God Given Talent

mrsmith1976 said:
What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.
Click to expand...



Tiger had clubs in his hand at the age of four with a dad that pushed him. Jordan failed to make his hs team one year. Most of the others I don't know much about....BUt, saying arod was a ss in the majors at 18 doesn't say much. Many players are drafted out of hs and many of them fail. Don't really recall...But, think it took arod a while to actually succeed at the major league level if I remember right.

I think the thing is most people are arguing different things...Of course everyones ceiling is different. But, everyone can become an expert in a field (which doesn't even have to mean world class). An A to A+pool player can beat probably 98percent of the population in a game of pool(I think in chess a 1900 rated player is in the top 5 or 10 % of the field). I think with enough direction, the RIGHT ATTITUDE(maybe some were born with the wrong attitude?) and resources almost anyone can get to that point. I don't see almost anyone getting to the very top....Because that is the very top. Naturally, results will be a bell curve.

@poolplayer if you are still following this-the post you showed with the study on chess players you highlighted what was important to your side and ignored what you didn't want to hear(that the chess players had no advantage when it wasn't a logical position-that their use of analogous positions was helpful...How do you figure out analogous positions? Through study,ie hard work.)

PS...ANd I know you know this being an expert..The difference between good and bad chess players is not memory but understanding of the resulting positions.
I don't know how many times I have beat weaker players in a position and they say something to the sort of-"oh I shouldn't have played the dragon" or I guess you just prepared that opening better than me. WHich is of course nonsense. We get to a point I tell them they are lost(because they are) and they question why. I have to tell them...Maybe they actually understand it and avoid that type of situation next time. But, they learned something-a positional tool, tactic, etc. This wasn't some natural phenomenon...(and I learned it also, from someone else telling me, reading it in a book or someone "telling me" with a crushing attack etc.)
 
JB Cases said:
So you regularly seek out novice players to "crush"? I mean I proposed to bet even and you said that I am no good and that you would crush me.

In pool, in which you are obviously a novice, we call that stealing. You don't want to steal do you? You want a fair game or not? What's your proposition of a Expert, capital E with at least a 2200 ranking, vs. a novice with no ranking? You aren't a Chess Nit are you?

And please don't act so naive as to suggest that people don't play chess for money with handicaps. There are certainly chess hustlers out there.

And no interest in playing pool? Look up and to the left - the title of the website is AZ Billiards. I used chess because the study done on chess players supports my side of the argument not because I am any good at chess. Using yourself as an example of whether chess prowess is a result of god-given talent or hard work is of no use. You're a decent player as evidenced by your ranking. But you're not great and likely never will be because instead of desire to get better you'd rather argue with me about chess on a billiard forum.

So let's leave chess out of it and just play pool. If you want to post up a $1500 then we can play one pocket in a ten ahead session at the SBE. In order to identify yourself I need to see something from the chess world with your picture on it. I wouldn't put it past you to try and slip in a shortstop on me given that you want to steal playing chess.

Bet? You have 11:8 No adjustments. If I am in a trap then I will suck it up and take the hit.
Click to expand...
JB, Scroll up to the top of the page. Notice that the topic of this thread is "God given talent." So tell us how are all these silly bets that you're always proposing relevant to the topic of the thread? In case you haven't figured it out yet, regardless of whoever wins these bets, with such a tiny sample size, it would never be considered statistically significant in answering the question at hand, i.e., in this case, the question about God-given talent.

Earlier you argued that to reach the top you need a combination of hard work, desire, opportunity, drive, determination and heart. Those are noble sentiments and essentially I agree with you on that point. However, you are undermining those noble sentiments by asking for a handicap in a hypothetical chess match between us.

You've essentially admitted that you're not good enough to win based upon your abilities, your hard work, your drive and determination, and your heart. So like the lazy duffer that you are, you ask for a spot. Not just any old spot, like a pawn or two or three, but for a humongous spot in wanting two of the most valuable pieces on the board, my queen and a rook. You are not interested in making a fair bet; you're only interested in making a lopsided bet completely in your favor.

By asking for a handicap, especially a humongous handicap, for all practical purposes, you've lost the very argument that you were trying to make that it takes hard work, desire and opportunity to rise to the top. If you were to show up at a pool or chess tournament asking for such a handicap before each match, you'd be laughed out of the tournament. Any match that you were to win would be not because you are the better player but because you got a spot that the other player could not overcome.

We all know that you are a master of spin, deception and subterfuge. So get busy, JB, in working on your newest piece of fiction.
 
