The 10,000 Hour Rule: True . . . and Also Nonsense

What is the "10,000 Hour Rule?" If you are a reader of leadership literature over the last decade then you almost certainly have come across the proposition that "Talent is Overrated" (Geoff Colvin) and that excellence in just about any field comes down to simply hours of practice as popularized by Malcolm Gladwell. Here's an excerpt from his famous book Outliers:

“Exhibit A in the talent argument is a study done in the early 1990s by the psychologist K. Anders Ericsson and two colleagues at Berlin’s elite Academy of Music. With the help of the Academy’s professors, they divided the school’s violinists into three groups. In the first group were the stars, the students with the potential to become world-class soloists. In the second group were those judged to be merely ‘good.’ In the third were students who intended to be music teachers in the public school system. All of the violinists were then asked the same question: over the course of your entire career, ever since you first picked up the violin, how many hours have you practiced?

Everyone from all three groups started playing at roughly the same age, around five years old. In those first few years, everyone practiced roughly the same amount, about two or three hours a week. But when the students were around the age of eight, real differences started to emerge. The students who would end up the best in their class began to practice more than everyone else: six hours a week by age nine, eight hours a week by age twelve, until by the age of twenty they were practicing — that is, purposefully and single-mindedly playing their instruments with the intent to get better — well over thirty hours a week. In fact, by the age of twenty, the elite performers had each totaled ten thousand hours of practice. By contrast, the merely good students had totaled eight thousand hours, and the future music teachers had totaled just over four thousand hours.”

The Error: What vs. Why, Correlation vs. Causality. The data looks pretty convincing - the facts are straight "more practice = better performance." But like all correlations attempting to prove causality, there is the risk of unidentified factors - also correlated - that actually drive the results. In this case I think the error is in the question itself (first law of Design Thinking: "are we asking the right question?"). Sure we have the "what leads to great results?" question, and the clear answer is "diligent practice." But I think a better question is "why do great performers practice more than their peers?" And I think the answer to this, potentially more important question, circles back to strengths, talent, and "flow."

What is "Flow" and how is it related to talent? If you have missed the waterfall of books and articles on "Flow" (sorry) just pick up Steven Kotler's book "The Rise of Superman". "Flow" or "The Zone" or "The Peak Performance State" describes those moments of high concentration where time simultaneously stops and speeds up and we deliver our very best performances. Building off Csikszentmihaly's work, Kotler examines the neurobiology of these "altered states" and finds two interesting things: 1) The Flow state is dependent on mastery of the task at hand (native or developed talent) and the Flow state produces the worlds most desired (and addictive) set of chemicals: dopamine, norepinephrine, anandamide, endorphis and serotonin.

"For example, when you snort cocaine. All the drug does is cause the brain to release copious amounts of the neurochemical dopamine. Well, dopamine is released in flow. So are norepinephrine (speed), anandamide (marijuana), endorphins (heroin) and serotonin (ecstasy). You actually couldn’t produce this cocktail with drugs. Trying to take all those drugs at once and you’re going to end up drooling or dead. But the brain does it naturally." 

Peak Performers are addicted! Back to our central question, "WHY do great performers practice more than their peers?" I think the answer is clear: they enter into the flow state more than their peers, become more addicted to the results of the activity, and hence they voluntarily practice more than everyone else. (Sometimes the additional practice is driven from an outside force as well: emotionally manipulative parents and coaches can also drive the 10,000 hours - that's a whole other article.) From Csikszentmihaly:

"In many ways, one might say the whole effort of mankind throughout the millennia of history has been to capture these fleeting moments of fulfillment and make them part of everyday existence."

Whoah! The whole effort of mankind??? Possibly confirmation bias on Csikszentmihaly's part, but given the $11 Trillion (Kotler) spent annually in the global economy on legal and illegal ways to produce these chemicals in our bodies, perhaps not as grand a statement as it seems.

Putting it together: top performers practice more than anyone else. Most top performers are driven to practice more than others because they are chasing flow. The chicken or egg question is which came first - the practice or the flow state? There is good evidence that willpower is both limited and fairly evenly distributed - e.g. that the super-disciplined athlete or performer is a myth. Given this fact, I would argue that without some initial "beginner's flow" (or "talent") most individuals will not have the desire nor willpower to pursue the practice necessary to master the 10,000 rule.

In Conclusion: Identifying natural talents or strengths allows for "beginner's flow." The struggle / reward cycle of the flow state, once initiated, leads to practice. Practice leads to mastery which leads to even more flow moments. Talent is NOT over-rated (but it is not enough.) Flow is under-rated. It is time to discover our strengths and talents and spend more time in flow.

This leads me to my favorite question - and conversation starter:

What are you best at???
  • Like Why the "10,000 Hour Rule" is Nonsense

     

  • Comment

     

  • ShareShare Why the "10,000 Hour Rule" is Nonsense

How to Prepare for a TED Talk

How Do You Memorize All That? I'm often asked how I prepare for my talks - particularly for the rapid-fire, time-limited venues like the two TEDx talks and Chicago Ideas Week talk I have given.

If I Had More Time I'd Write You a Shorter Speech: Other than having a great story, useful data and a simple 1 - 2 - 3 framework, the other essential element for a great TED talk is to know your material inside and out, especially key concise phrasing required to deliver a complex topic in 18 minutes. This takes practice - but how to master 18 minutes of new material? Here's how I learn to memorize the outline of a talk and key phrases...

One Proven Approach: (That may, or may not work for you.) I follow the steps below for any new speech:

1) I write out the talk completely long-hand just the way I would say it (~10-12 single spaced typed pages for a 15 minute talk) along with movements, gestures and things to highlight. For an example click here to view my blog post on this topic.

2) Distill it to an outline with the key points and certain specific phrases to memorize

3) Start practicing using the outline - out loud (usually in the car as that’s a good place to be private) and timing myself. The first pass of my Chicago Ideas Week Talk was 34 minutes - I had to compress it to 18!

4) After practicing a few times using the notes, distill the outline to short 2 - 8 word bullets, (approximately 2 pages long) practice again and again until I don't need the notes. I memorized more than 80% of my Ideas Week talk word-for-word to the tight scripted phrasing to finish it on time while covering the topic thoroughly. This meant I practiced it ~30 times end-to-end.

5) Print the bullets on 4 X 6 cue cards - usually 4-6 of them. Staple, keep in my pocket for the talk as a backup and then don't ever use them : ) Talk pretty, bow to the applause.

In Conclusion: This process works as it forces you to A) outline your story and tighten your language B) learn key words and triggers to practice with C) allow you to show up confident in your material.

Design for Resiliency: Perform Better Under Greater Stress (and Like It)

(Reading time 7 - 10 minutes) 

Most people think of resiliency as the ability to "bounce back" after a difficult or stressful event. This is, however, like suggesting that the opposite of a negative is "neutral." No, the opposite of negative isn't neutral, it is positive, and, as Nicholas Taleb characterizes so aptly in his book, "Antifragile" the opposite of fragile is NOT just "strong". The opposite of fragile is what he calls "antifragile" or what I will call "resilient." Antifragility and resilience are the property that results from not just bouncing back from stress, but from becoming stronger in the process. The rest of this post is dedicated to how to become more resilient and to perform better and thrive under even greater stress.  

