Jan

12

Would you agree with me that at least one area where genius is always recognized is sports. I can see one stroke usually from a player and tell if he's superb or bad. Certainly one stroke and a movement. Math and science geniuses also easy to spot. One would think that each of us, who usually know one field very well, could tell the genius in that field. I imagine Lack can tell a good driver from a minute or Messrs Sogi and Watson a good surfer? Agree?

Jim Lackey writes: 

I'd say it's the economy of motion. Genius pro vs. the weekend warrior– it's easy to spot. Yet it's not about being smooth or looking good, it's about maintaining track speed.

This old NYT article describes and has some good reporting on how hard at times it is to predict. I say there is no doubt about it… train the way you would race…perfect practice, and forget cross training:

Personal Best Running Efficiency: It's Good, but How Do You Get It?

"Still, there are a few tricks for novices, said Dr. Daniels. Most runners, he said, naturally fall into their most economical stride. But some bound along or, at the other extreme, take too many little steps. After studying hundreds of runners, Dr. Daniels discovered that taking 180 steps a minute made the most of energy expended.Dr. Coyle finds that the most economical cyclists have an abundance of a particular type of muscle fiber, so-called slow twitch. It is not known whether other types of muscle can convert to slow twitch with training. But, he said, it may be that after years of training, nerves are directed to allow more leg muscles to participate in pedaling. The result might be greater riding economy.
"You might wind up changing the way your neuromuscular system is wired," Dr. Coyle said. "It is a controversial area, but it makes sense."

George Coyle writes:

But how do we define genius? Is Lebron James a genius or a physical anomaly? Michael Phelps was supposedly born with joints which are very useful in swimming but does probable Darwinism make him a genius? Online dictionaries say genius is, "extraordinary intellect and talent". I would venture to guess many liberal arts "geniuses" could not easily figure a 15pct tip on a 125 bill and many a math/science pro can barely hold a social conversation. Some studies ascribe genius to practice but this is probably mainly useful for those a mile deep but an inch wide. What about those a mile wide but and inch deep? A universal definition is probably impossible, and in this instance measuring genius would require success to be recognized. Some Mensa members are homeless! I feel natural ability might be a better designation.

Steve Ellison comments: 

I agree with the Chair that genius is recognized in sports. People's approach to sports is very results-oriented and commonsensical, in contrast to other fields that are heavily politicized. I often draw analogies to sports in debates about how school systems should handle gifted students.

Nobody would ever have suggested that Lebron James play in a league with math team geeks so that he could help the geeks get better at basketball at the expense of his own development. Yet an analogous strategy is standard practice in US schools because, after all, the gifted students will do just fine, anyway.

Pete Earle writes:

I would agree that genius can be recognized in the athletic franchise, but I believe that a realistic assessment of genius in boxing takes a long period of time and perhaps only becomes evident in retrospect. One certainly cannot tell from watching one punch, one round, or a single match whether a given fighter has truly superlative skills and qualities. Indeed, a term used often in describing both "Buster" Douglas and Hasim Rahman among others, is their ability to demonstrate "flashes of brilliance". This quality is exciting and raises the prospects for a given match to lend credibility to the description of boxing as the "theatre of the unexpected"…but it's not 'genius.'

In my experience, it takes a career - at the very least, a long stretch of fights against opponents of varying opposing talents and fortes - to assess the ultimate skill of a fighter. Boxers (usually, but not always) change their style of fighting and/or fight plan with each opponent, but also make changes with accumulated ring experience and to adjust to the phenomenon of aging; for that reason, and counterintuitively, one rarely finds pugilistic excellence in perfect records or knock-out preponderance among victories.

Philosophical issue: In boxing, a large part of ones' record depends upon savvy making of business decisions (e.g., Mayweather's refusal to put his place in history at risk - with a 41-0 record at present - by taking on Manny Pacquiao) which may include ducking some fighters and taking on overrated ones. Should we extend "genius", in the realm of sports, to the crafting of contexts/choosing of opponents itself, where applies?

