Are we born champions or are we made champions ?

[apexrob]

what are your views . :)
I think champions are born , you can not teach people the will to win that s in the blood , but thats my opinion . :D

[Jay.G]

yes champions are born, but it is how we develop the talent, some who are just born to be good at archery doesn't mean that they will be the best and always the best. It takes hard work, if the talented also work hard then of course they will succed but if they dont i doubt they will go as far as the ones who train every day and every weekend.

[Jay.G]

Mm that kinda remind me of something, when i first started archery, which was at january, i shot for the school, novice archer barebow with a pin sight, o it was a horrific day, first shot miss second shot miss third shot 1 and that was at only 25m.

Now i knew i wasn't talented in archery when i first start but i work hard i shot more than 100 arrows perday during the summer holiday.

Now i shot for my club and i already have the 4 transtasman jr team score.

i think was june or something the interschool was held at our club and well i was shooting real recurve at 30m, 40m and 50m. comparing it now and before at 40m and 25mmy score was now XX9, thereabout.


That is the result of hard work, not talent but hard work.

[apexrob]

though, its different when you are at world level , everyone is as good as everyone else shooting wise , its that little extra deep down that gets you over the line .

[Archangel]

Made, definately. It's not hard to look around at an archery club and spot a kid or two with 'talent', but they'll never shoot 1200 without putting in some hard yards - and many more if they're going to become a real champion.

I've also found it interesting to note how many archers with 'natural talent' drop out when they eventually can't make it any further, whereas the ones doing the work will soldier on right past them.

[Jay.G]

yep dats definetely right

[TER]

Around the time of the last Olympics I read an article somewhere about a study that asked the question, "Are Olympic gold medalists genetic freaks, or people who trained hard and well for a long time?" They looked at a bunch of athletes and concluded, Olympic gold medalists are genetics freaks who worked hard. Wish I could find that article again... you'll just have to trust me that I interpreted it correctly.

[apexrob]

yeah i'd agree with that Ter . :)

[Marcus]

Yeah I'll agree with that.
Take a natural talent with crap form and they will shoot high scores
Take an ordinary person with billiant form they worked with and they will shoot high scores
Take a natural talent with brilliant form and they will shoot the highest scores.

One of the girls at our club would sit at indoor and keep all her arrows in the gold with a recurve. She leaned back and had no back tension, a terrible release and a Win and Win Trigger bow but still shot 250 indoor.
I fixed her form up and she got a Matrix with G3 limbs and she jumped to 275.
She had the ability, was just a matter of giving her the tools to take advantage of it.

[Jay.G]

but never fear, i reckon with much hard-yard and i mean much thats like 200 arrows per day for 4 days a week and do that for about 10 years i doubt you couldn't be shooting at the olympics.

But then again if you have bad form it might just be a waste of time.

[Eberbachl]

Bit of both if you ask me.

I think the term "born champion" is taking it a bit far though ;)

I say more like, born with some talent and aptitude, and develop it with a great deal of hard work.

Like Marcus said, with good form and hard work - even the most talentless will shoot good scores, but the great scores will be shot by those who work hard and have talent.

Those with talent but don't work? They'll wallow in the pits of mediocrity alongside the talentless hard workers ;)

:D

[Mike13]

Agree. The genetic freak who is a hard worker will be a winner. Lance Armstrong is a good example at this time of year, trying to win his seventh straight Tour.
Some people are just more disposed to doing certain things - not just in sport but in science, politics, military, arts, whatever. If they also work at it they'll be a superior participant to most.
I think apexrob is also talking about mental toughness under the pump - is that genetic or is it learned behaviour? Could be some of both.

[Jay.G]

what if it was just self-motivation, i mean if you motivate your-self, that would be good, even if you are born with talent but no self-motivation for archery.

No point doing archery without self-motivation unless you are just playing it for the views of the range.. 0X

[apexrob]

8)

[Eberbachl]

Bit of both if you ask me.

I think the term "born champion" is taking it a bit far though ;)

I say more like, born with some talent and aptitude, and develop it with a great deal of hard work.

Like Marcus said, with good form and hard work - even the most talentless will shoot good scores, but the great scores will be shot by those who work hard and have talent.

