Can anyone shoot as well as Steph Curry if they work as hard?

[REDLINE]

But like @knightmelodic said, can’t any kid study Steph’s release? I’ve seen video of Steph explaining his technique.

There’s nothing genetic about making 105 3s in a row in practice. Quickness is an in-game advantage not relevant to the example you gave and everything else comes down to study and practice.

Do you think Steph is just naturally gifted at shooting more quickly and that is the only difference between him and everyone else? I really think he has practiced more and maybe practiced smarter (like the saying goes, “work smarter, not harder”) than everyone else when it comes to shooting.

Let’s not forget that Steph also has the best free throw percentage in history. That has nothing to do with quickness. I think that is strictly work ethic.

Yes Steph is naturally good at shooting, genetics explains why his Dad and brother both made it to the NBA and are also good shooter.

Genetics and hard work are what made Steph a great shooter, plus he's gifted.

There's been thousands of NBA players but none tha shot the ball like Steph, that "Should" tell you all that you need to know.

It should.

 

[DWBass]

Nah. God given talent

This. Some folks are just born with the ability to do what Steph does. Back in my schoolyard days, there was a kid nicknamed Ubb (don't ask) and this dude.........everything he threw up went in all net!! Just disgusting! I hated playing against the dude. Too bad he was too dumb to get grades good enough to play HS ball. Steph does shit no other shooter can do. But, he worked hard at being a good shooter. His dad was a damn good shooter in his day so he had a good teacher and role model and he grew up around the NBA. I honestly don't think there will ever be another player who can shoot as well as Steph. Not to mention he works just as hard to get open to even do what he does. This dude just runs circles around everyone still at 37 years old!! Will he play until 40?

 

[guyver]

The premise that his athletic abilities are quantifiable and replicable is my problem. Humans have tendency to want to minimize greatness in each other by saying anyone can do it. It's just math. You can have all the math in the world but there are only a few great mathmaticians. Greatness is not quantifiable or replicable that's why it's greatness. Everyone that has been great hasn't copied someone else they developed their own lane to greatness. It's not science it's an art. Steph's atheletic artistry is more than just the act of shooting a ball in the basket. It's the atheletic and dramatic excellence that makes his performances more than just a physical act. Atheletic performances are mixtures of physical mental and emotional dynamics intertwined with the interaction of the crowd. It's like a musical performance from a great musician or a stage performance by a great actor. The experience that is created is an art. You can learn the techniques but you can't be great by learning the techniques and practicing. We need to respect and appreciate greatness and we can certainly practice the habits that support greatness but everyone can't be great.

Respectfully and maybe you are speaking to the room, but high level,i agreed with your premise. Part of his greatness comes from applying math on a subconscious level .No different than you walk and balance yourself without thinking. It doesn't take away from his greatness to state this and I never implied it could simply be replicated through training.

That said, i also think it's disrespectful to just downplay his abilities to just god given or naturally gifted. It potentially dismisses the hours he has put into developing his talent.we or at least I don't know if Steph has been performing at this level since 3, he vastly improved at 12 or honed everything at somepoint in highschool through hours/years of training.

Jordan wasn't always him. He got to that level over time. They say Kobe stayed in the gym and watched tapes. On the opposite end, I believe AI was said to not take practice seriously and the same for Shaq. Both were clearly naturally gifted in someway, but most people believe they could have been better had they been more dedicated. Natural talent may take you far, but it doesn't guarantee you'll be elite or considered the greatest.

 

[knightmelodic]

I don't think anyone is doubting the science behind what you are saying. Its just that most aren't able to apply what you are saying in the real world. Let alone against the best talents in the world consistently.

Steph isn't doing the math like you are explaining to us. He's instinctively applying this in real games. To me, it's a combination of all the things people have listed including your thoughts. He had a natural talent to apply the math needed to make the shots, he had a father with NBA experience to guide his development, fortunate enough to find coaches build on his father's teachings and likely practiced more than people would expect. I know you aren't saying literally, but if you ask the average athlete what equations they used to perform better, most would at best think you were joking or take the question as disrespect (dumb jock stereotype). Again, i know you weren't taking it to that level of Steph knowingly applying math.

