God Given Talent

Natural talent what is that exactly.Where not born what we become.Not really.Michael Jordan has probably more Hand and i coordination then anyone on this forum.His physical ability is probably a lot greater then anyone here. I would feel safe spotting him half the rack in 9 ball .:smile:

Don't get too comfortable. Michael reportedly can play pool at a decent level as well.
 
Opportunity is obviously important. But then again New York, California, Texas, and Florida probably have more opportunity to find competition and mentors in the game then South Dakota, and yet the best player in the USA is not from New York or California or Florida or Texas.

And the idea that it is just "hand/eye coordination is a simplification and it is incorrect. The inner ability to excel at the game is more complex then that. Obviously Wayne Gretzky had hand/eye coordination, so does Tiger Woods, so does Roger Federer, but the chances are if Roger had of taken up Golf he would not have become Tiger Woods level, if Tiger had taken up Tennis he is probably not going to be the number 1 tennis player in the world for years straight, and if Wayne Gretzky took up golf or tennis instead of hockey he probably would not be world famous and hold world records in either sport.

Each sport takes a very specific type of mentality, a very specific type of brain make-up to excel at it. I took to pool very naturally and quickly became better then alot of people who had played alot more pool then me. In golf I have put in boat loads of practice and I still suck at the game. I was once a extremely good curler and became good very, very quickly at that game, and yet I have never been able to throw darts well despite playing the game quite abit. Every sport has its own unique aspects that each individuals brain has either a high or low capability in. Being good at one sport does not mean you will be good in another, and people who excel at sports such as the top pros normally focus on those sports because they take to them VERY quickly and realize they have abnormally high talents in them.

It is not just "hand/eye coordination", it is WAY more complex then that. The nuances that make a pro pool player have that potential within them is very specific to pool and simply not that generalized. Some peoples brains "just work" in certain games. Look at Chess, huge numbers of people try to reach the top of that game, very few players in the world show an abnormal talent for the game right from a young age and eventually become the top players in the world. Kasparov is not just the result of practice, there is something unique about guys like him. The top pool players are no different, they can do something that most people NEVER could.

This Bob Strachen of wich you speak ,wouldn't be California Bob would it? Mid late 60's dark hair ,goatee,ballcap,formally from St. Louis.
 
Don't get too comfortable. Michael reportedly can play pool at a decent level as well.

aND GIVEN THE SIZE OF HIS BANKROLL...HE
(wHAT'S WITH THE cAPS lOCK?!)

...he just might have enough time to learn how to play real good-like, befor he goes bust!
 
It's not that hard to be a technically good player it does however take the right mental approach to be a winner.
Two very different aspects of comptetative sports, many sports have great players that can't win.
The mental state is affected by your upbringing and can determine your abillity to compete.
 
Each sport takes a very specific type of mentality, a very specific type of brain make-up to excel at it.

It is not just "hand/eye coordination", it is WAY more complex then that. The nuances that make a pro pool player have that potential within them is very specific to pool and simply not that generalized. Some peoples brains "just work" in certain games. Look at Chess, huge numbers of people try to reach the top of that game, very few players in the world show an abnormal talent for the game right from a young age and eventually become the top players in the world. Kasparov is not just the result of practice, there is something unique about guys like him. The top pool players are no different, they can do something that most people NEVER could.
To become a top player in chess requires certain unique talents and skills. For starters, many top chess masters and grandmasters have prodigious memories. They can memorize opening lines 10-20 lines deep, if not more. They can analyze positions 5-20 lines into the future. Their abilities to recognize patterns is extremely well refined. Some players are capable of playing blindfolded against multiple opponents simultaneously.

To reach the very top echelons of any sport requires a little something extra by way of physical or mental abilities.
 