---------------------

The Yerkes Dodson Curve: Stress and Performance. 

In 1908, psychologists Robert Yerkes and John Dodson articulated the relationship between stress and performance: notably, that peak performance was not a by-product of low stress, rather that peak performance came at a certain "optimal" level of stress and then trailed off above that level. 

This curve suggests and reinforces the idea that we must find balance - a concept now infused into the modern psyche. "Work-life balance," "finding balance," "reducing stress," and "managing stress" are now common buzz words throughout the working world. At first blush it makes intuitive and rational sense:

The philosophy of Art of Really Living, however, is different. We use a "design thinking" approach to challenge life's SOP's (Standard Operating Procedures). We believe that the central question of "how do I reduce stress to find balance?" is fundamentally the wrong question, because, it makes the flawed assumption that this curve is fixed. Based largely on the work of my friend and mentor Dr. Daniel Friedland we can understand that the curve is not fixed. Knowing this, we explore a better question, and one more apt for the modern world: "How can I perform better under even MORE stress?" Let's face it - this world is not getting less complex or slowing down. 

"It will never be this slow again."

A daunting quote, but most certainly true. Accepting this, we can see that the better answer is to shift our stress response curve up and to the right - to perform better under even more stress. 

When you think about it - this is EXACTLY what athletes have been doing for millenia: learning to shift their stress and performance curve up and to the right. In fact the curve looks an awful lot like a bicep. The stress in this metaphor is the strain on the bicep. The performance is the maximal weight the muscle is capable of carrying. So... how do athletes shift their curve and increase their performance / stress ratio? They intentionally take on more stress, and (and here's the key) then they recover. Episodic stress and recovery is the key to athletic performance. But here's where the modern "corporate athlete" often gets it wrong. In office spaces around the world, workers are doing the moral equivalent of 15 hours of dumbbell curls with no rest and little sleep and then wondering why their biceps are not growing. 

The key to developing resiliency (and breakthrough performance) is the same: episodic stress, followed by recovery. 

So, how to apply this new model of increased performance under stress to our busy lives? Here are 3 simple steps (that are not-so-simple to implement.)

1. REDUCE

2. RECOVER

3. RAISE/REFRAME

I'll cover each of these in brief: 

1. REDUCE: Reduce current stress levels to allow for recovery. Many people I know are already to the far right on their stress / recovery curve and not in a position to intentionally take on more stress. So the first step is to reduce stress to allow for recovery - to regain initial balance. This is an intuitive step that many try in an episodic way, but it tends to form a vicious cycle of pulling back and out of things, recovering, recommitting, becoming overstressed and then pulling back again. A particularly terrible by-product of this cycle is being perceived as lacking integrity or as lacking follow through. Last minute cancellations, failure, over-promising and under-delivering are the hallmarks of this step by itself. Nonetheless it can be an essential first step in developing greater resiliency - here are 3 great ways to reduce stress:

a) "Race your strengths." Spend more time in your area of strengths - in "flow," "the zone," the peak performance state. Research shows that spending more time in this state significantly increases willpower. 

b) "Design around your weaknesses." Stop doing things that you are not good at. Not good at making project plans? Make it a stretch assignment for a detail oriented go getter. Not a great driver? Join a carpool. Not great at your current job? Identify a better role and then lobby to move into it - or quit and find a more suitable job. 

c) Delegate tasks that deplete you. Don't like doing taxes? Hire an accountant. Bored and overwhelmed by too many meetings? Quit the council, the PTA, the homeowners committee. Send a delegate to company meetings. Stop doing certain chores - hire someone to mow the lawn or clean the house. Money can't buy you love, but it can buy you time...

2. RECOVER: According to my friend Dr. Ari Levy, stress in modern life isn't necessarily up, but our ability to recover from it has drastically decreased. He makes a really good point: 100 years ago you could die at work from heavy machinery, or die on the way to work through exposure. Your children would often die at childbirth or later from the flu, typhoid, tuberculosis or even a snowstorm. If your crops didn't come in you could starve, if you ran out of firewood you froze. Fast forward 100 years and we are dying from... failure to answer an email quickly enough on our smartphones. But here's the thing... we actually are dying from email... We are bathing in cortisol - the stress hormone -  24 hours a day, 7 days a week which causes inflammation and wreaks all sorts of havoc, not the least of which is heart attacks, cancer and other killers. Dr. Ari had me play a guessing game to identify the top 3 ways to recover from stress. I guessed sleep, meditation and red wine. I was wrong on all three accounts. Here, from science are the actual top 3 in reverse order:

3) Low intensity exercise:  I should have guessed this one. As an athlete, "rest days" were not spent in bed - no instead we went for a very easy bike ride, a very slow jog, or just went out on the ice without ever breaking a sweat. The Tour de France riders don't take their rest days off - they do "recovery rides" for 2 to 3 hours. Physical activity is a great stress reducer. Go for that walk. 

2) Social intimacy: Being around people you care about and that care about you, conversations and candor are major stress reducers. Most work situations have a competitive and hierarchical element the prevent true social intimacy, so friends, family, romance - these are the second greatest way to recover from stress, and replace cortisol with serotonin and dopamine. Feeling stressed out and want to hide out in your room or office? That is a mal-adaptive response: you are much better spending time with your friends watching a game, playing cards or just talking. Make that phone call.

1) Physical intimacy: including all forms of touch. I didn't see this one coming, but according to research this is the number one way to recover from stress. Replace cortisol with oxytocin, "the love hormone" through simple touches (I suspect pets might also play a role), handholding, cuddling, hugs and of course, private time with the one you love: this is the straightest path to recovery from too much stress. Horrible day at work? Think that coming home and immediately firing up the laptop to put out fires is the best way to handle it? Wrong. Counter-intuitively you are better off taking a break and spending a quiet romantic evening with your significant other. Time to light the candles. 

Back to Dr. Ari's point about our inability to recover being the culprit for current stress levels? Consider the lifestyles of today vs. 100 years ago vis a vis these 3 mechanisms. 3) Exercise: 100 years ago we walked everywhere, most jobs had an element of manual labor and we were constantly active. Today the average office worker is completely sedentary nearly the entire day sitting a a desk with a computer screen. 2) and 1) Social and physical intimacy: 100 years ago more often than not we lived in multi-generational homes, and our work (farming, craftsmanship etc.) was more often a family affair. Homes were small, children slept 3 to a bed, and constant touch and interaction was the norm, not the exception. Consider today: for a single professional, most of the day, and night, are spent isolated and alone, and most social interaction - even dating - has become virtual in nature. Recovery is the key to resilience, yet many of us have lost touch with our most adaptive recovery mechanisms.

