Natural Talent vs Hard Work

[rjbetty]

Ok this is something I often think about:

I have wondered in my life about F1 and racing if there is actually such a thing as natural talent. My belief is that the greatest drivers (and anyone in any other field come to think of it) are those who possess a special desire that is so deep it goes to the core of their being, to the point where it's the only thing they want.

Mario Andretti once said this:

"Desire is the key to motivation, but it's determination and commitment to an unrelenting pursuit of your goal - a commitment to excellence - that will enable you to attain the success you seek."

So it seems a legendary driver becomes so because to put it simply, they set their mind and heart to it in a way that others just didn't; They have a greater and deeper passion and desire, which above all is (maybe the right word is) singular and consuming.

But then I remember around 2000 or 2001 in the WRC when people said about Richard Burns that he had to "teach himself" how to be quick, meaning he didn't know how to be quick naturally like other drivers. I think the natural driver people had in mind was probably Marcus Gronholm. So the suggestion seems to be that Burns got where he did by hard work rather than by natural talent. Unfortunately, this is probably exacerbated by the fact that Burns struggled as Gronholm's team-mate at Peugeot in 2002-03, often stating that he found it difficult to get to grips with the 206 in the way Gronholm did.

On a lesser level I also remember Pedro Diniz, a driver not recognised as greatly talented in F1 but who clawed his way to increasing respectability through hard work to keep improving himself. He certainly seemed to be better than Narain Karthikeyan is now, though I actually respect Narain and think he only looks bad because of the incredible depth of talent through the F1 field today, and the fact he drives the worst car.

On the other end of the scale there is someone like Kimi Raikkonen who is regarded as hugely fast and talented, yet he keeps getting beaten by Massa and semi-rookie Grosjean... It seems many people rate him as equal to or better than Alonso - I personally think Alonso would have the better of him as team-mates, when he failed to do so with Hamilton... (you can probably extrapolate my opinion from that. By the way I really wanna know if that opinion on Kimi is valid - is there something I'm missing?)

What really made me doubt my previous belief that natural talent is but a myth was hearing about Jim Clark, and that it was said that he himself wasn't able to understand why he was quick - he was just able to get in the car and do it! So maybe there is after all such a thing as just being gifted...?

So for a while I have been doubting my previous belief that there isn't really any natural talent that someone is just "born" with, and that it comes through having such a desire that it gets deep down into your person ("soul" even)

"...everything that I've gotten out of life was obtained through dedication and a tremendous desire to achieve my goals...a great desire for victory, meaning victory in life, not as a driver." - Ayrton Senna

Looks like the great Ayrton Senna was a driver who got to the level he did by working at it and "teaching himself" rather than relying on some gigantic natural talent!!!
Even more so, I have been thinking recently how when I used to have the old Senna Duke video, on there the story was told about his first experience of wet weather driving as a boy in a kart - he was awful. I mean REALLY bad. So what he did was that every time it rained he would take his kart out and practice like crazy. After MANY hours of doing so he was able to develop into the driver that won the 1985 Portuguese GP, and chased Prost's McLaren in a Toleman in Monaco 1984.


And then I think of Schumacher (who Ioan says is the best ever F1 driver :) ) the guy who through his career racked up probably hundreds of thousands of miles of testing to keep practicing and honing himself. He also moulded his teams around him in a way designed to artifically ensure his team-mates wouldn't be able to challenge him. Also he made so many MISTAKES that Stirling Moss has asserted Michael cannot be the greatest.
So two of the very greatest most successful drivers ever were ones who got where they were by "working at it"?

This also makes me wonder about Damon Hill, a guy who I had thought lowly of as just about the slowest World Champion ever. My opinion was brought into question recently when Damon spoke about how in his dad's day, Jim Clark was recognised as the "natural", the Schumacher, while Graham was the "less talented one who got there by working harder". But I hadn't considered that Schumacher (and Clark too?) had been driving since about 2 yrs old. The Hills didn't start until 20 years later.

Damon's view intrigued me. His suggestion was to question that given the the Hills' rivals far greater seat time and experience, who were really the ones who did what they did by natural talent, and who were the really the ones who did what they did by massive amounts of fine honing...?


I really wanna know what people think about this!

[janvanvurpa]

Mario Andretti once said this:

"Desire is the key to motivation,

The Buddha said "desire is the root of all unhappiness."

