Theory by Nick-At-Will

4-20-20 Nick

Theory is defined as having a hypothesis, plan, or system of idea's yet to be proven. However...executing or applying the (whatever) theory is a whole different matter! Take the theory of rote or repetitive learning. Some sport's physiologists, sport's psychologists and those possessing advanced degrees in bio-mechanics say the best (maybe only) way to learn a skill well and properly, e.g. swinging a squash-racquet and/or moving to a particular part of a squash-court, is through applying this theory. But wait a minute, others say "maybe not!" It's been explained that repeating a movement more than ten-times may be worthless. That is...if that movement isn't executed perfectly, (which is often the case with children who have a limited attention span) then the result may be less than desired. More important than the number of repetitions, is how focused and concentrated the athlete may be. If they (in this case a junior squash-player) is given a goal, e.g. ten repetition attempts, chances are they'll focus and concentrate more on the result...rather than haphazardly repeating whatever that number of times may be. What about talent versus intelligence in that learning process? Which is more important and/or effective? Intelligence (or intellect) has been defined as having a capacity for logic and/or understanding. Talent is defined as having a special and/or innate natural ability or aptitude. And of course, "talent" comes in many forms, e.g. exceptional skill, ability and/or intellectual knowledge. So...for the learning process, which of these "theories" will prove to be more effective or compelling...rote/repetitive learning, intelligence or talent!? Good question, as we believe that it's a very complicated and complex matter! Perhaps obtaining the best result in the learning process involves ALL the above...in many instances, some more than others. Bottom line...it's the "discovery" of the athlete's intelligence and/or talent that will eventually "prove" to be the best "theory" in the resulting learning process. 

Theory is defined as having a hypothesis, plan, or system of idea's yet to be proven. However...executing or applying the (whatever) theory is a whole different matter! Take the theory of rote or repetitive learning. Some sport's physiologists, sport's psychologists and those possessing advanced degrees in bio-mechanics say the best (maybe only) way to learn a skill well and properly, e.g. swinging a squash-racquet and/or moving to a particular part of a squash-court, is through applying this theory. But wait a minute, others say "maybe not!" It's been explained that repeating a movement more than ten-times may be worthless. That is...if that movement isn't executed perfectly, (which is often the case with children who have a limited attention span) then the result may be less than desired. More important than the number of repetitions, is how focused and concentrated the athlete may be. If they (in this case a junior squash-player) is given a goal, e.g. ten repetition attempts, chances are they'll focus and concentrate more on the result...rather than haphazardly repeating whatever that number of times may be. What about talent versus intelligence in that learning process? Which is more important and/or effective? Intelligence (or intellect) has been defined as having a capacity for logic and/or understanding. Talent is defined as having a special and/or innate natural ability or aptitude. And of course, "talent" comes in many forms, e.g. exceptional skill, ability and/or intellectual knowledge. So...for the learning process, which of these "theories" will prove to be more effective or compelling...rote/repetitive learning, intelligence or talent!? Good question, as we believe that it's a very complicated and complex matter! Perhaps obtaining the best result in the learning process involves ALL the above...in many instances, some more than others. Bottom line...it's the "discovery" of the athlete's intelligence and/or talent that will eventually "prove" to be the best "theory" in the resulting learning process.