I disagree with this part because, as I understand it, he chose something he'd never done before ... at all. He didn't pick a task that he disliked, he picked one he knew NOTHING about. So he wouldn't know if it was something he was going to enjoy or not.
I do agree, though, that maybe since he is such a little guy, maybe it would have been wiser for him to try a task that required less physical attributes. Maybe bowling, or playing the piano, or cooking, or archery, etc, etc.
The other major flaw in his experiment is that he's ignoring that when the guy came up with the theory, he was working backwards from 'talented'** people. Meaning, he took a bunch of people who were already all really, really good violinists who studied at an elite music school, separated them into 3 categories of success, then tried to determine any commonalities amongst them. He did. The top 1/3 of that group all practiced more than 10k hours, and the others did not. These weren't random people handed violins, they were all really good violinists to begin with.
**Don't want to open up the whole "talent" can of worms, but I simply mean that these kids were good enough at the violin to be accepted to an elite school to begin with.
to the highlighted portion.
But, as to the rest of what you wrote, I agree. This is why I said that he did not choose something he was already enjoying doing. If a single digit golfer decided to to the same thing, that golfer would stand a much better chance of success.