Natural ability VS. Trained ability

hi

barton my meaning at this point has gotten very muddled and i forget what my point was.
anyway i agree that it takes a combination of things to become world class at anything .
natural ability will speed up the process.
when i say natural ability i dont mean at pool i just mean the ability to get great at sports which some have and some dont .
if i knew why i would be rich.

you know many of the girls on the wpba have played as much as anyone .
instruction, sponsors ,played for years etc and they dont walk around saying if i played as much as you i could play even with you.

they have played as much and they play great no doubt but if say the top female wanted to play me 30 ahead for 50 dimes i would gladly show her who has more natural ability.

i do not think im superior to anybody and people who know me can attest to that and can figure the things i said were to rile you up.

anyway lets just let all this go ,you think im a joke and you could play like me if you wanted maybe so maybe not, no biggie.

also when i talked about running 7 centuries i by no means think thats world class at snooker.
also when you say anybody could run 200 at 14.1 thats not world class either.
i can run over 200 about once a day that would be world class not doing it once.

anyway john lets just agree to disagree ,i hate that saying but i think it applies here. take care i know your not a bad guy . im just sensitive because ive had 1000 people say they could guaranteed play like me if they wanted too and then you did it and i went off on you.

i say go become world class then ill be the first to say great job but until then its way easier said then done .feel me
 
memikey said:
Addressing both Johns........I'm not inclined towards insults (with the exception of deranged conspiracy theorists, they're fair game lol) and this is certainly not intended in that way, so please don't take this personally.......but it seems the snooker line of argument probably doesn't really do either of your arguments much service......and here's why.......

Brilliant cue man though he no doubt is the reality is that in snooker, right now John S would have no chance whatsoever of consistently beating anyone in the top 1,000 in world rankings over 15 frames (highly unlikely he could beat anyone currently in the top 20 of the under 18's or the top 10 of the under 15's)

Furthermore, principally because of John S's age now and the nature of his cue sports background so far, realistically anyone of that age and background profile has very little prospect of ever being good enough to reach the top 100 in world snooker rankings, no matter how much JB inspired rigorous training, coaching, practice and dedication he might put into it from here on in for the rest of his cue sports playing life.
Click to expand...

Mike my point was to say that I believe that anyone who has the same nurturing can become world class. That means from the same age. Had John been brought up on snooker and afforded the same sort of nurturing in the game that Stephen Hendry or any other top player had then it's very likely that he might have become a top snooker player.

Right now it's probably not very likely but I don't think it's impossible. If the guy says he ran centuries with a few month's practice on his own with a 145 thrown in then he's good enough to go farther. Who knows?

Who has tried it? I mean really tried it by fully immersing themselves into doing whatever it takes to excel at pro snooker after a successful pool career? No one that I know of.

The reason is socialization, expectation, and responsibility. When you are an adult you have to answer to others for your activities, you have to justify them, you are expected to be something, and you are responsible for your own and often other's survival.

That's why it's harder to become world class when you start at a later age. Physical limitations notwithstanding.

But I don't rule anything out as impossible, just not probable.
 
john schmidt said:
barton my meaning at this point has gotten very muddled and i forget what my point was.
anyway i agree that it takes a combination of things to become world class at anything .
natural ability will speed up the process.
when i say natural ability i dont mean at pool i just mean the ability to get great at sports which some have and some dont .
if i knew why i would be rich.

you know many of the girls on the wpba have played as much as anyone .
instruction, sponsors ,played for years etc and they dont walk around saying if i played as much as you i could play even with you.

they have played as much and they play great no doubt but if say the top female wanted to play me 30 ahead for 50 dimes i would gladly show her who has more natural ability.

i do not think im superior to anybody and people who know me can attest to that and can figure the things i said were to rile you up.

anyway lets just let all this go ,you think im a joke and you could play like me if you wanted maybe so maybe not, no biggie.

also when i talked about running 7 centuries i by no means think thats world class at snooker.
also when you say anybody could run 200 at 14.1 thats not world class either.
i can run over 200 about once a day that would be world class not doing it once.

anyway john lets just agree to disagree ,i hate that saying but i think it applies here. take care i know your not a bad guy . im just sensitive because ive had 1000 people say they could guaranteed play like me if they wanted too and then you did it and i went off on you.

i say go become world class then ill be the first to say great job but until then its way easier said then done .feel me
Click to expand...

Of course it's easier said than done. I have never maintained anything different.

I said I could play like you if I had taken the same path as you and had the same experiences as you. Now when I say that I don't know exactly what path you took to get where you are. But I know that the path I was on included being mentored by champions, going on the road, learning the moves the right way, and playing and practicing constantly. Barring that sort of dedication to the game then I know I have NO CHANCE to be world class in pool.

