looks like the banger (SVB) was getting into MOSCONI CUP mode:smile:
great players don't think the game, they are the game...not just pool as a rule
Can you be too smart to play good pool?
- Thread starter John Brumback
- Start date
looks like the banger (SVB) was getting into MOSCONI CUP mode:smile:
great players don't think the game, they are the game...not just pool as a rule
Unless one is very smart, this is not an easy question to answer, as the habits of the smart guy can only be guessed at.
Forgive my tooting my own horn, but I am an Ivy League graduate with a high IQ.
Moving on to the question posed, the answer is most definitely yes.
While the smart guy has an advantage trying to comprehend any given lesson, the smart guy is naturally inclined to consider more factors than a less smart guy while designing shots. This can, most definitely, get in the way of excellence as the smart guy falls into the trap of allowing the decision process to continue once over the cue ball. On the other hand, if the smart guy is able to, as they say, "make all decisions standing" this trap is avoidable. Few smart guys are able to do this consistently.
Hence, I'm inclined to conclude that the not-as-smart guy playing on instinct and experience alone will outplay most of the smart guys of similar skill.
Every now and again, however, we find a smart guy that a) is able to make decisions that are clearly the result of superior intellect applied in conceptualization and b) still avoids losing focus once over the cue ball. Efren Reyes, a known smart guy and possibly the best player of all time is one such player.
That said, the premise of the thread is, for the most part, valid. The smart guy is, far too often, held back by an inability to separate shot conceptualization from shot execution.
Forgive my tooting my own horn, but I am an Ivy League graduate with a high IQ.
Moving on to the question posed, the answer is most definitely yes.
While the smart guy has an advantage trying to comprehend any given lesson, the smart guy is naturally inclined to consider more factors than a less smart guy while designing shots. This can, most definitely, get in the way of excellence as the smart guy falls into the trap of allowing the decision process to continue once over the cue ball. On the other hand, if the smart guy is able to, as they say, "make all decisions standing" this trap is avoidable. Few smart guys are able to do this consistently.
Hence, I'm inclined to conclude that the not-as-smart guy playing on instinct and experience alone will outplay most of the smart guys of similar skill.
Every now and again, however, we find a smart guy that a) is able to make decisions that are clearly the result of superior intellect applied in conceptualization and b) still avoids losing focus once over the cue ball. Efren Reyes, a known smart guy and possibly the best player of all time is one such player.
That said, the premise of the thread is, for the most part, valid. The smart guy is, far too often, held back by an inability to separate shot conceptualization from shot execution.
I don't have time to become a simulated patient, but it's good to know that they have such a thing.
I had an emergency appendectomy in October. The surgery was around 10pm, and early in the afternoon the next day in the hospital a couple of doctors came by to check on me. I was feeling fine at the time so they authorized my release.
Within an hour my stomach started hurting, and I was nervous about leaving the hospital if it turned out that there was some complication from the surgery that I was just beginning to experience. So I told the nurse I wanted to check with one of the doctors again.
A few minutes later a different doctor who I had not seen before came in and I told him my stomach didn't feel right and I was worried about leaving if this was the onset of some complication from the surgery.
He didn't believe there was anything wrong with me, and tried to talk me into checking out, at one point even trying to guilt me into it by telling me that someone else was supposed to check into that room that day, and that it would be "inconvenient" for the hospital if I stayed. He was arrogant and completely disinterested in what I was telling him about how my stomach felt.
I knew something was wrong, so I stayed anyway. It turns out I had a paralytic ileus, and that day the pain grew progressively worse, and it took hours (until around 3am) before the nurses could get my medication right so that I was not in terrible pain.
I never saw that doctor again, but the next day one of the doctors who had seen me earlier the day before when I felt fine said that it was a good thing that I did not check out the day before, because I would have had to have been rushed to the emergency room, and I would have ended up right back in the hospital.
But the question isn't whether a tendency for analysis can get in the way--the crux of many of the responses. Of course it can.
The question "can you be too smart to play good pool?" is different. And the answer is of course not.
Look at it like this. Some holes are easier to dig with a curved tipped shovel; other holes are easier to dig with a flat-tipped shovel.
The question at hand here is like the following:
Joe, who is going to dig a number of holes, owns JUST a curved tipped shovel
Will Joe be at a disadvantage digging his holes if we give him ALSO a flat-tipped shovel? The answer can never be yes. Another tool in the shed can never actually be a disadvantage.
Whether the person uses his or her tools to maximum advantage is a separate issue.
Mike -- What if we give him 20 different shovels?
Actually, a really smart guy might be smart enough to know not do that, in spite of natural inclinations. :wink:
Depends on the individual. This is certain as I have seen it many times.
Overthinking is a potential hazard of a powerful intellect though, just as you say. It's one of the things I frequently help doctors overcome. That being the case, I promise you that it can be trained out of a person.
.
Last edited:
Though you make some good points, this is not about how many tools there are in the shed. In fact the metaphor is a poorly chosen one. Citing the Efren example, I already conceded the point that it is possible to train yourself out of over-analyzing, but the truth is that a "smart guy" tends to think out the decisions differently, and is in far greater danger of developing an inability to have a repeatable decision making process.
