Natural ability

[Byrom]

In this book is he saying he's just a lazy git lol, because he never reached the very top of his chosen sport, and as it's nothing to do with talent, just hard work and practice, is he therefore admitting he didn't do enough of either ,otherwise he would have been the best. Or is it more like,he did do as much as he could ,and got to the highest point he could but just ran out of talent, and came up against people better than him, not just folk who worked harder.
In snooker we have been told for years that an Asian takeover was just round the corner, but it hasn't really come to pass,despite the millions that play it(I'm guessing there) is that because they don't practice hard enough, I would be surprised if that were true, or have they just not unearthed the true talents that are almost certainly out there. It is a very interesting subject and one I hadn't even considered , as I just took it that top sportsmen were born, not made, I suppose it's the eternal nature vs nurture argument, but it doesn't matter how hard you train a Chiwawa it won't beat a greyhound in a race.

Yeah but in defence of Chiwawas everywhere - I am yet to see a greyhound dance proper gangnam style

[vmax4steve]

Not really. There will be some people with better hand-eye coordination and better learning abilities.

However, I think the proof as far as snooker pros go is in the pudding. If you look at the present top 16 pros all of them started playing when they were very young, somewhere between 8-12yrs old and all of them stuck with it. If you look at the very top, Ronnie started when he was 8yrs old, Trump started at that age also, along with Shaun Murphy, Hendry, Higgins, etc. etc.

Terry

I bet that they weren't the only ones of their age group in the snooker hall at the the time. All the ones who were crap stopped playing as they couldn't do it and those that could carried on as they found something they could do well, that gave them pleasure and that they could express themselves through.

Steve Davis calls himself a made player, but I'll bet he looks at the contact point on the object ball at the moment of the strike naturally and everything else just needed fine tuning with a lot of hours of practise that he didn't find boring because he loved the game so much.

[itsnoteasy]

@ Byrom,Now that's talent
I find someone who is very good at something can often not understand why others aren't , they look at the hard work they put in and the dedication they showed and think if everyone did the same they would get the same results, but it's not so, they have taken their ability and worked very very hard to improve it, but they had that ability in them in the first place.

[Byrom]

Not everyone learns the same way - most are kinesthetic learners who learn best just by doing others enjoy and can absorb information visually from books or video or being shown then and then replicate it themselves.

I think the basics are the best things to iron out first - all the best players still do this regular - grip bridge stance staying still alignment sighting and delivery and more.

It is possible that you can be tone deaf and learn to sing something but you know that person will never be Pavarotti.
I do think though that given the right encouragement and training most people can reach a reasonable standard at snooker if they dedicate themselves and want it enough - like you do for instance.

Takes time and patience and regular practice doing the right things consistently that's all - where a lot of people fall down of a certain age is they get into bad habits and get lazy in practice too. When a coach or a good player puts them right - they say yes that works - although it feels un-natural and pretty soon they just subconsciously go back to doing what feels comfortable for them in practice rather than persisting and reaping the rewards with a more solid technique. They don't learn - they waste money.

People who have just started playing benefit more from coaching right at the start than someone who has been at it with bad technique for years before they went for coaching because they are more of a blank canvas - I bet it can be frustrating for a lot of coaches trying to peel away these habits from a player - I recommend that if you can you should always go for proper coaching at a young age before these habits form because of this over used expression which is true -

IT'S HARD TO TEACH AN OLD DOG NEW TRICKS



You have a good coach stick with what he tells you record your sessions and then you don't forget what he says.

[itsnoteasy]

I wish I could go more often, to stop the bad habits creeping back in, I am a very linear learner, by that I mean, I have to be taught, to do this, then this, then this, and this will happen, if that makes sense, I'm not one for trial and error, I prefer someone to show me a way, then I will practice until I can do it, I think that's why I get a bit frustrated when I don't quite get the advice being offered on here, it's good advice, but not for my daft brain lol, I am also not one to blame a coach or anyone who helps, if I'm not doing it, it's my fault no one else's as I have been shown the way, so it's up to me, but it's very hard if you don't get to go very often, saying that if I was in Edinburgh I would probably be homeless as I would have spent all my money on coaching, but there again if I was a regular fifty break player it would have been worth it.

[eaoin11]

If it's a nature vs nurture debate, I'm not saying that there are no differences in terms of what people are born with. I just question the (very common) assumption that natural talent is necessarily the bigger factor. In terms of the 'natural' things we are born with can we really vary that much? All we really do is hit a ball with a stick and see where it goes, then do it again and again until we start getting good at understanding then controlling where the balls go. Lots of people have the intelligence for this game.

