Is there such a thing as natural talent? Some say yes, I do not think there is?

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Natural talent is real, but it is only an advantage if you build off of it.

Personal without talent be desire and work ethic can also become great.
He’s your are correct cowboy, no talent people with hard work can become great. But they can’t become the best.

Hope your good,

Take care
Fatboy 🤠
 

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my hero's
Silver Member
He’s your are correct cowboy, no talent people with hard work can become great. But they can’t become the best.

Hope your good,

Take care
Fatboy 🤠


Then you have people I will call different, should never be any good at anything because disabilities.

But they improvise, adapt, and overcome. Doing things better then what normal people can accomplish.
 

Fatboy

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Then you have people I will call different, should never be any good at anything because disabilities.

But they improvise, adapt, and overcome. Doing things better then what normal people can accomplish.
That very true too! I admire those people who don’t have a edge, rather a handicap and they achieve amazing things. Respect!
 

MitchAlsup

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've often wondered if "natural talent" isn't instead just a better understanding/intuition of body mechanics and how to align the body to shoot straight, which may or may not be a conscious thought for beginners. There's also probably some degree of shot visualization that's naturally better in some people. And from there those players are able to hit the ground running and bypass a lot of the frustration and false-starts that might hobble other players or hold them back for years, if not decades.
In my case--which is not pool--I knew at my 5th grade BD party that I wanted to become an Electrical Engineer, and by 8th grade that I wanted to specialize in digital electronics (this was 1965 before many people even knew computers existed.) in 11th grade I built a calculator (Add and subtract only) about the size of a attaché case which won various science fairs in my state.

In my case, I did not really have a choice of what I wanted to do--but I chose to pursue what I was good at.

By the time I arrived at Carnegie Mellon in 1971 I had built 4 short wave radios, innumerable slot cars, and the calculator. Before my first course in EE at CMU, I had a touchy feely relationship with transistors, tubes, inductors, capacitors and resistors. The first EE class was a large lecture hall filled with about 275 students. An old white haired gentleman walked out on stage and started the lecture as follows::

"We are going to teach you the 2 laws of electrical engineering. If you do not happen to agree with these laws, find them too difficult, or have any other issues with these 2 laws, I suggest you find a different course of study."

And true to his work I spent 4 years learning Kirchhov's voltage and current laws. Linear algebra, differential calculus, integral calculus, differential equations, smith charts, Laplace and Fourier transforms,..... ALL pertaining to those 2 laws. Working innumerable problems.....

On thing special about CMU was the testing procedures--it was all open book--but the tests were designed such that if you had to look up anything other than getting the sign right, that you would spend too much time reading and not enough time writing. Oh, and on each test there was a problem specifically designed to provide insufficient information to be solved. Here the only correct answer was "insufficient information".

Except for being Electrical Engineering it was almost identical to "The Paper Chase" movie.

We lost the class at the first semester boundary, another ¼ of the class at the end of the first year, another ½ the second year, and I graduated in a class of 71 (starting at 275).

{Back to pool}

While in school, I joined a Frat House and played pool for 3-5 hours per day. I got pretty good (at least as good as anyone in my house)
my eye was sharp, my body displined, my mind sharp, and in many respects I could play better in 1975 than today.

Then "life happened" and I did not play for about 35 years. (Not exactly zero but never enough to maintain anything)

Then in 2006 I moved to an area with a local bar that happens to have a couple of bar boxes, and I started playing a bit again. After a year I started to remember how I played back in college, and I dedicated considerable time to playing/practicing pool.

I was unemployed at the time, but not looking for work as I had enough money, so I wandered around the Austin pool scene and ran into some of the better known locals, occasionally getting to play a few games.

The big thing I noticed (this time around) was how much better my understanding of the physics transpiring on the pool table and how much worse my fundamentals and abilities (than when I was back in school) I attribute this to the development of my mental way of analyzing "stuff"
I had developed as I applied myself during my 40 year career in digital electronics. Mental rigor I did not have as a "recent graduate" was now easily available.

So, after screwing around at the bar for a few years, I joined an APA league. I told them I was about a SL6. They started me at 4 and over the course of 7 weeks it went:: 4 -> 7 ->5 ->7 -> 3(bad week) ->5 ->6 where I stayed. realistically when I was playing here I was a 6.4. I ended up getting a job in Ca and quit the APA team.

20 months later I was back in Tx, and found a BCA team. We were a upper mid-rate team and I was about the middlest player on the team.

