Are you a Tiger or a Roger?
Both are super athletes and dominated their respective sports around the globe. That is what makes them similar. The difference comes in when you look into their childhood.
Tiger was always specialized to golf. His father was laser focused on training him on that sport alone. So Tiger belongs to the special group of people that have put in deliberate practice needed for the specialization of golf.
Roger Federer on the other hand spent his childhood playing a variety of sports. Squash, badminton, soccer and other sports that improved his hand-eye coordination. He didn't gravitate towards tennis until the age of 16 but his practice with the other sports helped him along the way. He also got to select the game that he enjoyed more and was the number one player at the age of 36.
Though both belong to the top 1% of athletes, which of the two had a better odds given their childhood? Another way of thinking about this - if you had a child and you wanted to increase their odds of success, would you choose what to train them in and go all in or expose them to many things to enable them to identify their natural choice?
Similar to the Bruce Lee Vs Scott Adams debate, I think I prefer the Roger style. There is something more appealing about having options and developing more number of skills.
I am a Roger.
Both are super athletes and dominated their respective sports around the globe. That is what makes them similar. The difference comes in when you look into their childhood.
Tiger was always specialized to golf. His father was laser focused on training him on that sport alone. So Tiger belongs to the special group of people that have put in deliberate practice needed for the specialization of golf.
Roger Federer on the other hand spent his childhood playing a variety of sports. Squash, badminton, soccer and other sports that improved his hand-eye coordination. He didn't gravitate towards tennis until the age of 16 but his practice with the other sports helped him along the way. He also got to select the game that he enjoyed more and was the number one player at the age of 36.
Though both belong to the top 1% of athletes, which of the two had a better odds given their childhood? Another way of thinking about this - if you had a child and you wanted to increase their odds of success, would you choose what to train them in and go all in or expose them to many things to enable them to identify their natural choice?
Similar to the Bruce Lee Vs Scott Adams debate, I think I prefer the Roger style. There is something more appealing about having options and developing more number of skills.
I am a Roger.
It shows the near psychopathic, killer mentality infusing upbringing he went through to become who he is.
I admire
Variety is the spice of life, Roger all the way.