Those with talent but don't work? They'll wallow in the pits of mediocrity alongside the talentless hard workers ;)

:D

Well i don't think the term" born champion " is taking it too far .
When you get to a australian or world title mate , and the cards are on the table, someone that has natural or born will to win will always come out ahead . i've seen it too many times , and thats not in this sport only. Though there are the champion chokers , my uncle was the best speedway solo rider in the country during the 60's , but when it came to a aussie title he wasn't worth a pinch of sh*t . I guess what classifies a champion is how he performs and handles the pressure on the day .

I guess it depends on what you mean by "born champion".

If you mean someone with the fortitude to stand up and bang 'em on with the best of them at world level, then sure - some of that is born into you I guess, so sure - in a way, he could be "born a champ"

But, I think the skill of being able to perform well at that level can certainly be honed by lots of practice in high pressure situations as well. ;)

[The One]

As most people have said, the very best shooters will have both - natural talent and dedication. Though with just one of those, you can go a long way, just not all the way. I don't think you can be born a champion - it's all very well if you are born witht he natural talent to do archery really well, but most people never have the chance to do archery. Thus, you can't be born a champion if you never have the opportunity to become that champion.

That being said, I'm not sure how much 'natural talent' is apparent. Natural talent is a combination of hand-eye coordination, reflex and mental aptitude. Most of which are learned skills (reflexes everyone has, but they still need to be trained above the animalistic level to suceed in sports). You can develop a lot of 'natural talent' by training these relevant skills in a non-archery-related environment. I don't believe that people are born with proficiency at certain sports. Possibly they are born physically with the ability to perform well at specific sports (due to body geometry, metabolism, strength, etc.), but I believe that the mental side of things is trained indirectly from a very young age by different interactions - identical twins raised separately can become very different people because of these interations.

[Jay.G]

ill agree to that 8)

[kgk]

They looked at a bunch of athletes and concluded, Olympic gold medalists are genetics freaks who worked hard.

I think it depends on the sport. Some sports require a mutiation---for example, swimmers need huge hands, long arms, short legs, big feet, etc., etc. Then, if you have the mutation, you still have to work really hard to win.

Some sports might not require a mutation: An example might be some of the equestrian sports.

I'm not sure if archery is a mutant sport, or not... it might need mutations in the visual system or nervous system, but I'm not sure.

kgk

[paintspot23]

No one is born a champion.
All it is, is a drive to achieve.
I can relate to this topic. I did 2 years of martial arts and in that 2 years i went to 4 gradings and at 3 of the 4 I double graded and Mr Rhee said that after the first double grading that there would be no more double gradings. But I did it and was double graded another two times after that.

The story above is and example of what hard work does to you.
Anyone can shoot 1200's but they have to have the drive and the willingness to put the effort in.

If you put the effort in you will reak the rewards, and that is the bottom line to most sports.

[shooting_star]

i think that you can be made champion, but anyone who is made a champion can never beat the natural champion. (ie. a made champion can train really hard, and be really good, but the natural will always come out on top)

[gap shooter]

You are born with a desire to acheive , and with a level of a natural ability . Dersire and hard work will always out way natural talent .

You have to want it and know that nothing will stop you from acheiving your goal . the best shot in the world has worked his/her arse off to be there , the amount of work is determined by their natural ability . some have to work harder than others

I think

[tex]

I think that a born champion hasn't to work so hard as me to get the same result, this is the real difference.Everything is easier for who was born with a special DNA
Nature or nurture? The big question anyone has answered to, yet...and I think we can't solve this problem in the forum.
Here we are, so go back to the field and keep shooting! 8)

[Milkovitsch]

In my opinion it's a matter of attitude, of core beliefs and drive. It's hard to say whether you're born with these things or they have been learnt because of the influences one has had through life. Personally, whilst this is a little against the latest thinking in psychology, I think it's more genetic than anything else.
Whether you end up a champion depends as much on the above as on your physical ability to be a champion at the chosen sport. Whilst I could (perhaps :roll: ) be an archery champion, I will never be a champion at long / high jump, no matter how determined I am. In this respect archery is a kind sport, where physical ability is not as important (in relative terms) as in many other sports.