------------

The point of all of this was::
a) Yes there is natural talent (and not everyone has it)
b) if you have it you still have to develop it and use it constantly to maintain it.
c) if your natural talent is in something other than pool--you are best advised to follow where your talent leads.

In digital electronics I have it. In pool I don't.
 

vapoolplayer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just making up numbers here, but for example:

Not as much talent + same amount of dedication gets you to say 750-770 Fargo.

More talent + same amount of dedication gets you that 770+ rating.

Music is a very easy example. Some people put in the work properly but they just aren’t as natural at it. Drawing/painting/art. It’s rare you see someone who “struggled” with an art become good at it through hours of training and practice.

Some things are just more obvious with art and such if what is “good.” Pool is far less obvious when you’re comparing that 750 to an 800.
 

MattPoland

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
how do the “natural talent doesn’t exist” folks explain Wu Jiaqing winning the world championship at age 16?

Delusional.

Are prodigies “natural talents”? Or is the reality that the real outliers from the bell curve MUST start their journey as a child while their brain is forming and also grind the shit out of that skill to efforts far beyond what anyone would consider “natural”. I think the main special thing about prodigies that turn into world champions is that they didn’t get burned out from the activity like everyone else would have.
 

CocoboloCowboy

Cowboys are my hero's
Silver Member
Sports talent is still sports talent, but if it is Professional Sport Player I want to be.



I would pick any sport except Bowling or Pool.

Professional Bowlers, and Professional Pool Player share common bond. Competing in sport that pays poor, has poor structure, and low income potential.

Remember old joke about difference between Pro Pool Player, and Extra Large Pizza.

Extra Large Pizza can feed family of four.
 

Bavafongoul

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Talent is overrated, although having it surely helps getting better. The ingredient that determines
greatness, or your best performance, is commitment. How much will you commit to improving?

And will you stick to it? The commitment to win, to approach a match or tournament with the
feeling no one can beat me today except for myself. The confidence that makes you feel …..just
leave me a shot and I’ll take over from there….ready to pounce on your opponents as soon as they
miss. Now talent is really just an acronym for aptitude. And some people just have better eye-hand
coordination and anatomically, their arms and shoulders movement seems more fluid. Those folks
start with an advantage and it’s what they do with it that ultimately will decide their pool prowess.
 

sjm

Older and Wiser
Silver Member
I believe the some of the premises stated are incorrect.

Yes, practice is necessary for ultimate success. But is it sufficient soley in and of iteslf?

I am a 5'5" male. I am under no delusions that I can run as fast as a man 6'2", assuming we both put in the practice and training appropriate for our bodies. It is simple physics: given otherwise similar conditions, the longer stride of a taller man will provide an unassailable advantage. Take it to the extreme: a 50' man walking can beat a 6' man running. Let's see an ant outrun a human being.

I stated once here on AZB that as a drummer, no matter how much I practiced, I could not attain the speed and precision exhibited by jazz great Buddy Rich. My physiology did not permit it. Mr. Rich said he never practiced. He was not a good sight-reader. He didn't have to be. He could hear an arrangement once and know how to play drums to it immediately. My brain is not wired to command my muscles to drum like Buddy Rich. My brain is not wired to hear a composition once and remember its intimate details.

Some people are born with eidetic memories. I am not thusly blessed. I propose that something like an eidetic memory can be an advantage to a pool player in that the many instances of a particular very similar shot can be approached using infallible recall on how the shot was hit in the past, based on a sufficient amount of practice. Also, the communication between muscles and the brain, the so-called "muscle memory", just as physiques can greatly vary between humans, so can also similarly vary widely.

I interpret "natural talent" as the brain's innate ability to learn, internalize, and command muscles to act in a specific way. In some humans this connectivity is simply better than in other humans. Yes, the difference can be narrowed with additional practice, but while practice is a necessary component, IMHO, it is not sufficient. There needs to be the innate component to fully leverage the practice, and in some, this "natural talent" is stronger than in others.
Great post. Well judged and well presented.
 

Bic D

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I certainly believe in natural talent. I grew up with a group of guys who did everything together. When we reached high school. We all played football and wrestling while our 1 friend joined the golf team. None of us had played golf including him but he was a smaller fellow and wanted to give it a shot. My friend was a "natural". He received no instruction other than playing on the team and was shooting 1 under, 2 under by the end of the season.

He did not play the next season because he thought it was incredibly boring. I remember telling him..."bud, you can get a scholarship with the way you play" and he said to me..."man, it is the most boring thing in the world. You just hit the ball down the fairway and then hit it on the green, try to get it close and put it in the cup." It's just so boring.

