How to classify if someone is talented at snooker, disregard of age?

[Mal]

Agreed. If Joe were around these days, he might make the top 16, but I doubt very much ( imho ) he would become WC.

??????????? - Which of todays players if born in 1901 would have dominated the game like he did? None or perhaps someone with dedication, talent, a great entrepreneur, skill, consistency, longevity etc...

Without Joe Davis, the game wouldn't have got off the ground. All games evolve - Joe was the one who excelled and was better than others of his time. Players learned from him, but still took the game a long time to improve. And one of the biggest improvements came in table changes and ball changes in 80s/90s.

[poolqjunkie]

A talented player will become quite a decent player after playing for a short time. He will improve much faster and pick up new things rather easily.
Some people can try and try and never make a ton after playing for 10+ years, while a talented player can do that in a year.

[cuesportaddict]

true . there's a french advice that says : " on ne fait pas d'un ane un cheval de course " something you could translate by , you can't make a jackass become a race horse
this is what talent is about :natural gift , of course it means nothing without a minimum of practice but talented players will improve a lot more faster and sometimes make the game seems so easy as judd trump do

[1blonde]

My grandma was a really talented cook and could bake anything, she just knew how much of anything to use without scales. She would use a cup chuck things in a mixing bowl and eventually she would create the most wonderful cakes, pies etc.,

Experience spent in the kitchen had made her an instinctive cook.

No matter how long I spend reading the mountain of celebrity cook books, spelling out their ingrediants I still cant boil an egg.

So I guess what I am trying to say is that some people have a natural aptitude for learning something and some find it hard to make any headway dispite the right coaching.

Given enough cookery lessons I might improve but I cant be instinctive at it like my old gran was, I suppose with any talent the old saying is true (you have either got it or you haven't).

[eaoin11]

Yes, the ability to do something new intuitively without prior practise would indicate talent. But that intuition can be developed too with the right mindset. I was a nervous cook at first because I had no experience, followed the recipe to the nth degree and wondered why it was always so bad. But once I learned a few general principles from other cooks and started to trust my ability to visualize how the meal would work out I became much better at it. And when you learn that skill in one discipline it can be applied to others if you have the motivation.

I love Bruce Lee's line in enter the Dragon, "It's like a finger pointing to the stars, don't focus on the finger! Or you'll miss all the heavenly glory..."

So I think it's motivation and inspiration that eventually reveal themselves as talent when a player starts mastering the skills relatively quickly.

[poolqjunkie]

I agree that without hard work and discipline talent cannot carry one to becoming a world champion; I also agree that you can work hard to get to a certain level--even a professional level--without a lot of talent.
Talent is a gift. It is obvious that some people have it and some just dont. Some players can make his/her first century after playing for only a year and some could never do it after practicing everyday, buying all the books/DVD/videos and getting lots of coaching for over 10 years.
It is the same with chess, maths, language, sports, music, even business..some people just have that special extra something--it is not just that they learn faster but they seem to know exactly when they should do what and how to do it.

[eaoin11]

Talent is a gift. It is obvious that some people have it and some just dont. Some players can make his/her first century after playing for only a year and some could never do it after practicing everyday, buying all the books/DVD/videos and getting lots of coaching for over 10 years.
It is the same with chess, maths, language, sports, music, even business..some people just have that special extra something--it is not just that they learn faster but they seem to know exactly when they should do what and how to do it.

I don't mind the idea of talent to describe potential or even maybe fitness for a given discipline. But I dispute the idea of it being a 'gift' that you either have or don't have. In education the idea of giftedness is often met with skepticism (as is the list of 300+ syndromes psychologists are adding to every day), because it's a subjective label and it's impossible to seperate 'natural ability' from prior hard work, opportunity, background and the influence of people around them.

[poolqjunkie]

There are people who just know when to do what and how to do it without much training, and there are those who just keep doing it the wrong way with lots of training.
You can train someone to reach a certain level with systematic training. But the talented person will improve faster and reach a higher standard than a person who has little talent, given the same amount of training, hardwork, opportunity...etc.
Jimmy White, Judd Trump, Alex Higgins, Paul Hunter, Ronnie O'Sullivan...I am sure they work hard but so do a lot of other players yet these few can do things that most can only dream of...
If talent is not inborn but something that can be taught then how do you explain a 7 years old who can do calculus or a 10 years old who could speak 15 languages fluently?

[liquidsymphony]

right . some kids just got sometimes incredible abilities that are just due to a gift , practice is only 50 percent of the job
i think that every one on that planet is suppose to be gifted for a particular thing but due to social ,cultural factors or whatever , some will
never find it .maybe i could have been a fantastic golfer but never tried and it's expensive
but when they do find the activity then genius appears as Mozart and many mores

[nrage]

If talent is not inborn but something that can be taught then how do you explain a 7 years old who can do calculus or a 10 years old who could speak 15 languages fluently?