3. RAISE/REFRAME: Once you have regained balance and implemented stress recovery mechanisms back into your life, it is time for the real resiliency step: to intentionally take on MORE stress - in an episodic fashion - in order to recover even stronger. Raising stress is surprisingly easy: take on any new challenge that you can grow from. Go back to school for an advanced degree, switch jobs, vie for a promotion, take on a stretch assignment, have another child - options to take on growth oriented stress are virtually unlimited. But here's the real magic: all of those things can feel overwhelming, but perhaps the greatest resiliency tool is what my friend Dr. Daniel Friedland calls "reappraisal" or "reframing." We can learn to reframe stressful challenges to make them into a game or an experiment, where the outcomes, uncertain though they may be, do not directly link to our self image or self confidence. Mindfulness practice is a particularly helpful tool for reframing. Consider, for a moment, the Greek myth of Sisyphus: the king damned by the gods for all eternity to roll an immense rock up a hill only to have it roll right back down again. Sounds horrendous... but with a little reframing:

"Sisyphus learns to bowl"

Sisyphus' challenge was not all that different than bowling or the highlander games when you think about it. When we are able to reframe stressful challenges as a game or experiment we can begin to appreciate the process as much as the end result, reducing cataclysmic stress in the process. Sisyphus could have started to challenge himself, "how quickly can I get to the top? How heavy a rock can I move? How many times can I do it in one day? How strong can I get?" "Who is the strongest strongman on the planet?" 

Perhaps the greatest story of reframing and resiliency comes from Victor Frankyl, author of "Man's Search for Meaning." A Holocaust survivor, Frankyl lost his mother, brother and wife to the Nazi concentration camps and experienced stress and privation well beyond what most of us will ever experience. But he was able to reframe his experience by choosing to view the suffering as an opportunity to serve others AND still find meaning. 

"I understood how a man who has nothing left in this world still may know bliss, be it only for a brief moment, in the contemplation of his beloved."

Here is a man who has lost everything. On the brink of starvation, freezing, tortured, his mother, brother, wife dead, his life's work left behind and in ashes and he is able to find bliss. It certainly makes the risk of getting fired or missing a deadline seem paltry. I will end with Frankyl's most famous quote, one that sums up the ultimate reward of resiliency: freedom. 

“Between stimulus and response
there is space,

and in that space, is our power to choose our response.

In our response lies our
growth and our freedom.”

Interview: Entrepreneur on Fire with John Lee Dumas and John K. Coyle

John and I discuss the role of strengths in breakthrough performance, why it matters, and "horology" - my fascination with time. 

Why You Should Design for Strengths

Tip #2 part 3: But does focusing on strengths pay off? (Yes!)

Most people are familiar the idea of "playing to your strengths" as a guideline for a more successful life. However, we are so inculcated from birth to fix our weaknesses, that it becomes instinctual - particularly under pressure - to resort to this mode. Despite rationally acknowledging the notion of focusing on natural talents, most people fail to make the kinds of changes in their lives to truly live in, and through, their native strengths. There are some obvious reasons for this though. Challenge 1) in order to design and live a life designed for your strengths, you not only have to know what they are. But, challenge 2) you also have to know what your weaknesses are and quit or delegate doing those things. Finally challenge 3), the incentives and benefits for living a life immersed in your strengths are not clear enough for most people to make the changes required. 

Let's explore each of these challenges in order: 

Challenge 1: Know (and accept) the specific nature of your strengths. (2 posts ago)

Challenge 2: Knowing (and accepting) your weaknesses  - then quitting or delegating them. (last post) 

Challenge 3: But does investing in strengths really pay off? Are the incentives and benefits for living a life immersed in your strengths worth the risks and sacrifices? If you have ever quit something too early and regretted it later, then you can be certain that you'll naturally be driven to not let that happen again. Sadly, most of these kinds of regrets are legacies of childhood and teenage years where discipline and follow-through were not fully developed. For most people these same examples of regret are rare as adults. It is a sad fact that what most people regret in life is the things they didn't do...

Is it worth it to quit or delegate away weakness focused activities? Yes. Consider this, recent studies have proven that willpower is both a) a deplete-able resource and b) fairly consistently distributed across people of all walks. This whole notion of super-achievers having unlimited discipline and willpower is a pure myth. Instead, most highly successful people share two traits: 1) they have systems, routines, and rewards in place that remove as much of the discipline and willpower required for them to achieve their goals as possible and 2) they spend a higher percentage of their day pursuing their strengths - activities that recharge their willpower reserves.  

People always assume that as an Olympic athlete, I was a disciplined machine. But the reality is that it requires relatively little willpower to train hard while on the Olympic team. First, you have a program with set times and set activities that are NOT optional. Second, you have coaches yelling and exhorting you to work harder should you show up late or fail to put in your best effort. Third you are surrounded by high caliber, inspiring and competitive people. Fourth, and most important, you are doing something you are uniquely talented at (following a strength). Sure, lots of days that become long miserable slogs, but there are also those days it is pure joy to be able to skate 30mph hour and push 3G’s, flying around the corners like a jet fighter.  

I have been on a slow progressive journey to design a life for my strengths that has met with many unforeseen twists and turns. My first job after retiring from sport was a-now-laughable-position as a PMO (program manager) for a massive technology conversion - Y2K at Goldman Sachs. Laughable because that position could scarcely been more mis-aligned with my native talents. I hated that entire year, was completely exhausted every day and just showing up for work was a major effort. I'd say I was using perhaps 10% of my strengths and mostly spent time trying to fix my weaknesses. I then moved on to designing new business models and trading systems for Enron. I was very good at the initial design work, but had to work very hard at all the details required for implementation / launch - a mix of perhaps 50/50 strengths vs. weakness focus.

After Enron I quit consulting to join my favorite client U.S. Cellular where over time I took the reins of a massive innovation effort. My strengths / weakness ratio tipped up to 75% during that project and I worked crazy hours - not because I had to, but because I wanted to. For years I was jazzed to come to work every day. Then the innovation project was over, and I left to work for an innovation consulting firm. Sadly what the firm really needed (and wanted from me) was more of a program management role and I stepped back to 40% strengths / 60% weaknesses. Two years after that I asked the CEO to design a new role for me leading a new practice of innovation leadership development and moved back to a 70%/30% split of my strengths and weaknesses. Shortly thereafter I did my first paid keynote speech, and loved it, and it was very well received. Three people in the audience hired me, and then three more, and I suddenly realized I have found what I love most. 

Now I've left consulting and I'm doing full time speaking and workshops and spend 90% of my day living in my strengths and experiencing flow regularly. I have probably worked as many or more hours over the last months than ever: I didn't even take weekends off and worked late most nights, but it required no willpower because it was what I wanted to be doing. Over the last eight months I've never been happier, more fulfilled, or healthier AND I will likely earn more financially this year than I have. Because I'm using virtually no willpower to do my work, my risk aversion has gone way down, my resilience way up, and I've been willing to take the kinds of risks I previously would not have considered - including reciting an 88 line poem for the mayor of Chicago, writing a book, performing in a music / dance / poetry rant collaboration, perhaps even co-writing the lyrics for an album with the amazing and talented musician Anthony Snape. AND, more importantly, I’ve significantly slowed down my perception of time passing…

2015, for me, lasted about 15 years or longer in terms of my perception. The summer was far far longer than any I remember as a child, and 2016 is off to a similar pace – high speed in the present with travel, new people and new relationships, but expansive in memory as I continue to push myself to live in my strengths, take bigger and bigger risks, and create those event horizon moments of “really living.”

One of my favorite questions is, “what are you best at?” Do you know the answer? Do your friends, co-workers, and children know? If not, then how can you (or they) design a life to perform at your best, experience the joy of flow every day, and slow down time?

