I read that Djokovic chalks up his awesome winning streak to a change in diet, particularly a no-wheat diet (I think he said he was allergic).
But more to the point, I don't necessarily think that making small improvements in my "game" are going to make much of a difference because I know that I'm nowhere near the top of my game, in any aspect of life. I'll strive to be better at any rate.
But the real question for me is what to concentrate on? Do I improve my current skills and get even better at it, or do I spend my time going over weak areas, to bring up my "average" of knowledge? The answer is it depends on whether I want to be generalist or an expert at a few things. Figuring that out is half the battle.
Edit: to tie it back to the tennis analogy, it's probably better to improve ALL aspects of one's game, like Nole, than to be a specialist like Roddick (great serve, but not much else)
Feynman would probably say establish a rock solid base, fill in the gaps in your understanding, and explore all of the components surrounding your areas of interest (e.g. read the sources cited in the footnotes :-).
"It's not quite true that Feynman could not accept an idea until he had torn it apart. Rather, the idea could not yet be part of his way of thinking and looking at the world. Before an idea could contribute to that worldview, Feynman wanted to turn over the idea, to see why it was true, from any angle that he could find...In other words, he wanted to connect a new idea to what he already understood and thereby extend his understanding" (http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/04/08/how-richard-feynman-t...).
Feynman wanted to understand problem from all angles and understand why something was true, not just that it merely was true. His approach resulted in a tight mental framework that enabled him to connect new ideas and build upon insights from the outside in -- breadth before depth (see http://jamesthornton.com/blog/how-to-get-to-genius).
Watch this TED talk by Sal Khan, the founder of the Khan academy, to see how filling in gaps of understanding can significantly accelerate your rate of progress (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM95HHI4gLk).
But more to the point, I don't necessarily think that making small improvements in my "game" are going to make much of a difference because I know that I'm nowhere near the top of my game, in any aspect of life. I'll strive to be better at any rate.
But the real question for me is what to concentrate on? Do I improve my current skills and get even better at it, or do I spend my time going over weak areas, to bring up my "average" of knowledge? The answer is it depends on whether I want to be generalist or an expert at a few things. Figuring that out is half the battle.
Edit: to tie it back to the tennis analogy, it's probably better to improve ALL aspects of one's game, like Nole, than to be a specialist like Roddick (great serve, but not much else)