On that topic specifically, which are the physical attributes desired in archery? Odd, I would have though physical fitness to be very important nonetheless yet I know of one Aussie archer who was a 'little' overweight and still brilliant.

[Marcus]

In this respect archery is a kind sport, where physical ability is not as important (in relative terms) as in many other sports.
Dunno about that, as time goes on it is becoming more apparent to me that size and strength is worth a huge amount in archery. None of the 1400 shooters that I know of are small guys. Clint is probably the smallest and he is a strong guy (was holding 41# when he shot his 1409). The naturally big strong guys have a distinct advantage.

[Milkovitsch]

I can see the point, the stronger the bow, the faster the arrow - all other things being equal.
What about fitness? What about that very unfit archer?

So perhaps the preferred attributes are
Strenght
Vision
Fitness? Gotta make a difference.

[Marcus]

He's a strong guy, plus has been doing this sport for a long long time.
Cardio fitness is not as important as strength IMHO.
Watching Morton Boe shoot from Norway, the guy is about 6'4" and is huge. In the wind he can hold on the middle and squeeze the shot without getting blown around. That's gotta help.

Also don't let size assume fitness. Some of the NFL Linemen weigh 150kgs and can run faster than most 'fit' people.

[Marcus]

Dunno about vision, I think we overrate it.
If you have a blury picture it's till possible to shoot well. I would rate

Ability to hold still
Strength
Mental control
Body control

The biggest factor though I think is the ability to not quit when you are behind. Look at the world's best athletes and they fail more time than they achieve and they don't let that worry them. Have to be prepared to put yourself in a tough spot and be willing to fail without fear. That's what seperates the clutch guys from the others. To be able to miss the target and shoot a 50, or drop a 9 first arrow indoors and shoot a 299. To get beaten soundly and instead of quiting, work harder.
It's a rare quality, but an important one.

[primal]

Right on marcus. to be prepared to put yourself in a tough spot and be willing to fail without fear. That's what seperates the clutch guys from the others.
no matter what sport or endevour. the ability to reach beyond the circumstances, overcome the odd, "insert coachy like saying here". is one of the most important factors in being a champ.

[apexrob]

Dunno about vision, I think we overrate it.
If you have a blury picture it's till possible to shoot well. I would rate

Ability to hold still
Strength
Mental control
Body control

The biggest factor though I think is the ability to not quit when you are behind. Look at the world's best athletes and they fail more time than they achieve and they don't let that worry them. Have to be prepared to put yourself in a tough spot and be willing to fail without fear. That's what seperates the clutch guys from the others. To be able to miss the target and shoot a 50, or drop a 9 first arrow indoors and shoot a 299. To get beaten soundly and instead of quiting, work harder.
It's a rare quality, but an important one.

yep i couldn't agree anymore . I've seen it so many times , they will start of with a 17 or 18 at the 45 yarder , get upset with themselfs, start wingin and thinkin/talkin negatively and blow the rest of the round .

[Milkovitsch]

Dunno about vision, I think we overrate it.
If you have a blury picture it's till possible to shoot well

Years ago, my dad was a really hot barebow shooter. His vision was also exceptional, I mean really really good (he now wear glasses, and he's not that happy about it).

Of course he might have been good for other reasons, and one person is hardly a reasonable sample base. Perhaps you're right, and with contacts or glasses one might see just as well. To further complicate the issue, it has been said that a 'blurry' sight is advantageous, and I have heard some archers intentially put their sight just out of focus. But then I hear the airforce prefers fighter pilots with good eyesight, why would this be if sight can be easily corrected with glasses/contacts?
I suspect good vision is more important in archery than we realise, even if right now I cannot quite see why (no pun intended).
Do many top archers wear glasses?

[alexvpaq]

hope we aren't bowrn with a natural talent, because if yes I should stop now... really just prctice, good technik and your on business!
and maybe a good equipment might help... untwisted limbs!

[Chris]

i think vision is overated in most sports!!!!
i have friends that play state level cricket as opening batsmen and are blind as bats!!!

i have shot some of my best indoor scores with a 10x Scope, because it made the target blurry

the abilty to compete without fear of failure is probably one of the key qualities of a champion