Do you have any proof of this or is this just your opinion? I ask because the research indicates otherwise. There have been hundreds of studies looking for "talent" or amazing brains and in fact what they find is that most top performers did have different brains in that they have a higher amount of myelin which is produced they guess by stimulation caused by long and deep practice. So it seems not as if some brains just work for certain games so much as some brains are just faster when the brain power is applied to a task in a very focused and mentored manner.

Yes, look at Chess. I think you will find that the research already done on chess players refutes everything you just said.

I was spouting off my opinion on this subject a while back and JB responded similar to how he just responded to Celtic (not assuming you're doing any spouting). Anyway, I had to stop and think for a second...."Self is this just your opinion....or do you know this to be true???" At that point, I realized it was just my opinion, so I read a couple of the books that are always mentioned in these discussions and low and behold I did a complete 180. Now I'm a pretty stubborn guy when it comes to some things so changing my mind on this was a big deal for me.

The way you view this subject has serious ramifications for how you view your life and the lives of those around you. When I tell my children they can be "Whatever they want to be", it's not just a hollow clichéd statement anymore. I now really believe that. They just need to put in the hard work and get the proper training. I now reject the idea of constantly searching for something they are good at. They can be good, scratch that, they can be great at anything.
 
Don't get too comfortable. Michael reportedly can play pool at a decent level as well.


Figures..lol.
I just cant figure out why im so damn good at making bad bets.
I once bet 17 college games one sat.I lost 15 of them.
I would be rich if i could just bet against myself.:D
 
To become a top player in chess requires certain unique talents and skills. For starters, many top chess masters and grandmasters have prodigious memories. They can memorize opening lines 10-20 lines deep, if not more. They can analyze positions 5-20 lines into the future. Their abilities to recognize patterns is extremely well refined. Some players are capable of playing blindfolded against multiple opponents simultaneously.

To reach the very top echelons of any sport requires a little something extra by way of physical or mental abilities.

Sorry. The research shows that this is not true. In fact top chess players don't have better memories than most people. What they do is learn the language of chess and learn blocks of moves and patterns.

This was proven by testing the recall of top chess players against average people when the test consisted of placing the pieces on the board and then wiping it to see how accurately the subject could recreate the positions.

When the pieces were arranged in positions that could be in a real game the top chess players performed better than the non-chess players in recalling the positions. But when the pieces were placed in such a way as to be impossible for a regular game of chess then the recall was no better than the non-chess players.

Chess is a good game to study whether it's "talent" or hard work + opportunity. The research points to hard work plus opportunity + desire.
 
Sorry. The research shows that this is not true. In fact top chess players don't have better memories than most people. What they do is learn the language of chess and learn blocks of moves and patterns.

This was proven by testing the recall of top chess players against average people when the test consisted of placing the pieces on the board and then wiping it to see how accurately the subject could recreate the positions.

When the pieces were arranged in positions that could be in a real game the top chess players performed better than the non-chess players in recalling the positions. But when the pieces were placed in such a way as to be impossible for a regular game of chess then the recall was no better than the non-chess players.

Chess is a good game to study whether it's "talent" or hard work + opportunity. The research points to hard work plus opportunity + desire.

Ooohhh.....ohhhh......let me say it......

Knight to D6...checkmate

I've always wanted to do that...
 
Sorry. The research shows that this is not true. In fact top chess players don't have better memories than most people. What they do is learn the language of chess and learn blocks of moves and patterns.

This was proven by testing the recall of top chess players against average people when the test consisted of placing the pieces on the board and then wiping it to see how accurately the subject could recreate the positions.

When the pieces were arranged in positions that could be in a real game the top chess players performed better than the non-chess players in recalling the positions. But when the pieces were placed in such a way as to be impossible for a regular game of chess then the recall was no better than the non-chess players.

Chess is a good game to study whether it's "talent" or hard work + opportunity. The research points to hard work plus opportunity + desire.

JB, you really don't know what you're talking about. I happen to be a USCA rated Expert in chess. What are you, a D-player?

