Not even the slightest bit of offense taken. You make some good points, and I probably did state it too strongly when I said the best players and the best instructors are mutually exclusive. There probably are some top players who would be terrific instructors - maybe Earl is one. But I think saying you can "learn something" from them is a bit too weak. I've learned a ton from people like Earl and Busty just by watching videos of them playing. But I seriously doubt they have the skills of a top instructor like Scott Lee or Randy G or Jerry Briesath. You've had lessons from both Scott Lee and Earl - who would you say was a better instructor? My guess is that Scott was better, despite the fact that Earl is maybe the best pool player in the world in the past 30 years.
And about the research on verbalizing - I think it's broader than you state. There's a lot of research showing people are better able to find patterns just through experience than by formal rules.
E.g.,
in language learning : "Subjects could identify which strings were grammatically correct but could not identify the rules that composed grammatical strings." Although they don't say it on that wikipedia page, they also found that people given the (correct) formal rules performed worse than people who just soaked up the experiences. That's not pool playing, but maybe something similar can happen in pool. Just "hitting a million balls" and soaking up the feedback may be better than taking the short cut of learning the abstract principles.
I've read a lot of Dr. Dave's work, and he often says something like "most pros don't use these systems, but maybe they can help if you use them, internalize them, and then stop using them."
But another point (not directed at you KM, just in general) - this is a text-based pool discussion forum. Whatever the merits of pool systems and analysis, it seems a little silly to complain about discussing them here.
This is a great reply. I especially agree with your last sentence. I don't believe there was anything in my post you quoted that would indicate I had an issue with *any* degree of discussion. And you did say this wasn't directed at me lol. But yeah great points, well stated, good dialog. That is interesting about the grammar rules. You may be on to something there.
I think of myself as having above average aptitude for a wide variety of things, but I never really thought I had a very *high* level of aptitude for anything. All the little sub-skills (spatial relations, hand eye coordination, logic and problem solving, weighing odds, etc.) I'm *reasonably* good at, but wouldn't say I excel in any.
However I have slowly become a solid A player in my area (and actually made a pretty big jump in the last couple of years...I'm 41 years old now). The one area where I think I am more than a little above average is intelligence. (At least that is what all those standardized tests, IQ tests, special programs in school they put me into, GPA, my invitation to Mensa, etc. would suggest). I believe that I would be a MUCH worse player if I was not able to overcome many weaknesses through THINKING. Assessing a situation, forming an honest non-biased view of what just happened, categorizing knowledge for quick and efficient retrieval, learning HOW TO LEARN, what areas to focus on, etc....I think all of this were a major part of why I was able to get as far as I have, because I really don't think my "natural ability" supports the level of play I can achieve. However, for anyone who has watched me play pool, I WORK HARD! I really have to struggle and try so damn hard to play well. It does not come easy to me at all. If I win a tournament, my brain is a puddle of soup by the end. It is an enormous stress, although as such it sure does feel good to be the winner.
I will add something else. More recently my game seems to be taking another up-turn. I think this is related to speeding up my pace of play slightly. The majority of this increase in speed has come by cutting down the time I waste on DOUBT. I am just not thinking so much about "what if I miss". I actually have watched Jayson Shaw many times, and that has seeped into my brain. I try to emulate that effortless, fearless shot making. It has really helped quite a bit. I'm probably a bit more fun to play with as well, because I don't dwell on shots as long as I used to. Still, trying to "not think" was a conscious decision. It was a plan I undertook based on analysis of both my physical game and also of my mental processes. I tried to understand what thoughts and feelings correlated with screw ups. I really don't think I could have made these advances if I didn't think about my situation with a careful, critical mind.
Of course this is just *my* experience. On the other hand, I find that the experience of *believing* that I will make the shot is as important or more so than any physical technique. It sure is hard to think logically about "belief", particularly in so much as there are many times in which the evidence as I see it suggests that I will miss, but somehow the belief that I won't trumps that and I make the shot. Idk...maybe that "evidence" is just a subtle and sly manifestation of fear and uncertainty.
Anyway, there's my story. BRussel, thanks for the excellent reply!
KMRUNOUT