[janvanvurpa]

An area of discussion in a context like this is perfect for finding peoples opinions, but it is always important to know on what basis are those opinions formed.
A hundred times more when the question is what is inside the space between the ears, because some very good drivers, World Championship winning guy once made a comment that there is nothing between the ears, something like "a big foot and an empty head"..
Opinions about motivation are typically authors opinions and opinions to a large degree, when a discussion is 100% speculative like this, tend to go out of the culture the speaker was socialized in.....

Thus it is no surprise that in a famous study of children's scores on tests when 10s of thousand mothers (it was established that mother's influence was the key one in kiddies performance) were asked what they believed was the decisive factor in their kiddies school grade well over 85% of US moms answered "Billy's--or Suzie as the case may be--scores reflect his "natural talents" while in Japanese, Taiwanese and mainland Chinese polls, over 88% of Moms said " Sichiro---or MeiMei score is directly related to home much work they put into that subject",

The striking similarity of responses demonstrate cultural difference overwhelming influence on "Obviously its........"

So maybe amend you inquiry to ask people where they are from, and to what level of some "extra curricular " they may have ever done something.

I hope the example above alludes clear enough the problem with the "natural talent" belief, if not I'll expand.
It IS related...

[rjbetty]

The Buddha said "desire is the root of all unhappiness."

This is where Buddha and I will have to disagree. :)

Thanks for the other helpful reply though. This is something I think about quite a bit.

[airshifter]

Like many other things I think it often takes a great deal of both hard work and natural talent. Keep in mind that when using the term "natural talent" I'm looking at certain combinations of human characteristics that a person might have to suit them to any particular thing.

Practice and drive can make just about any one person better at just about anything, but physical and mental limitations will to some extent overcome that extra practice.

[ioan]

Talent is nothing if it is not used and trained thoroughly. Living proof is Kimi Raikonnen.

Schumacher got where he got because he worked hard to maximize his talent at all times.




And then I think of Schumacher (who Ioan says is the best ever F1 driver :) ) the guy who through his career racked up probably hundreds of thousands of miles of testing to keep practicing and honing himself. He also moulded his teams around him in a way designed to artifically ensure his team-mates wouldn't be able to challenge him. Also he made so many MISTAKES that Stirling Moss has asserted Michael cannot be the greatest.
So two of the very greatest most successful drivers ever were ones who got where they were by "working at it"?

Stirling who? I might have missed his great achievements and numerous F1 titles that give him the ground to judge the man who achieved infinitely more than him in F1. And no, being born in the UK is not an achievement.

[F1boat]

Both are extremely important. If you have talent, you have to work to polish it, then work some more. But if you are not talented, you can work all you want, but you will never achieve anything above mediocrity and will be deeply unhappy. The example which ioan gave is not particularly correct, because, while hardworking, Michael is incredibly talented as well, IMO more than Raikkonen.

[Rollo]

Ioan who? I might have missed his great achievements and numerous F1 titles that give him the ground to judge the man who achieved infinitely more than him in F1. And no, being not born in the UK is not an achievement.


Schumacher got where he got because he worked hard to maximize his talent at all times.

[rjbetty]

Thought Ioan's answer was funny and good. I especially agree about Raikkonen.

But Rollo's reply was pure Laugh Out Loud Gold! :laugh:

[D-Type]

Talent is nothing if it is not used and trained thoroughly. Living proof is Kimi Raikonnen.

Schumacher got where he got because he worked hard to maximize his talent at all times.




Stirling who? I might have missed his great achievements and numerous F1 titles that give him the ground to judge the man who achieved infinitely more than him in F1. And no, being born in the UK is not an achievement.
Assuming you are serious.

Who was the driver considered the successor to Fangio?
Who was the second foreigner to win the Mille Miglia (and in record time)?
Who beat the all-conquering F1 Ferraris in a privately entered year-old car - twice?
Who won the Tourist Trophy no fewer than seven times?
Who won the Nurburgring 1000km three times in succession?
Who won a Coupe des Alpes en Or for three successive Coupes des Alpes?
Who has a higher wins to starts ratio than any current F1 driver?
Who was considered "The man to beat" by his peers?

[janvanvurpa]

Thought Ioan's answer was funny and good. I especially agree about Raikkonen.

But Rollo's reply was pure Laugh Out Loud Gold! :laugh:





And funny as it is it is also correct. See what I warned about? 3-4 posts and it has become pure fan-boyism..

