I've been intending to write a post about the "10 Year / 10,000 Hour Rule" for a while now, but it's languished on my 'to do' list, with no progress. Thankfully, most of the work has been done for me. Wayne Goldsmith sums it up nicely (thanks to
James for the link) with this gem, which is definitely worth the read:
"10000 hours to make a champion??? What rubbish!"
I will however take the liberty to add an 11th point to Goldsmith's list:
11. The empirical evidence that 10,000 hours is required for expert sport performance is at best weak, and at worst non-existant.
But don't take my word for it. Canada, and Ontario in particular, is home to several academics who study things like expert performance in sport, including Dr. Jean Cote (Queens), Dr. Joseph Baker (York) and Dr. J Starkes (McMaster). Here's what Dr. Cote (1) recently wrote on the subject:
Although there is some sport research that supports a positive relationship between deliberate practice training and elite performance (e.g., Helsen et al., 1998; Hodge & Deakin, 1998; Hodges & Starkes, 1996; Starkes et al., 1996), few studies have shown that 10,000 hours of deliberate practice is indeed a prerequisite for expert performance in sport. On the contrary, expert performance in sports where peak performance is reached after maturation has been achieved with 3,000 to 4,000 hours of sport specific training." (emphasis added)
And here's what Dr. Baker presented to Canoe/Kayak in November 2010:
You can find Dr. Baker's full presentation
here.
It's disappointing to note that you won't find one of these experts on expertise referenced in the Sport Canada
CS4L/LTAD.
The CS4L/LTAD document says "Scientific research has concluded that it takes a minimum of 10 years and 10,000 hours of training for a talented athlete to reach elite levels" (
Link). That statement has gotten a lot of mileage, although it has been edited from earlier versions to include the term 'talented'. Contrary to the LTAD/CS4L however, I'd suggest that the science is far from conclusive, and furthermore that the emerging evidence doesn't seem to support the 10yr/10k minimum.
If you've been following these occasional blog posts about the LTAD model (the others are
here and
here), you'll likely note a consistent theme; namely that certain concepts presented as established scientific fact are not as 'established' as the reader is led to believe. More troubling however are those examples where the available evidence and research is clearly
counter to the concept being presented as fact. But as I've said before, don't take my word for it, do your own research, weigh the evidence, and draw your own conclusions.
Does it take a lot of work - hard, patient, intentional, consistent, deliberate work - to become an elite athlete? Absolutely! Is there such a thing as talent? Yes, and it goes beyond physiology - it could be neural, tactile, mental, or any of a million other things, expressed in a variety of ways. And talent means nothing without hard work and determination. But I simply don't agree with the 'fact' that would-be elite athletes must spend a minimum of 10 years and 10,000 hours to be elite. And the research, at least as I read it, would seem to agree.
For a nice lit review on youth sports research, see
Youth Sports Implementing Findings and Moving Forward with Research.
See also K.A. Ericsson et al's "
The Role of Deliberate Practice in the Acquisition of Expert Performance", which is the basis for the 10,000 hour rule, and the primary resource for this "Factor" in the LTAD.
References:
1. Cote, J., Lidor., R., & D. Hackfort (2009). "ISSP Position Stand: To Sample or to Specialize? Seven Postulates about Youth Sport Activities that Lead to Continued Participation and Elite Performance",
IJSEP, 9, p7-17.
Link.
Posts
