I agree, I do not believe in talent or natural ability. I think that our potential as human beings is both unlimited and wildly underestimated and to reach our goals requires time, motivation, thought, and practise. Certainly the environment you are in is a factor to consider, but to what extent? I think it is the ability to learn to adapt to change which is the most important.

Absolutely agreed I believe that their is a major difference between a skilled juggler and a talented juggler in your case you are more of a skilled juggler than that of a talented juggler due to the fact that you are to the point where to learn a new trick you must work very hard at it where a talented juggler is one who in my mind is new to the spory/hobby whatever you want to call it and has very fast initial progress I believe that this can be applied to just about anything which is oriented in a similar fasion.

I agree with you for the most part. A lot of "talent" is from practicing, like I do with my writing skills. But some of it comes from family, like how I got my drawing talent from my grandpa. Or at least my love for drawing, anyway. Like you said, you've been doing this stuff for practically your whole life, so of course you're good at it. But I guess the reason people think you're so much better than you yourself may think (I'm not saying you aren't fantastic, though), is that they don't work as hard as you (Or me, or someone else. Or whatever.), because even though they may want to be as good as you (Or I, or someone else. Or whatever), they don't work for it... (Wow, I just basically said what you said... Pointless comment, eh?)

I'm not sure entirely I agree with you. (It must sound like I'm simply confrontational by now.)

For example, I started to pass clubs about a year ago. Within two or three club meetings (two hours once a week) I was learning to feed and such. But one of the people who used to come, had been struggling with the four count for years, and never got any better at it.

Now, certainly I put more effort into it than he did, but I don't think, even if he really wanted to get good at it, he would be able to progress nearly as fast as you, or even me.

As another example, I play saxophone. When I was first learning, I quickly bacame as-good-as, or even better than the other players, who had been playing for a minimum of one year. And I didn't really put that much effort into it.

I'm not saying that people can't get good at something, if they don't have any talent in it. Certainly anyone can learn the basics of pretty much anything they want to (or excel at it if they try hard enough).

My opinion is that talent does play a role in how well you can do something (sometimes a BIG role), but equally important is how much effort you put into it.

I think you're right alot of the stuff we learn has to do first of with attention span, for example a teacher is teaching something in class one student pays attention the other one doesn't, of course the attentive student learns, the unattentive student doesn't learn. Both students had the same situation but the students didn't pay attention, but of course this has to do with whos willing to learn and whos not, and whos distracted and whos not, so different situations will arise so that we become who we become, but I believe that it is best to rise above these situations then get really involved and stressed out about them. Maybe I went a little of topic, sorry.

In the area of joggling or running/juggling you can only get so good by putting more effort into it. I can joggle mile after mile but I'm just not built right to be able to run as fast as people that are skinnier and shorter than me. Talent can only get you so far in physical activities. Since juggling is a physical activity, you are going to be limited in what you can do.

Much of this can be overcome by a desire to get better but when you get older, your body just doesn't work as well anymore.

Think about master chess players. After the age of 40 all masters start to get worse. No matter how much practice, they just start to get worse and worse. Being human, growing old, just means you won't be as "talented" as you used to be.

I disagree, but I think those who say there's no such thing as talent are much closer to the truth than those who claim it's merely talent.

My learning curve has always been flat for the first year or two of learning any task, with a pronounced spike somewhere around 18 months, when my brain or nervous system comes to life and asborbs the totality of the task. Juggling, musical instruments, foreign languages -- I find that all are quite tough to start.

I'll discuss my juggling progress, but you could apply this description to most complex tasks I have learned. Initially, there is total befuddlement, with no one component of the task working right, as in my first several months of watching clubs over- and under-rotate. Then I back off, and focus on doing one thing right, just to be able to make some fragment of the task second nature. I had to break the 645 siteswap into 6 distinct throw-catch movements, and mark points on a wall giving the heights of the various throws. I broke it down into at least 20 component movements, and practiced each component while keeping every non-essential muscle relaxed.

I'm poor at catching errant throws, so I reduce the frequency and wildness of my mistakes through relentless practice.

