Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Korda Family - Nurture Or Nature?

Addick AddictAddick Addict
edited February 2019 in Other Football and Sports
Probably a bit of both:

Dad, Petr - 1998 Australian Tennis Open Champion
Mum, Regina - represented Czechoslavakia at tennis in the Olympics
Daughter, Jessica - multiple PGA Golf Tour Champion including 2018 US PGA Championship 
Daughter, Nelly - 2019 Australian Golf Winner
Son, Sebastian - 2018 Australian Junior Open Tennis Champion

That is one talented family - the talent of having the inherent skill and talent to train to make the most of it too

Comments

  • StigStig
    Both. Just like every other nature nurture question.
  • Addick AddictAddick Addict
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 
    That's interesting oohah

    I have two sons - the first is shortly 26 and a mathematical genius and professional sports trader but has limited sporting ability whereas the other (16 in a few weeks time) isn't a natural when it comes to the maths but is a gifted sportsman.

    The older one has never had to work hard to be good at what he does - it is just natural but the latter, whilst talented when it comes to hand to eye co-ordination, has had to do the 10,000 hours (and more) to get where he is today. Interestingly, the latter plays the guitar but doesn't have to put the hours in to be more than proficient on the instrument.

    From a genes perspective, it is safe to say that my sons' mothers are both pretty useless at maths, sport and don't play the guitar whereas I am slightly above average at maths and was decent but not special at football and have been playing the same three chords at guitar for over 40 years!

    However, one of my youngest son's grandfathers went to the 1952 Olympics as GB reserve goalkeeper (his mother's Dad) and the other played in Hungary at the same time as Puskas (my Dad). Why he chose two of the worst paid sports (cricket and table tennis) when he might one day have been making millions playing in the Premier League and keeping his Dad in the right sort of comfort is a source of great disappointment to me!  

    I have always maintained that every child has an ability to be really good at something. Sadly, society gives too much weighting to how many GCSEs or A levels they obtain which can only serve to cloud and undermine that gift that they may have - be it sport, music, carpentry, cooking, writing etc etc. 
  • ChizzChizz
    Stig said:
    Both. Just like every other nature nurture question.
    Not *everything* is both nature and nurture!
  • Off_itOff_it
    oohaahmortimer said:

    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony 
    Even though I 100% knew where that sentence was going I still laughed out loud like a complete loon on the train into work!
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    Both sh1t sports so must be nature.
  • Dazzler21Dazzler21
    10% Nature, 90% Nurture. 

    If you don't train and practice almost every day, you won't improve. 
  • Addick AddictAddick Addict
    Dazzler21 said:
    10% Nature, 90% Nurture. 

    If you don't train and practice almost every day, you won't improve. 
    Have to disagree with this - it has to be in your nature to want to practice, equally, although you can train yourself to be a "winner" it has to be in your nature to want to be one at an early age (many give up because they don't at an early age) and you also have to have the physique for certain sports so that has little to do with nurture. 

    Like many, I have read Matthew Saeed's book called "Bounce" and he is a great believer in the 10,000 hours and that practice, mainly, will determine whether you will succeed. Equally, there are some who could practice something for a million hours and still not be brilliant.

    You definitely cannot succeed without doing the "hard yards" but you have to have some inherent ability to get to the top so, for me, I would say one third nature and two thirds nurture would be a fairer reflection - as an average.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    Definitely need the nature - hard work alone won't get you to the top. 
  • Leroy AmbroseLeroy Ambrose
    Like Dazzler, I used to think it was about 90% nurture, 10% nature - but since I started riding a bike, I think that figure is way off. After wasting my life playing first football, then golf - being shit at both, though marginally better at golf, it became clear to me within about a month that I was a 'natural' at riding a bike. Three months after I started riding seriously I was riding in races (usually takes people years to get to that level) and competitive against blokes 25 years younger. Pretty sure that if I'd bothered to ride a bike when I was a kid and been given a race bike, I would have been able to make it to at least Conti level (though probably never world tour, as my VO2 max wouldn't have been high enough). Obviously, getting fitter makes a difference - so there's the 'nurture' element of that to take into account, but I think AA's figure of 30% nature/70% nurture is probably more accurate
  • Sponsored links:


  • Addick AddictAddick Addict
    i_b_b_o_r_g said:
    Both sh1t sports so must be nature.
    I do laugh when I see something like this given that one person's "s**t" is another person's "gourmet meal". In fact, you could say that some people eat as well as talking "s**t". Not that I would of course!
  • Dazzler21Dazzler21
    "I would say one third nature and two thirds nurture would be a fairer reflection - as an average."