Rather than cite arcane academic studies, let's talk about the real world. As I stated before:

To become a top player in chess requires certain unique talents and skills. For starters, many top chess masters and grandmasters have prodigious memories. They can memorize opening lines 10-20 lines deep, if not more. They can analyze positions 5-20 lines into the future. Their abilities to recognize patterns is extremely well refined. Some players are capable of playing blindfolded against multiple opponents simultaneously.​

Everything that you want to obtain in life requires "hard work plus opportunity + desire." But to get to the top echelons does require a little bit something extra, be it natural talent or whatever that intangible might be.
 
Last edited:
Talent is overrated.
World-Champions are not born-World-Champions are made.
All is hard work.

There is a book called "Talent is Overrated" by Geoffrey Colvin. It is a very interesting read that delves into the talent question. The real talent is the determination to become the best and the hard work and deliberate practice that it takes to get there.

The author uses several examples such as Mozart, Tiger Woods, and even chess playing grandmaster sisters to prove his point. It changed the way that I think about so called "natural talent".
 
JB, you really don't know what you're talking about. I happen to be a USCA rated Expert in chess. What are you, a D-player?

Rather than cite arcane academic studies, let's talk about the real world. As I stated before:

To become a top player in chess requires certain unique talents and skills. For starters, many top chess masters and grandmasters have prodigious memories. They can memorize opening lines 10-20 lines deep, if not more. They can analyze positions 5-20 lines into the future. Their abilities to recognize patterns is extremely well refined. Some players are capable of playing blindfolded against multiple opponents simultaneously.​

So you have done the research? Were you born with the ability to play chess or did you learn it?

Extremely well-refined is another way of saying well trained. Funny that to you the research is "arcane" but you are fond of beating me up using Dr. Dave and his research when you disagree with me on aiming.

You are right, those pesky academic studies are not at all related to the "real" world. Science plays no part in sports performance. Either you are a born chess player or you aren't. (rolls eyes)

I don't know what I would be rated at in chess since I only play for fun and money, would you like to gamble some to find out? I like to play $20 to $100 games. I will be at the Super Billiards Expo in a few weeks. Bring your board and let's gamble a little. I will be happy to donate a little bit to an Expert. But if you should lose then I hope you don't mind me telling everyone on here you lost to an unranked player.
 
No being "good" at one thing does not mean you will be good at another one. But it doesn't mean you can't be good at another one either.

Yeah, I basically stated as much when I mentioned that in both curling and pool I had high levels of talent and learned the game very quickly.

You missed the point of my post completely. I simply stated that the "natural talent/peak potential" in any sport requires very high capabilites within the brain for slightly different motions, sighting, both physical mechanical ability depending on the game. Can a person have high aptitude in the areas needed for 2 or more sports? Of course, I don't need 24 hours to tell you of a few people who have managed to reach very high levels in more then one sport, if you do then you must not remember the "Bo Knows..." ads. Some people have brains that are very high in mechanical reasoning and the more specific areas of that overall aptitude are high in key areas that can benefit them greatly in multiple sports. In alot of sports it can also help to be a freak athelete.
 
JB, you really don't know what you're talking about. I happen to be a USCA rated Expert in chess. What are you, a D-player?

Rather than cite arcane academic studies, let's talk about the real world. As I stated before:

To become a top player in chess requires certain unique talents and skills. For starters, many top chess masters and grandmasters have prodigious memories. They can memorize opening lines 10-20 lines deep, if not more. They can analyze positions 5-20 lines into the future. Their abilities to recognize patterns is extremely well refined. Some players are capable of playing blindfolded against multiple opponents simultaneously.​

Everything that you want to obtain in life requires "hard work plus opportunity + desire." But to get to the top echelons does require a little bit something extra, be it natural talent or whatever that intangible might be.


I think the studies aren't really that arcane, but then again I have no idea what "arcane" even means so maybe they are really arcane.