Last edited:
PoolSharkAllen said:
JB, Scroll up to the top of the page. Notice that the topic of this thread is "God given talent." So tell us how are all these silly bets that you're always proposing relevant to the topic of the thread? In case you haven't figured it out yet, regardless of whoever wins these bets, with such a tiny sample size, it would never be considered statistically significant in answering the question at hand, i.e., in this case, the question about God-given talent.

Earlier you argued that to reach the top you need a combination of hard work, desire, opportunity, drive, determination and heart. Those are noble sentiments and essentially I agree with you on that point. However, you are undermining those noble sentiments by asking for a handicap in a hypothetical chess match between us.

You've essentially admitted that you're not good enough to win based upon your abilities, your hard work, your drive and determination, and your heart. So like the lazy duffer that you are, you ask for a spot. Not just any old spot, like a pawn or two or three, but for a humongous spot in wanting two of the most valuable pieces on the board, my queen and a rook. You are not interested in making a fair bet; you're only interested in making a lopsided bet completely in your favor.

By asking for a handicap, especially a humongous handicap, for all practical purposes, you've lost the very argument that you were trying to make that it takes hard work, desire and opportunity to rise to the top. If you were to show up at a pool or chess tournament asking for such a handicap before each match, you'd be laughed out of the tournament. Any match that you were to win would be not because you are the better player but because you got a spot that the other player could not overcome.

We all know that you are a master of spin, deception and subterfuge. So get busy, JB, in working on your newest piece of fiction.
Click to expand...

Um, I don't know about chess tournaments but in pool handicapped tournaments are common. These exist to ensure a level playing field so as to give lower ranked players a chance to compete.

In fact the largest pool league on the planet is based on this and does very well. So well that they are copied by other large leagues in that those leagues also offer a handicapped competitive format.

I would have played you dead even but you said you know that I am no good and that you would crush me. So along with all the traits one needs to succeed there is all practicality when it comes to where to invest time and effort (i.e. money). Thus "Pool Shark" Allen it's unwise for an unranked novice to bet money against a rated Expert without leveling the playing the field. Better to spend that money on a good chess book by an actual Grandmaster than to donate it to you. Of course this logic is lost on a locksmith nit.

Also I am not trying to reach the top in chess. I am trying to get a bet down. Were I trying to reach the top in chess then I'd have already blown past you and be offering you the handicap to get your money.

Anyway it does appear as if we are at a stalemate as you obviously don't want to play pool even though I offered you a handicap and this is after all a pool forum.

And again playing you anything has nothing to do with the topic. It's just a way for me to say I think you are no good and be willing to back it up with money. At chess however I think you are probably pretty good if you're not lying about your ranking. I do find it funny that you say us playing wouldn't prove anything because the sample is too small and yet you offer yourself up as an example of the argument as an expert (small e) on chess based on your experience as a mid-level chess player.

So when it works for you you use and when against you you don't. I think you missed your calling. With all the flip-flopping you should have been a gymnast or a fish.
 
Last edited:
mrsmith1976 said:
What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

You know those talent scouts they send to the Dominican Republic...
At 12 years old, Efren beat the number 8 player in the Philippines.
 
Originally Posted by mrsmith1976
What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Tiger and the Williams were all GROOMED to play world class. All these people did - ALL of them was put in TONS of hours as kids and teens to get where they did by the ages that they hit these milestones.

Using them as examples is exactly the PROOF that the researchers use to deny the talent argument.

What you want to find is examples of kids or people who excelled in their fields WITHOUT putting in the time.

That would indicate overwhelming TALENT.

To this day that has not been found in any of the subjects studied. What has been found is ungodly amounts of training, often high level coaching, and desire on the part of the performer to succeed.

People way smarter than most of us with access to research facilities and money to fund the studies have looked for "talent" and not found it. What they find in every person they study who is held up as an example of "God given talent" is someone who put in MORE hours than the rest of the field, someone who had access to great coaching and or some special training environment, and someone who claims to have wanted it more than everyone else.
 
JoeyInCali said:
You know those talent scouts they send to the Dominican Republic...
At 12 years old, Efren beat the number 8 player in the Philippines.
Click to expand...

And the Dominican Republic is what's called a hotbed because of the way they approach baseball there. Has ZERO to do with talent and everything to do with development.