    I'll let you have that it's at least not the 50/50 split some think it is.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    Most of us never discover what we're good at.
  • Addick AddictAddick Addict
    bobmunro said:

    Both of my sons are talented sportsmen (rugby, golf) and both academically gifted (post grads).

    For me this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's 100% nurture ;-)

    Clearly they are both very lucky to have their Mum as a parent because it is obvious that this is where they get their sporting and academic success from ;-)
  • Addick AddictAddick Addict
    hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
    Most of us never discover what we're good at.
    I really do think that this is the point. Which is why I go back to our Society that treats academic success above everything else - the 11 plus is even more ridiculous as it failure can be so damning. And that's coming from someone who was and is the father of two grammar school educated boys.

    If more children had access to far more varied outlets and pursuits then they would find what they both like and would then probably become good at. Because there is a natural progression from one to the other.
  • bobmunrobobmunro
    Addick Addict said:
    bobmunro said:

    Both of my sons are talented sportsmen (rugby, golf) and both academically gifted (post grads).

    For me this proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that it's 100% nurture ;-)

    Clearly they are both very lucky to have their Mum as a parent because it is obvious that this is where they get their sporting and academic success from ;-)

    They are indeed - as am I to have her as my wife :)
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    edited February 2019
    Addick Addict said:
    hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
    Most of us never discover what we're good at.
    I really do think that this is the point. Which is why I go back to our Society that treats academic success above everything else - the 11 plus is even more ridiculous as it failure can be so damning. And that's coming from someone who was and is the father of two grammar school educated boys.

    If more children had access to far more varied outlets and pursuits then they would find what they both like and would then probably become good at. Because there is a natural progression from one to the other.
    I've discovered many things that I'm not good at and sadly some of those were things I wanted to succeed at.

    A lot of us actually have things we're good at but don't value because society doesn't hold them in high regard. 
  • MrOneLungMrOneLung
    Nurture.

    You might naturally have good hand eye coordination for instance and be good at golf, but doesn't mean you are therefore good at darts.

    I have often jokingly said if someone paid me 100k a year so I could give up work and pay for training, I would be able to qualify for the Olympics at a sedentary sport such as Archery in a two Olympic cycle period of 8 years.
  • ShootersHillGuruShootersHillGuru
    The Apple very often doesn’t fall too far from the tree.
  • Sponsored links:


  • ChunesChunes
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 

  • ChunesChunes
    edited February 2019
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 
    Are you thinking of Laszlo Polgar? He had three daughters, one of whom is still considered the greatest female chess player of all time.

    Fascinating story, in that he only had the children for the experiment, and posted an ad looking for a volunteer to be the mother.
  • SwisdomSwisdom
    Pep Guardiola once said something along the lines of  “I pick the players and tell them what to do. But that’s only 60% of it - the other 40% is improvised”

    skull and ability alone wont win things. You need both.
    so many footballers don’t make it because of their social or psychological traits. They can have all the ability in the world but if they don’t have the desire to learn and improve they won’t get there.

    occasionally they get through the net but rarely. Ravel Morrison a good case.

  • StigStig
    Chizz said:
    Stig said:
    Both. Just like every other nature nurture question.
    Not *everything* is both nature and nurture!

    What isn't then?
  • bobmunrobobmunro
    edited February 2019
    Chunes said:
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 
    Are you thinking of Laszlo Polgar? He had three daughters, one of whom is still considered the greatest female chess player of all time.

    Fascinating story, in that he only had the children for the experiment, and posted an ad looking for a volunteer to be the mother.

    From a scientific and experimental perspective that proves very little in terms of nature v nurture.

    His three daughters had a grand master for a father who made it his mission to develop their chess skills, and they also carried his genes. 