I don't really know you but I bet anything that if you had had the same childhood as Mosconi did then perhaps you would be even better than you are now. Maybe if you went on a nationwide tour with the very best in the world and played to win night after night and learned and absorbed everything he knew then you'd be better for it. Of course you would, any decent player with half a brain would come out of that a much better player.

For the record I never said or implied that if I played as much as you that I would be as good as you. Just so that's clear.

You're right about the women with one exception. They are women and are not treated the same, do not have the same experiences in the pool room, do not receive the same kind of coaching and matching up, and for the most part don't start really young.

One player did start that young and was treated like a boy throughout her early playing career and her game showed it. Her name is Jean Balukas. However when she reached adulthood she was not treated as one of the boys by the male players and it showed. However her game was respected and she was no pushover.

If someday we have a society that can really treat men and women equally then I predict that more women will play pool and more women will begin to assert themselves as world class players without any stigma whatsoever.

The reason that the best men are better than the best women is that there are more men and no stigma attached to being a man in a man's world. Once a woman enters the pool room she is automatically treated differently no matter how much people try not to. Mass makes class and more men means that there is a much higher experience level going on there.

I will say this as far as talent goes. Kelly Fisher has about as much talent as any other living breathing human being when it comes to making a shot in pool. I am confident that you could show her any shot and she would master that shot very very quickly. I am equally confident that you could explain which moves are better and she would would understand them right away, absorb them and be able to execute them correctly.

I am quite positive that IF Kelly Fisher were to go on the road and get some real seasoning that she would be able to compete with you in your 30 ahead set. If she were able to get experience playing against all manner of opponents in all conditions under immense pressure then she would become a much stronger player than she is and what she is now is already world class. This is a natural talent that can be forged into a lethal weapon in the right hands. As it is pretty much on her own for the most part she is still formidable and no pushover against anyone.

If I were a milliionaire then I would be giving her that opportunity. Here is how I would do it John. I'd make everyone freeze up two session's worth of money. One session now and one a year from now. First I'd take her around and let her play everyone and she'd get beat on but she would learn. Then on the second trip she would be armed with tons more experience against super tough players and she would be able to use what she learned to have a much higher chance to win. I predict that she wouldn't lose very often in the second go around.

But in order for someone like Kelly to be truly competitive with the top guys she has to play them and learn from them. That trial by fire forges a champion and allows whatever talent they have to shine.
 
No matter how hard I tried if I wanted to play say the drums I propably would never be that good. But yet some people can just pick up the drumsticks and play as ther are born being musically inclined.

In pool I was a b player in a year and a solid a player in 2.

Talent has so much to do with sports like pool and golf it's not even funny.
 
cplayermagic said:
I always enjoy destroying a forum simpleton's overly-idealized fantasies.

Their is know such thing as "Natural Ability" if, bye that, you mean "He can play grate without ever having practiced." Few are lucky enough two have bean born brandishing a queue fresh out of they're mother's womb. Skill is one of the byproducts of practice. (Incidentally, for pool, so is bankruptcy..) What you errantly referred too as "Natural Ability" should, instead, be called "Natural Talent." That being said, aisle pose various questions on you're behalf and then proceed to answer them:

Is it possible to become as good as Eferen (or some of the other greats)?

Yes. That person may even be referred to as "Another one of those greats"

Can he/she surpass someone who has played more?

Yes. This phenomenon is referred to as "Talent" or "The ability to pick things up quickly."

So this differs from "Natural Ability?"

Bingo.

Let me draw a parallel: take <Insert Pro Here> back in time to the first day he played pool. Let him practice for a month. I thawed about it; he gets the 5 and out.
Click to expand...


Sorry had to do it! :duck:
 
bankshot76 said:
I was just wondering what you all that about training and practicing and how no matter how much someone could practice if they could achieve the ability of someone as naturally gifted like Efren or some of the other greats. I'm sure practice has helped these fantastic players but deep down they are just absolutely gifted with pool playing ability.
Click to expand...
Pool playing ability is not as simple as the mechanics the decision making during a game and the ability to focus and stay focused has to be developed based on an individual. Having all the attributes of the great players is tough and why they are great is a combination of many things.
 
memikey said:
Addressing both Johns........I'm not inclined towards insults (with the exception of deranged conspiracy theorists, they're fair game lol) and this is certainly not intended in that way, so please don't take this personally.......but it seems the snooker line of argument probably doesn't really do either of your arguments much service......and here's why.......

Brilliant cue man though he no doubt is the reality is that in snooker, right now John S would have no chance whatsoever of consistently beating anyone in the top 1,000 in world rankings over 15 frames (highly unlikely he could beat anyone currently in the top 20 of the under 18's or the top 10 of the under 15's)

Furthermore, principally because of John S's age now and the nature of his cue sports background so far, realistically anyone of that age and background profile has very little prospect of ever being good enough to reach the top 100 in world snooker rankings, no matter how much JB inspired rigorous training, coaching, practice and dedication he might put into it from here on in for the rest of his cue sports playing life.
Click to expand...

