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

[1blonde]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15086761

Here is an example of what I mean. This is natural talent by default..This guy is a savant. Incredible

[jrc750]

Wow he is amazing !

[1blonde]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bVVQ0FZeys

Yes this type of person is rare but check this guy out...the guy is better than a computer. This is real 'rain man' stuff and makes us look at intellect quite differently. I therfore conclude, some people are naturally gifted.

[paul schumacher]

yes

Someone who naturally keeps still on the shot with solid/fluid/consistant technique, good hand eye coordination, good temprement/calm and confident approach around the table. I feel it can be learned but a strong character is needed to be able to take the defeats on a regular basis and be able to bounce back having learned something from the experience, or perhaps a calm, confident ability to be able to accept a bad day when it just does not go right. I have noticed many really good players have an inner confidence and a naturally addictive mindset determined to the point of being almost OCD. Perhaps it can be seen as a negative but I think it is also a trait that naturally helps a player develop too.

spot on .........

[poolqjunkie]

If talent is not inborn but taught, and it is laregly due to outside influence from mentor, peer, and exposure at an early age, training and all that, how come most children of geniuses are not good in the same field as their parents are?

[1blonde]

If talent is not inborn but taught, and it is laregly due to outside influence from mentor, peer, and exposure at an early age, training and all that, how come most children of geniuses are not good in the same field as their parents are?

I did not say talent was taught-both the examples I gave prove that your theory was right actually so I am agreeing with you somewhat.

Although certain people only get good thro practice so I agree also with a previous poster who said it was HOW we learn. So I agree with both of you to a certain extent. It is also very possible to be coached and improve but as the previous poster also said... it is how you learn that makes us the way we are. Some people can have hours and hours of coaching and perhaps only improve a little or slip back into bad habbits very quickly afterwards. Some can learn and adapt instantly.

Scientists are only just begining to understand the cognitive process. Both the examples I gave of genius were born that way, one with autism (rain man stuff) BUT some savants are created, I read about one savant guy that was hit on the side of the head with a baseball at a young age, since then he can remember every day since, recalling what day it was on any particular date and what the weather was like or what he did. Another guy from Liverpool turned into a artist and another a pianist almost instantly after accidents-(head injury) and none had any prior training up to the standard they instantly became.

I find that fascinating.

I have noticed certain evident traits (OCD and addictive behaviour for example) in certain good players I have met which I have listed above in a previous post and I do think it helps to learn the game from a young age, as our brains accept things more readily without looking to much at the instruction which is a more natural process and perhaps the reason that snooker has improved to the standard it has

Some people have a natural ability to see the bigger picture without paying too much heed to the instruction. Or as another poster said on here quoting a Bruce Lee film something like-: 'Dont look at the finger when pointing at the sky."

(cant remember lol)

[cazmac1]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15086761

Here is an example of what I mean. This is natural talent by default..This guy is a savant. Incredible

Like to see him play snooker. Sorry in advance for the poor humour

[1blonde]

Like to see him play snooker. Sorry in advance for the poor humour

Funny as ****...

[eaoin11]

I did not say talent was taught-both the examples I gave prove that your theory was right actually so I am agreeing with you somewhat.

Although certain people only get good thro practice so I agree also with a previous poster who said it was HOW we learn. So I agree with both of you to a certain extent. It is also very possible to be coached and improve but as the previous poster also said... it is how you learn that makes us the way we are. Some people can have hours and hours of coaching and perhaps only improve a little or slip back into bad habbits very quickly afterwards. Some can learn and adapt instantly.

Scientists are only just begining to understand the cognitive process. Both the examples I gave of genius were born that way, one with autism (rain man stuff) BUT some savants are created, I read about one savant guy that was hit on the side of the head with a baseball at a young age, since then he can remember every day since, recalling what day it was on any particular date and what the weather was like or what he did. Another guy from Liverpool turned into a artist and another a pianist almost instantly after accidents-(head injury) and none had any prior training up to the standard they instantly became.

I find that fascinating.

I have noticed certain evident traits (OCD and addictive behaviour for example) in certain good players I have met which I have listed above in a previous post and I do think it helps to learn the game from a young age, as our brains accept things more readily without looking to much at the instruction which is a more natural process and perhaps the reason that snooker has improved to the standard it has

Some people have a natural ability to see the bigger picture without paying too much heed to the instruction. Or as another poster said on here quoting a Bruce Lee film something like-: 'Dont look at the finger when pointing at the sky."

(cant remember lol)

It has been an interesting thread. I think pooljunkie's comment was in reply to mine. I acknowledge that we vary biologically, and sure there will be exceptions as in the case of savants but I just think it's impossible in most cases to know really how much this variation amounts to compared to the huge variation in the lives that we lead. When I imagine taking two twins, one raised by a family with a strong sport culture and the other with relatively little exposure to sports and introduce them both to the game of snooker at the age of 11, (the age when Neil Robertson started) it's hard to imagine the latter showing as much 'talent'.