It is harsh to say this but bugger it I'll say it:
Most people seem to have an extremely difficult time sorting out in their heads what is a belief and what they "know"..
Unless you really know somebody well, like share the garage, go to their home for dinner, the movies and out to the pub, train with them (run in the woods till you drop), listen to their advice on race day, it's extremely difficult to begin to guess what their motivations are..
The "all you need is an empty head and a big foot" is much much closer to the answer than most of "y'all" know.

Some of you, particularly the gravel rally fans here, may suspect or believ that but do you "know' it?

That's why i suggested that people tell us what sport or motorsport stuff they've done and to what level and then compare what they "know" from their own experience, rather than the endless 100s of thousands of feelings and opinions on stuff nearly none of us us here has experience of.

From my personal experience in motorsports:
First is curiosity (without which there is no attempt to do anything)
Opportunity
practise
guidence
reinforcement of lessons learned in practice and guidence
discipline
enlightenment

And then, reincarnation as we're born anew as "different human beings" ie 'civilians".

It helps in this inquiry to compare and contrast.
So contrast motorsport with running. Or gymnastics like Loeb did to elit level before he got sideways in cars.

Clearly the individuals role is vastly higher in the result than trivialities like the brand of the rings or the floor instruments or the running shoes. Now in these fields where's the line between "talent" or "natural" abilities and simple hard work?

[Roamy]

Well put this in the mix and see what comes up!!

Yes, Watkins Glen in 1979. Friday practice. Rivers running across and down the track. Only 12 drivers went out on wets and most of them came straight back in. Jody Scheckter was second fastest...11 seconds behind his teammate. Someone has an audio tape of that day, you can apparently hear the Ferrari all the way around the track with the revs screeching as it wheelspins out of yet another corner. "He's different from the rest of us, on a seperate level" said Laffite. " I scared myself rigid that day and I thought I had to be quickest. Then I saw Gilles' time and I don't really understand how it was possible" said Jody Scheckter.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Assuming you are serious.

Who was the driver considered the successor to Fangio?
Who was the second foreigner to win the Mille Miglia (and in record time)?
Who beat the all-conquering F1 Ferraris in a privately entered year-old car - twice?
Who won the Tourist Trophy no fewer than seven times?
Who won the Nurburgring 1000km three times in succession?
Who won a Coupe des Alpes en Or for three successive Coupes des Alpes?
Who has a higher wins to starts ratio than any current F1 driver?
Who was considered "The man to beat" by his peers?

Why would you bother to type this much stuff in response to Ioan? He's living in a different world from the rest of us anyway.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Talent and hard work both have to be there. In the meantime we ordinary fans know too little about what's going on behind the scenes to make an educated conclusion whether somebody's got more talent or worked harder. E.g. I bet Kimi did a lot of hard work to become a WDC, yet people prefer to think he wastes his talent by drinking and chasing women all the time.

[F1boat]

Yes, actually this story that Kimi is not hard-working is a myth. Kimi does not like to sign autographs or to act like a complete idiot, smiling for some company's products. He does it sometimes anyway. However, a lazy man would not spend his years away from F1 while driving in the WRC - possibly the hardest and most demanding motorsport on Earth.

[jens]

I think airshifter and F1boat have got good answers to this one. I would like to add that often it is not clear to separate "talent" and "hard work" at all. By this I mean that you actually need talent to work hard, which means a person has the ability, stamina, concentration, etc, to put in excessive and also efficient hours in improving himself. Schumacher is a good case here. Arguably he has the ability to withstand a huge amount of working effort.

[Alexamateo]

While natural inclination has some to do with it, I think it's down to hard work and I hate to say it, chance. Have there not been studies done of professional hockey and soccer players that have discovered that the birthdates of the majority are in the 3 months nearest the cut-off point for their youth teams? In other words, when they started playing as kids, the ones who were older (at an age where six months can make a huge difference) were identified as the most "talented". Resources and coaching are then directed to those kids, and some of those develop into pros. I hate to say that chance and luck have a lot to do with it, but chance and luck have a lot to do with who succeeds.

[wedge]

The logical answer would be both but at the top level I'd say hard work edges it.

