Dafabet Masters Final: Ali Carter v Stuart Bingham

Holden Chinaski wrote:Bingham gets better under pressure, Stevens breaks down under pressure...

Sums it up nicely.

These days it's more about mental strength and daring to take on the big shots than just your ability. Loads of players may have more ability or talent than Bingham (the usual suspects like Lisowski, Brecel, Stevens,...) but they lack in determination, bottle when it matters, or stress resistance.

All players on the tour are 99% equal playing ability wise, it's self belief and dedication imo.

Bingham will always get way too little credit. just for that I'm gonna make him my snooker idol on my profile

Bingham has no bottle.

Mark Allen told me.

bingham has done great to win 2 majors so far when not long he was struggling to be a top 16 player and most considered him just an also ran, ali now one of the best players not to have won a major,

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

Iranu wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

I'd think it's something you can work on too

rekoons wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

I'd think it's something you can work on too

Everything about snooker is something you can work on....

Nobody is naturally gifted, even Ronnie had to spend thousands upon thousands of hours practising....

The difference between him and you is determination....

donthittheblue wrote:

rekoons wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

I'd think it's something you can work on too

Everything about snooker is something you can work on....

Nobody is naturally gifted, even Ronnie had to spend thousands upon thousands of hours practising....

The difference between him and you is determination....

Not the only difference though. Are you saying that if I was as determined as Ronnie, and practiced exactly as hard as Ronnie, I'd be exactly as good as him?

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:

rekoons wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

I'd think it's something you can work on too

Everything about snooker is something you can work on....

Nobody is naturally gifted, even Ronnie had to spend thousands upon thousands of hours practising....

The difference between him and you is determination....

Not the only difference though. Are you saying that if I was as determined as Ronnie, and practiced exactly as hard as Ronnie, I'd be exactly as good as him?

If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

Now now, that's a bit simplistic.

Sure almost everyone could get to a certain decent level if you're dedicated enough, but to advance beyond that up to top professional level you need some (more) talent.

but at the top I believe differences in talent are subtle, and In my opinion there's a turning point somewhere at the top level where mentality and work ethics (can) overtake plain talent and flair.

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Well that's basically what I meant, but with more words

rekoons wrote:

Iranu wrote:

Dan-cat wrote:Bottle, or lack thereof = mental strength. Snooker at top level is all in the mental game. So no, Mathew Stevens is not a better player than Bingham.

And let’s not forget, bottle is a talent too...

I'd think it's something you can work on too

Yeah but you can also work on your talent.

Judd’s no more talented than he was two years ago. He is more successful, though, because he’s putting more work in.

Some people are naturally mentally stronger than others. Matthew Stevens could never be as tough as Selby because he just doesn’t have it in him.

Iranu wrote:Some people are naturally mentally stronger than others. Matthew Stevens could never be as tough as Selby because he just doesn’t have it in him.

Agreed, you can not turn a Stevens into a selby with more work or whatever mental coaching, but i guess you can increase it a certain level with the right approach (whatever that may be)

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

It's not nonsense. Every player has to work hard to the best of their abilities, but some work hard than others. It's not suprising that those who work harder than others and literally dedicated their every waking hour to snooker are better than those who play a bit of snooker to lower tour standard and spend the rest of their time playing video games.

It's why the class of 92 are so much better than the generation that followed. They had no modern distractions and just played snooker virtually 24/7 throughout their childhood and adolescence. If Lisowski, Robertson, Luca Brecel or even Ali Carter had done that from the same age as Ronnie they'd be as good as him.

And yes, pick a random kid off the street up at the age of 4 and fund their table-time for an entire childhood 16 hours a day, and they'll be better than Ronnie by the time they're 21..... if I had half a million pounds in the bank to drop out of life and practice snooker 24/7 for the next 20 years of my life I could be as good as Ronnie, so could you....

I guarantee you Kyren Wilson has not put down as many hours as Ronnie had by the mid 90s.... if he had he'd be as good as Ronnie was in the mid-90s. Give it ten years and Kyren will be in the right ballpark. It's why Jimmy White never won a World Champs; he was too busy robbing fruit machines as a kid and doing lines with Kirk Stevens when he made it big.... (that's in his book by the way...)

And if that kid practices the piano 16 hours a day for 20 years he'll be as good as Beethoven.

Most people don't have the opportunity or the determination to do that though.

Because of his wide-boy ruffian image, people forget Ronnie's parents had a shit-tonne of undeclared wealth to fund snooker habits that would bankrupt most families....

Wildey wrote:Binham is World Champion and Masters Champion not bucking shoot out champion he's won more in less time than Stevens has. So your point doesent make sense.

Eh? What has Stevens to do with my point?

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Nailed it. Spot on with this.

