There’s this analogy I heard recently that just won’t leave my head.
Imagine two athletes.
One’s a high-performing amateur-strong, fast, the type of person who makes the college team or wins the weekend tournament. Let’s say they sit somewhere around the 70th percentile of performance.
Now compare them to an Olympian. We’ll put the Olympian at the 95th percentile
Then, take it further: compare a 95th percentile Olympian to the one ranked 96th percentile
From the outside, those percentiles seem close. One percent can’t mean that much, right?
But here’s the kicker:
<blockquote>
The effort, sacrifice, and years of training it takes to go from 95 to 96 often outweigh what it took to go from 70 to 95.
</blockquote>
That 1% difference is brutal. Invisible from a distance. Massive up close.
And it mirrors the reality of most careers-especially in the services economy.
<h2>What Going Deep Really Costs</h2>
People love the idea of being “the best.” The number one. The specialist. The person with one skill so refined, so flawless, that they’re irreplaceable.
And in some cases? It’s worth it.
Surgeons. Olympic athletes. Concert pianists. Niche SaaS founders.
They live in the 95 to 99 percentile zone, and they own it.
But what no one tells you is what it costs to get there-and stay there:
<ul>
<li>Years of repetition with minimal external rewards</li>
<li>Invisible plateaus where it feels like nothing’s improving</li>
<li>Missed opportunities to explore other skills</li>
<li>A deep identity tied to one niche that can make transitions hard</li>
</ul>
There’s a reason top-tier specialists often feel stuck. You’ve already climbed the mountain, and there’s only room for a few at the summit. Every next step gets harder, lonelier, and more fragile.
<h2>Why 70–90 Might Be Your Sweet Spot</h2>
For most of us-especially if you work in services, freelancing, consulting, or product development-the smart move isn’t to go all the way to the top in one narrow skill.
It’s to get good enough at one thing-say, the 70th percentile-and then stack adjacent skills to create a unique edge.
Instead of:
<blockquote>
“I’m the best UI designer in the world.”
</blockquote>
It becomes:
<blockquote>
“I’m a UI designer who can also write clean code, present to clients, and run quick user tests.”
</blockquote>
That kind of profile? Deadly in today’s market. Especially if you freelance or work cross-functionally.
It’s not about being the best at one thing. It’s about being the only one who can do your mix of things well.
<h2>The Career Math of Skill Percentiles</h2>
Let’s break it down with a mental model:
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th>Skill</th>
<th>Your Level</th>
<th>Market Impact</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>UI Design</td>
<td>70th percentile</td>
<td>Solid baseline</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>HTML/CSS</td>
<td>60th percentile</td>
<td>Can build simple interfaces</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Copywriting</td>
<td>50th percentile</td>
<td>Can write microcopy that makes sense</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Client Comms</td>
<td>80th percentile</td>
<td>Clients love working with you</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>UX Research</td>
<td>55th percentile</td>
<td>Can run scrappy tests and make decisions</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
Each skill on its own might not make you elite.
But together?
You’re not competing with the top 1% in any one category. You’re creating a category of one.
<h2>When to Specialize Anyway</h2>
Still, let’s be honest.
Sometimes, specialization makes sense. Especially if:
<ul>
<li>You genuinely love the craft and want to go deep.</li>
<li>You’re in a market where the top 1% earns 100x more than the rest.</li>
<li>You can afford the long “stuck” phase before results show.</li>
<li>You’re willing to sacrifice optionality in exchange for mastery.</li>
</ul>
If that’s you, go for it. But go in with eyes open.
You will plateau. You will doubt yourself. And the climb from 95 to 96 will feel disproportionately hard.
But if you make it? That final 1% might be what turns you from “really good” to globally known.
<h2>The Perks of Stopping at 70 (And Then Pivoting)</h2>
As for me?
I like the 70th to 90th percentile zone. It gives you leverage, variety, and space to evolve.
In this range:
<ul>
<li>You’re good enough to deliver high-quality work.</li>
<li>You’re rare enough to stand out.</li>
<li>You’re flexible enough to pivot or expand your stack.</li>
</ul>
You can learn new tools, switch industries, or experiment without risking the entire ladder you’ve climbed.
You’re not stuck.
<h2>What This Means for You</h2>
If you’re early in your career and wondering whether to go deep or wide, here’s the honest take:
<ul>
<li>Start by going deep enough into one skill. Build proof. Earn trust.</li>
<li>Then go wide into related areas. Don’t stay stuck in one track.</li>
<li>Use generalization as a career lever, not a cop-out.</li>
</ul>
And if you’re already “just okay” at something?
Good news: that’s a strong place to build from. You don’t need to be a world-class athlete. You just need to combine your 70s into a 99.
<h2>It’s Not About Settling</h2>
Some folks see generalization as mediocrity.
It’s not.
It’s a strategic choice.
Being at the 70th percentile isn’t giving up-it’s giving yourself options. It’s where most career breakthroughs begin.
But if you’re someone who needs to go deep-who feels pulled to master one thing and become the best-respect the process. It’s slow. It’s painful. It’s often lonely.
But that final 1%?
That’s where legends are made.
<hr>
What’s your stack of 70s? Are you stacking range or chasing depth? Share your mix-or your current stuck point with the SK NEXUS community.

Knowledge by Execution - Breaking Down Tech for the Mango Man (Aam Aadmi/Regular Person) - https://www.sknexus.org/

SK NEXUS

Reaching the top percentile in a skill often requires immense effort, sacrifices, and resilience, which might not always be worthwhile. Instead, focusing on mastering several complementary skills can provide uniqueness and leverage in the market. This approach offers flexibility and opportunities to evolve without the isolation and hurdles associated with top-tier specialization.

Why You’ll Never Be an Expert (and Why It's Probably Fine)