My point here is that I lack the ability to throw a good-enough approximation to a pattern and grind away from there. I'm forced to analyze and to think of form, so, though I know few siteswaps, I throw the ones I know quite smoothly. My progress on musical instruments is similar, in that I usually end up with better fundamentals than most players because I have to practice consistently and carefully.

I pay a higher price on the front end, but enjoy the benefits later on. Doesn't sound like talent to me. Not necessarily just hard work either, because I have the analytical bent necessary to break everything down when I'm getting nowhere, and figure out what's essential.

A peculiar, back-handed sort of talent, maybe.

I don't have much to add, but I do agree with you. Progress is practice. The best are always those who have dedicated themselves to their craft. When I juggle regularly I progress accordingly. After practicing for a half hour a day for a month, I got proficient with 5 balls. There is no "natural talent." The only advantage that I can see is if one really has a love for his/her craft. You love juggling, therefor you rock at you "sport."

I think that if you look around at a juggling festival, you'll see more people of similar potential, and find that practice is what separates most people. But out in the general population there is huge variety of speeds at which people learn something like juggling.

You can see vast differences in something like a beginner's juggling class, where some people learn three balls in 10 minutes, and others take several hours of classes.

Even at a juggling festival, you may have a bunch of high-level jugglers sitting around, and someone says "Hey, try this weird catch I just thought of," you can see that some people learn it faster than others.

This brings up other questions of nature vs. nurture and so on, but I still think you can notice differences from one person to another.

I do agree though that hard work is the stronger influence, and overcomes most barriers.

This article has some interesting things to say on the subject.

I have noticed that a lot of the more technically skilled jugglers put a lot of focus on concentration. I don't think it's a coincidence.

I often wonder wether much of my practice isn't just wasted time. I find it very difficult to maintain the level of concentration necessary to analyze each run, and really pay attention to what I'm doing. I find myself just mindlessly doing the same things over and over (mistakes included) because I'm off in dream land. I think people who have the developed the needed mental discipline, and are in the habit of putting their minds actively into their tasks are at a large advantage. I doubt that 3 hours of my practice do me as much good as 1 hour of Vova's does for him.

yo, i think talent plays some part at how fast you progress at different thing, but i feel like talent plays a far less role when it comes to juggling, in juggling it seems talent has almost nothing to say at all. The practise decides how good you get. that's how I feel at least.

I sort of agree, that with enough practice you can do almost anything. However, there are always a few strange cases like Mozart's, in which talent is the only explanation (I'm assuming that most people know who Mozart was).

I look at it this way, some people are born talented(anthony gatto) and some people become talented(myself). That's just me.

Wind instruments, like the saxaphone, are a different kind of beast. Anyone can learn how to play it and be okay, but it takes the right set of lips, shape, size, and density, to reach the top of skill.

As far as talent and learning goes, it really depends on the learning style that best suits a person. By learnig styles I mean visual(By seeing), auditory(By hearing), and keniesthetic(By doing). Everyone learns with all of these, but different people learn faster and retain the information longer with the learning style the suits them.

Now I'm not sure which learning style is best suited for juggling, but I'm sure having the right one would certainly help. However practice and consistancy seem to be the most dominant factor.

As for jugglers like Anthony Gatto and Vova here, they began learning at a very young age and stuck with it. Most youngsters will practice for a while, get bored, and then go play, but not Anthony and Vova. They have stuck with juggling and have been doing it their whole lives.

The skill they have is from 90% hard work and 10% natural ability. I'd be pissed if I reached that skill at something and someone said, "oh isn't he talented.".

Austin

Austin wrote: "As for jugglers like Anthony Gatto and Vova here, they began learning at a very young age and stuck with it. Most youngsters will practice for a while, get bored, and then go play, but not Anthony and Vova. They have stuck with juggling and have been doing it their whole lives."
I totally agree.
Vasili

I think that if natural talent exists then it's purely psychological. It comes down to confidence. If you believe you can do something then eventually you'll be able to do it - given enough practice time. Anthony Gatto is as good as he is because he's insanely confident to the point where he actually thinks he's superhuman or something (seriously, he once said he sees things in slow motion). Some people never learn a trick despite practicing it a lot more than someone else who learnt it much quicker because at some level they don't think they can do it.