Why do we care if Efren beat the number 8 player at 12? Stats like that don't mean anything. How long was Efren playing before that happened? Landon Shuffet also beat many good players when he was 12 - what does that mean? Means Landon was a good player at 12. He had also been training with his dad since he was 8 or so.
 
mrsmith1976 said:
What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.
Click to expand...


I think the Russian and Chinese Olympic programs may cast some doubt.
 
JB Cases said:
And the Dominican Republic is what's called a hotbed because of the way they approach baseball there. Has ZERO to do with talent and everything to do with development.

Why do we care if Efren beat the number 8 player at 12? Stats like that don't mean anything. How long was Efren playing before that happened? Landon Shuffet also beat many good players when he was 12 - what does that mean? Means Landon was a good player at 12. He had also been training with his dad since he was 8 or so.
Click to expand...

The number 8 player had thousands of hours on Efren .
Another day another argument .
 
JoeyInCali said:
The number 8 player had thousands of hours on Efren .
Another day another argument .
Click to expand...

So you say but we don't know the quality of those hours. There are so many unknown factors contained in your statement that it's impossible to hold it up as "natural talent".

Again the research shows otherwise and I bet that if we really examined Efren's life then it's not natural talent but instead opportunity plus desire plus certain environmental things that take him to the top.

Maybe you are a little close to the subject to be objective.
 
JB Cases said:
So you say but we don't know the quality of those hours. There are so many unknown factors contained in your statement that it's impossible to hold it up as "natural talent".

Again the research shows otherwise and I bet that if we really examined Efren's life then it's not natural talent but instead opportunity plus desire plus certain environmental things that take him to the top.

Maybe you are a little close to the subject to be objective.
Click to expand...

The number 8 player didn't get there playing barbox 8- ball.
Maybe you just like arguing for the sake of it.
 
mrsmith1976 said:
What do you call the ability to do something at a young age that others are simply not able to do? Talent. Plain and simple.

Tiger won junior world Championships at 8
Williams sisters started winning around age 10
Jordan won NCAA championship at 21
Picasso was drawing and painting before he could even speak
Whitney Houston was 19 when she recorded her first album
A-Rod was a shortstop in the majors at 18

Do you think these kids had that much work ethic?

Nope, they all had INSANE amounts GOD GIVEN Talent, and no matter how much you work at something, you simply will only go so far without it.

That being said no, insane work ethic is also something you must have to excel to the top. And I do believe you can excel at sports without extreme amounts of talent. This is where all the other atheletes fall into play. They have more talent than us, just maybe not as much as the elite, maybe not the work ethic either, who knows.

Pool is no different, I have natural ability to play and ridiculous love for the game, that with a very small dose of talent. It's eaiser for me than most people, but harder for me than most good players. I accept it. And practice my arse off to make up the difference.
Click to expand...

Point taken and I do agree about a good work ethic. It makes sense that practicing and putting in quality playing time will improve your chances for improvement. My question is besides the dictionary definition of talent, how do we break it down in the real world? What is talent?

The scientists have figured out the actual physical reasons for increased or upper level abilities in their research of our brain. We can develop those abilities with training which causes physical changes to our brains. Are some people born with these changes already in their brains or do we each start out on a level playing field? Can we improve the same amount if we're given the same opportunities?

I think "talent" may possibly be more of a disposition towards a certain activity or sport because of the way the mind's eye looks at what is placed before it. One person may interpret relationships visually better than the next person who may simply not notice the subtle changes of spin, speed or stroke. Their mind advances more quickly because of this attraction to detail and accordingly so does their ability. Expert coaching can help unlock this pathway.

Since their learning curve has been shortened, they move past the other players who are still struggling to interpret what their eyes are seeing. They pick up the more advanced parts of the activity/sport and establish solid connections to their brains (fundamentals). With little doubt about their abilities and how to engage in the activity's ins and outs, they rise to the upper level of the playing field. The less perceptive players are still scratching their heads and making small break throughs even after years of playing. Occasionally a select few will discover a method that opens a door for learning and rise out of the swamp. But not too many.

Best,
Mike
 
Last edited:
I dont really play pool anymore but i did for about a 10 year span live eat and breathe pool. I practiced drills and ball making and stroke shots etc. and took lessons including from Buddy Hall Gambled and played tournaments a lot. At my peak i might have been a decent B player / weak A player.

I had been playing about 5 years and a ten year old kid comes in and is running out effortlessly and im thinking WTF how is this kid only ten years old playing so good and i work so hard on my game and not as good as he is and I'm a grown up? Well i can tell you i didn't come to the conclusion that he just was putting in 100 hrs a week since age 5 compared to my 50 hrs a week...