As the definition I posted said, talent is both ability at something in particular, and ability for the things required to do something. So, in the case of calculus, the calculus itself is taught, you don't just know how to do it. But, a talent for visualising/understanding number may be innate. At the same time, that innate talent can and will improve with practice. And you can further say that someone is talented if they improve at things faster than others, so learning itself can be a talent. This is why the line between innate talent and learnt ability blurs significantly. So, a 7 year old who can do calculus certainly has some talent, but also has been given the resources and teaching to learn calculus at the same time.

[poolqjunkie]

Yes, agreed. It is the same with snooker. No one was born knowing how to pot balls without at least given the opportunity to get to a table. But some could just clear the table in no time and seem to know which ball to go for while others struggle. I am sure if you give a regular player everything that was given to Ronnie O'Sullivan and have them both started at the same time learning from the same coach and practising the same amount of time and so on and so forth in a couple years you will see a big gap between their levels, and the difference will grow as times goes by. Also, Ronnie will reach a level that the regular player can never reach in his life time regardless of how hard he tries.
Mozart was given the opportunity to learn music but at such a young age he excelled to a level that was totally beyond his years. You cannot attribute that to pure hardwork or coaching. He only had a few years of practising and training under his belt when he became so good. There were tones of people who had decades of training and tens of thousands of hours of practice who could not even come close to him.
I believe there is something that a talented player has that is a "gift". It is like an instinct that they have which allows them to just know when to do what and how. When you do not have this gift you can try and try but it is just never the same.
If a player has been playing for 10 years and struggles to make a 50 break regularly, would you consider him talented? He is pratising as many hours as possible, getting all the proper coaching, video analysis, reading all the books...but he just cannot see the right shot and do not have the touch among the balls. He is almost 30 years old and works very hard on his game but has never been able to make a century. His breaks always end with him taking the wrong shot or missing a tough shot because of poor positioning or shot selection. On the other hand, a young kid who has only been playing for 2 years is making nice big breaks whenever he has a chance amongst the balls. He just knows which ball to shot first and he somehow is able to control his cue ball with a very nice touch. He also has a lot of coaching and practises a lot, but certainly not as much as the other person as he is much younger. A couple years later, this young kid is able to make regular centuries, while the other player is still struggling to make his first. With a lot of time put into the game, the older player is now able to make regular 40-50 breaks so he is considered a good club player in his own club; the kid is already a top amateur in his city and no one will play him without a handicap. The young kid keeps playing and turn pro while the older player never gets pass the level of being a good amateur club player. He has come very close with a 87 but still has not made a century yet and he is almost 40 years old. He has been playing since he was a kid, and he has given up a lot to try to become a top player. He cannot understand why the kid can improve so fast and make things just look so easy when he struggles.
Why? What is the one thing that the older player is lacking? If it is not talent then what is it? If it is something that can be learnt how come after 40 years he still does not have it?

[nrage]

Yes, agreed. It is the same with snooker. No one was born knowing how to pot balls without at least given the opportunity to get to a table. But some could just clear the table in no time and seem to know which ball to go for while others struggle. I am sure if you give a regular player everything that was given to Ronnie O'Sullivan and have them both started at the same time learning from the same coach and practising the same amount of time and so on and so forth in a couple years you will see a big gap between their levels, and the difference will grow as times goes by. Also, Ronnie will reach a level that the regular player can never reach in his life time regardless of how hard he tries.

The answer to your question below is hinted at here I think. What does Ronnie have that the 'regular' player doesn't have, or what is the 'regular' player missing.

Mozart was given the opportunity to learn music but at such a young age he excelled to a level that was totally beyond his years. You cannot attribute that to pure hardwork or coaching. He only had a few years of practising and training under his belt when he became so good. There were tones of people who had decades of training and tens of thousands of hours of practice who could not even come close to him.
I believe there is something that a talented player has that is a "gift". It is like an instinct that they have which allows them to just know when to do what and how. When you do not have this gift you can try and try but it is just never the same.

Agreed. A talent/gift might be an instinct, it might be a physical ability, it might be a propensity to learn, it might be anything at all which helps achieve the given task. (in this case snooker). It isn't even necessarily one thing, but likely several. In the case of players who try and try it might even be a lack i.e. in physical coordination or eyesight, or tactical thinking, or imagination, or proprioceptional and visual spacial ability, ...