But what about Harold Worst? He went from being world champion at 3C billiards to being a champion at pool games. Per Freddy, who was there, everybody without exception was afraid of Worst on a pool table.

Of course, that didn't happen overnight. Maybe it was the "rigorous training, coaching, practice and dedication" you claim wouldn't do it.

Or maybe it was natural talent?
 
sydbarret said:
No matter how hard I tried if I wanted to play say the drums I propably would never be that good. But yet some people can just pick up the drumsticks and play as ther are born being musically inclined.

In pool I was a b player in a year and a solid a player in 2.

Talent has so much to do with sports like pool and golf it's not even funny.
Click to expand...

There are people who are "musically inclined" and people who are not. It has to do with how our brains are wired and what our influences in life are.

Research has shown that when babies are talked to or communicated to while in the womb that those babies generally start talking earlier and show aptitude earlier than others.

We all think that there are things we cannot do. I can't play the radio much less any musical instrument. Nor can I sing. But my wife can play the piano, sing and is a ballet dancer. After practicing a little bit with her teaching me I was able to start to understand notes and even able to sing some. What kind of work would it take for me to learn to sing? I don't know but I am sure that I could learn it.

I am sure that I could rewire my brain to understand music and if not become world class then at least to become proficient. Barring some physical issue that truly prevents me from doing this.

I mean I am not ruling out that there are very real physiological things going on that prevent a person from doing one thing well while allowing him to excel at another. How the brain is wired is one thing for example, maybe it's not possible to "rewire" ourselves no matter how much we try. Maybe there are other issues that we are unaware of.

And if these things are what we call "talent" then so be it. However I choose to believe more in the power of nurture and determination to shape a human being than the way they were born.

Who knows though? In this century we may see that geneticists and medicine may indeed create "Tiger Woods" in a test tube or a bottle.

Until then training and focus are the only ways to become a champion - if you have the talent for it in the first place. ;-)
 
JB Cases said:
There are people who are "musically inclined" and people who are not. It has to do with how our brains are wired and what our influences in life are.

Research has shown that when babies are talked to or communicated to while in the womb that those babies generally start talking earlier and show aptitude earlier than others.

We all think that there are things we cannot do. I can't play the radio much less any musical instrument. Nor can I sing. But my wife can play the piano, sing and is a ballet dancer. After practicing a little bit with her teaching me I was able to start to understand notes and even able to sing some. What kind of work would it take for me to learn to sing? I don't know but I am sure that I could learn it.

I am sure that I could rewire my brain to understand music and if not become world class then at least to become proficient. Barring some physical issue that truly prevents me from doing this.

I mean I am not ruling out that there are very real physiological things going on that prevent a person from doing one thing well while allowing him to excel at another. How the brain is wired is one thing for example, maybe it's not possible to "rewire" ourselves no matter how much we try. Maybe there are other issues that we are unaware of.

And if these things are what we call "talent" then so be it. However I choose to believe more in the power of nurture and determination to shape a human being than the way they were born.

Who knows though? In this century we may see that geneticists and medicine may indeed create "Tiger Woods" in a test tube or a bottle.

Until then training and focus are the only ways to become a champion - if you have the talent for it in the first place. ;-)
Click to expand...
It's a right brain/left brain thing, some are artistic and some are logical.
I'm thinking you can't train this.
 
Natural ability will only take you so far. It's your drive to surpass your natural abilities by leaps and bounds that makes you great. The only athlete that comes to mind that was great based almost entirely on natural ability is Babe Ruth.

The first athlete that comes to mind that combined a natural ability with unmatched work ethic is Michael Jordan. He would not have accomplished what he did without his drive. It was his drive that made him great.
 
cplayermagic said:
I always enjoy destroying a forum simpleton's overly-idealized fantasies.

Their is know such thing as "Natural Ability" if, bye that, you mean "He can play grate without ever having practiced." Few are lucky enough two have bean born brandishing a queue fresh out of they're mother's womb. Skill is one of the byproducts of practice. (Incidentally, for pool, so is bankruptcy..) What you errantly referred too as "Natural Ability" should, instead, be called "Natural Talent." That being said, aisle pose various questions on you're behalf and then proceed to answer them:

Is it possible to become as good as Eferen (or some of the other greats)?

Yes. That person may even be referred to as "Another one of those greats"

Can he/she surpass someone who has played more?

Yes. This phenomenon is referred to as "Talent" or "The ability to pick things up quickly."

So this differs from "Natural Ability?"

Bingo.