    Psychologists today rarely if ever take a view at the extremes as there is far too much evidence to support the influence of inherited traits and environmental factors. Nature and nurture rather than nature or nurture. 

  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    Swisdom said:
    Pep Guardiola once said something along the lines of  “I pick the players and tell them what to do. But that’s only 60% of it - the other 40% is improvised”

    skull and ability alone wont win things. You need both.
    so many footballers don’t make it because of their social or psychological traits. They can have all the ability in the world but if they don’t have the desire to learn and improve they won’t get there.

    occasionally they get through the net but rarely. Ravel Morrison a good case.

    Much harder now in some sports to get by on talent alone than in the past if you don't have the right attitude. There's also less inclination to take risks with mavericks given how much money there is in sport.

    Fitness levels are far higher now so if you have a poor attitude to training you won't make it.

  • Raith_C_ChattonellRaith_C_Chattonell
    The Ingebrigtsen athletics brothers from Norway are pretty special too.

    Trained by dad with three brothers medalling in major championships.  It seems there are one or two more in the pipeline too
  • TelMc32TelMc32
    Addick Addict said:
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 
    That's interesting oohah

    I have two sons - the first is shortly 26 and a mathematical genius and professional sports trader but has limited sporting ability whereas the other (16 in a few weeks time) isn't a natural when it comes to the maths but is a gifted sportsman.

    The older one has never had to work hard to be good at what he does - it is just natural but the latter, whilst talented when it comes to hand to eye co-ordination, has had to do the 10,000 hours (and more) to get where he is today. Interestingly, the latter plays the guitar but doesn't have to put the hours in to be more than proficient on the instrument.

    From a genes perspective, it is safe to say that my sons' mothers are both pretty useless at maths, sport and don't play the guitar whereas I am slightly above average at maths and was decent but not special at football and have been playing the same three chords at guitar for over 40 years!

    However, one of my youngest son's grandfathers went to the 1952 Olympics as GB reserve goalkeeper (his mother's Dad) and the other played in Hungary at the same time as Puskas (my Dad). Why he chose two of the worst paid sports (cricket and table tennis) when he might one day have been making millions playing in the Premier League and keeping his Dad in the right sort of comfort is a source of great disappointment to me!  

    I have always maintained that every child has an ability to be really good at something. Sadly, society gives too much weighting to how many GCSEs or A levels they obtain which can only serve to cloud and undermine that gift that they may have - be it sport, music, carpentry, cooking, writing etc etc. 

    Wow!  Puskas was your dad!!!  😉
  • ChunesChunes
    bobmunro said:
    Chunes said:
    oohaahmortimer said:
    The quality of training and 10,000 hours or whatever it is 
    I’ve part read the book of the guy who deliberately had two kids and coached them to be chess masters .
    of the 4 sons I have I know one of them could have 10,000 hours training at any sport and would be pony , he lacks coordination but he’s a clever little crank so maybe he’d have been a master at chess .
    the other 3 could be decent , I was ok at most sports but crap at chess .

    I think you gotta have the right genes , my mate who’s mustard at all sport his two boys much better than mine and would have had similar coaching throughout the years 
    Are you thinking of Laszlo Polgar? He had three daughters, one of whom is still considered the greatest female chess player of all time.

    Fascinating story, in that he only had the children for the experiment, and posted an ad looking for a volunteer to be the mother.

    From a scientific and experimental perspective that proves very little in terms of nature v nurture.

    His three daughters had a grand master for a father who made it his mission to develop their chess skills, and they also carried his genes. 

    Psychologists today rarely if ever take a view at the extremes as there is far too much evidence to support the influence of inherited traits and environmental factors. Nature and nurture rather than nature or nurture. 

    Laslo Polgar is not a chess grand master, he's an educational psychologist? He never played competitive chess.

    He was very interested in chess which is why he chose it as the subject of the experiment, because he could provide adequate tutelage to the kids.

    Of course it still provides little evidence because it's a data set of three, but he begun the experiment having studied 'genius' and found that this was the pattern, and tried to follow it, and had three incredible successes. Not to mention that all of his daughters are polyglots - one of them speaks nine languages.

    As far as genes go, my Dad is an excellent chess player and has played at the county level and yet my sister and I are useless.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!