The individual differences we observe in the ‘levels of success’ that people achieve in performance of a motor skill depends in large part on the degree to which the person has the motor abilities that are important for the performance of that skill.
The are two main viewpoints about the relationship of motor abilities:
The First view, the ‘General Motor Ability Hypothesis’ maintains that motor abilities are highly related and can be charcterised in terms of a singular, global motor ability. This suggests that is a person is good as one motor skill, the he or she has potential to be good at all motor skills. Little research supports this view, and often elite performers in one sport which requires certain motor abilities will not be proficient in another sport containing different motor skills.
This hypothesis is however supported by the ability for a CrossFit athelte to turn their hand to any physical task (the unknown and the unknowable) and achieve at least a basic competence.
The other alternative which has gained support is the, ‘Specificity of Motor Abilities Hypothesis’ this suggests motor abilities are relatively independent. This means that even is a person was proficient at the skill required to complete a walking handstand, we could not necessarily predict their squat snatch would also be good.
What do you think? Can someone be ‘naturally athletic’ as the ‘General Motor Ability Hypothesis’ maintains? Or does this natural athleticism come purely from training, rather than an innate inbuilt ability?