And Steve's point above is exactly right, there's nothing I've said to contradict that. But a young player's ability to learn when they start at the age of eight isn't 'born with' either. By the time a kid picks up a cue at the age of 8 the environment has already had a huge impact on what other sports they have become good at, hand eye coordination, mental approach, ability to visualise what will happen in the shot etc, and some initial success may be the biggest factor determining whether the player becomes addicted enough to want to practise and get better (and probably need the absence of other more addictive past-times). I don't think it's rare at all for kids to learn quickly if all those ingredients were in place.

[Terry Davidson]

I bet that they weren't the only ones of their age group in the snooker hall at the the time. All the ones who were crap stopped playing as they couldn't do it and those that could carried on as they found something they could do well, that gave them pleasure and that they could express themselves through.

Steve Davis calls himself a made player, but I'll bet he looks at the contact point on the object ball at the moment of the strike naturally and everything else just needed fine tuning with a lot of hours of practise that he didn't find boring because he loved the game so much.

Not sure I agree that they all stopped because they were crap at it. Girls, electronic devices, cars, education, parent pressure, lack of funds, lack of time due to other activities would be some other reasons. I've seen some very good players who just quit or got into drugs and there went all that promise.

On another point...I think you've beaten 'looks at the contact point at the moment of strike' to death already. You're 'preaching to the choir'. 99.9% of us agree with you and try and do that although there was that one guy who insisted he plays better when he looks at the cueball. Everyone else told him he was wrong but if I remember correctly he was insistent.

Terry

[CoachGavin]

Natural ability

eaoin11 I think you have some very good points. I remember I started playing snooker at 16 on a full size table and my brother who was 13 started at the same time. my brother is probably what most people would call a better sportsman than me and would always take over me. However he never got involved as much as me and I played far more and to this day I am the better player when it comes to snooker. many of my friends who played when young didn't have my circumstances. I had plenty of people to play, had the patience to practice and I had a part time job to feed my habit. I therefore became the best player out of the lot of us. In regards to China I think perhaps where they are just lacking perhaps at the moment is in top top practice partners. In the UK Selby could go off and practice with a number of world and UK champions. In other parts of the world the practice partners will not be at that standard.

Regarding looking at the object ball on impact Chris Henry, a leading coach, says many of the top 16 are looking at the cue ball on the strike which would be similar to looking at the golf ball when putting at golf

[Terry Davidson]

eaoin11 I think you have some very good points. I remember I started playing snooker at 16 on a full size table and my brother who was 13 started at the same time. my brother is probably what most people would call a better sportsman than me and would always take over me. However he never got involved as much as me and I played far more and to this day I am the better player when it comes to snooker. many of my friends who played when young didn't have my circumstances. I had plenty of people to play, had the patience to practice and I had a part time job to feed my habit. I therefore became the best player out of the lot of us. In regards to China I think perhaps where they are just lacking perhaps at the moment is in top top practice partners. In the UK Selby could go off and practice with a number of world and UK champions. In other parts of the world the practice partners will not be at that standard.

Regarding looking at the object ball on impact Chris Henry, a leading coach, says many of the top 16 are looking at the cue ball on the strike which would be similar to looking at the golf ball when putting at golf

Gavin:

It may be that Chris Henry has it wrong. I have seen up close some of the pros flick their eyes down to the cueball as they deliver the cue but at the time of impact they are on the object ball. At my age with my delayed focusing ability I just couldn't do this but these younger 'hard bellies' as Lee Trevino called them can still coordinate that and focus at the right time.

Could be wrong but Nic Barrow says he has noticed this too. One final short microsecond check of the cueball and then lift to the object ball just before the actual strike. I can't understand how any player could look at the cueball at time of strike unless he remained absolutely still because then it becomes he's hitting the cueball in the right spot but that's as far as it goes. To me the logical thing is to be focused on the object ball at the time of delivery and strike.

But then again, I could be wrong as I don't see enough pros to get a really good sample and maybe Chris does

Terry

[DandyA]

Steve Davis calls himself a made player, but I'll bet he looks at the contact point on the object ball at the moment of the strike naturally and everything else just needed fine tuning with a lot of hours of practise that he didn't find boring because he loved the game so much.

Not sure I agree that they all stopped because they were crap at it. Girls, electronic devices, cars, education, parent pressure, lack of funds, lack of time due to other activities would be some other reasons. I've seen some very good players who just quit or got into drugs and there went all that promise.

On another point...I think you've beaten 'looks at the contact point at the moment of strike' to death already. You're 'preaching to the choir'. 99.9% of us agree with you and try and do that although there was that one guy who insisted he plays better when he looks at the cueball. Everyone else told him he was wrong but if I remember correctly he was insistent.

