How good can one become??

[bruin70]

For the most part, I try to stay in the shadows watching, occasionally asking a question. But I think that your statement is a slap in the face of the individuals you mentioned as well as a couple of other basketball greats like Reggie Miller, and Larry Bird. Jordan was cut ,,,,,,
::exits from his soap box, stage left::

this is why this particular discussion can go back and forth with absolutely no resolution to anyone's satisfaction,,,,,and that neither of us will ever be convinced otherwise of our opinion on this issue.

is natural talent the ability to jump higher than the a piece of paper between your feet and the floor,,,,,is natural talent what one was born with and never had to nurture to be great,,,,,,,did don mattingly have natural talent,,,,,did he have less than darryl strawberry and more than ME,,,,,,,could i be like mattingly if i practiced.

it's a discussion that becomes wrought with what-if's. what if strawberry was more diligent. what if you practiced 10 hours a day for 40 years, where would you be. what if you progressed tenfold in one year of practice,,,,do you assume that doing that 10 more years will make you a hundredfold better. if you try to practice as much as xxxpro, BUT CAN'T, is it because you just didn't try hard enough......or is it because THAT kind of focus to practice requires that high level of talent to see it through.(which mr441, is what i was talking about greats practicing because they ARE great)

it goes on and on.

 

[bruin70]

Perhaps we differ on our understanding of 'natural ability', but there certainly are differences in the physical capabilities when comparing people. Top athletes can more quickly get to a proficiency level in a new game/sport because they are more capable generally. No doubt mental capabilities such as visualization and concentration play a part too. So, I think that people with tremendous motor and mental skills can excel in a sport (given enough motivation), but those without are relegated to poor play no matter how much they care and try. This is of course not a black and white scenario, rather a full spectrum. By my description 'natural talent' is not specific to pool, although there is likely an optimal mix of talents to excel in pool which would be different to the optimal mix for another sportgame. Guys like MJ, Tiger, Wayne, and Earl have talents and ambition that mortals like myself wish for ...

Of course, just my opinion, but I think there is some science in this ...

Dave

also a key part of the "gifted talent" is the ability to be creative. in sports it might be a move, a thought, something unique to the situation to get the job done, that others less gifted would never think of. in art it's the creative spontaneous turn of a brush that a lesser artist would never be inspired to "create".

in acting, it's the difference between robert de niro and richard gere.

and we don't have to discuss what the genius of efren reyes has brought to the game.

 

[Mr441]

Why do you feel you had no natural talent and in what ways?

Also at what level do you feel you are at now? Do you feel you can be as good as a PRO level player or even the top of the PROs like Archer, Mika
Earl or Efren?

If not then what makes them better than the other PROs.

What I mean is that I didn't immediately develop skills right away like some players do, I had trouble even stroking the cue straight. But I didn't let it get me down and I stuck with it and practiced much
more than anyone else I knew.

No I don't play as good as the top pros, but it's not that it can't be done, it's just that I never aspired to be a pro player, it's just not the life I want to lead. However I adamantly believe that had I quit my job and completely devoted myself to getting to that level I could do it, anyone could do it.

I don't get to play as much nowadays, only once or twice a week so my game has declined quite a bit, but at my best I was an A+ to open level.


.

 

[predator]

There's practically no limit as to how good can one become with enough practice and dedication. But you need huge confidence to play really good pool...I mean huge.

I noticed watching some better players how they play smart and confident. They don't oscillate much...their average game is very strong. I can only hang with them when I'm on top of my game. But why can't my top game become my average? If it did I'd be an advanced player, not intermediate.

When faced with a critical shots, the pro's don't think "what if I miss" like I do sometimes. Negative thoughts kill my game, the confidence goes down. And when I do play well, I start to think about personal records, high runs and how I'm gonna break them, LOL. Not good! I haven't yet been able to resolve this problem. That problem becomes even bigger at tournaments. The expectations also bring additional pressure which is hard to handle.

And the difference between professional players? It isn't the stroke. Many players have stroke that is technically superior to that of Reyes, but in actual match situation it won't mean much. In fact, they will struggle against him in a longer match, he'll drill them more often than not. He simply doesn't think he's the best, he KNOWS it.