The effort to improve themselves isn't necessarily improving talent close to greatness but a lot of experts say the biggest factor is all in the mind. What's the point of talent if one/team does not apply it with steely determination, the will to continually win/succeed and even to the point of having a ruthless streak - Ioan dismisses Sir Stirling Moss yet many rate Moss to be of very, very high calibre yet had he raced today would he had defended a rival with a WDC on the line?

[janvanvurpa]

OK, is it possible that some definition of "Talent" could be suggested? Or "Naturelle" ?


The way I see those words thrown around I get a feeling the speakers are (in their feverish adulation of some small framed guy who sits on his ass and twiddles the wheel occasionally) trying to convince me of some biological, some spot on the DNA helix that has a big flashing Neon Light screaming Gene for "race car Champ---peen" with all the homo-erotic undertones that the obsessive swooning over a guy by guys so obviously carries with it.

Alexmatty above is on to something that I've seen too though not on a formal way, just informally in that for wahtever reason somebody is designated "superior", and then recieves preferential tratment, and is then lauded as "Naturally talented"..

Re car racing it's summed up in what I tell beginners, and I encounter a LOT of beginners:
"Choose your parents carefully"
But that is not about "genetics", merely disposable income.

Indeed so central is MONEY in the all auto related motorsports---and anybody who has built even a local level race car knows its dominating centrality----that yapping about "natural" car drivers is tantamount to what an Aussie (professional racer co-league of mine) called "vocal chord ****in "

[leighton323]

Did anyone here see the show moss meets Hammond? Was broadcast on prime in New Zealand and I'm guessing BBC in Britain. Anyway they discussed various things most notably the brain injures the both suffered. Moss believed that before his accident driving the car was instinctive and he didn't have to think about all the factors when approaching corners and things like that, he just said his brain automatically did it, however after the accident when he first got back into the car a year after, the main reason he quit was because he had to think about driving the car, and the instincts had somewhat disappeared meaning the he could not just drive a car fast naturally. This seemed a lot like his natural talent had just disappeared, and the neurone pathways in his brain were completely destroyed therefore his skill as a racing driving somewhat disappearing. They discussed many other things about it which is hard to explain, but Moss believed there was a sort of desire one had to be good that formed his natural talent and then one would spend hours on this talent to prefect them. Definitely worth a watch.

[Malbec]

however after the accident when he first got back into the car a year after, the main reason he quit was because he had to think about driving the car, and the instincts had somewhat disappeared meaning the he could not just drive a car fast naturally. This seemed a lot like his natural talent had just disappeared, and the neurone pathways in his brain were completely destroyed therefore his skill as a racing driving somewhat disappearing.

Isn't that more about a loss of confidence? On any objective basis I don't think Stirling Moss suffered neurological injury after his accident and what he describes sounds more like being completely out of the zone, something that was discussed recently in an interesting thread in the F1 forum.

At the top end of motorsport we're looking at guys who've spent in most cases more than a decade perfecting their driving and have therefore had a lot of practice. I don't think we can judge the effect of hard work vs talent on how they develop once they are in a formula that is in the public eye.

As for further down the food chain its noticeable that those drivers who have a good budget and can keep buying time in the car generally move further ahead of those without money regardless of talent so I think that tells us the answer. Practice is worth more than 'talent'.

[BDunnell]

Talent is nothing if it is not used and trained thoroughly. Living proof is Kimi Raikonnen.

Schumacher got where he got because he worked hard to maximize his talent at all times.




Stirling who? I might have missed his great achievements and numerous F1 titles that give him the ground to judge the man who achieved infinitely more than him in F1. And no, being born in the UK is not an achievement.

What a surprise (i.e. not one at all) to find this in amongst a variety of otherwise eloquent, respectful posts.

Maybe, ioan, you might like to explain to us how, using your own faulty criteria, you expect your own views to carry any weight.

Now back to the topic.

[BDunnell]

Assuming you are serious.

Who was the driver considered the successor to Fangio?
Who was the second foreigner to win the Mille Miglia (and in record time)?
Who beat the all-conquering F1 Ferraris in a privately entered year-old car - twice?
Who won the Tourist Trophy no fewer than seven times?
Who won the Nurburgring 1000km three times in succession?
Who won a Coupe des Alpes en Or for three successive Coupes des Alpes?
Who has a higher wins to starts ratio than any current F1 driver?
Who was considered "The man to beat" by his peers?

Someone, alas, whose achievements mean nothing to those with a joyless, statistical approach to measuring sporting greatness, and a complete lack of appreciation for history.