If a player has been playing for 10 years and struggles to make a 50 break regularly, would you consider him talented? He is pratising as many hours as possible, getting all the proper coaching, video analysis, reading all the books...but he just cannot see the right shot and do not have the touch among the balls. He is almost 30 years old and works very hard on his game but has never been able to make a century. His breaks always end with him taking the wrong shot or missing a tough shot because of poor positioning or shot selection. On the other hand, a young kid who has only been playing for 2 years is making nice big breaks whenever he has a chance amongst the balls. He just knows which ball to shot first and he somehow is able to control his cue ball with a very nice touch. He also has a lot of coaching and practises a lot, but certainly not as much as the other person as he is much younger. A couple years later, this young kid is able to make regular centuries, while the other player is still struggling to make his first. With a lot of time put into the game, the older player is now able to make regular 40-50 breaks so he is considered a good club player in his own club; the kid is already a top amateur in his city and no one will play him without a handicap. The young kid keeps playing and turn pro while the older player never gets pass the level of being a good amateur club player. He has come very close with a 87 but still has not made a century yet and he is almost 40 years old. He has been playing since he was a kid, and he has given up a lot to try to become a top player. He cannot understand why the kid can improve so fast and make things just look so easy when he struggles.
Why? What is the one thing that the older player is lacking? If it is not talent then what is it? If it is something that can be learnt how come after 40 years he still does not have it?

I think we probably each have physical and mental limits which cannot be exceeded. Practice can take someone closer to these, but never exceed them. That said, these limits probably exist for every single facet of ability you can imagine and there are many ways to play snooker, or achieve something, so someone who is weak in one area can sometimes make up for it elsewhere.

In addition, I believe it is an accepted 'fact' that we learn better when we are young. The brain is in a more malleable state and is less 'fixed'. This state may allow us to raise the limits I proposed earlier.. not sure, it's a theory in any case

[cazmac1]

??????????? - Which of todays players if born in 1901 would have dominated the game like he did? None or perhaps someone with dedication, talent, a great entrepreneur, skill, consistency, longevity etc...

Without Joe Davis, the game wouldn't have got off the ground. All games evolve - Joe was the one who excelled and was better than others of his time. Players learned from him, but still took the game a long time to improve. And one of the biggest improvements came in table changes and ball changes in 80s/90s.

Ronnie O'Sullivan is undoubtedly the most talented player every to pick up a cue yet has never dominated the sport in the same way Davis did and in his own words Davis has said that he is less talented than other players so has to work hard on his game and it's this and not talent that won him all his titles. Talent on it's own is only a small part and you can't measure talent in titles. Is Jimmy white not one of the most naturally talented players, some may even say more than Ronnie and he never won the world title?

[eaoin11]

There are people who just know when to do what and how to do it without much training, and there are those who just keep doing it the wrong way with lots of training.
You can train someone to reach a certain level with systematic training. But the talented person will improve faster and reach a higher standard than a person who has little talent, given the same amount of training, hardwork, opportunity...etc.
Jimmy White, Judd Trump, Alex Higgins, Paul Hunter, Ronnie O'Sullivan...I am sure they work hard but so do a lot of other players yet these few can do things that most can only dream of...
If talent is not inborn but something that can be taught then how do you explain a 7 years old who can do calculus or a 10 years old who could speak 15 languages fluently?

As with what nrage has said, the underlying talent, or natural aptitude to master a skill is itself something that develops and can be improved. Sure we all have different genes, but for any given person it is very difficult to say how much their talent comes from genes and how much from the experiences they've had to date.
Obviously the ability to learn languages or calculus doesn't happen without exposure and motivation provided by those around you. Until the age of 3 children all children are able to absorb and sort out a large number of languages and distinguish between them. But very few are normally exposed to more than one or two.

You would expect someone who has played a lot of sports involving hand eye co-ordination to do better than someone with less prior exposure to the same sports. I think Neil Robertson's Mother attributed his early rapid improvement to the very same thing.

So I think for someone with a normal body and brain, it's more about your orientation to the sport. How much you enjoy it, how well you are motivated. And the effectiveness of practise is clearly influenced by the mentors you have around you.

[1blonde]

Not everyone learns the same some people are genius by default.


A prodigious savant is someone whose skill level would qualify him or her as a prodigy, or exceptional talent, even in the absence of a cognitive disability. Prodigious savants are those individuals whose abilities would be considered phenomenal or genius even in a person without any limitations or special diagnosis of impairment. The most common trait of these prodigious savants is their seemingly limitless mnemonic skills, with many having eidetic or photographic memories. Indeed, prodigious savants are extremely rare, with fewer than one hundred noted in more than a century of literature on the subject. Treffert, the leading researcher in the study of savant syndrome, estimates that fewer than fifty or so such individuals are believed to be alive in the world today.