Regarding looking at the object ball on impact Chris Henry, a leading coach, says many of the top 16 are looking at the cue ball on the strike which would be similar to looking at the golf ball when putting at golf

It may be that Chris Henry has it wrong. I have seen up close some of the pros flick their eyes down to the cueball as they deliver the cue but at the time of impact they are on the object ball. At my age with my delayed focusing ability I just couldn't do this but these younger 'hard bellies' as Lee Trevino called them can still coordinate that and focus at the right time.

Could be wrong but Nic Barrow says he has noticed this too. One final short microsecond check of the cueball and then lift to the object ball just before the actual strike. I can't understand how any player could look at the cueball at time of strike unless he remained absolutely still because then it becomes he's hitting the cueball in the right spot but that's as far as it goes. To me the logical thing is to be focused on the object ball at the time of delivery and strike.

But then again, I could be wrong as I don't see enough pros to get a really good sample and maybe Chris does

well I'm certainly one of the people who believe in looking at the cue ball during delivery ... the line of aim is already decided, at the front pause, just focus on the cue ball, the line of the cue and the point on the cue ball you want to hit ... draw the cue back slowly and deliver the cue smoothly on that line ... it's every bit as accurate as looking at the object ball but with a lot less pressure ...

however, if we wish to start discussing eye stuff again, perhaps it'd be better if we start a new thread ...

nature vs nurture ... I think this is interesting ... it is clear (I think) that all the "greats" had pushy parents or family heritage (the same thing?) and it is clear their skills were set whilst they were young ... just like riding a bike, their skills are hard-wired in their brains ...

it doesn't always work ... Luca Brecel for instance is struggling on the Main Tour although before that we saw YouTube videos of him hitting 147 after 147 in practice ... I guess the difference is match play ...

[Terry Davidson]

DandyA:

How long have you been playing where you consciously keep your eyes on the cueball after the front pause and what is your high break while doing it that way?

I'm not criticizing at all it's just that I find it hard to understand playing this way as you would have to lock in some kind of mental image of the object ball while delivering the cue. I understand in golf a player keeps his eye focused on the ball but there's only one ball involved in that. In rifle shooting because the errors are so critical they can't look directly at the sights, hell they aren't even supposed to breathe!

However, in all fairness I'm going to experiment with it this morning during my practice session and see how I come out, especially on the long pots that aren't dead straight.

Terry

[itsnoteasy]

eaoin11 I think you have some very good points. I remember I started playing snooker at 16 on a full size table and my brother who was 13 started at the same time. my brother is probably what most people would call a better sportsman than me and would always take over me. However he never got involved as much as me and I played far more and to this day I am the better player when it comes to snooker. many of my friends who played when young didn't have my circumstances. I had plenty of people to play, had the patience to practice and I had a part time job to feed my habit. I therefore became the best player out of the lot of us. In regards to China I think perhaps where they are just lacking perhaps at the moment is in top top practice partners. In the UK Selby could go off and practice with a number of world and UK champions. In other parts of the world the practice partners will not be at that standard.

Regarding looking at the object ball on impact Chris Henry, a leading coach, says many of the top 16 are looking at the cue ball on the strike which would be similar to looking at the golf ball when putting at golf

Wow CoachGavin that last paragraph is a real cat amongst the pigeons remark. Did he say who out of the top sixteen. A while back Vmax said some can get confused as they see the eyebrows raise to track the object ball after the strike, and they mistake this for the player switching from cue ball to object ball, I tend to agree with that, or has Chris Henry actually been told or coached these players?, it's very very interesting statement all the same

[vmax4steve]

Gavin:

It may be that Chris Henry has it wrong. I have seen up close some of the pros flick their eyes down to the cueball as they deliver the cue but at the time of impact they are on the object ball.

Terry

He does have it wrong, and I agree totally with Terry on this.
The eye movements from cue ball to object ball are very small when down in the stance and the look up to the pocket after the strike is easily mistaken for looking up at the object ball.

I played sunday night and was terrible for three frames, remembered to focus on the object ball and played really well afterwards.

[tedisbill]

He does have it wrong, and I agree totally with Terry on this.
The eye movements from cue ball to object ball are very small when down in the stance and the look up to the pocket after the strike is easily mistaken for looking up at the object ball.

I played sunday night and was terrible for three frames, remembered to focus on the object ball and played really well afterwards.

What standard do you play at vmax? What kind of breaks do you knock in most sessions?

[j6uk]

Regarding looking at the object ball on impact Chris Henry, a leading coach, says many of the top 16 are looking at the cue ball on the strike which would be similar to looking at the golf ball when putting at golf

do you have the article, where did chris say this?