There are some things you just can’t teach. Certain rare and innate qualities that make the most difference on the back of those thousands of hours of training.

You can’t ‘create’ another O’Sullivan through training alone. The Chinese have been trying for years, and look at all those ‘future world champions’ that have been and gone.

And actually, applying that idea (that only practice matters) to music is even more illogical. No way could you create another Beethoven. Or any other incredible musician. Some people ‘get’ music, some don’t, to massively varying degrees. And again that’s an innate ability, not something you can teach. Yes, you can school somebody to play a trillion notes per second on a piano or guitar, but ask them to write a song and unless that natural ability is there, they can’t. They’re not a musician.

Prop wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Nailed it. Spot on with this.

There are some things you just can’t teach. Certain rare and innate qualities that make the most difference on the back of those thousands of hours of training.

You can’t ‘create’ another O’Sullivan through training alone.

Did you read my response to the utter nonsense your quoting.

You can create another Sullivan with wealthy parents and a kid willing to work hard........

The reason we haven't had one is the current crop of youngsters preferred playing playstation as teenagers.

Prop wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Nailed it. Spot on with this.

There are some things you just can’t teach. Certain rare and innate qualities that make the most difference on the back of those thousands of hours of training.

You can’t ‘create’ another O’Sullivan through training alone. The Chinese have been trying for years, and look at all those ‘future world champions’ that have been and gone.

And actually, applying that idea (that only practice matters) to music is even more illogical. No way could you create another Beethoven. Or any other incredible musician. Some people ‘get’ music, some don’t, to massively varying degrees. And again that’s an innate ability, not something you can teach. Yes, you can school somebody to play a trillion notes per second on a piano or guitar, but ask them to write a song and unless that natural ability is there, they can’t. They’re not a musician.

That last paragraph is utter bullocks. Music theory exists precisely as way of bridging that gap for people. You can learn what notes/chords work well to convey a certain mood/feeling and patterns in the same way you can learn what the best ball is to take next on a snooker table.

People who insist or natural talent in music, sport or education do it as a way to make themselves feel better about being too lazy to do as well as others.

donthittheblue wrote:

Prop wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Nailed it. Spot on with this.

There are some things you just can’t teach. Certain rare and innate qualities that make the most difference on the back of those thousands of hours of training.

You can’t ‘create’ another O’Sullivan through training alone. The Chinese have been trying for years, and look at all those ‘future world champions’ that have been and gone.

And actually, applying that idea (that only practice matters) to music is even more illogical. No way could you create another Beethoven. Or any other incredible musician. Some people ‘get’ music, some don’t, to massively varying degrees. And again that’s an innate ability, not something you can teach. Yes, you can school somebody to play a trillion notes per second on a piano or guitar, but ask them to write a song and unless that natural ability is there, they can’t. They’re not a musician.

That last paragraph is utter bullocks. Music theory exists precisely as way of bridging that gap for people. You can learn what notes/chords work well to convey a certain mood/feeling and patterns in the same way you can learn what the best ball is to take next on a snooker table.

People who insist or natural talent in music, sport or education do it as a way to make themselves feel better about being too lazy to do as well as others.

Hahaha ok dude. You’re welcome to your opinion. Thanks for giving me a laugh :)

donthittheblue wrote:

Prop wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:
If you kept at it for as long as him or maybe a bit longer, then yes.

Ronnie himself despises people calling him naturally talented....

People seem to forget he practiced 12-16 hours a day throughout his entire childhood.....

I've met people like this before, who hate being called talented or clever because they think it undermines the hard work they have to put in.

I disagree with it, to be honest. In your Ronnie example, you're suggesting that Ronnie is basically a normal person with no special aptitude for snooker who just works harder than anybody else. What you're essentially saying is that every other player on the tour is lazier than Ronnie, or isn't putting his level of work in. If they did, they'd all be able to play exactly like Ronnie would. So would literally anybody. Walk out into the high street, pick somebody at random and with your logic they could be equally as good as Ronnie.

It's nonsense. Ronnie IS more talented than the other players. That doesn't mean he doesn't also work hard. Nobody is saying that. Having talent in itself is not enough, or Jack Liswoski would've won loads of stuff by now. And consequently, somebody who put in a lot of hours like Kyren Wilson would've hit Ronnie's standard by now if hard work was all there was to it.

Every player has to work hard to make the best of their abilities. A player who works hard will often beat somebody with superior talent who dicks around. But that doesn't mean that everybody has an identical amount of talent to begin with.

It's like saying that teaching a person to play the piano is the same thing as teaching them to be Beethoven.

Nailed it. Spot on with this.

There are some things you just can’t teach. Certain rare and innate qualities that make the most difference on the back of those thousands of hours of training.

You can’t ‘create’ another O’Sullivan through training alone.

Did you read my response to the utter nonsense your quoting.

