If all it took was hard work and practice, then everybody would be playing even.
Corey Deuel is the new U.S. National Snooker Champion.
- Thread starter CBuck
- Start date
If all it took was hard work and practice, then everybody would be playing even.
I expect you should know this Bob ... What was the high break ? How many centuries ?
Dave
Maybe so but the fact is that in studies where top contenders ALL put in hard work and practice it's the ones who put in MORE of that who go farther.
The problem as i see it is that very few people WANT to put in the time and practice and they simply ascribe success to "talent" and say they don't have it as a cop out for their own lack of desire.
I have never met a single person who is truly dedicated to learning to play pool who didn't become a very good player. Not one. Show me anyone who puts in the type of work that Shane did or even half that amount who didn't become a very good player.
I don't think you can. I honestly don't think you can me a B player who has been putting in 8 hours a day practicing for ten years. If so get them on here to tell their story. I also don't think you can find me an A player who only put in an hour a week into pool. To me either scenario woud indicate talent is the deciding factor.
Everyone doesn't want to work hard at stuff therefore everyone doesn't play even.
Every top player puts in the time. But there is something that separates them, and most people call that talent.
If one pro practices 5 hours a day for a year, and the other pro practices 10 hours, the pro that put in 10 hours a day is not always going to be the favorite.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
I've come to the conclusion arguing with Barton is about as productive as arguing with a woman. Neither are ever wrong.
The only ones who believe that are the ones who make excuses why they can't play as good as someone else
No question about it I know guys who play everyday , I hardly play and I could give them the 7 . What separates the top is god given that applies in every sport it's a ridicules assumption that practice is all that separates the good from the bad
1
Why isn't it called heart? Or coolness under pressure?
You see you said if and research can't find your if. No one has found two pros where one puts in twice the amount of time and isn't the favorite.
I understand your line of thinking. it's the common way to think of it. Research and science dispute the common view though. The common view is reinforced by movies and books and mythical tales. Everyone loves the story of the stable boy who discovered a superior talent and went on to defeat all the experienced warriors on talent alone.
But reality usually shows that the stable boy was secretly practicing his ass off before being discovered.
And pathetic shark, the reason you can't argue with me is because I actually take the time to read about the points I make and consider all sides before taking a stance. I will be more than happy to concede that such a thing as 'talent" exists if you can show me someone who succeeded without as much or more practice than the other people at his or her level.
You're always on about Snooker. So there must be bios about the best snooker players where one of them says they never practiced much and just sort of knew what to do. Please find anything you can about which snooker players practiced the least and yet managed to get to the top in snooker. There must be one who didn't start playing snooker until he was 18 and was world champion by the time he was 21 or some similar story.
I mean in this very thread we have plenty of people saying that there is NO WAY that ANYONE could make it to the top ranks in snooker without starting out very early. So who is right? If superior talent exists then those people MUST be wrong. There must be people who can start late and still play top 16 snooker.
How about some evidence instead of the usual pithy remarks?
And again science, research and hundreds of interviews with top performers in all areas of life agree with me, or I should say I agree with them.
Playing every day is not practicing every day. It's not the kind of deep practice I am talking about.
I guarantee you I can take any of those guys you now give the 7 to and inside 6 months they will probably be giving you the 7. Inside two months you won't be able to give them the 7. IF they have the desire though. Without it then all the practice in the world won't help.
I don't care what slanted research has told you I have played every sport at a very high level and trust me when I say this you can't train uncoordinated people to be better than those who have it you can't teach a guy with a 70 mph fast ball to have a 100 mph fast ball just ain't happening and you certainly your self can not teach the players I'm talking about to beat me me A I question you have that ability of teaching and be they don't have my stroke their career 5 level players
You crack me up
1
That's a bit rough. In an earlier post, he quite clearly deferred to those with more snooker experience. He just stated that he would be interested to see the results, and posited a hypothesis.
With regards to time spent vs. talent (or whatever that thing may or not be), I think the best example would Ronnie's recent 11 month abstinence from snooker, and then appearing to win the worlds. Of course, he is one of those that had previously spent countless hours on a table, from a very young age, but from experience, picking up a cue after a year off is a very strange thing.
That example doesn't quite go either way, but food for thought.
I think that this only goes to show that once you reach a certain level it's not that difficult to maintain it or get back to it. Also in Ronnie's case, and this is just my limited observation, his advantage is his ability to stay pretty loose under pressure and just play. To me that is where the major difference lies when two competitors are equally skilled, who will crack first? Also Ronnie may have entered the world's with low expectations and perhaps that freed him up to just enjoy whatever came.