Stefan Jovanovich writes:

Racquet sports remain a complete mystery to us Jovanovichs. The one time Eddy and I went to a tennis court when she was a young child she tried to swat the ball DOWN as if she had a lacrosse stick and was trying to scoop it. We decided to move on to the sports where your hands and feet touch the ball. In baseball talent is not so quickly and obviously apparent. Mike Piazza, who will probably hold the record for home runs by a catcher almost as long as Cy Young holds the one for wins by a pitcher (BTW, he was passed over by the 1st year elections to the baseball HOF), became a professional baseball player only because Tommy Lasorda was a family relative. Piazza was the 1,390th player picked in the 1988 draft; all of the scouting reports agreed that the kid didn't have a ghost of a chance.

Charles Pennington writes: 

I remind the Chair of his thoughts from 2007 :

"The first three games of the first set, which Federer won, were fatal for Nadal, as was his inferior stroke production, and how this tired him out in the end. I predict that Nadal will drop out of the top ten within the next two years as his athleticism regresses with old age."

I also argued in September 2009 that Nadal would have a short shelf life on the basis of his extreme western grip.

It's not surprising that I could get it so wrong, but it should serve as a caution that the Chair, who could win most of his matches blindfolded, could miss the mark.

Phil McDonnell writes: 

All propositions must be tested. My personal experience with testing was in baseball. Having been a college player I had seen many play at a high level. When it came time for tryouts each kid was given 5 grounders with throw back, 5 flies with throw back and 5 pitches to hit. That was all the coaches were allowed to see. Each of 4 years I was somehow able to draft the top or second best team in the league of 10 teams. The odds of that , at random would be something like 1 in 625.

Each year the team rosters were pretty independent because there was a strong tendency for other coaches to draft my top picks from the previous year. Of the roughly 48 players I coached 5 were subsequently drafted by the Majors for a total of over $5 million in bonus money. I suspect that is non random so I would argue the Chair's hypothesis is confirmed.

Stefan Jovanovich comments: 

The great Dr. Phil keeps omitting the key statistic. How many of the bonus babies made it to the majors? Hell, in the age of bonus mania I was offered a signing bonus for a minor league contract because I had the good luck in prep school to catch a guy who could have made it to the show if he hadn't blown out his arm. I was a smart catcher but I was a 0 for 5 tool player who had as much chance of playing major league baseball as Rocky the Flying Squirrel.

Sam Marx comments: 

Some thoughts on genius.

Thinking "outside the box", may be the result of one type of genius
but what if someone "thinks inside the box", perhaps by substantially
extending further that which is already known or combining 2 disciplines
to obtain a new discipline or to obtain substantial improvements in
existing disciplines. Isn't that a form of genius?

Compare Cole Porter and Irving Berlin, whom I consider genius
lyricists. Berlin used the simplest words, phrases and situations, ("All
Alone by the Telephone"). He "stayed within the box ", Porter used
rarely used words (fine fin and haddy) and varied original situations
("Did YOU Ever", In this Clan you're the forgotten man). Or how about
those lyricists who can write rhyming the last 2 words of each line.

In sports, what about Bobby Riggs, who stayed back and played a
conventional defensive game vs. a more original aggressive player like Jack Kramer?

T.K Marks comments:

Vic, I thought that given the racquet sports hypothesis you had suggested that it might be somewhat different for something like chess, for the possible reasons I mention below. So in pursuit of that I wrote Nigel and was informed that no, it's not. His last line was found particularly informative as it provided a window onto how a chess player on his level saw things. 

Nigel, given Victor's hypothesis outlined above, in your many observations of chess players over the years have you ever witnessed a single move by somebody and were suddenly made to think by it that person thinks on a much more elevated plane than would be expected?…Or could be expected?…Just a truly eye-opening move that left you thinking, what in the world was that.

The reason that I ask is that in sports the person that makes the spectacular shot or play can not necessarily explain it afterwards as their body is basically in control at the time when they did it. But the rationale behind a spectacular chess move can be explained, so there would be something to learn from it.

He replied: 

Well, we tend to explain things more in retrospect. For me it's more or less the same as Victor suggests– I know very quickly whether someone is any good and their moves don't come as a great surprise. In fact I often don't need to see their moves, just the position they've reached..


Comments

Name

Email

Website

Speak your mind

Archives

Resources & Links

Search