[BDunnell]

I would like to add that often it is not clear to separate "talent" and "hard work" at all. By this I mean that you actually need talent to work hard, which means a person has the ability, stamina, concentration, etc, to put in excessive and also efficient hours in improving himself.

This is an excellent point, very well put. It applies to all forms of work, not just that of the F1 driver. Some people just have greater 'capacity'.

[BDunnell]

As for further down the food chain its noticeable that those drivers who have a good budget and can keep buying time in the car generally move further ahead of those without money regardless of talent so I think that tells us the answer. Practice is worth more than 'talent'.

Well, in the instance you describe, money is worth more than both. Let's not forget either that drivers in various formulae can simply surprise with their ability, even when tarred with the 'pay driver' brush.

[janvanvurpa]

Isn't that more about a loss of confidence? On any objective basis I don't think Stirling Moss suffered neurological injury after his accident and what he describes sounds more like being completely out of the zone, something that was discussed recently in an interesting thread in the F1 forum.

At the top end of motorsport we're looking at guys who've spent in most cases more than a decade perfecting their driving and have therefore had a lot of practice. I don't think we can judge the effect of hard work vs talent on how they develop once they are in a formula that is in the public eye.

As for further down the food chain its noticeable that those drivers who have a good budget and can keep buying time in the car generally move further ahead of those without money regardless of talent so I think that tells us the answer. Practice is worth more than 'talent'.

Thank you.
I was hoping you might pipe in.
Its odd----formerly being a driver (rider) who did do it the 10-15 hours a week training (riding) path for roughly 10 years before just cracking into paid driving (start money) for a couple of seasons..---when I hear people going on about this subject--"natural talent" for driving fast...and more broadly , "sports". I'm wondering where the strange belief comes from..
(Max Weber jumps up with his explanation of attitudes about "the blessed' and Protestant (Calvinist?) theories about "predestination")

It did give me a decade of daily working and interacting with world elite and "top 10" type guys..

My opinion from watching men in the top of the world, and men on the way up and them afterwards, and the guys 1 or 2 steps below--like me and my mates---is the overarching difference is WILL...or desire....and the aforementioned empty head...seriously (it must be empty at the highest levels.)
It's not quick reactions----even at over 59 years old and after hands and fingers broken 4-5-6--12 times some fingers--- still have reaction time average 0.181 seconds----it's not some genetic thing (except if your parents were rich) .
Its will..

And you are very likely right on the Moss thing.. I have seen literally thousands of crashes in 20 years of moto-cross and have had 3-4 friends who dinged their brains, and never were the same--ie slow walk, bad focus, slurred speech...and one, Axle Regnell from Stockholm, still glowed with passion and will--very difficult even to recall how bad it was for him..

But I have seen others already "at the top" have one serious crash or break one big bone--one time femur and bang! "it" is gone.

There was no neuro/brain damage, the femur healed, the guy (man did he have a hottie for a younger sister, damn!) knew still how to ride, but something clicked, he "found Jeebus" and never was the same.

Then I have seen some friends break many bones repeatedly, or (me0 rip up knees in chronic ways and in tramatic ways and we're like the dumb Knight at the Bride in Pythons "Search for the Holy Grail" just too damn dumb to know we're seriously buggered--so hard was the training, that even the answer to crashes became semi-automatic: get going.
(I remember one first turn incident ramming where a "save' --from crashing resulted in detached anterior ligament, ripped up later meniscus and I stoppedblind for a second. my mechanic runs up helps me off---I say "Wot da Fawk, eh? Me filthy leg won't straighten" and I tried putting the toe down--leg is bent andyou lean. Blinding pain and lost balnace and fell over howling, but hopped up and ask mechanic "What's all dis, den? dammit let's try that again..." and promptly fell over again.

My brilliant solution? I told hm to start the bike, and help me slide on--and not have to straighten the leg...
It NEVER entered my empty skull to NOT keep going---well 2 laps later it began to creep in...

Will. Or "Will to"... for many it was a will to match the vision in their head of "doing something juste comme ca"

Most were very good at visualisation of what they must do..said one friend "Its pretty crazy to think you can go out on the track and do something with your body and the bike if you can't have a picture of what it is you must do.."

I guess that empty head thing should be more accurately "The ability to make the head become empty" For me that was about 6-8 seconds before the start gate fell.