It is time: time to race your strengths and design around your weaknesses. To “really living.”  - JKC

PS: I just published a coffee table book of the Art of Really Living Manifesto: See it here at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/dp/1530709253 and buy it here on Createspace  https://www.createspace.com/6148570 and get a 25% off discount - code: SFM6BEU7

 

 

Why You Should Design Around Weakness (Rather than Fix Them)

Tip #2: Design your life to "Race Your Strengths" – Part 2 of 3 

IDEA IN BRIEF:

Most people are familiar the idea of "playing to your strengths" as a guideline for a more successful life. However, we are so inculcated from birth to fix our weaknesses, that it becomes instinctual - particularly under pressure - to resort to this mode. Despite rationally acknowledging the notion of focusing on natural talents, most people fail to make the kinds of changes in their lives to truly live in, and through, their native strengths. There are some obvious reasons for this: Challenge 1) in order to design and live a life designed for your strengths, you not only have to know what they are. But, Challenge 2) you also have to know what your weaknesses are and quit or delegate doing those things. Finally Challenge 3), the incentives and benefits for living a life immersed in your strengths are not clear enough for most people to make the changes required. 

 Let's explore each of these challenges in order: 

Challenge 1: Know (and accept) the specific nature of your strengths (last post)

Challenge 2: Know (and accept) your weaknesses  - then quit or delegate themI believe that most driven, successful people are facing down a collective adult neurosis. This neurosis is the erroneous continuation of important programming received as children that becomes limiting to adults: the unwillingness to quit. To paraphrase Scott Adams (author of Dilbert) persistence is awesome, until it is stupidAdmitting and accepting weaknesses, and then actually quitting those activities is anathema to our beliefs, our pride, and our culture. We are wired to tough it out, to never quit, never give in. There exists a special kind of vertigo to stand at the precipice of failure and let go and accept. But, in order to spread your wings and fly you first have to become airborne.

I believe that this unwillingness to admit weaknesses and refusal to quit trying to overcome insurmountable obstacles leads many men and women to lead "lives of quiet desperation," as Thoreau so elegantly described. 

I've written at length about "how to know when to quit" and the two year rule, but even if one rationally grasps the concept, we are hardwired to never give up, so, what to do? 

What to do: ascertain areas in your life that are sucking your willpower or appear to have plateaued. Then quit one at a time… (a small one at first.) Often we pursue things because, "we should." Obviously the "biggest quitter" would be a career (or a relationship). But smaller things might be time-consuming hobbies, activities, projects, committees etc. I think the story of Warren Buffett is a great example of a "should" that he quit. Warren, through his amazing investing skills had become one of the richest men in the world, but until recently, he had not done much in the way of "giving back" in terms of philanthropy and charitable work. In an interview on (CNN) Warren finally admitted his weakness and then in a brilliant move, gave his money to Bill and Melinda Gates to give away.  

“What can be more logical, in whatever you want done, than finding someone better equipped than you are to do it? Who wouldn't select Tiger Woods to take his place in a high-stakes golf game? That's how I feel about this decision about my money.” – Warren Buffet on giving his money to the Gates Foundation

When I first heard this story I started thinking if there were any "should's" I could quit. Suddenly it dawned on me. At the time I was the head coach for a local speed skating club, not because I was good at it or liked it (I was not and did not) but because "I should." The sport had given me so much and so many had volunteered their time for me,that I "should" want to be a coach and give back… Except I wasn't great at it and didn't like it. So I broke it down… I DID like skating with the kids, teaching them technique and relays… what I didn't like was writing a program each week, doing drills and most of all, all the yelling required to get 35 kids to line up and do the program. Quickly I discussed this with the club president and we agreed I would step down as the head coach and instead become an assistant technical coach and focus on what I liked and did best: skating with the kids and providing technical advice. The relief I felt was palpable - I didn't even realize how much guilt I was carrying for not "loving" being a coach… because "I should."

What "should's" can you quit/delegate? Here's a few I've quit and a few more to consider: I've quit: mowing the lawn, shoveling, driving to the airport (Thanks to Uber), driving to the city (Uber/train), my consulting job, and 2 significant long term relationships that had become toxic. Think about it - what can you quit that will allow you to spend more time living in your strengths. The PTA? A school or work or charitable committee? yard work, housecleaning? Snow shoveling, owning (and maintaining) a car? Owning and maintaining a second home – or even a first home? Magazine subscriptions, cable TV, social media accounts… what time-sucking “should’s” can YOU quit?

I'm not suggesting abdicating responsibility or shirking your duties or not having discipline, but what I am suggesting is that you make a purposeful investment of your social energy and willpower as they are depletable resources. If participating in the homeowners association or PTA or coaching little league is leaving you with less energy for your spouse or career or your kids, that may be a poor investment of time. 

  COMING NEXT: Challenge 3 - Does investing in strengths really pay off? 

Strengths are Specific: What are You Best At?

 

Tip #2: Design your life to "Race Your Strengths" - part 1

IDEA IN BRIEF:

Most people are familiar the idea of "playing to your strengths" as a guideline for a more successful life. However, we are so inculcated from birth to fix our weaknesses, that it becomes instinctual - particularly under pressure - to resort to this mode. Despite rationally acknowledging the notion of focusing on natural talents, most people fail to make the kinds of changes in their lives to truly live in, and through, their native strengths. There are some obvious reasons for this: Challenge 1) in order to design and live a life designed for your strengths, you not only have to know what they are. But, Challenge 2) you also have to know what your weaknesses are and quit or delegate doing those things. Finally Challenge 3), the incentives and benefits for living a life immersed in your strengths are not clear enough for most people to make the changes required. 

"IF YOU ARE OVER 25 AND STILL TRYING TO FIX YOUR WEAKNESSES, THAT SHIP HAS SAILED!" 

Let's explore each of these challenges in order: 

Challenge 1: Know (and accept) the specific nature of your strengthsI believe that most people wander through life stumbling into the first thing in which they have some interest or initial talent, and fail to discover the true artist, physicist, poet, mathematician, athlete or musician within. What a great loss to humanity! Our strengths, as it turns out, tend to be very specific. Let me share two strengths as an example: consider the talents of a) an athlete and b) a business person. In my case, I was described as "fast" in the first case, and the second as "a good communicator." 

Sure, I was "fast" as a child and I was pretty competitive in most sports at a young age. However, most sporting activities for young kids are of a very short duration, and as I got older, I began to notice that I was only "fast" in short events and I was pretty useless at any sport requiring hand-eye coordination. For example, in eighth grade I managed to play an entire season of basketball without scoring a point, and in high school I eventually quit the cross country running team after 2 years of suffering and mediocre performances. I was mystified at the time, but now it is clear - I'm not fast at everything - I'm only fast in short events. I am a sprinter.*

*One sad side note here is that many true endurance athletes may end up quitting sports before they have a chance to shine. Because they are naturally slower in the short-spurt gym events like basketball, baseball, soccer and track, these slow twitch athletes may conclude they are "bad at sports" before they've had a chance to run the mile, a 5K or participate in a triathlon. If your young child is "bad at sports" consider the possibility that they may be unstoppable endurance machines when it comes to longer events.

By high school I had the realization that I was sprinter and switched from cross country to track and field to run the 100m, 200m and long jump. However, even there I eventually determined that I was only regionally competitive, but, when it came to sports requiring intense bursts of power against resistance, I could compete at a national, even world class level. By my twenties I finally honed in on the specific nature my strengths starting from the initial generic label of "fast."

