel (Charts) as needed. Bill Gates, Microsoft's (Charts) founder, had the same knack: He could see at the dawn of the PC that his goal of a computer on every desk was realistic and would create an unimaginably large market. John D. Rockefeller, too, saw ahead when the world-changing new industry was oil. Napoleon was perhaps the greatest ever. He could not only hold all the elements of a vast battle in his mind but, more important, could also respond quickly when they shifted in unexpected ways.

That's a lot to focus on for the benefits of deliberate practice - and worthless without one more requirement: Do it regularly, not sporadically.
Why?

For most people, work is hard enough without pushing even harder. Those extra steps are so difficult and painful they almost never get done. That's the way it must be. If great performance were easy, it wouldn't be rare. Which leads to possibly the deepest question about greatness. While experts understand an enormous amount about the behavior that produces great performance, they understand very little about where that behavior comes from.

The authors of one study conclude, "We still do not know which factors encourage individuals to engage in deliberate practice." Or as University of Michigan business school professor Noel Tichy puts it after 30 years of working with managers, "Some people are much more motivated than others, and that's the existential question I cannot answer - why."

The critical reality is that we are not hostage to some naturally granted level of talent. We can make ourselves what we will. Strangely, that idea is not popular. People hate abandoning the notion that they would coast to fame and riches if they found their talent. But that view is tragically constraining, because when they hit life's inevitable bumps in the road, they conclude that they just aren't gifted and give up.

Maybe we can't expect most people to achieve greatness. It's just too demanding. But the striking, liberating news is that greatness isn't reserved for a preordained few. It is available to you and to everyone.

_____________________

How one CEO learned to fly. Boeing chief James McNerney has now made his mark at three major companies. How? "Help others get better," he says. Top of page
Want to learn more Secrets of Greatness? Get the new book

From the October 30, 2006 issue