It seems like they do point out that you don't need to have a great memory to play great chess. Just look at pool for a moment: I guarantee you 90 percent of the people on this site could easily memorize a handful of nine ball layouts, since it is in our area of "expertise". However, if you took 20 grand master chess players that didn't play pool, they would have a hard time memorizing those same layouts.

The studies do have some meaning - even if they are arcane.
 
There was a program on for a while where the idea was to take a completely normal person and train them in something for a month and then have their performance judged by a panel of experts as to whether they were "really" career performers in the field they got a crash course in or not. I.e. could they do whatever it was to a high enough level to fool experts.

And sure enough, a lot of the people were able to pull it off and give a convincing performance after being intensively trained for a month by an expert.

Found it - Faking It - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faking_It
 
So you have done the research? Were you born with the ability to play chess or did you learn it?

Extremely well-refined is another way of saying well trained. Funny that to you the research is "arcane" but you are fond of beating me up using Dr. Dave and his research when you disagree with me on aiming.

You are right, those pesky academic studies are not at all related to the "real" world. Science plays no part in sports performance. Either you are a born chess player or you aren't. (rolls eyes)

I don't know what I would be rated at in chess since I only play for fun and money, would you like to gamble some to find out? I like to play $20 to $100 games. I will be at the Super Billiards Expo in a few weeks. Bring your board and let's gamble a little. I will be happy to donate a little bit to an Expert. But if you should lose then I hope you don't mind me telling everyone on here you lost to an unranked player.

I learned how to play chess just like anyone else has. What's your point?

You're obviously a novice player who likes to talk big. You would have no chance playing me or any other expert. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to excel at playing chess at a higher level.
 
I.e. could they do whatever it was to a high enough level to fool experts.

And sure enough, a lot of the people were able to pull it off and give a convincing performance after being intensively trained for a month by an expert.

Found it - Faking It - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faking_It

Wiki said:
Alex Geikie, a well-spoken gay man, being taught to "fake it" as a London club bouncer. The second episode was a straight use of the Pygmalion concept as a young working-class woman, Lisa Dickinson-Grey, was taught how to behave in high society

Dude, that is not really even comparable to taking a person, giving them a month of training, then entering them in the World 9-ball Championships, and having them win the whole thing, beating Souquet in the race to 17 finals.

That show got people to "act" out of their normal character, it did not aim to teach people an actual skill like pool, or tennis, or golf, and have them playing it at a pro level at the end of the episode.
 
I learned how to play chess just like anyone else has. What's your point?

You're obviously a novice player who likes to talk big. You would have no chance playing me or any other expert. You have absolutely no idea what it takes to excel at playing chess at a higher level.

You're right I have no clue. So take my money. What sort of weight can I get? I don't even know what to ask for I am so clueless. I like how you are so convinced that you know all about my chess abilities or lack thereof based on my citation of a study of chess players.

My point was and is exactly what you stated, you learned to play just like everyone else did. Only those that are better than you are not here arguing about pool OR chess "talent", they are studying and learning MORE than you because they desire it more than you do.

I just went and looked at what an Expert level is. Pretty strong. I will take a Queen and a Rook for $50 a game and I am sure I am donating but I will guarantee five games.

Tell you what, let's do an all around. I don't know you at all but here is what I will do.....you give up the queen and rook for 100 a game and I will give you 11:8 in one pocket, the chess of pool, for 100 a game and we each freeze up $500 per set. If we break even then we can play ping pong or scrabble, flip for it.
 
Dude, that is not really even comparable to taking a person, giving them a month of training, then entering them in the World 9-ball Championships, and having them win the whole thing, beating Souquet in the race to 17 finals.

That show got people to "act" out of their normal character, it did not aim to teach people an actual skill like pool, or tennis, or golf, and have them playing it at a pro level at the end of the episode.

I know, but it was an example I thought of. I would bet a shit load of money though that Buddy Hall could take a complete novice off the street and make them into an APA 7 inside of six months.
 
Back
Top