The Bruce Lee comment is also an example of a powerful idea that might shape the way someone learns a discipline.

[poolqjunkie]

I did not say talent was taught-both the examples I gave prove that your theory was right actually so I am agreeing with you somewhat.

Although certain people only get good throe practice so I agree also with a previous poster who said it was HOW we learn. So I agree with both of you to a certain extent. It is also very possible to be coached and improve but as the previous poster also said... it is how you learn that makes us the way we are. Some people can have hours and hours of coaching and perhaps only improve a little or slip back into bad habits very quickly afterwords. Some can learn and adapt instantly.

Scientists are only just beginning to understand the cognitive process. Both the examples I gave of genius were born that way, one with autism (rain man stuff) BUT some savants are created, I read about one savant guy that was hit on the side of the head with a baseball at a young age, since then he can remember every day since, recalling what day it was on any particular date and what the weather was like or what he did. Another guy from Liverpool turned into a artist and another a pianist almost instantly after accidents-(head injury) and none had any prior training up to the standard they instantly became.

I find that fascinating.

I have noticed certain evident traits (COD and addictive behavior for example) in certain good players I have met which I have listed above in a previous post and I do think it helps to learn the game from a young age, as our brains accept things more readily without looking to much at the instruction which is a more natural process and perhaps the reason that snooker has improved to the standard it has

Some people have a natural ability to see the bigger picture without paying too much heed to the instruction. Or as another poster said on here quoting a Bruce Lee film something like-: 'Dint look at the finger when pointing at the sky."

(cant remember Lil)

I should have made it clear my comment was directly to the other two posters who seem to feel that talent is not inborn but can be taught and influenced by ones upbringing and surrounding. I respectfully disagree.

I totally agree with you 100%, 1blonde (although I am still upset that I did nto get the Alex Higgins book:-))

I have met people who are very good at maths, music, art, and sports and a lot of them had no idea why they are so good. When asked how they can so all these wonderful things they replied, 'I am not sure, I just know how to do it."

Not all of them had parents who exposed them to the particular field at a young age. Some came from very poor families and had no formal education in art yet they become so much better than others who have received formal training for years.

I in a way agree that education is important in shaping a child. When presented with more exposure and opportunity at a young age a child has a bigger chance to find out what he/she is interested in or gifted at and can develop that accordingly.

But what I have to disagree with is the dismissal of talent as a "gift."

Since we still do not really understand how our brains work, to a large extend, a lot of what the educators say are just theories, not facts with proof. So, how can we dismiss something we don't fully understand?

Siting the example of Neil Robertson, what if we put Ronnie O'Sullivan and Neil Robertson in the same condition starting at age 11, who do you think will become a better player?

If exposing a child to music earlier and having a good mentor and all these other things that have been mentioned are what made Mozart Mozart, please explain to me why we never have another Mozart? To me, the only logical explanation is that Mozart had something in him that no one else had, which is why no one could "manufacture" another Mozart by subjecting the child to outside influences alone (education, exposure, training, influence by peer...etc).

A lot of very talented people do not really know how they can do what they can do when asked. It is not like that their ability is always a result of hardwork or itense training. Sometimes they just know what to do and how to do it without being taught. Some of these genius had very little formal training but they somehow just are that good. Art is a good example of that.

Let me use an example to illustrate how I feel about this: if you have a child like the math savant in the video, and you talk to your teacher about his "talent" when he was very young. You tell the teacher you believe he has a gift and you want to see what can be done to help him to fully develop his potential. The teacher tells you what you child has is not a gift. He tells you what you see in your child is just something that he has learned through exposure and education and practise and so on. You say you have never seen anything like that and you are not even good at maths and he does not even have any tutor. You tell the teacher his brother actually has a Maths tutor but he does not have the same ability, not even close. The teacher just keeps dismissing you for trying to tell him your child is a genius. He says there is a perfect explanation for this and it is not because your child has a gift that he was born with...You ask the teacher how he figures that out as he does not even know your child eprsonally, he says he knows because he has read a lot of research paper...

How will you feel about thsi teacher?

[eaoin11]

Since we still do not really understand how our brains work, to a large extend, a lot of what the educators say are just theories, not facts with proof. So, how can we dismiss something we do full understand?

Let me use an example to illustrate how I feel about this: if you have a child like the math savant in the video, and you talk to your teacher about his "talent" when he was very young. You tell the teacher you believe he has a gift and you want to see what can be done to help him to fully develop his potential. The teacher tells you what you child has is not a gift. He tells you what you see in your child is just something that he has learned through exposure and education and practise and so on. You say you have never seen anything like that and you are not even good at maths and he does not even have any tutor. You tell the teacher his brother actually has a Maths tutor but he does not have the same ability, not even close. The teacher just keeps dismissing you for trying to tell him your child is a genius. He says there is a perfect explanation for this and it is not because your child has a gift that he was born with...You ask the teacher how he figures that out as he does not even know your child eprsonally, he says he knows because he has read a lot of research paper...