It is my firm opinion based on this event as well as a few others that some people are just born with that intangible that science can't always explain that makes it easier for some people to excel at certain things.

BTW that 10 year old kid still plays pretty sporty beat bustamante , Dennis haar, manny chau and a few others in Reno at the US open bar table championships, had very respectable finishes at DCC etc. The kids name is Josh O'neal.
 
JB Cases said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forget about chess, ping pong, circle jerk, and everything else. Give me 18:3 and you got action
 
JB Cases said:
Tiger and the Williams were all GROOMED to play world class. All these people did - ALL of them was put in TONS of hours as kids and teens to get where they did by the ages that they hit these milestones.

Using them as examples is exactly the PROOF that the researchers use to deny the talent argument.

What you want to find is examples of kids or people who excelled in their fields WITHOUT putting in the time.

That would indicate overwhelming TALENT.

To this day that has not been found in any of the subjects studied. What has been found is ungodly amounts of training, often high level coaching, and desire on the part of the performer to succeed.

People way smarter than most of us with access to research facilities and money to fund the studies have looked for "talent" and not found it. What they find in every person they study who is held up as an example of "God given talent" is someone who put in MORE hours than the rest of the field, someone who had access to great coaching and or some special training environment, and someone who claims to have wanted it more than everyone else.
Click to expand...
Based on that theory JB then every kid that had a baseball bat or a golf club in there hand since they were little would be professional athletes just like Tiger. Do you think that Tigers parents or the Williams sisters parents are the only ones in the world that try to groom there kids into something.

For every Tiger and Serena in the world, there are hundreds of thousands of kids whose parents had plans for them to be something, but they just turned out to be normal adults that were good enough to play in high school or maybe college, but just didnt have enough to make the Pros.
 
mrayntexas said:
Based on that theory JB then every kid that had a baseball bat or a golf club in there hand since they were little would be professional athletes just like Tiger. Do you think that Tigers parents or the Williams sisters parents are the only ones in the world that try to groom there kids into something.

For every Tiger and Serena in the world, there are hundreds of thousands of kids whose parents had plans for them to be something, but they just turned out to be normal adults that were good enough to play in high school or maybe college, but just didnt have enough to make the Pros.
Click to expand...

Yep.

And the overwhelming characteristic that comes out of the research as to who among all the performers with roughly the same opportunities is DESIRE.

Not ability.

Desire accounts for kids and adults going the extra distance, putting in the extra time, studying deeper, practicing deeper, finding the connections.

Not ability.

So if you want to equate desire with talent then fine. I can go with that. Someone who wants it more than me is more likely to get it - IF they ALSO have the ability.

Obviously someone who is a quadrapeligic does not have the ability to become a better pool player than I do even though they may desire it more. They might channel that into becoming the best pool coach on the planet and end up churning out champions through groundbreaking training methods though. Has happened in other sports.

Desire + Ability (and a bunch of other variables) = World Class

"Talent" cannot be found when world class performers are minutely studied. What is found is greater time, greater training and greater desire.

This isn't me talking out of my ass here. I am not making this shit up. I would LOVE to believe that I am more talented than the people who aren't as good as me and LOVE to believe that the people who are better than me are just more talented. That would be a relief to me and I could settle into whatever niche "God" gave me and be content.

But even in my life I see that effort brings rewards. The more I study leather and materials science, the more I study technique, the more I experiment, the better I and my team get. Is this because I am just a really talented leather worker or is it because I train?

For example I make most of the jigs in my shop. The people who work for me have mostly non-technical backgrounds. In China they don't have woodshop in school, they don't have metal shop, they don't have home-economics, they don't have auto-shop......so the kids here don't learn to work with hand or machine tools. They don't build treehouses and go-karts using the tools in their dad's garage. They never learn the basics of working with tools.

I did. Just about every American child did. That's why we have a nation full of people who can build incredible stuff in their garages. Not only do we own the tools we know how to use them.

Is this because Americans are just born with more "God Given Talent" to build stuff?

Or is it because Americans have a society which has grown up around the idea that every person should have the access to tools and learn to use them?
 
Gmanpoke said:
Forget about chess, ping pong, circle jerk, and everything else. Give me 18:3 and you got action
Click to expand...

LOL - ok, you give up 100:1 on the money and we play some. I will bet $10 a game and you bet $1000 per game. I will freeze up 100 game's worth of action for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top