Here's the breakdown:

"Fast" -> as a sprinter -> against resistance - > in events requiring short bursts of immense power - > followed by short rests - > while balancing - > and traveling at high speeds - > in a pack of people trying to kill me 

That's a pretty specific strength. If I had stayed with the broad brush of "fast," I would most likely never have achieved any success in sports. In fact there are only a two sports that require the above unique combination: short track speed skating, and cycling - the two sports in which I have competed at the world championships. I'm pretty terrible at most other sports.

 

Now, using the same process, lets analyze the "good communicator" strength. This is another very generic description leading to a series of questions: A good communicator to whom? About what? Best with large groups? Medium sized groups? Small groups? Best with one-way "keynotes" or facilitating two way dialog? Best at taking complex information and making it simple? Or best at taking simple things and expressing the innate complexity? Best at storytelling? Or better at sharing data and analysis? Best with highly motivated groups of individuals? Or best at motivating people that need inspiration? Best one on one? More of a coach? More of a challenger? More of a listener? If you have been painted with the broad brush of "communicator" and you don't know the answers to these questions, then you cannot leverage your superpower to achieve breakthrough performance. 

Sadly I was in my forties before I truly figured out my career superstrength - I am a:

"Good communicator" -> to large audiences -> taking complex topics and simplifying them through metaphors - > and expressing them via storytelling -> to high achievers - >  seeking innovative ways to improve their lives.  

I only discovered this less than two years ago, when, on January 28, 2014, I gave my first paid keynote. Now, this is my full time job. I live in my strengths more than 90% of my day now.  

What to do: ascertain the highly specific nature of your strengths and design them into your life. How? Take tests and assessments. Ask others. Look at your weaknesses and identify their inverse - sometimes the best way to identify a hidden or latent strength is to look at the antonym of a weakness. As an athlete my weakness is low aerobic capability, low endurance, high production of lactic acid. This is a result of type 2b fast twitch muscles that fatigue quickly. The inverse is also my superpower - to generate massive power for short intervals, process the lactic acid produced and recover quickly. In business there are a number of great assessments - cognitive, personality, and conative. Take them, study them, find the patterns of "flow" in your life and thread them together. Here's a partial list of assessments with links: 

  • Kolbe (conative - measures drive) http://www.kolbe.com/
  • Myers Briggs (personality) http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/
  • Strengthsfinder (personality/cognative)  http://strengths.gallup.com/default.aspx
  • ZTPI (temporal perspective - personality) http://www.thetimeparadox.com/zimbardo-time-perspective-inventory/
  • DISC (personality) http://discpersonalitytesting.com/free-disc-test/
  • LSI (personality - leadership) http://www.human-synergistics.com.au/Solutions/DevelopingIndividuals/LifeStylesInventoryIndividual.aspx
  • Enneagram (personality) https://www.enneagraminstitute.com/guide-to-all-riso-hudson-tests/
  • Authentic happiness (personality - happiness - multiple free tests) https://www.authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/testcenter
  • Insights Discovery (personality - work preferences) https://evaluator.insights.com/

 

COMING NEXT:  Challenge 2: Knowing (and accepting) your weaknesses  - then quitting or delegating them

 

 

TBT: People I Owe - Mike Walden

People I owe: Mike Walden

What do a tennis school in Siberia, a soccer club in Brazil, a music camp in upstate New York, and a baseball club in Curacao all have in common with a bicycling club from Detroit?

They are all “chicken-wire Harvards,” a term coined by Daniel Coyle in his great book “The Talent Code”. That is, each of these remote destinations has a number of things in common: they tend to be underfunded, they have programs with a relentless focus on the fundamentals of a sport or activity, and at their helm they have or have had iconic coaches who “say a lot in a little,” and “repeat a little a lot.”

They also produce champions. Lots of them. So many that, when plotted on map in red, they become a “talent bloom” – a rose against the white of the page. In fact, one small, yet famous tennis club in Siberia, called Spartak, which has only one indoor court, achieved eight year-end top 20 women’s rankings for professional tennis players for 3 years running (as of 2007.) During the same period, the entire United States only had 7. As it happens there is also a little cycling club in Detroit with even more striking results.

Statistically speaking, it is impossible to conceive that there was more talent concentrated in the environs of Spartak in 2007, or around the Dorais velodrome in Detroit in 1980 than the entire United States. In fact the preponderance of talent from these locales belies their demographics – the argument can, and should be made that these coaches and environments created talent. But how?

Detroit, 1978. The Wolverine Sports Club was one of many of its ilk – typical in many ways. Underfunded, provided for primarily by largesse from Mike Walden’s bike shop in Hazel Park, the club also supported its activity through fund raiser “bike-a-thons” (also a Walden invention.) The Wolverine Sports Club (WSC) ran a regular series of practices – Tuesdays at the run-down Dorais Velodrome in Detroit, Wednesdays were the iconic “Wednesday night ride” from the Royal Oak Library complete with fans in lawn chairs who blocked traffic for the huge peleton, and Thursdays featuring practice races in Waterford on a 2.2 mile race car track. Weekends were for racing, because “racing is the best training,” or so we were told.

To an 8, 10, 12, even 18 year old kid, it all became so normal. I remember my first visit to the Dorais velodrome. Names were inscribed in the cement along the homestretch – Fred Cappy, Mike Walden, Clair Young, Jim Smith. These etchings were meaningless to me and hidden each year under more and more graffiti. Today the track has fallen into disrepair.

 

One of my first nights at the Dorais velodrome was in the fall, with a low turnout and leaves skittering across the cracked banked surface. Walden was mostly occupied shouting at two female racers who were preparing for a big competition somewhere. I was clueless and didn’t care. That is until, after a series of timed flying 200m events by the two women, Walden suddenly focused his shouting at me. “What about you? Let’s go: 200m as fast as you can go! Pedal circles and finish at the line!”

The two muscular women quickly shared some strategy – line up high on the track on the first corner and then dive for the blue line (marking the 200m mark) and then stay as low as possible on the “pole lane” or black line to the finish.

Moments later, exhausted but exhilarated by the speed, Walden barked out a time (“13.8!”) and turned to other riders. The two women, Sue Novara and Sheila Young, slowed to pass along compliments, “wow – you’re a fast little thing.” Little did I know that both were rivals and world champions in this exact event – the match sprint on the velodrome.  I was surrounded by greatness. I was lucky. It only takes a quick spin through Malcolm Gladwell’s “Outliers” to realize that one of the core elements of the Wolverine Sport Club and my own success was simply the environment: we all got an early start on the requisite 10 years/10,000 hours of deliberate practice that greatness requires.

Another great book, that might have have featured Walden as its poster child is by Geoff Colvin’s “Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else.” The thesis? “Greatness doesn’t come from DNA but from practice and perseverance honed over decades – and not just plain old hard work, like your grandmother might have advocated, but a very specific kind of work.”