In pool Willie Mosconi retired and came back years later to enter a championship, may have been a world championship, and won it or took second if I remember it right.
Yeah, there's a lot of factors at play in that example.
Of course, this is all slightly off-topic, but what about the story of Mark Williams as a 12 year old junior? He was playing in an event in Wales, and one of the locals watching him found a bookie that would take a bet that Mark would be world champion by the year 2000. The odds on that bet were ridiculous, but the guy cashed in when Mark won the 2000 worlds.
Anyway, what did that guy see in Mark? His body just happens to fit around the cue the right way? His timing was sweet? His mind was quick? Do these things come from training? Of course t hey can be developed and practiced, but this is in a part of the world where juniors putting in 40 hours a week is common place. Did Mark just have the right coach at a young age?
Or was it just a bit of randomness that had a great ending
I love pool. I love all disciplines. I enjoy the different facets each and every game offers - at all skill levels. I have enjoyed playing snooker the dozen or so times I played it. We had a 5x10 for a short time here in Charlotte when Kelly Fisher was here, had the chance to play a game with her.
I wish we had more availability and options for snooker, it's a great game, unfortunately we don't.
But.
Some folks are trying to change that. Putting on the US National Snooker Championship - which apparently is an open event.
Kudos to you guys. Great Job!
That being said.
To everyone who has posted in this thread indicating their personal exceptional skill level at snooker, their close friend's exceptional talent at snooker, their ability to run centuries off the break, the low level of play in this tournament etc...
I'm curious.
Where were you guys?
Why did you not play in and win this event?
Steve H.
I wish we had more availability and options for snooker, it's a great game, unfortunately we don't.
But.
Some folks are trying to change that. Putting on the US National Snooker Championship - which apparently is an open event.
Kudos to you guys. Great Job!
That being said.
To everyone who has posted in this thread indicating their personal exceptional skill level at snooker, their close friend's exceptional talent at snooker, their ability to run centuries off the break, the low level of play in this tournament etc...
I'm curious.
Where were you guys?
Why did you not play in and win this event?
Steve H.
I can only speak for myself; I'm not in America.
Yeah, there's a lot of factors at play in that example.
Of course, this is all slightly off-topic, but what about the story of Mark Williams as a 12 year old junior? He was playing in an event in Wales, and one of the locals watching him found a bookie that would take a bet that Mark would be world champion by the year 2000. The odds on that bet were ridiculous, but the guy cashed in when Mark won the 2000 worlds.
Anyway, what did that guy see in Mark? His body just happens to fit around the cue the right way? His timing was sweet? His mind was quick? Do these things come from training? Of course t hey can be developed and practiced, but this is in a part of the world where juniors putting in 40 hours a week is common place. Did Mark just have the right coach at a young age?
Or was it just a bit of randomness that had a great ending
What the guy saw was potential. He might have called it "talent" but he was really betting on Mark's work ethic and that he would stick with snooker. Obviously we don't know the whole story, at least I don't, but I'd bet that Mark by the age of 12 had already had some good coaching and had developed some high degree of skill by the time the person willing to bet noticed him.
And of course with ridiculous odds who wouldn't make a small wager. I'd bet if we could go back in time and replace Mark with some random 12 year old who had been playing for three weeks then the betting man would not have placed any bet on him.
My point being that what he saw was a young man who had developed some skills and was willing to bet on that young man's desire to be world champion in my opinion. IN fact it wouldn't be a bad idea to lay bets at ridiculous odds on all the young snooker players out there. If just one of them comes in then it's a profit. And it's a pretty sure bet that in any group of outstanding 12 year olds if they all stick with it then one of them will be world champion someday.
Pathetic Shark
Banned
Pathetic Shark
Banned
No it isn't.
The reason Barton is wrong (for a change) is not to do with Ronnie's layoff (which has been overblown, given he was playing regularly in private, especially in the run-up to the championships), but more because he can use ANY cue and play the same - both right and left handed.
That's talent, pure and simple.
Sort of. All players entered had to be either US citizens or permanent residents who had not represented any other country in the past three years. The top-ranked eight players were seeded into the 8 round-robin groups. Other than the residency requirement, anyone with $100 (plus $10 annual membership, if not a member) could have entered.
Next year the US National Championships will likely be on one of the other coasts as we try to move it around.
Bob Jewett
USSA Treasurer
Pathetic Shark
Banned
And Hollywood continually reinforces the dream that you merely have to aspire to something to achieve it. Keeps us all doing shit jobs day in, day out. One day, Toto, one day.
Conversely, you are perfectly free to practice playing snooker for 10 hours a day. I'll see you at the Crucible in about, say, 250 years? Hint: you'll be there selling cases, not playing...