[glitchc]

Show me an elite performer and I can give you a broken individual with the right kind and amount of torture.

Luck is a big factor in a person's success and it's influence shouldn't be under-rated, the biggest element being where and to whom you are born.

[dvt]

Its influence is not as heavily discussed because innate characteristics (parentage, race, height, eye color, etc.) are unchangeable. Why would I worry about something I can't fundamentally change about myself when trying to perform at an elite level? Other than wallowing in self-pity, it serves no purpose. Instead, I worry about the dozens of other factors I do have a say in.

[glitchc]

The article says grit and mental toughness are necessary and sufficient for elite performance, and that such attributes can be learned, ergo anyone can be an elite performer. Adding luck as an attribute pours water on that theory: Mental toughness isn't enough, there's ceiling on how far one can go with grit alone.

[elteto]

Anyone can be an elite performer with enough training and effort. Not everyone can be top 10 though. At some point genetics plays a role. But to be _elite_ does not imply being top 10. If you are ranked the 500th professional tennis player you are far from being a Nadal or a Federer, but that’s still an incredible level of performance. There’s only 500 other humans on the planet that can match up to you.

[dvt]

> that there's ceiling on how far one can go with grit alone.

This is a tautology. Of course there's a ceiling of how one can go with [X] alone, (in fact, given any [X]). It doesn't pour water on the theory at all, it's just an uninteresting and fatalistic point of view.