Can you be too smart to play good pool?

boyraks

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I totally agree. I cant name a great Filipino player who plays a high level who has a college diploma. There was a policeman and a preacher/ pastor but.....
 

Banks

Banned
He also has a Dvd with his system for banking and (heaven forbid) charges money for them. Does it make him a bad guy like all the other pros who have Dvds and get vilified? Answer: He's one of the GOOD guys just like all the others who have the experience and knowledge to make Dvds. We all benefit!

I have his dvd and i wouldn't call it a system. Maybe you're too smart for this thread. :D
 

boyraks

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Well, John, I disagree with you.
I think any good player is pretty smart.
There may be good shot-makers who ain't too swift....
...but good players beat then in the long haul.

I have found boxers to be the same way....the good ones are smart...
....the dumb ones are punching bags.

I read a long time ago that there are two kinds of people that can make an intelligent decision....

A - Some can say this is going to happen using logic, math, physics, et al...

B - Some say they feel this is going to happen.

They can both be right.

In a perfect world, the ones with slide rules and protractors can enlighten themselves and
other players.
But the great players take feel and passion to the table.

So A should learn from the B thinkers to stop practicing when they play....
...and B thinkers have much to learn from A thinkers....when they practice.
I know you would jump into this discussion being smart and talented yourself. Your analogy of a boxer is legitimate but youre leaning more towards golf when teaching about mechanics. Instructors are lacking in your area but you are more of a "feel" player. With all your talent and experience you should be more on the floor teaching than being a "on the rails instructor". No disrespect but lots of newbies need you.
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
I have his dvd and i wouldn't call it a system. Maybe you're too smart for this thread. :D

How about method or style? I'm impressed, you finally bit the bullet and spent some personal money on a pool Dvd. Or did somebody lend it to you? There may be hope after all. :thumbup:
 

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
Not sure what "too smart" to play pool is but Nick Varner is intelligent.

He's won a few titles and he was smart enough to parlay his intelligence and pool ability/fame into a successful business.

JoeyA
 

Banks

Banned
How about method or style? I'm impressed, you finally bit the bullet and spent some personal money on a pool Dvd. Or did somebody lend it to you? There may be hope after all. :thumbup:

Finally? What, you think I'm Thaiger? That's a low blow. I've got two from Tucker, Brumback's first, Banking with the Beard, one or two from Lenny and i think something else.

Yes, method or style. I was going to say tips and such, but that wasn't quite right.
 

mikepage

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
What does it have to do with the original title of this thread? Why use golfers and a 4 wood instead of a pool player with a jump or break cue? It still doesn't have anything to do with what John was asking whether it's three clubs, four clubs or all fourteen which is the limit.

OK, so if you didn't understand my analogy, maybe others didn't either. So I will explain.

The two player initially are equal. They are , say, of average intelligence. The "tools" they have in their bag are:

(1) Driver --This is their knowledge about pool (things they can explain)
(2) 4-iron -- This is their muscle memory and physical skill
(3) pitching wedge-- This is their intuition about pool (things they "know" but can't explain)

The extra club is added reasoning ability (like suddenly gaining 10 IQ points). This is not gaining knowledge. It is gaining a greater ability to discern a pattern, greater ability to to infer rules and apply them to new situations, and greater ability to figure out cause and effect. These are things that every person of every level of intelligence does but that smarter people do better. My point is that suddenly being able to do these things better can't possibly be a take-away because you don't have to use this ability. It's like if you are communicating with somebody in English and you suddenly are given the ability to speak Russian. That can't possibly make your ability to communicate with the person worse. But depending on the person it could help your ability to communicate.
 

JoeyA

Efren's Mini-Tourn BACKER
Silver Member
I totally agree. I cant name a great Filipino player who plays a high level who has a college diploma. There was a policeman and a preacher/ pastor but.....

How about Marlon Manalo........ (Degree in economics).

JoeyA
 

TheThaiger

Banned
Finally? What, you think I'm Thaiger? That's a low blow. I've got two from Tucker, Brumback's first, Banking with the Beard, one or two from Lenny and i think something else.

Yes, method or style. I was going to say tips and such, but that wasn't quite right.