“The key is how you practice, how you analyze the results of your progress and learn from your mistakes, that enables you to achieve greatness.” Deliberate practice, as practiced by Mozart, Bill Gates, Tiger Woods, Sheila Young and Frankie Andreu, is an unrelenting focus on the potentially mind-numbing basics of a sport or activity. In fact, at the tennis camp in Spartak, Siberia referenced earlier, kids spent an inordinate amount of time swinging rackets at the air before they were even allowed to hit balls, and then they were not allowed to enter a tournament until they had 3 years of practice under their belts.

Daniel Coyle then describes the unique characteristics of the coaches who create the right environment for focus on deliberate practice. In one chapter he details the key elements of a master coach, by documenting the actions of a certain famous athletic coach. This coach’s “teaching utterances or comments were short, punctuated, and numerous. “There were no lectures, no extended harangues…. “He rarely spoke longer than twenty seconds. “What made this coach great, “wasn’t praise, wasn’t denunciation, and certainly wasn’t pep talks. “His skill resided in the Gatling-gun rattle of targeted information he fired at his players.”

This, not that. Here, not there. “His words and gestures served as short, sharp impulses that showed his players the correct way to do something. “He was seeing and fixing errors. “He was honing circuits.”

For those that knew him, this sounds exactly like Mike Walden. But this case study was of basketball’s John Wooden. The circuits Daniel refers to are the biological occurrences of “myelination” – the wrapping of neural circuits that become “talent” through repetition, coaching, and deliberate practice.

The hubris of youth suggests the following: “everything good that I have – I’ve earned.” And then the corollary “Everything I don’t have? Not my fault – I wasn’t born with that talent (or I’ve been thwarted by outside forces.”)

With time, maturity and a series of books by acclaimed authors I’ve been forced to realize that virtually all my athletic accomplishments and perhaps even all of my achievements in general – even in academics – boil down a couple simple facts: 1) I had the right parents (a subject for another day), and 2) I was born, raised, and trained at the right place at the right time: Detroit, 1980, WSC… with Walden.

Take away Dorais, Walden, Waterford, and the repeated refrains of “pedal circles,” “win it at the line,” and “race your strengths, train your weaknesses,” and humbly, it is clear that my entire life’s journey would be on a different trajectory. Gone would have been a bid for the Olympics, gone the silver medal, gone the singular element that encouraged some strong undergraduate (and graduate) schools to accept a student with SAT’s and GMAT’s that were at best “average” for these institutions.

My relationship with Mike Walden was not one I would have described as friendly: I came to practice, and he yelled at me. During practice, he yelled at me. Sometimes, after practice, he yelled at me. This was the same for most of the team, though I sometimes I felt singled out. Dorais velodrome was the worst – in the oval you were always within shouting distance. The bumpy track in the inner city was fraught with danger – bumps, graffiti, random kids throwing rocks, and the worst of all, crosswinds. Week after week, year after year, Walden demanded that riders should have only a 4 – 8 inch distance between the tires of other riders in high speed pacelines against crosswinds, over uncertain pavement, and variable speeds – all on racing bikes without brakes or gears. “Follow the wheel” meant be right on the wheel in front of you. If you let a few more inches stretch out as the peleton accordioned down the homestretch, then Walden’s penetrating voice was right there, “close the gap Coyle! Get on the wheel!”

Between each activity, Walden was not shy on letting anyone and everyone know how bad they had failed. “Alcala – you’re a disaster – can’t ride a straight line.” “Andreu – you pick it up every single time you hit the front.” “Paellela – you’re herky-jerky – ride smoothly, quit riding up on everyone.” I was afraid – everyone was afraid – to get it wrong, and you modified each and every pedal stroke to pedal circles, keep an even distance, accelerate smoothly, and drop down after pull at the front. I didn’t know it then, but this extraordinary focus on pedaling fundamentals every Tuesday for nearly 10 years allowed a 30+ year racing career featuring 3000+ races, with almost no crashes (<10), and not one injury serious enough to prevent racing the next day. It also gave my limited strengths a path for success: to move swiftly and safely through the peleton in preparation for the sprint in a manner that may be my primary defining strength as a cyclist. Mike always said, “race your strengths,” here’s a video of that put into action. 

Walden was not one to shower complements. In 1980 at 11 years old, racing as a Wolverine, I won the national championships at the Balboa Park Velodrome in San Diego, California. In the process I also met Eric Heiden who I would “pro-fro” with (live with for a week as a prospective freshman/frosh at Stanford 6 years later.) My relationship with Walden had only slightly warmed over the years, nonetheless I was fully expecting some warm words after my victory against some difficult odds against the likes of Jamie Carney. Immediately after the awards ceremony, still wearing my stars-and-stripes jersey, Walden sought me out and came up extending his hand. I was beaming and expecting (finally) some recognition. Instead I heard, “Don’t get cocky – it’s just a race. “There are a lot more important ones in your future.” He turned on his heel and stomped away. 30 years later and I can still feel the flush of heat to my cheeks as I describe that moment.

podium-1980.jpg

By the time I was in my late teens, I was winning races left and right. At 15, like Frankie Andreu, I was solicited by the almighty 7-11 team, and raced for them over the next couple of years. I continued attending Walden practices and continued to fear his penetrating bark. I had decided that he must clearly hate me until an odd morning one summer many years later after he had passed away.

Screen Shot 2015-12-24 at 3.45.11 PM.png

I had been invited to a club ride that was leaving from Walden’s house in Berkley one Saturday morning (we still met there even though Mike had passed away). I rolled into the driveway a little early and no one was there, so Harriet Walden, Mike’s widow invited me into the comfortable, but humble home. I was struck by how normal it seemed. For nearly a decade Mike had been an enigma to me, someone ‘other than human’ who only pushed and prodded, who only repeated the same damn things again and again, “pedal circles! “Finish at the line! “Race your strengths!” It was odd to think of him having the normal accoutrements of modern life. Harriet was very accommodating and seemed to know all about me. As I waited for the other riders to arrive, she said something to me that shocked me then, and still cuts me to the core now, “You know, Mike was very fond of you…” She paused, waiting for her words to sink in. “He spoke very highly of you.” I was stunned.

I didn’t know. But I know now. I should have known then. How could I not know? What kind of courage does it take to push someone to become all they can be and never even ask for any acknowledgment in return?  

A few years ago Richard Noiret made a movie, “Chasing the Wind” about Walden and the Wolverine Sports Club. I believe this is the tip of the iceberg. How did a club in a random suburb of Detroit produce 5 Olympians, 10 World Champions, 300 National medalists, and more than 25% of the nation’s national champion cyclists for two decades?

I’m a coach myself now, both for an incredible team at work, and as the head coach for the Franklin Park speedskating club. It’s odd: I’m relatively terrible at coaching speedskating despite a life dedicated to practicing the sport – it feels like total mayhem. Yet, every Tuesday night, more than one of the kids will say to me, “thanks Coach John!” as they leave the ice, despite all my yelling and it gives he a huge thrill. During all my formative years, it never, ever occurred to me to thank my coach – Affholter, Young, Walden – and it never occurred to me that they weren’t paid for all that time, effort and shouting.

Theron Walden (Mike) died February 12, 1996. I never even new his real name. I was probably busy with something I thought was important. I missed the funeral. It came to me later that I had never really known the man, and worse, that never, in my life had I ever said, the simple words I write now, 15 ½ years later. Thank you, Mike.

I owe you more than you could possibly imagine, but it is only now that I realize it. Thank you Mike – for your (tough) love, and your legacy that I’m attempting, clumsily, to pass on.