I do believe talent exists. Of course anyone that puts a lot of time into something will become very proficient at it, but when you see 3 year olds playing musical instruments like if it was the easiest thing in the world, you know that didn't come from lots of hard work, the kid was just born with that ability.

Josias, I disagree. It is impossible for a child to be born with the ability to play a musical instrument of any complexity due to lack of sufficient motor skills and learning. Your use of simile is derived from your experience, which I have not had the chance to witness, but if I did I would not base any such conclusions from it.

I was watching Ripley's Believe it or not one time and there was this 4 year old girl on there that knew all fify states, their capitals, their senators, represenatives, governors, and also all of the cabinet members by name. She wasn't born with this knowledge she just watches C-Span instead cartoon network. She probally has a pretty good memory too.

I this case is better at showing what "talent" actually is.

Anonymous posted: "It is impossible for a child to be born with the ability to play a musical instrument of any complexity due to lack of sufficient motor skills and learning." How would you know that every single child ever born couldn't play an instrument extroardinarily well? Obviously there's been a few children in history who have had extroardinary musical talents. Mozart, as an example, could play the piano like a pro right out of the crib. He was born as a musical genius.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07wwln_freak.html?ex=1304654400&en=2cf57fe91bdd490f&ei=5090&partner=

Talent from birth, pro from the crib imo are just examples of hackneyed and untrue statements.

hey anonymous I read that article . I will quote only one sentence
"This is not to say that all people have equal potential."
Lets say you take two 3 year old boys and start teaching them how to play the guitar. For 10 years, they will practice for 5 hours every week with the same teacher. After 10 years, will both of them be at the same skill level? To me it's obvious that one of the boys will be better than the other, even though both practiced for the same amount of time.If you think that talent does not exist, then what would explain this?

From the nytimes article: "the trait we commonly call talent is highly overrated. Or, put another way, expert performers-whether in memory or surgery, ballet or computer programming- are nearly always made, not born."

Talent may be overrated, but that doesn't mean it's nonexistent. Also, "expert performers-...-are nearly always made, not born." This statement shows that a rare few are born with talent, like Mozart (No, I'm not obsessed with Mozart, he's just a good example of talent).

josias, chang, thanks for the responses, I kinda agree but then again I'm not a master of developmental psychology so I guess we'll have to leave it there.

Josias, it's very simple to explain why one boy would be better than the other, it is due to all of the other factors besides practicing with the same teacher.
First we have a problem with motivation, one will be more motivated than the other or maybe not, even then there are other factors.
Is guitar practice just guitar practice? After all you are trying to play music. If you want to play music then it is best to learn it, one thing that is good for learning music is listening to it atentively and studying music theory(not at the same time together, so don't get me confused). So guitar practice isn't just sitting in your room practicing chords and scales, because playing guitar has a purpose and that is to play MUSIC. So lets say both of them do just that,(both are highly or lowly motivated and both listen and study different styles of music and both study music theory) although im highly doubtfull of that.
There is still a dillema tho, if one is into one style of music(by that I mean into PLAYING one style of music) and the other into another, what are the criteria for judging? Imagine comparing a jazz player to lets say a progressive heavy metal player, how do you compare them? Technique and Musicallity? Knowledge in music theory and music or whoever can play the most style? Secondly who will be the judge or judges, will they really be versed in all styles of music (that is those are the criteria by which the students are judged) that they need to be versed in and know the ammount of skill it takes to play a particular guitar piece? Highly doubt any of these circumstances would be true, where the students are both equally motivated, both study music theory and listen and study different styles of music, with the same teacher for the same ammount of playing time on the guitar. So there is my explanation for why it wouldn't be talent, simply because one could be more motivated, studies more music theory and studied more styles, not necessarily practiced more playing guitar tho.

Vova, thank you for your post. It is mature, helpful and inspiring.
I do yoga and that gives me some more fine-tuned views about this subject but basically I agree with you.
Endurance and diligence are the keys for many things in life.

Fish begins to stink at the head... Ellis

Fish begins to stink at the head... Ellis

Fish begins to stink at the head... Ellis

A fox is not taken twice in the same snare... Susanna

A fox is not taken twice in the same snare... Susanna

A fox is not taken twice in the same snare... Susanna

Marriages are made in heaven... Randall

A thief passes for a gentleman when stealing has made him rich... Morgan