It happens but being natural gifted doesn't necessarily mean little effort. I can't recall the brother and sister who were internet sensations, but they are the perfect example of wasted potential. The dad while well intended hurt the kids development. The thought is they would have never gone pro due to their size, but from my understanding they weren't even good enough for real highschool competition let alone college.

EVERYONE, except you, it seems, does not understand the mathematics of what I'm saying. Mathematics has only 2 answers - right and wrong.

For those severely mathematically challenged, take a plate and tilt it up on its edge. Now, if the ball is coming straight down, you'll see that the closer the plate is to being flat, the more ACTUAL AREA is available for the ball to enter.
In practice, the higher the arc on the ball, the straighter it falls towards the hoop, whose actual area is increased by the angle.

guyver I'm not talking to you because it seems you understand the physics. I just put it here because I don't feel like answering all these dunces individually.
And to those same high school dropouts - EVERYBODY in the League has a ton of god-given talent. That's why they play for pay.

 

[BGLR1212000]

EVERYONE, except you, it seems, does not understand the mathematics of what I'm saying. Mathematics has only 2 answers - right and wrong.

For those severely mathematically challenged, take a plate and tilt it up on its edge. Now, if the ball is coming straight down, you'll see that the closer the plate is to being flat, the more ACTUAL AREA is available for the ball to enter.
In practice, the higher the arc on the ball, the straighter it falls towards the hoop, whose actual area is increased by the angle.

guyver I'm not talking to you because it seems you understand the physics. I just put it here because I don't feel like answering all these dunces individually.
And to those same high school dropouts - EVERYBODY in the League has a ton of god-given talent. That's why they play for pay.

Bruh you not explaining rocket science. There's plenty players at all levels that figured out high arcing shots will go in at a better percentage. When you shoot on "the gun" it forces you to shoot a high arc shot. Millions of players and wannabes shoot a high arc shot, but theres only 1 mf shooting like Steph Curry.

 

[Costanza]

Hell no

You’re a math professor IIRC? Even though you’re wrong in your view of training , I would appreciate you weighing in on the response below.

EVERYONE, except you, it seems, does not understand the mathematics of what I'm saying. Mathematics has only 2 answers - right and wrong.

Mathematics is richer than a binary “right/wrong” — it admits multiple correct answers, undecidable (independent) statements, and gradations of approximation depending on context and axioms.

Mathematical truth is relative to the axioms you accept. If a statement is independent of your axioms, mathematics doesn’t force a single yes/no answer — you can consistently work in a universe where the statement holds or in one where it fails.

Are you familiar with the Continuum Hypothesis? CH says, roughly, “there is no set whose size is strictly between the integers and the real numbers.” In the usual axioms of set theory (ZFC) it is independent: Kurt Gödel showed ZFC cannot disprove CH (assuming ZFC is consistent), and Paul Cohen later showed ZFC cannot prove CH. That means within ZFC the statement is neither provably true nor provably false — it’s not classifiable as simply “right” or “wrong” unless you add more axioms. In different models of set theory CH can be true or false.

Other simple ways math breaks the “only right/wrong” claim:

• Many equations have multiple correct answers (e.g. x2=4x2=4 has x=2x=2 and x=−2x=−2).
• Gödel’s incompleteness shows there are true but unprovable statements in any sufficiently powerful consistent system — so “provable = right” fails.
• Applied math regularly uses approximations and error bounds where answers are not a strict true/false.

 

[Costanza]

This dumb bitch @DaMoistBi one starred the thread saying “it’s called practice,” meaning he is basically the first person so far to co-sign me.

 

[Costanza]

 

[DWBass]

Chase your dreams. Work hard. Always be in shape. Always strive to be better. Does anyone even work as hard as Steph?? Seriously? Dude is 37 and still running circles around everybody looking for an open shot! Barring a catastrophic injury, I see him playing until 40.......if he wants.