—————————————-

 

PS: In order to pass on Mike’s legacy I feel I must pass on the below verbatim. It concerns a sophisticated understanding of strengths vs. weaknesses that is best described in the incredible book, “Now, Discover Your Strengths” by Marcus Buckingham. As usual, an incredible amount of science belies the couple sharp barks that only become clear with time and repetition. This is another great legacy of Mike’s: repetition is the key to coaching. Think carefully about the conundrum posed by the below and what it suggests for your life’s path regarding your strengths, passions, and weaknesses:

Race your strengths, train your weaknesses.
Racing is the best training.
Race your strengths, train your weaknesses.

Racing is the best training.

References:

  • “Outliers” by Malcolm Gladwell

 http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017930/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1318566226&sr=8-1

  • “The Talent Code” by Daniel Coyle

 http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Code-Greatness-Born-Grown/dp/055380684X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318566246&sr=1-1

  • “Talent is Overrated” by Geoff Colvin

 http://www.amazon.com/Talent-Overrated-World-Class-Performers-EverybodyElse/dp/1591842948/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1318566269&sr=1-1

  • “Now Discover Your Strengths” by Marcus Buckingham

 http://www.amazon.com/Discover-Your-Strengths-Marcus-Buckingham/dp/0743201140/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321302063&sr=8-1

National Championship results, 10 years:  1972 – 1981, Road & Track (Virtually all the MI racers were club members or trained with Mike)

1972 –  Road – Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 5-6

SENIOR WOMEN

1.        Debbie Bradley, IA, 28mi in 1:19:10

2.        Jeanne Omelenchuk, MI

3.        Eileen Brennan, MI

 

 1973 Track – Northbrook, IL, Aug. 1-4

SENIOR MEN 10 MILE  –

1.        Roger Young, MI

SENIOR MEN’S MATCH SPRINT : final for 1st and 2nd: Roger Young. Ml beat Jack Disney, CA, 2,0

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT: final for 1st and 2nd: Sheila Young, Ml, beat Sue Novara, Ml, 2,0

MIDGET BOYS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Jeff Bradley, IA, 21

2.        James Gesquiere, MI, 10

 

1974 Road – Pontiac, MI, July 27-28

JUNIOR MEN

1.  David Mayer-Oakes, TX

2. Pat Nielsen, MI

3. Tom Schuler, MI

 

1974 Track – Northbrook, IL, July 31-Aug. 3

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT – Final for 1st and 2nd: Sue Novara, MI, beat Sheila Young, MI, 2.0

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.      Connie Paraskevin, MI, 21

MIDGET BOYS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.         Kevin Johnson, MI, 14

2.          Troy Stetina, IN, 8

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Jacque Bradley, IA, 21

2.         Debbie Zbikowski, MI, 9

 

1975 Road – Louisville, KY, Aug. 14-15

SENIOR MEN

1.        Wayne Stetina, IN, 114mi in 4:35:53.22

2.        Dave Boll, CA

3.        Tom Schuler, MI

 

1976 – Track – Northbrook, IL, Aug. 3-4

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT- Final for 1st and 2nd: Sheila Young, MI, beat Sue Novara, MI, 2,1

JUNIOR WOMEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Jane Brennan, MI, 17

INTERMEDIATE BOYS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Jeff Bradley, LA, 17

2.        James Gesquiere, MI, 15

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Connie Paraskevin, MI, 19

2.        Nancy Merlo, MI, 12

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Kirstie Walz, NJ, 19

2.        Susan Schaugg, MI, 15

3.        Anne Obermeyer, MI, 8

4.        Lisa Parkes, MI, 5

 

1977 – Road, Seattle, WA, July 26-Aug. 6

SENIOR WOMEN – 1.        Connie Carpenter, WI, 38.24mi in 1:38:31

JUNIOR MEN

1.        Greg LeMond, NV, 71.5mi in 3:10:40

 

2.        Jeff Bradley IA

JUNIOR WOMEN

1.        Beth Heiden, WI, 31.5mi in 1:24:28

MIDGET BOYS

1.        Grant Foster, CA, 11.25mi in 31:27

2.        Greg Foster, CA

3.        Jimmy Georgler, CA

4.        Glen Driver, CA

5.        Frankie Andreu, MI

MIDGET GIRLS

1.        Sue Schaugg, MI, 9mi in 27:50

2.        Lisa Parkes , MI

3.        Ann Marie Obermayer , MI

 

1977 – Track– Marymoor Velodrome, Redmond, WA, Aug. 2-6

JUNIOR WOMEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Connie Paraskevin, MI, 15

2.        Dana Scruggs, IN, 10

3.        Nancy Merlo, MI, 8

4.        Rena Walls, MI, 7

5.        Jane Brennan, MI, 7

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Susan Schaugg, MI, 14

2.        Lisa Parks, MI, 12

 

1978 Road Milwaukee, WI, July 26-30

JUNIOR MEN

1.        Jeff Bradley, IA. 7Omi in 2:50:48

2.        Greg LeMond, NV

JUNIOR WOMEN

1.        Sherry Nelsen, MO, 24mi in 1:03:51

2.        Tracy McConachie, IL

3.        Nancy Merlo, MI

4.        Karen Schaugg, MI

5.        Louise Olson, MI

VETERAN WOMEN

1.        Jeanne Omelenchuck, MI 15mi in 40:26

MIDGET GIRLS

1.        Elise Lobdell, IN

2.        Tyra Goodman, MI

3.        Beth Burger, PA

4.        Karn Radford, CA

5.        Celeste Andreu, MI

 

1978 – Track – Kenosha, WI, Aug. 1-5

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT – final for 1st and 2nd: Sue Novara-Reber, MI, beat Jackie Disney, CA, 2,0

SENIOR WOMEN POINTS RACE

1.        Mary Jane Reoch, PA

2.        Cary Peterson, WA

3.        Sue Novara-Reber, MI

JUNIOR MEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Eric Baltes, WI, 13 pts

2.        James Gesquiere, MI, 12

3.        Jeff Bradley, IA, 8

JUNIOR WOMEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Connie Paraskevin, MI, 17

2.        Sherry Nelsen, MO, 15

 

3.        Tracy McConachie, IL, 7

4.        Nancy Merlo, MI, 6

5.        Rena Walls, MI, 3

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Beth Burger, PA, 19

2.        Elise Lobdell, IN, 11

3.        Tyra Goodman, MI, 7

4.        Karn Radford, CA, 7

5.        Celeste Andreu, MI, 7

 

1979– Road – Milwaukee, WI, Aug. 1-5

SENIOR WOMEN

1.        Connie Carpenter, CA. 39.6mi in 1:44:16

2.        Beth Heiden, WI

JUNIOR MEN

1.        Greg LeMond, NV, 70.4mi in 2:55:08

VETERAN WOMEN

1.        Jean Omelenchuk, MI, 15mi in 43:30

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS

1.        Sarah Docter, WI, 15mi in 38:02

2.        Sue Schaugg, MI

3.        Abby Eldridge, CO

4.        Lisa Parkes, MI

5.        Laura Merlo, MI

MIDGET GIRLS

1.        Celeste Andreu, MI, 9mi in 27:09

2.        Elizabeth Keyser, CA

3.        Melanie Parkes, MI

1979 – Track – Northbrook, IL, Aug. 7-12

SENIOR MEN POINTS RACE

1.        Gus Pipenhagen, IL, 18 pts

2.        Roger Young, MI, 18

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT  Final for 1st and 2nd: Sue Novara-Reber, MI, beat Jackie Disney, CA, 2,0