 

[mjantti]

I think it just dawned at me. If you want to be a good player and you want to shoot your best game in practice, in tournaments or in high $$$ games... And how you shoot your best game ? You have to enjoy every single shot you face. If you're a pro, you still should enjoy making a 2' stop shot even though you know it's a 999 out of 1000 shot. Every single aspect in the game should give you satisfaction, doesn't matter if you manage to execute a tough shot or an easy one, you shouldn't pass the opportunity to enjoy your mechanics and how you're able to control the balls with the tip of your cue.

I have experienced being in dead stroke, but taking things for granted and not enjoying the game. We all know what happens next, the doubt starts creeping in and suddenly your dead stroke is gone. I think the best matches ever for me haven't been played in dead stroke, instead I've enjoyed every single shot and "amazed" myself how I was able to perform under serious pressure. Sometimes I even laughed inside my head thinking jokingly "I can't believe I made that ridiculously difficult shot without any difficulties". This enjoying is also a good way to get rid of excess tournament pressure. How can you stiffen up and choke, if you're enjoying the game and having a good time ? I know it's not that simple, but for me it has been lately exactly that.

Well, as someone mentioned, if you want to be a pro, a top of the world, you need to have a burning desire from the early days of your practise. Enjoying and having a good time doesn't apply with pros all the way... well, maybe except Efren

 

[bruin70]

There's practically no limit as to how good can one become with enough practice and dedication. But you need huge confidence to play really good pool...I mean huge. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,t.

and there's no more an obvious example of what you mean than going from a snooker table to a 9'er. the confidence gained when i think the 9'er looks like a baby table makes my pocketing game better by 40% if not more.

 

[Egg McDogit]

Someone happened to bring up Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker
player) in another post. I watched him play Steven Hendry (sp?)
and it made my jaw drop...probably the most disgusting feat
I've ever seen on a table. It might change your outlook
on natural talent
peace
-Egg

 

[mjantti]

Someone happened to bring up Ronnie O'Sullivan (snooker
player) in another post. I watched him play Steven Hendry (sp?)
and it made my jaw drop...probably the most disgusting feat
I've ever seen on a table. It might change your outlook
on natural talent
peace
-Egg

Umm, some details please. Did he moon to Stephen ? Started singing xmas carols during Stephen's inning ? Took a dump... umm, I won't go there...

What did Ronnie do ?

 

[Egg McDogit]

Ronnie was snapping balls in like a monster...just looked
completely effortless.

While we're on Larry Bird...one of my favorite Bird moments
was on an espn interview where he was discussing how he felt
disrespected and pissed off when the other team would put
a white guy on him hehe.
peace
-Egg

 

[FLICKit]

Okay, please hold your horses. First of all, Larry Bird had one of the best shooting forms. How in the hell do you think he was the king of the 3 point shot kings? Did you ever watch his wrist flick? PERFECT. Every shot had the same exact rotation. He had talent my friend, a whole lot of talent. Except in the jumping area. But then you would be hard pressed to explain why he raked in so many rebounds. He was smarter than the rest of the players. He had eyes behind his head and a court sense that no other player has ever had, IMO. His BRAIN was talented, creative (something another poster brought out in good pool players. He was a NATURAL.

And Michael Jordan. I will never forget when the Marquette coach who was one of my favorite college basket ball announcers proclaimed in a NC game that Michael Jordan would be better than Phil Ford. And everbody went, yeh, right. All you had to do was look at the catlike movements that Jordan had, the vertical leap, and above all PURE ATHLETIC ABILITY to see this in Jordan. Jeeze, he was born with this.

And both of them excelled I believe because of their natural talents, not due to how much time they practiced.

I will agree with the eyes and the heart part as being necessary for pool players to become great, and I might get beat up by my wife again for saying this, but natural talent has a lot to do with how far one goes in pool, at least to being great. Even Allison Fisher, who practices as much as some of the men do, in a Rockville Md exhibition stated that she couldn't compete with the men because men had superior eye hand cooridination. She told this to a female player who played on my APA team, so this was a woman to woman down to earth talk. Personally I think that if Allison had a designated breaker in 9 ball most men would be afraid to play her. They would get killed and they know it. Allison is a very modest individual it seems, so her statement may have been a little biased towards the men LOL.

