Saturday, July 7, 2012

Natural Talent vs Hard Work

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!

Source: http://www.motorsportforums.com/chit-chat/153724-natural-talent-vs-hard-work.html

Len Atlee Pierre Audry

No comments:

Post a Comment