"real umpires"

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigUmp56

Then you're saying there has to be a pre-disposition to succeed as a "real" umpire?

Tim.

RIF

No, I didn't say that. First off all, I don't use the term "real umpires" becaused I don't know what it means.

Secondly, although volumes have been written about the possibility of a pre-disposition to a skill playing a part in future success at that skill, I didn't suggest it. I suggested skill or ability, both of which are developed, is required for one to be considered a good umpire and that looking good, reading the rules, attending a clinic and being proud of your effort are not enough. Perhaps you were confused by my inclusion or the word "talent". We can debate forever what that means. I prefer not to. I'll remove it if it is getting in the way.

As we often tell music students, practice is meaningless unless it is performed properly. Some students can "practice" two hours a day and not develop as well as those who "practice" half an hour a day. There are numerous books written on the art of practice.

It's similar to five years experience and one year's experience five time.

I will continue to contend that a good umpire displays more that the listed four items and must demonstrate the ability to perform well before he is considered a good umpire. Without ability, he just "looks" like a good umpire.

You may continue to believe that skill isn't required if you'd like, or that by lookikng good, reading the rules, attending a clinis and being prideful is either evidence of skill or automatically develops skill. As both and educator and an umpire trainer, I know better.