You can create another Sullivan with wealthy parents and a kid willing to work hard........

The reason we haven't had one is the current crop of youngsters preferred playing playstation as teenagers.

Maybe there are going to be some big talents wasted because of extra distractions, that's possible.
But that does just mean they're not dedicated enough.
But then again, dedication alone can only get you so far, to get at the top you also need some innate talent.
Once you're there and you find out you're surrounded by equally innate talented players, that's where the mental factor comes into play, and/or even more dedication to improve that 0.1% more.

donthittheblue wrote:It's not nonsense. Every player has to work hard to the best of their abilities, but some work hard than others. It's not suprising that those who work harder than others and literally dedicated their every waking hour to snooker are better than those who play a bit of snooker to lower tour standard and spend the rest of their time playing video games.

It's why the class of 92 are so much better than the generation that followed. They had no modern distractions and just played snooker virtually 24/7 throughout their childhood and adolescence. If Lisowski, Robertson, Luca Brecel or even Ali Carter had done that from the same age as Ronnie they'd be as good as him.

And yes, pick a random kid off the street up at the age of 4 and fund their table-time for an entire childhood 16 hours a day, and they'll be better than Ronnie by the time they're 21..... if I had half a million pounds in the bank to drop out of life and practice snooker 24/7 for the next 20 years of my life I could be as good as Ronnie, so could you....

I guarantee you Kyren Wilson has not put down as many hours as Ronnie had by the mid 90s.... if he had he'd be as good as Ronnie was in the mid-90s. Give it ten years and Kyren will be in the right ballpark. It's why Jimmy White never won a World Champs; he was too busy robbing fruit machines as a kid and doing lines with Kirk Stevens when he made it big.... (that's in his book by the way...)

And if that kid practices the piano 16 hours a day for 20 years he'll be as good as Beethoven.

Most people don't have the opportunity or the determination to do that though.

Because of his wide-boy ruffian image, people forget Ronnie's parents had a shit-tonne of undeclared wealth to fund snooker habits that would bankrupt most families....

This is a combination of truth and rubbish.

Yes, most of the current crop of players are too easily swayed by outside distractions and this has stopped a lot of them from reaching their potential. This is pretty clear, I think.

But to suggest that Ronnie nothing but a product of time and money is frankly ridiculous. In every sport you have swathes of wealthy parents who throw money, time and effort at their children.

Kyren Wilson’s parents I think re-mortgaged their house twice (or re-mortgaged and then moved to a smaller one) in order to build him a snooker room, didn’t they? He also is not someone who’s always on social media or the like.

Yet he is not only below Ronnie’s level, he’s comfortably below it.

Of course Ronnie’s upbringing contributed to his success, it would be foolish to say otherwise. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a natural talent and ability that’s above what most people have. His touch and feel, his judgement, his mental fortitude (which is obviously in conflict with his bipolar disorder and has required additional training to overcome) are all natural ability that someone like Kyren will never have (with the possible exception of mental fortitude, jury’s still out on that one).

To give another example, Jimmy White is also clearly more talented and successful (as things stand) Kyren despite not having the financial help that Kyren had and not working as hard in his youth/prime. You can say Kyren will be in the right ballpark, but like for like at the same age he’s achieved less than Jimmy.

Also, Beethoven didn’t just play the piano, he composed music which is a completely different skill. Even so a better example would be Mozart who was a child prodigy. You seem to be suggesting that prodigies don’t exist which is demonstrably untrue.

Wildey wrote:Binham is World Champion and Masters Champion not bucking shoot out champion he's won more in less time than Stevens has. So your point doesent make sense.

Who is Binham?

Iranu wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:It's not nonsense. Every player has to work hard to the best of their abilities, but some work hard than others. It's not suprising that those who work harder than others and literally dedicated their every waking hour to snooker are better than those who play a bit of snooker to lower tour standard and spend the rest of their time playing video games.

It's why the class of 92 are so much better than the generation that followed. They had no modern distractions and just played snooker virtually 24/7 throughout their childhood and adolescence. If Lisowski, Robertson, Luca Brecel or even Ali Carter had done that from the same age as Ronnie they'd be as good as him.

And yes, pick a random kid off the street up at the age of 4 and fund their table-time for an entire childhood 16 hours a day, and they'll be better than Ronnie by the time they're 21..... if I had half a million pounds in the bank to drop out of life and practice snooker 24/7 for the next 20 years of my life I could be as good as Ronnie, so could you....

I guarantee you Kyren Wilson has not put down as many hours as Ronnie had by the mid 90s.... if he had he'd be as good as Ronnie was in the mid-90s. Give it ten years and Kyren will be in the right ballpark. It's why Jimmy White never won a World Champs; he was too busy robbing fruit machines as a kid and doing lines with Kirk Stevens when he made it big.... (that's in his book by the way...)