Yeah, right. You wish. :rolleyes:

FWIW I have never bought or watched a dvd on pool, I just don't see how they can possibly help anyone's game, especially if they are not american. You must be a tremendously poor player to have to have someone show you what to do.

Pool: it ain't rocket science, is it?
 

SpiderWebComm

HelpImBeingOppressed
Silver Member
OK, so if you didn't understand my analogy, maybe others didn't either. So I will explain.

The analogy was crappy from the start.

The two player initially are equal. They are , say, of average intelligence. The "tools" they have in their bag DEVELOPMENT are:

They could also be of higher intelligence, but equal.

This is their knowledge about pool (things they can explain)
This is their muscle memory and physical skill
This is their intuition about pool (things they "know" but can't explain)

The extra club is Forget the golf club comparison added reasoning ability (like suddenly gaining 10 IQ points). This is not gaining knowledge. It is gaining a greater ability to discern a pattern, greater ability to to infer rules and apply them to new situations, and greater ability to figure out cause and effect.

And none of that has anything to do with KNOWLEDGE? All of it can be taught.

These are things that every person of every level of intelligence does but that smarter people do better.

Were they born smarter or get that way from study and hard work? Everyone starts out stupid about one subject or another. Many of us remain clueless. I've seen doctors who are brilliant in medicine being stupid in finance and investments who can't hold onto their money or lose fortunes.
Everybody who is serious about pool or anything should continue to seek knowledge.
They'll end up smarter about the given subject. The gist of this thread is where does being too smart help or hurt?


My point is that suddenly being able to do these things better can't possibly be a take-away because you don't have to use this ability.

So what good is it and why waste time learning it in the first place? If it allows an individual to do these things better, why choose to NOT USE this ability? It is about the doing...not just knowing.

It's like if you are communicating with somebody in English and you suddenly are given the ability to speak Russian. That can't possibly make your ability to communicate with the person worse. But depending on the person it could help your ability to communicate.

I already feel like I'm speaking with someone using different languages. I want to say it one more time, your WISE ASS remark about CTE didn't belong in this thread or needed to be made in the course of your post. Your gal pal PJ certainly knew what you did in throwing it out the way you did. Both of you Siamese twins have been doing it for 17 years and counting.
 
Last edited:

lfigueroa

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
OK, so if you didn't understand my analogy, maybe others didn't either. So I will explain.

The two player initially are equal. They are , say, of average intelligence. The "tools" they have in their bag are:

(1) Driver --This is their knowledge about pool (things they can explain)
(2) 4-iron -- This is their muscle memory and physical skill
(3) pitching wedge-- This is their intuition about pool (things they "know" but can't explain)

The extra club is added reasoning ability (like suddenly gaining 10 IQ points). This is not gaining knowledge. It is gaining a greater ability to discern a pattern, greater ability to to infer rules and apply them to new situations, and greater ability to figure out cause and effect. These are things that every person of every level of intelligence does but that smarter people do better. My point is that suddenly being able to do these things better can't possibly be a take-away because you don't have to use this ability. It's like if you are communicating with somebody in English and you suddenly are given the ability to speak Russian. That can't possibly make your ability to communicate with the person worse. But depending on the person it could help your ability to communicate.


I was playing some 1pocket against a guy, whom I was giving a several ball spot to, and I leave him in a stone trap. No way out. So after looking at the table for awhile, the guy winds up and shoots a completely and totally goofy shot that goes bad BUT THEN after a few balls bounce off each other, a ball drops in his hole and he is straight in on another ball with natural shape for a third. A guy on the rail sitting next to me whispers, "Wow. I bet you didn't see that coming." And I just turned to him and said, "You cannot defend against stupid."

Lou Figueroa
 

KMRUNOUT

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
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
 

Tramp Steamer

One Pocket enthusiast.
Silver Member
I'd say about all the guys I play One Pocket with are reasonably intelligent. I'm the educated one with a handful of college credits. The rest have high schrool diplomas, except for one. He graduated from the equivalency academy, and says the reunions rock.
All-in-all, I'd say it's a mix. Pool players may be a little lower on the curve, but not much.
Try a poll and see what happens. :)
 
Last edited:
Top