Natural abilities, talent, and hard work are often confused.

For example, Bird's wrist flick had much less to do with natural abilities, and much more to do with the amount of dedication, hard work, and focus that he provided to the game of basketball. All of it is muscular motor movements that get trained via constant repetition. To an outside observer that may appear like natural talent, but to the athlete basically every maneuver is a trained activity from some point in their life experiences.

No athlete has reached the pinnacle of their sport except as a result of training (direct or indirect).

Sometimes there can be unintended consequences or benefits. For example, Bird shooting in his sandlot court, could have inspired him to increase shotmaking so as not to have to chase the ball all over the place. Likewise, he may have focused harder on judging the direction of the basketball, whether in the hoop, or off a missed shot, which would've had the side effect of aiding his rebounding abilities. Usually the skilled in any activity have trained themselves to see or react at a faster and faster rate. Numerous athletes talk about events happening in slow motion.

Exceptions may, and I repeat MAY be jumping abilities, speed, quickness, and intelligence. Even those can be and are augmented by training. There are some basic abilities, but that alone is never enough.

Jordan had athletic abilities, but like Bird, his greatness was a result of his committment to countless hours of training and hard work. This is true of all great athletes (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Andre Agassi, Efrem Reyes, Bruce Lee, Jeanette Lee...).

To the outside observer or couch potato, it's easy to minimize the accomplishments of the atheletes by discounting it as talents from birth.

 

[bruin70]

Natural abilities, talent, and hard work are often confused.

For example, Bird's wrist flick had much less to do with natural abilities, and much more to do with the amount of dedication, hard work, and focus that he provided to the game of basketball. All of it is muscular motor movements that get trained via constant repetition. To an outside observer that may appear like natural talent, but to the athlete basically every maneuver is a trained activity from some point in their life experiences.

No athlete has reached the pinnacle of their sport except as a result of training (direct or indirect).

Sometimes there can be unintended consequences or benefits. For example, Bird shooting in his sandlot court, could have inspired him to increase shotmaking so as not to have to chase the ball all over the place. Likewise, he may have focused harder on judging the direction of the basketball, whether in the hoop, or off a missed shot, which would've had the side effect of aiding his rebounding abilities. Usually the skilled in any activity have trained themselves to see or react at a faster and faster rate. Numerous athletes talk about events happening in slow motion.

Exceptions may, and I repeat MAY be jumping abilities, speed, quickness, and intelligence. Even those can be and are augmented by training. There are some basic abilities, but that alone is never enough.

Jordan had athletic abilities, but like Bird, his greatness was a result of his committment to countless hours of training and hard work. This is true of all great athletes (Tiger Woods, Barry Bonds, Andre Agassi, Efrem Reyes, Bruce Lee, Jeanette Lee...).

To the outside observer or couch potato, it's easy to minimize the accomplishments of the atheletes by discounting it as talents from birth.

and it goes around and around.

it's much easier to say, i think, that talented/naturals however you want to define them, can do very very well with talent alone. but in the meantime, there are those ALMOST as talented who ARE working at their game. i mean,,,anyone will readily admit that staying away will deteriorate their skills. to quibble about the talent of bird vs the talent of jordan, how they got there, and what they bring to the table. they are there...period. talent is multifaceted.

 

[FLICKit]

and it goes around and around.

it's much easier to say, i think, that talented/naturals however you want to define them, can do very very well with talent alone. but in the meantime, there are those ALMOST as talented who ARE working at their game. i mean,,,anyone will readily admit that staying away will deteriorate their skills. to quibble about the talent of bird vs the talent of jordan, how they got there, and what they bring to the table. they are there...period. talent is multifaceted.

Looks like you tried to water things down quite significantly, in order to make your point. "Can do very very well with talent alone", what are you talking about? Define "very very well". Elaborate. Provide an example... Back up your statement.

Maybe the best case scenario for what you are talking about is indirect training. For example, a very good golfer, who can also hit a baseball very well, or vice versa. Just because they haven't trained specifically in that one sport, doesn't mean some other activity hasn't trained them for that event. But training is training... direct or indirect.

Even mentally shooting baskets would be a form of indirect training.