Let me draw a parallel: take <Insert Pro Here> back in time to the first day he played pool. Let him practice for a month. I thawed about it; he gets the 5 and out.
Click to expand...

tjlmbklr said:
Sorry had to do it! :duck:
Click to expand...

You missed a few ;)
 
tjlmbklr said:
Wow the forum grammar police are in full force tonight! :thumbup:
Click to expand...

LoL that is actually the first time I've ever done that. I figure so long as I can understand it that is all I need.
 
Rich93 said:
But what about Harold Worst? He went from being world champion at 3C billiards to being a champion at pool games. Per Freddy, who was there, everybody without exception was afraid of Worst on a pool table.

Of course, that didn't happen overnight. Maybe it was the "rigorous training, coaching, practice and dedication" you claim wouldn't do it.

Or maybe it was natural talent?
Click to expand...

Yes he did....but I didn't claim anything of the sort. I was talking only about any pool player of John's age or older going from pool to snooker. There's a big difference between going from 3C billiards to pool or even going from snooker to pool than there is in going from pool to snooker, assuming we are not talking about kids.

Personally think there's an infinitely better chance of a let's say 30 year old top echelon naturally talented snooker player being able to transform himself into a top echelon pool player by training, coaching, practice and dedication than there is of a top echelon naturally talented pool player of the same age doing it in reverse. That's not a derogatory comment upon pool, that's just the way it is partly due to how young players are captured and developed in the snooker sphere and partly due to the nature of the the two games and to the number, age and quality of the players already established in the respective cue sports disciplines.

In any case I wasn't supporting one line of argument over the other, the point of my post was in fact that I didn't think the snooker line of argument supported very comprehensively either of the cases for natural talent over training et or vice-versa :smile:
 
Interesting study.
They use chess players as an example.

http://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/fidestudy/results


Can anyone become an expert at any activity with enough practice and/or training?
Or, does natural talent limit ultimate performance level? The idea of natural talent derives
from common everyday observations of some people acquiring a skill much more rapidly
than others, and/or very much younger than average, and then reaching a higher ultimate
performance level. Since at least the 19th Century, it has been assumed that natural talent
differences among individuals set differing, fixed maximum performance limits. Training can
improve skill only to a certain level. This idea still largely dominates formal education and
sports coaching, where the search is on for people with evident natural talent to develop
further.


What natural talent actually consists of might differ across domains of expertise and
may consist of a set of abilities and even personality traits, which are partly innate. Complex
intellectual domains may require only a threshold IQ score of around 120 for high
achievement, beyond which creativity and motivation differences create performance
differences. In the sciences and the arts, generally a few people excel and make most of the
contributions. Studies show that they tend to have a similar set of ability and personality
characteristics; IQ score over 120, and such personality traits as high motivation and non-
conformity.....

But CHESS isn't pool.
I wonder what the results would be in our game?
 
Last edited:
gunzby said:
Natural ability will only take you so far. It's your drive to surpass your natural abilities by leaps and bounds that makes you great.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's possible to surpass your natural abilities. You can only realize your natural potential to a greater or lesser extent, and that is where hard work, dedication, heart, and the like come into play.
 
Neil said:
But, if this were to be true, how can anyone know what the limit of their natural abilities are??
Click to expand...

I think we can't really know precisely what the limit of our natural abilities are, but we can put it within a reasonable range. Usain Bolt ran a 9.69 in the 100 meters. Can he run 9.65? It certainly seems possible. Perhaps he can run faster than 9.6, or even as low as 9.5. We're not sure exactly how fast he might be able to run, but I think we know that he cannot run 9 flat though.

Look at it from the other direction. Suppose it is possible to surpass your natural abilities. What does that mean? What abilities am I using when I surpass my natural abilities? Supernatural abilities? Unnatural abilities? If my previous high run at 9-ball is 5 racks, and I run 8 racks one day, have I surpassed my natural ability?

What is natural ability if it is something that can be surpassed? Is it just the ability you are born with? Earl Strickland wasn't born being able to run 11 racks of 9-ball. At what age did he surpass his natural ability? When he first sank a ball? When he ran his first rack? When he won his first tournament?

I think it was only through training and hard work that Earl reached the level of play that he reached in that game, but I do not think that means that he surpassed his natural ability. Earl had to have had the natural potential to be that good, or otherwise he never would have become that good. Otherwise I don't know what natural ability is.
 
I think some stock should be put into hand eye coordination as it applies to natural ability, I agree that it can be developed but in the case of the champions my guess is they have to a degree natural hand eye coordination, the ability to learn and apply learned knowledge, a developed (through many things) ability to focus and maintain it and the intestinal fortitude and work ethic required to perfect the mechanics (easily teachable portions of the game) and the term competitive nature comes to mind. Personally I think the champions have a combination of trained ability and natural ability.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top