JUNIOR WOMEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Rebecca Twigg, WA, 16

2.        Connie Paraskevin, MI, 13

JUNIOR MEN OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Mark Whitehead, CA, 15 pts

2.        Jeff Bradley, IA, 13

3.        Peter Kron, IL, 7

4.        James Gesquiere, MI, 6

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Brenda Hetlet, WI, 17

2.        Susan Schaugg, MI, 10

3.        Laura Merlo, MI, 10

4.        Lisa Parkes, MI, 7

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Susan Clayton, IA, 17

2.        Jennifer Gesquiere, MI, 15

3.        Celeste Andreu, MI, 13

4.        Elizabeth Keyser, CA, 4

5.        Melanie Parkes, MI, 3

1980 – Road – Bisbee, Az, Aug. 13-17

SENIOR WOMEN

1.        Beth Heiden, WI, 35mi in 1:43:56

JUNIOR WOMEN

1.        Sarah Docter, WI, 28mi in 1:25:58

2.        Rebecca Twigg, WA

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS

1.        Dedra Chamberlin, CA, l7mi in 57:52

2.        Lisa Lobdell, IN

3.        Mary Farnsworth, CA

4.        Lisa Parkes, MI

5.        Susan Schaugg, MI

MIDGET BOYS

1.        John Chang, MI, 7mi in 24:29.54

2.        Steve MacGregor, WI

3.        Hector Jacome, CA

4.        John Coyle, MI

5.        Jamie Carney, NJ

MIDGET GIRLS

1.        Celeste Andreu, MI, 7mi in 39:59

2.        Lisa Andreu, MI

 

1980 – Track – San Diego, CA, Aug. 20-23

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT -Final for 1st and 2nd: Sue Novara-Reber, MI, beat Pam Deem, PA, 2,0

INTERMEDIATE BOYS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Tim Volker, IA, 19

2.        Brad Hetlet, WI, 11

3.        Bobby Livingston, GA, 10

4.        Joe Chang, WI, 4

5.        Frankie Andreu, MI, 4

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Susan Schaugg, MI, 14

2.        Dedra Chamberlin, CA, 9

3.        Amy Saling, NJ, 7

4.        Mary Krippendorf, WI, 7

5.        Lisa Parkes, MI, 6

MIDGET BOYS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        John Coyle, MI, 19

2.        Jamie Carney, NJ, 11

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Celeste Andrau, MI, 17

2.        Jennie Gesquiere, MI, 15

 

1981 Bear Mountain, NY, Aug. 3-9

INTERMEDIATE BOYS

1.        Gordon Holterman, VA, 33mi in 1:33:47

2.        David Farmer, PA

3.        Frankie Andreu, MI

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS

1.        Elizabeth Keyser, CA, 23.4mi in 1:15:15

2.        Bozena Zalewski, NJ

3.        Celeste Andreu, MI

MIDGET GIRLS

1.        Lisa Andreu, MI, 11.7mi in 38:17

2.        Joella Harrison, AZ

3.        Gina Novara, M

 

1981 Track – Trexlertown, PA, Aug. 11-16

SENIOR WOMEN MATCH SPRINT –  Final for lat and 2nd: Sheila Young-Ochowicz, WI, beat Connie Paraskevin, MI, 2,0

Final for 3rd and 4th: Sue Navara-Reber, MI, beat Betsy Davis, NJ, 2,0

INTERMEDIATE GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Rene Duprel, WA, 19

2.        Celeste Andreu, MI, 15

MIDGET GIRLS OMNIUM OVERALL STANDINGS

1.        Jenny Gesquiere, MI, 21

2.        Gina Novara, MI, 15

3.        Alicia Andreu, MI, 9

 

This list only represents cycling nationals – note the rising tide of MI athletes on the national stage.

 What is missing is the world and Olympic results for cycling and the same results for speedskating. Champions like Gold, Silver and Bronze Olympic medalist Sheila Young, World Champion Roger Young, World Champion and Olympic medalists Connie Paraskevan, World Champion Sue Novara, 9 Times Tour de France Rider and Olympic 4th place finisher Frankie Andreu – and on and on the list is a Who’s Who of American cyclists and speedskaters.

A "Really Living" Moment in Time - guest post by Pauline Steinhoffer

(Guest Post by Pauline Steinhoffer)

Last week I had a very special Really Living moment with my son, Dante, age six, in Lake Tahoe, Nevada. Due to the drought, the south shore is so shallow that you can walk out 150 yards (at least) in ankle or knee-deep water. I took Dante out quite far and then told him we were going under water. He was confused because he'd been swimming all week in the pool and we'd been out on the lake paddle-boarding and kayaking, and he wasn't sure why it was necessary to walk so far out in order to dunk ourselves in the depths of the lake.

I know from experience that summer is simply not complete without submerging oneself in an alpine lake. It's so different from any other kind of water experience. The water is crisp and cool and invigorating and puts you fully in the moment. Nature's baptism. The sun was setting when I went under first. I came up for air feeling completely transformed. Dante noticed immediately and he quickly went under water. He emerged with the most triumphant "YES!!" I've ever heard from him.

I have no idea how much time we spent out there splashing, unable to stop laughing, and sharing a pretty incredible experience together, but I will never forget it.

Where Did Summer Go? Why So Fast?

(News story idea - we have pitched to the Today show and local TV)

The summer of 2015 will have 94 days, 2232 hours 133,920 minutes and 8,035,200 seconds. This is the exact same number of seconds as a summer when you were 8 years old. Yet, when you were a kid, summers lasted "forever." Now, however, with 35 days left, summer is fading quickly and will disappear in a wisp of nostalgia. "Where did the time go?" you ask.  

Why does time feel this way? If it is not true that summers have fewer hours and minutes and seconds, then it must be a collective error in our perceptions. Can something be done to slow, stop, and reverse this perceived acceleration of time?  Can we go back to experiencing summers as long as those when we were kids? 

Horologist and "counterclockwise" specialist John K. Coyle, has some answers. "98% of adults feel this slipping away and acceleration of time, but it is just not true - it is cognitive bias - cognitive error. Therefore if a cognitive error is causing time to accelerate clockwise, what if we could manipulate our brains in a counterclockwise way and 'unwind cognitive time'?"  

John has discovered how to do exactly this. He has uncovered 3 rules that govern experiential time and that allow you to slow, expand, even 'create' time. According to John,  "I experience time in a way that is fundamentally different than most other adults, and is even more expansive than when I was a child." 

http://days.to/summer/2015

John will be sharing some of these ideas in his role as the lead-off keynote speaker at Chicago Ideas Week - Edison Talks (October 16th). There he will be discussing his upcoming book "Counterclockwise: Unwinding Cognitive Time". John is available for interviews and discussion at your convenience. You will never see time in quite in the same way. 

FYI -- John spent much of his life turning counterclockwise chasing time as a world class track cyclist and Olympic medal winning speed skater.