Then the following is for you, John Schmidt, and others.
The following is a synopsis of the first 4 pages of the article.
Different sports do require different iherited abilities. Such as in basketball, height is an advantage, and in gymnastics, shortness is an advantage. So, there is intially some inherited advantage to any sport.
However, this advantage is soon overshadowed by practice. If this was not true, all you would need is the right genes to excell, practice would not mean anything. And, we all know it does mean a lot. Of course, there are exceptions, savants are an exception.
Practice- this is what determines to what level you achieve. When hitting a plateau, many think they have hit their individual limit of ability. They are wrong. They just need to find another way to practice to get to the next level.
One of the requirements to good practice, to achieve a higher level, is motivation. There must be some kind of reward. For many in pool, this has been money games. That is why so many say to gamble to get better. It really does make a difference. It all depends on what motivates you. It doesn't have to be gambling, but there has to be a motivation factor involved.
Never, ever, set limits on your abilities. Perfomances that were world class in many endeavors 100 years ago barley meet the entry level requirements today. People that have rote jobs, when a benefit was introduced, such as a bonus, increased performance by up to 90%.
Initial talent will only help you in the beginning of any endeavor. You very soon reach a limit that only practice will get you beyond.
So- you want to get better? Practice. You hit a plateau? Learn a different practice routine. There are no limits to how good you can get with INTENSE, PROPER, practice. It takes an average of ten years to attain master level once you start. That's 10 years of intense practice, not just 10 years of playing.
Bottom line- barring mental and physical disabilities, anyone can achieve world class status with proper training and discipline and desire.
As far as the thread on Schmidt vs. Harriman. John, you don't seem too keen on the idea. And, I believe it is because you know, as you have stated, that you two are very close to equals. You know he is practicing, and you are not. That gives him the edge. Two players about equal, the other guy is due to win. In this casse, Danny .
Also, John, if you really believe that it is all talent, then you not practicing doesn't mean anything. Yet, you know it does. So, with all due respect, in this case, of talent vs. nurturing, you are wrong. Nurturing, or practice, is where it's at. Talent only gives you an edge initially.
