Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Defining “Natural Athlete” vs. “Technical Athlete”


Cy Soto

Recommended Posts

Just my experience as an instructor for 25 years. I've sent 2 teens to the U.S. Olympic Taekwondo Team and was the U.S. National Taekwondo champion in 86 & 87.

Wow! Impressive credentials.

When we were in the 16 - 20 age zone, my best running buddy took Taekwondo and I studied boxing. I'd teach him what I leaned in boxing and he'd do the same with Taekwondo. We thought we were pretty tough, at that time. ;) Good memories.

[/ThreadDrift]

Make you wonder how much of the "natural" athelete is competitive drive and mental adaptability vs. raw physical skills.....

Probably a good dose of both.

be

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make you wonder how much of the "natural" athelete is competitive drive and mental adaptability vs. raw physical skills.....

Probably a good dose of both.

be

It would have to be wouldn't it? How many physically gifted atheletes have gone by the wayside because they didn't have the drive to succeed, and how many work so hard only to be limited by physical restraints....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, since you asked....

Allow me to seemingly digress for a moment. In grade school I was always the last kid to get picked when they chose up sides for softball. Which, since I had about a .999 batting average, I thought was fairly lame. I had no power but I could hit the ball every at-bat, and put it right where I wanted. Which was generally in the hole between first and second. They'd figure out what I was doing, the second baseman would move over to fill that hole, I'd put it between the second baseman and the shortstop. When the entire outfield moved up to right behind the baseline to fill in any possible hole, then I'd hit it as hard as I could and put it over all their heads and into the outfield. Really, in all the grade school years there was only one at-bat I struck out and didn't get on-base. Chosen last....please.

So, fastforward about 20 years, I'm at John Farnam's Advanced Defensive Handgun Course. Greg Hamilton of Insights Training Center, from whom I've already taken several courses so he knows how I can shoot, is there acting as an assistant instructor. One of John's drills is to run relay races to simulate performance under stress. Two four-person teams, seven yards from two sets of four 12" steel plates. The first person runs 25 yards uprange, 25 yards back to the seven yard line, draws, shoots til they drop the plate, at which point the second person takes off running, and so on. First team to drop all four plates wins.

John and Greg are going to be team captains, they do a coin toss to see who gets to choose first. Greg wins the toss. He says, "I'll take Duane."

Y'know, that meant a lot to me. The first time in my life I'd ever been picked first for a team.

The team Greg wound up with, by the way, was himself, me, one of his own assistant instructors Cathy Schlegel, and Mike Schertz, who in the fullness would also become one of his assistant instructors. And we kicked ASS. Oh. My. God. It was not even funny how much ass we kicked. :lol: Because we never missed. Each person ran, came back, drew, ping!, a plate fell, the next person takes off. In short order it's over, while the first guy on the other team is still working his way through the first of three magazines of high-cap Nine trying - and eventually running out of ammo and failing - to drop the first plate. And we did that again and again and again.

Ah, good times. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duane, that's exactly the kind of "athlete" I was thinking of. :cheers:

I was also thinking that regardless of athletic ability, most M and GM shooters got the motivation to practice from their love for the shooting.

FWIW, I've also known people who became pretty good shooters because they were motivated by fear. But, love always exceeds fear like light exceeds darkness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly! You're never going to work and practice and think about shooting as much as it takes to be really great at it - to be really great at anything, for that matter - unless you love doing it. That's the only thing that can motivate a person to put out that much effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An old friend of mine had a theory that there are three types of people who will attempt to do anything that requires real effort, and real excellence. Since he was a football player in high school, he analogized it to going out for the high school football team.

Group #1 is composed of the people who aren't sure whether or not they can make the team. But they say to themselves, "Wouldn't it be a great accomplishment if I did?" Basically, they're using trying out for the team as a rite of passage.

Group #2 comprises people who know they can make the team, but they're not doing it because they love the game. They have other reasons. Either they know it's great for their social standing in school, or their dad was on the same team 20 years before and he's pressuring them, or they figure it's a great way to get close to cheerleaders. Whatever.

Group #3 contains those people who, like Group #2, know they can make the team. But more than that, it would be unnatural for them to not be on the team. Because they love the game.

Now, a person from any of those three groups might be able to make a good player. But almost invariably the very best players are going to come from Group #3, those who love the game.

You show me anyone who is A class or above in USPSA/IPSC, or Expert or above in IDPA, and I'll show you someone who purely loves shooting a handgun. Because they work harder at it than can be explained by anything other than love.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the difference between natural and technical is quite small. A natural has certain innate physical traits that enable them to do something a little better than everyone else. My friend's father was a voice and music instructor. I once asked him how much of a singer's talent was due to natural ability. He said about 5% natural and 95% practice. BUT, that extra 5% was the difference between a great singer and a diva.

Bringing it back to shooting, I see several people at my club with what I consider natural ability. They are typically thinner, shorter and in good physical condition. I'm 6ft, 180lbs and in good physical condition. Yet there there is no way I will ever out run someone 5ft 8in and 150lbs. So I make up for it in technical ability. As long as my commitment to practice is greater than theirs, I can mitigate their natural talent advantage with technical skill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

A natural athlete can perorm at a high level with less than average technique. Natural athletes often do not have great technique because they can often get bye without it. A technical athlete usually has a fair degree of athleticism but in order to compete at a higher level he/she has to do all the little things to offset the pure abilities of the natural athletes. However, when you can take a natural athlete and instill discipline and fundementals then you get a stud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...