And if that kid practices the piano 16 hours a day for 20 years he'll be as good as Beethoven.

Most people don't have the opportunity or the determination to do that though.

Because of his wide-boy ruffian image, people forget Ronnie's parents had a shit-tonne of undeclared wealth to fund snooker habits that would bankrupt most families....

This is a combination of truth and rubbish.

Yes, most of the current crop of players are too easily swayed by outside distractions and this has stopped a lot of them from reaching their potential. This is pretty clear, I think.

But to suggest that Ronnie nothing but a product of time and money is frankly ridiculous. In every sport you have swathes of wealthy parents who throw money, time and effort at their children.

Kyren Wilson’s parents I think re-mortgaged their house twice (or re-mortgaged and then moved to a smaller one) in order to build him a snooker room, didn’t they? He also is not someone who’s always on social media or the like.

Yet he is not only below Ronnie’s level, he’s comfortably below it.

Of course Ronnie’s upbringing contributed to his success, it would be foolish to say otherwise. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t have a natural talent and ability that’s above what most people have. His touch and feel, his judgement, his mental fortitude (which is obviously in conflict with his bipolar disorder and has required additional training to overcome) are all natural ability that someone like Kyren will never have (with the possible exception of mental fortitude, jury’s still out on that one).

To give another example, Jimmy White is also clearly more talented and successful (as things stand) Kyren despite not having the financial help that Kyren had and not working as hard in his youth/prime. You can say Kyren will be in the right ballpark, but like for like at the same age he’s achieved less than Jimmy.

Also, Beethoven didn’t just play the piano, he composed music which is a completely different skill. Even so a better example would be Mozart who was a child prodigy. You seem to be suggesting that prodigies don’t exist which is demonstrably untrue.

Child prodigies do not exist. They are made.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -prodigies

donthittheblue wrote:Child prodigies do not exist. They are made.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -prodigies

Did you read the article?

it doesn't say they don't exist, only that innate skill alone does not guarantee succes:

"Although outstanding early ability tends to be presented in the media as a genetic freak, this is probably almost never the case, except perhaps in a handful of isolated skills"

"Yet childhood prodigy is far from necessarily the precursor of adult genius; in the vast majority of cases it is not."

" While politicians bang on about "ability" and "talent" as if it is "God-given" (as Tony Blair once put it), these come out of relationships with parents and a consequent desire to succeed, much more so than genes."

Wildey wrote:Kyren Wilson has never been sawyed either he was single minded from a young age First to the Club last to leave it takes a lot of hard work for every player to get to the top Ronnie included however Kyren is nowhere near as talented as Ronnie dont have a clue what donthittheblue is talking about

It's just too simplistic a view to say hard work equals success and nothing else matters.

Saying somebody has a natural talent doesn't mean they could pick up a cue for the first time and immediately win The Crucible. Obviously a combination of hard work and talent is required.

rekoons wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:Child prodigies do not exist. They are made.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -prodigies

Did you read the article?

it doesn't say they don't exist, only that innate skill alone does not guarantee succes:

"Although outstanding early ability tends to be presented in the media as a genetic freak, this is probably almost never the case, except perhaps in a handful of isolated skills"

"Yet childhood prodigy is far from necessarily the precursor of adult genius; in the vast majority of cases it is not."

" While politicians bang on about "ability" and "talent" as if it is "God-given" (as Tony Blair once put it), these come out of relationships with parents and a consequent desire to succeed, much more so than genes."

Yes,. I did. The bit you quoted backs up my point.

But the point is that so called child prodigies are not innately talented, they're products of parents successful in the field who often dragon-mum they're children and make them work harder.

Essentially anyone dragon-mother into snooker could be better than o'sullivan.

donthittheblue wrote:

rekoons wrote:

donthittheblue wrote:Child prodigies do not exist. They are made.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... -prodigies

Did you read the article?

it doesn't say they don't exist, only that innate skill alone does not guarantee succes:

"Although outstanding early ability tends to be presented in the media as a genetic freak, this is probably almost never the case, except perhaps in a handful of isolated skills"

"Yet childhood prodigy is far from necessarily the precursor of adult genius; in the vast majority of cases it is not."

" While politicians bang on about "ability" and "talent" as if it is "God-given" (as Tony Blair once put it), these come out of relationships with parents and a consequent desire to succeed, much more so than genes."

Yes,. I did. The bit you quoted backs up my point.

But the point is that so called child prodigies are not innately talented, they're products of parents successful in the field who often dragon-mum they're children and make them work harder.

Essentially anyone dragon-mother into snooker could be better than o'sullivan.

No it doesn't, you're point is child prodigies or innate talent do not exist.
The quoted points talk about those 2 things