I AM BACK!

How's it going, everyone?! I sincerely apologize for not having been able to be online on deviantART over a long period of time, but the loads of school assignments were overwhelming me like the waves. There was a camp activity I could not miss too, which kept me away from being online even longer. Also, I'd been recently very busy preparing for the PSAT, which is a very serious matter to me and other students my age right now...so...*phew*..Two more years, and this boring high school year will finally be over.

Anyways, I just came up with another interesting theory as I was studying psychology today - Nature vs. Nurture. It sounded like a very good topic to discuss, so I decided to share it on this journal.

After reading this, please share your perspective on this debatable theory.

FRIENDS


The nature versus nurture issue is very debatable topic, and morever, controversial in sports. (Don't worry, I did NOT only use sports for this debate.) For instance, when we come to talk about great athletes, we tend to ask ourselves a question that has been every since sports have started - "Are legendary athletes born or made?" From my personal experiences as an amateur wrestler, and the professional athlete's, I would say the athletes are made. I believe everyone can achieve anything in their lives if they are truly willing to do everything they can to achieve it.

In the NBA, Reggie Miller of the Indiana Pacers, the legendary 3-points sniper, was an un-athletic, slender person who overcame leg deformities as a child that prevented him from walking. He had to wear leg braces for several years until his leg problems were corrected enough for him to start walking again. Eventually, Miller went on to play in the NBA for 13 seasons (that's unbelievable, right?), while setting the record for most 3-point shots made. Therefore, Miller was not a "born" athlete as most fans predicted. I feel that he worked diligently and efficiently to develop his skill, and reached the NBA.

On the other hand, many people believe that genetics make up good athletes. They believe that people are born with the ability to become a great athlete. For instance, people assume Reggie Miller was born with genes that would make him a good basketball player since his birth with potential to grow tall. Miller was now 6'6 and almost every great basketball superstar surpasses the height of 6'3. Being tall gives you an advantage in basketball, because you are indeed closer to the rim. Critics of the theory that athletes are developed would often ask, "If Reggie was 5'6, would he still make it into the NBA? " They will tell you he never would have made it. They woudl also remind you of the fact that Miller had an elder sister, who is one of the greatest basketball players of all-time in the WNBA (Women's Basketball Association). In conclusion, they would make an assumption that the Miller's were "born" to play the sport.

Critics also believe that good genes are passed onto the next generation. One of the greatest examples would be Ken Griffey Jr. of the Seattle Marineres from the MLB and his father, Ken Griffey Sr - the most notable father-son duo in baseball history, both famous home-run hitters. A high level of sport atmosphere influenced Ken at a young age since he was exposed to a high level of baseball as a child.

Another great demonstration will apply to Lance Armstrong, the cyclist, who was believed to supposedly be "genetically" nurtured. According to one of the sports books I read, great athletes may be born with certain physcial attributes that separate them from the rest. "Characteristics that genetics have a tremendously vast influence over include strength, muscle size/fiber composition (measure of fast or slow twitch), lung capacity, VO2 max flexibility, and endurance/stamina to some extent." Believers of this theory that most legends were born and not made would argue that the great cyclist, Lance Armstrong was born because of his greatest VO2 Max readings record.

(For those who have no idea of what VO2 Max is, it is a measurement of amount of oxygen that your blood carries.)

To refute these counterclaims, I can tell you that not everyone can become a great athlete. Some people just do not have the motivation to train, or are physically incapable of training. Soccer player or football if you prefer to call that way, Laureano Ruiz believed that around 80% of soccer can develop into tremendous athletes with proper body conditioning, and that reaching the top is a marathon, not a sprint. In order to develop your true potential, you must work as hard as you can, and commit every bit of your spare time training, striving to become a better athlete. He also states reaching the top can be achieved by any player with abundance of dedication and inspired guidance. Therefore, like I said, athletes are made and not born because people who work hard to reach there will eventually accomplish their goals. Even if a person is born with "good genes", I belive this doesn't really guarentee success.

To rebut the "good athletic genes are passed down through the generation" theory, I can tell you that exposure to sports at a young age can aid a child's athletic development. If a child is nurtured into a sport at a young age, the child will be more successful in the sport as an adult because they have been playing longer and will have more experience. This is why Ken Griffey Jr. was so good at baseball - he was "taught" the basics at a young age, and kept on practicing to improve his batting skills. Hence, the fathers of superstars got their son's into sports at a young age and nurtured their skills with proper professional training.

Nurture performs a wider role in becoming a great athlete than nature does - there are many external factors you can find. For instance, there is a stereotype that declares all Brazilians are born to be talented at soccer and we think they have it in their genes. However, it is not true.

Because most Brazilians were born in poverty and soccer is a sport where only a ball is required. These kids in Brazil will stay out all day playing soccer in the street, and sweating in the sun. The weather is also fairly good down there, which make more comfortable for kids to play soccer any time. In other words, they are constantly dveloping their skills. The environment in Brazil is ideal to produce good soccer players. Accordingly, if you shipped a Brazilian lad to Canada where the weather is freezing and people who live there are not as passionate about soccer as the child is, the little lad would probably not develop into a great soccer player since he is not surrounded by an atmosphere in which everybody participates in the game.