How will you feel about thsi teacher?

Teachers can recognize ability without worrying about whether it's mainly inborn or the result of the student's environment. They have to work with what's before them and provide challenging experiences for all students. When it comes to deciding whether a student should enter a special program for 'gifted' students, again it's based on demonstrated ability not on whether the teacher thinks the ability is 'inborn'.

I would also be critical of a teacher who writes off a low achiever because they conclude that the kid 'just doesn't have the talent'. And this is more the point that I'm making here because if someone beleives that "you either have it or don't" then they may be limiting themselves in what they can achieve. I think that this is the point Joe Davis was making.

Regarding theories that are not proven, actually it's the idea of 'a special underlying talent' that is flawed because it's impossible to confirm in most cases. That people's experiences shape how they develop is just common sense, not a theory.

[poolqjunkie]

I agree that a teacher should never dismiss/discourage a child in school. I dont believe I have ever said that a teacher should. As a matter of fact I do not agree that a teacher should dismiss a childern with a special gift and that was one of my points in my previous post.

I thought we were talking about talent in snooker, and how can we tell if someone has talent, to which I replied if a person is gifted he can improve very fast and reach a much higher level than a person without. I never said that a person should give up the game if he feels that he has no talent. I also agree that hard work, systematic training, and good coaching can help a person to reach a good standard, even if he may not be very talented. I was under the impression that we were only talking about people with talent--not the kind that were considered "slow" or "untalented."

I believe it was not me but another poster who said talent is a gift and is something you either have it or not. She supported her opinion with videos and other facts and I agree with her.

Let me try to take this one step further. There are now players who quit school trying to become professional snooker players (following Ding's foot steps) in China. They would start at a very young age such as 6, and their parents would devote all attentions in getting them proper coaching and so on. Some of these parents sell their houses and work many jobs in trying to make sure their children can receive the best snooker coaching and that they can get all the help they need to hopefully become a top snooker player. Some of these parents are very poor and they simply cannot really afford it unless they give their children all the money they have, which they do.

Needless to say, some of these kids will never make it, they will just end up being a top level club player who has never finished primary school education.

In that regards, how do you tell if someone is talented becomes an important question for a parent as certainly no one would want to waste that much resources and time on something that is not going to pay out at the end, not to mention the consequences of giving up a child's education completely in order to pursue such a "dream."

I was answering the original poster's question with something like this in mind. This can also apply to someone outside of China who just wants to become a pro player. As we all know, a person would need to give up a lot in order to do so. May be not as extreme as the parents/childern in China but still there is an opportunity cost to devoting ones precious time in practicing, playing tournaments, taking lessons and so on regardless.

If a player has been playing for a couple years but still struggle to make a 50 break, I would say it is probably a good idea that he stays in school and play the game at his leisure. This is of course just my opinion. I am not dismissing anyone's ability and I am not saying he will never be good but as far as talent is concerned I would say he may not have that much talent in the game as others who can make centuries after centuries after playing for about the same amount of time.

Joe Davis may say he was not very gifted but if he could play so well with one eye being so much weaker than the other and was able to figure out so much on his own when there were so little information available back in those days he must be in fact quite talented. He was also playing at a top level in two disciplines, not just one. He was just being modest.

If a person wants to just play the game for fun, it is a different story than if he wants to make a living and support his family with it, right?

Will you tell a child in China and his parents who has just sold everything he has to try to groom his only child to become a professional snooker player that although his highest break is only 40 after playing for 3 years but with hard work, proper exposure, proper training and coaching he may still become another Ding so keep trying and don't give up?

I do believe to a large extend talent is a gift. It is not to say a person without such a gift will never be good at it but when you put such a person (without a gift) next to one with a lot of gift, and put them under the same condition to teach them the same thing the difference will become very obvious very quickly, which was the point I was trying to make, in response to the original poster's question.

How come we never have another Mozart if talent is not a gift? If it can be taught and manufactured then how come after so many year we still cannot 'manufacture' another Mozart?

If genius is not born but made--how come no one can make another Mozart?

Thank you.

[1blonde]

just had a cup of t and a lie down after reading all that lol...

[damienlch]

...If a player has been playing for 10 years and struggles to make a 50 break regularly... 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...

Hey, that could be me, only I'm 10 years older and struggle to string 2 shots together... feeling rather low now...

[poolqjunkie]

Hey, that could be me, only I'm 10 years older and struggle to string 2 shots together... feeling rather low now...

Actually I was just describing myself, but I must admit I was trying to make myself sound younger. LOL