He never played organized golf again but we did play at an occasional bachelor party etc... I remember being paired with him one time at a party. He hadn't played in 4 years and shot a legit 75 and he never said 1 word about golf. He was drinking beer and never said a single word about a putt, his approach etc.. He looked like the most unenthusiastic robot in the world. I have to admit, I was amazed at his effortless play (with no practice) and also admit that he did look bored as hell.

That guy was a natural talent who never used it.
 

VarmintKong

Cannonball comin’!
... no matter how much I practiced, I could not attain the speed and precision exhibited by jazz great Buddy Rich. My physiology did not permit it...
...My brain is not wired to command my muscles to drum like Buddy Rich.
Aren’t you setting yourself up for failure with that attitude?

I might not be ready to reach my goal, yet. Maybe I need to build up to it. Play an easier song that uses the same concepts; practice similar shots that use the same framework.

To say something like I can’t hit this shot because I’m physically incapable of creating the necessary cue speed only creates a barrier that isn’t real.

Grab a stack of towels and an extra T-shirt, sweat it out, and bang that mutha funkin’ drum!
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
It breaks down several ways much of which wouldn't be considered talent.
Just to detail this scheme, let's say aptitude is first.
Then what? Opportunity? Desire? Necessity? Luck?

Specified talent won't even manifest until the required footing has been established and some manner of craft is under way. Now you have a gestation and growth period where aptitude might be the operative variable. If progress is detected at these early stages then that gets filed under the 'talent' label. Is this talent? Talent might just be a word that indicates the response of an observer and little else.
The talent word also gets attached to quality of work. This can be independent of rate of progress. Good work is good work.

When the quality of work exceeds the norms such that peers take notice, then mMmaybe you have the first real sign of talent. This can happen early as with enabled prodigies or more often later as with professional success; the latter offering the more credible and substantial 'marvel food'. Substitute, jealousy and contempt depending on the field. :D
 

dquarasr

Registered
Aren’t you setting yourself up for failure with that attitude?

I might not be ready to reach my goal, yet. Maybe I need to build up to it. Play an easier song that uses the same concepts; practice similar shots that use the same framework.

To say something like I can’t hit this shot because I’m physically incapable of creating the necessary cue speed only creates a barrier that isn’t real.

Grab a stack of towels and an extra T-shirt, sweat it out, and bang that mutha funkin’ drum!
Oh, I tried, late teens. The realization I could not do it came way later.
 

VarmintKong

Cannonball comin’!
Oh, I tried, late teens. The realization I could not do it came way later.
Realization of limitations; I keep trying this song, shot that I’m not equipped to handle. Let me beat my brains against the wall a little bit longer before I give it up altogether.

Step back and progressively work towards your goal. Don’t let that mental block become set in stone.
 

dquarasr

Registered
Realization of limitations; I keep trying this song, shot that I’m not equipped to handle. Let me beat my brains against the wall a little bit longer before I give it up altogether.

Step back and progressively work towards your goal. Don’t let that mental block become set in stone.
You misinterpret my point. I am not advocating a defeatist stance. The realization is that one might eventually conclude that one might never be the best. But effort still should be undertaken to be the best we can be, accepting that there might be others who are better.
 

straightline

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Fyask me, (I'm aware no one has) there's no such pinnacle as "best". It's not even relevant. Some are currently in the lead, some may hold that position longer. To anyone aspiring from and toward any level, BFD.
The standards of accomplishment are built into the craft and nowhere in "who you wanna beat".
Small steps. Don't stop.
 

vapoolplayer

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Talent is overrated, although having it surely helps getting better. The ingredient that determines
greatness, or your best performance, is commitment. How much will you commit to improving?

And will you stick to it? The commitment to win, to approach a match or tournament with the
feeling no one can beat me today except for myself. The confidence that makes you feel …..just
leave me a shot and I’ll take over from there….ready to pounce on your opponents as soon as they
miss. Now talent is really just an acronym for aptitude. And some people just have better eye-hand
coordination and anatomically, their arms and shoulders movement seems more fluid. Those folks
start with an advantage and it’s what they do with it that ultimately will decide their pool prowess.

One could classify all this as a “talent” itself.

Being able to properly focus and train properly also requires a specific aptitude and determination.

The best pool players in the world likely have a higher aptitude (talent) for pool as well as what you described.

Most things in life aren’t singular. They are a sum of many factors.
 
Top