Another reason why I think there are no born athletes because no one is born with specific athletic skills. Going back to Reggie Miller, he wasn't really born with the ability to shoot the ball accurately; he had to efficiently develop this on his own, practicing hour upon hour, and taking hundreds of shots per day. This is what the hall of fame basketball player and the former Los Angeles Lakers superstar, Magic Johnson, quoted on Miller: "I've never seen a guy work as hard as Reggie Miller on the basketball court. I am talking about every day."

If anyone hasn't noticed, Miller also played against his older sister, who was much better than him as a child. Playing against better opposition gradually helps develop skills quickly. After playing basketball against his sister everyday, Miller grew a competitive edge, since he was sick of losing to his sister. This ultimately drove Reggie to practice more and more, so he could beat her whenever he wanted to.

The basketball legend, Michael Jordan, is another example of the theory that great athletes are nurtured. Despite being the greatest basketball of all-time, he was cut from his high school team in his sophomore year. If basketball came naturally to Jordan, he wouldn't have been cut from this team easily. According to what Jordan said in his interview, he had to earn every inch by diligence. Instead of quitting like a loser after failing to make the team, Jordan used that as an opportunity for motivation to help him achieve further.

"Whenever I was working out and got tired and figured, I ought to stop, I'd close my eyes and see that list in the locker room without my name on it, and that usually got me going again." - Michael Jordan

Lance Armstrong is another great athlete who worked very hard to top that level. In his autobiography, he tells readers how he overcame testicular cancer that almost ended up his life and his career to win Le Tour De France, the most prestigious cycling event in the world. He stated that while he was in the hospital, the captain of his former cycling team went into his hospital room, and told him while he was dying, that they were ending his contract. This upset Armstrong, and later motivated him to rise up again and work harder than he ever did during the course of his career as a cyclist. In the end, not only did he win victoriously against the cancer, but he also won the Le Tour De France to get back at the people at his former team for ending his contract. If anything, his genes would impair his athletic ability, not improve it. Athletes are truly much more a product of nurture than nature.

In conclusion, exceptional athletes are built, not born. Like Winston Churchill quoted, "Success is a journey, NOT a destination," this tells us that the only way we can gain victory is through patience, practice, resilience, and determination. It is impossible to be a "born great"; only through proper training, motivation, and through our environment can we achieve anything that seems impossible for us.

This type of debate doesn't always have to be connected to sports. Since I know most of you here aren't really into sports, I had decided to use other various examples from my experiences and other things in general - books/anime/video games...etc.

- FULLMETAL ALCHEMIST -

For Fullmetal Alchemist fans out there, was Edward Elric "born" to be one of the deadliest state alchemists or "nurtured" to reach the top and find out the truth about the Philosopher's Stone? Was it because he was a son of Hoenheim, who was also a great alchemist, or the lessons that Izumi Curtis, his mentor, had taught before becoming a state alchemist?

- BATMAN -

Was Batman naturally born to be the dark knight of the Gotham City, or was it the determination, and sense of justice and morals that lead him to the dark path? Having watched Batman Begins over a billion times, I must say that he showed his full commitment to what he was planning to do when he got older.

- DARREN SHAN -

(Spoilers Alert) Darren Shan later discovers that he was Desmond Tiny's son, and that he was "born" to control spiders, wolves, and dragons - or was he really? If you read the Cirque du Freak series, you would notice that Darren progressively matures through his harsh and thrilling adventure with Mr. Crepsley, Harkat, Vancha, Debbie and several others, and the dangers that almost had him killed.

- MY EXPERIENCE -

Since I was a little kid, many have told me that I was talented in drawing and that I would be one of the most notable and respected graphic novelists when I grew older. Well, yes, I can draw pretty well, but it still requires hours and hours of practice - Body anatomy is the hardest part of all drawings. Trust me, I even had to sacrifice my time for school work to develop my "natural" talent inch by inch. In sports, I believe I am a good wrestler, but if you ever saw me, I wouldn't look much of a threat to you - I am not as bulky or heavy as the more experienced ones. But my coach once told me that size and strength doesn't matter as much as what was really in my heart. He said if I had an ability to give everything I got in the last minute, I could still take down the larger and heavier opponents, even the professional ones.

Or, to be more realistic, let's look at it this way:

You know how some people become serial killers or something. Well sure, maybe some of them got domestically abused and had a very traumatizing past. But let's say we take a person who just committed murder once in his life and that's perhaps something that he got inspired to do from a movie or a game. Well sure, he got affected by it, but then there are many other people who might've watched the same film or played the same game (some of which probably had an even worse past), yet they do not go round killing people. I also think stuff like that is determined by both: genes and environment. Genes can give people a potential and thresholds, but what happens next is affected by nurture.

Overall, what do you say about this?

And I will do my best to have my accursed scanner fixed and scan the requests as soon as possible. And I am planning to come up with more interesting, arguable topics other than just "Why Cirque du Freak Series is better than the Twilight Series" and "Why Boston Red Sox are better than the New York Yankees".

------------------------
Journal CSS made by =caybeach
Brushes by *gvalkyrie