On a given shot in nine ball, a smart guy might wonder: "Am I playing offense or defense, and what position will I play? If I'm playing offense, should I take on a slightly tougher shot, modify my speed or play a slightly inferior angle to add some downside protection with respect to distance, angle or a combination of both?" This kind of thinking, while theoretically admirable, is not how most players design a shot, nor is it how most players should do so.
The player that chooses to ignore some of the complexities is, in fact, bringing fewer tools to do the job, but gains by not complicating matters more than is appropriate for either their level of intellect or their approach to pool. That said, they typically get more than enough in return for keeping it less multidimensional that the smart guy.
The smart guy, contrastingly, has a completely different, and far more procedurally complex, decision making process, one designed to utilize their unique abilities in abstract/analytical thinking and the fact that they have a mind more capable of drawing on the lessons of experiences. My opinion is that only a fellow smart guy could expect to train them out of such thinking, and that such retraining is a tall order indeed.
My apologies to any who feel I've posted in a condescending manner, but this is a difficult subject to consider without attempting to contrast the way the smartest guys think with the way that most other do.
I'm not sure what this means....
can someone please explain it to me?
What year is it?
Where is John?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
td
I think so. I also think that it pays to be dumb,or at least act like it.
I even came up with a saying for it,that I tell some people when I'm trying to help them.
" your too smart to learn " and the other one..." your too smart to ever play good pool"
I have never in my life seen or heard that you even have to know how to read or write to play high level pool.
I've seen it my whole life. People that can't read or people that can't walk and chew gum at the same time can play world class pool. ( yeah I know,they just practiced more than you did,well duh!! is what I say to that)
I have come to the conclusion that being or acting too smart will KEEP YOU from ever getting good at this simple game of knocking balls into a hole with a wooden stick.
This game is not complicated unless you want to make it complicated.
It's so simple.....a caveman could do it.John B.
PS: I've just been reading so much hogwash on here that I just can't help myself from trying to save some pool players from alot of the Bull shit that will keep them from ever getting good at this ever so simple game.
can someone please explain it to me?
What year is it?
Where is John?
I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!!!!
td
The question I think is what is considered "smart?"
One can know the theory behind every shot, but cannot apply them. One can make every shot look easy, yet cannot explain fully what's going on.
The over-analytical person will look at a long rail shot and try to apply whatever aiming system he's trying to develop. The intuitive player might just "cinch" it in, because he knows he's a good enough shotmaker to pocket the next ball.
There's an intuition one develops only after seeing hundreds of thousands of shots, and remembering them, and applying that knowledge to a new shot. It's a use of judgment unconsciously mixed with the knowledge that can only come from "solving" an almost infinite amount of patterns, and applying that knowledge to a new pattern, that separates the elite players from the rest.
One can know the theory behind every shot, but cannot apply them. One can make every shot look easy, yet cannot explain fully what's going on.
The over-analytical person will look at a long rail shot and try to apply whatever aiming system he's trying to develop. The intuitive player might just "cinch" it in, because he knows he's a good enough shotmaker to pocket the next ball.
There's an intuition one develops only after seeing hundreds of thousands of shots, and remembering them, and applying that knowledge to a new shot. It's a use of judgment unconsciously mixed with the knowledge that can only come from "solving" an almost infinite amount of patterns, and applying that knowledge to a new pattern, that separates the elite players from the rest.
I learn a lot from my medical students and the doctors that I teach. At a certain point I began making it a point to intentionally look for things to learn from them. Invariably I am able to gain new perspectives on old material as well as learn from their mistakes. In the end it not only makes me a better teacher but makes me a better doctor.
I often use my autistic son as an example. I have learned more from him than I will ever teach him.
.
The smart guy is smart enough to know that being overly analytical is not smart.
To the original point, no, you cannot be too smart. Deep knowledge of the game's physics, geometry, and body mechanics can only help. And it would be a mistake to assume that knowledge, or native intelligence if you prefer, comes to the party alone. If you harness that with a modicum of physical ability and keen eyesight, the smart player will go pretty far.
Lou Figueroa
To the original point, no, you cannot be too smart. Deep knowledge of the game's physics, geometry, and body mechanics can only help. And it would be a mistake to assume that knowledge, or native intelligence if you prefer, comes to the party alone. If you harness that with a modicum of physical ability and keen eyesight, the smart player will go pretty far.
Lou Figueroa
Not so in my experience. I've worked with many smart guys and many not-as- smart-guys.
During a playing lesson, when a questionable decision is made, and I ask a student whether they considered a certain aspect of designing that shot, the not-as-smart guy that has, far more often, failed to consider that aspect of the shot. The smart guy, by comparison, has often identified but mis-evaluated or mis-prioritized the aspect of the shot.
In my 50 years around the game, I've seen no evidence that either instinctual or subconscious variables bring certain aspects of the decision making process to the forefront for players of all intellectual levels.