The Talent Code

[lfigueroa]

That is EXACTLY what is meant. Trial and error = HAMB for some people.

No. HAMB just means you must put in the time.

You must do the roadwork, do the reps *with focus and concentrations to discern what is is happening each time you shoot.*

Something wrong with that?

Something wrong with an instructor telling you what to do, how to set up, how to pause, only to find out later that it was completely and totally wrong for you as an individual player?

Or do you hit a million balls, pay attention, and figure it out on your own rather than waste time going down a bad road?

Lou Figueroa

 

[Scott Lee]

Lou...I think almost everyone has the ability to figure out pretty quickly whether a "style" of teaching or learning works for them (or whether, or not, they "connect" with the instructor). I have always agreed that there are many ways to approach the goal. When we have professional players coming to us telling us that this process works for them too, as well as high level amateurs, it can't be all wrong. Of course those examples you cited had coaching. That is a major point of what we teach. Whether you believe it or not, we do not teach "cookie-cutter" style learning. It's all based around everyone as an individual. We are all built differently, think differently, learn differently, and process information differently. Consequently there is no "one size fits all"...which is apparently what guys like you and some others seem to believe about what we teach. If it works for someone...fine. If not, there are plenty of other ways to go about it. We have never, in 30+ years, said anything to the contrary.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

And what if what the instructor teaches you is bad for you as an individual player?

I mean: look at all the styles and setups of play out there. How do you know that what you are teaching any given player is the best route for them, personally? How do you know they are not a Cliff Joyner bent bridge arm; or Keither side arm; or Greenleaf side swarp; or Daulton side of the face; or Ortman spear stabber; or, Fischer snooker player ala cum pool player; or Cook up right style; or Hal down low, kinda a guy?

You don't.

The player will still need to find their own path. Some will be blessed and bound up the mountain. Others will toil. That's just he way it is -- you will still need to hit a million balls, spend 10,00 hours -- Tiger, Mozart, Bobby Fischer all did it. Think they didn't have coaching?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Lou...I think almost everyone has the ability to figure out pretty quickly whether a "style" of teaching or learning works for them (or whether, or not, they "connect" with the instructor). I have always agreed that there are many ways to approach the goal. When we have professional players coming to us telling us that this process works for them too, as well as high level amateurs, it can't be all wrong. Of course those examples you cited had coaching. That is a major point of what we teach. Whether you believe it or not, we do not teach "cookie-cutter" style learning. It's all based around everyone as an individual. We are all built differently, think differently, learn differently, and process information differently. Consequently there is no "one size fits all"...which is apparently what guys like you and some others seem to believe about what we teach. If it works for someone...fine. If not, there are plenty of other ways to go about it. We have never, in 30+ years, said anything to the contrary.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

No, I am not, and would never say, it is wrong for everyone.

But guys like you describe -- pro players and high level amateurs -- already know what they're looking for. The level of improvement and refinement they seek is completely and totally different than what the tyro or intermediate player is looking for and will listen to -- because they don't know any better.

You're not going to tell Cliff (or maybe you would) to straighten out his bridge arm. What you're going to tell Cliff is that you've watched old videos of him and notice his footwork is a bit different than it used to be in his glory days, or that he's using a slightly longer bridge nowadays, or that his grip wrist is pronated more than it used to be.

The new guys don't know what to believe.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JB Cases]

No. HAMB just means you must put in the time.

You must do the roadwork, do the reps *with focus and concentrations to discern what is is happening each time you shoot.*

Something wrong with that?

Something wrong with an instructor telling you what to do, how to set up, how to pause, only to find out later that it was completely and totally wrong for you as an individual player?

Or do you hit a million balls, pay attention, and figure it out on your own rather than waste time going down a bad road?

Lou Figueroa

That's why I said for "some" people. For others HAMB = putting in the time.

The only two ways you know a road is bad is to have an accurate and up to date map (i.e. a good coach) or to go down it and have to turn around.

There is nothing wrong with an instructor who doesn't give you what you need. Sometimes you have to explore the "bad" to find the good.

If you would read the book then you would understand this. Getting the wrong information also builds myelin in that it builds the pathways to quickly process input to determine what is "good" and what is "bad".

I am of course assuming that you have not read the book yet based on your responses. If you have then perhaps it's better to discuss which parts you don't agree with.

HAMB does equate to trial and error. Whether it's trial due to being coached or simply unscripted follow-your-whim discovery it's still TRY-ERR-MASTER.

That is what the book is about. A good coach becomes a good coach by virtue of trying-erring-mastering. Thus the combination of a good coach/instructor with a student willing to put in the time practicing DEEPLY is an important part of understanding how proficiency evolves in the brain.

The book opens with an example of a mediocre music student who works through a difficult piece in six minutes rather than the month it normally takes. Why? The book posits that it's because she is intently focused and that intensity drives myelin production which makes the neurons make faster connections. Thus each rep brings her understanding of the complexity to another level. Wheras if she simply "put in the time" without putting in the focus then it would take her a month to reach the same level of proficiency playing the same piece.

We don't know if there was an instructor who said or did something to spark that intensity. Maybe, maybe not but it's there and that sort of deep intense focused practice is what is important.

Thus a person CAN develop into a good player with an "unorthodox" style. Because as Dave Segal put it, "it's all about the balls going in the holes and it doesn't matter how they got there". The balls don't care if the person did an irish jig before they were struck. They only go where directed. So you take a Keith Mcready and toss him into a pool room with a bunch of stone-cold killers as a teenager where the only "instruction" is win or be broke then that kid is going to figure out how to get the balls to the holes. He is in what is a "hotbed" for nurturing and challenging and channeling desire. At that moment no one cares about the form if the goal is met. The score is kept by how much money is won in that situation. So myelin production is going crazy in that situation.

Now imagine if a little Keith Mcready with all that desire is paired up with an Efren Reyes as a coach/role model.

Oh wait, you have one, his name is Ronnie Alcano, world champion.

 

[JB Cases]

No, I am not, and would never say, it is wrong for everyone.

But guys like you describe -- pro players and high level amateurs -- already know what they're looking for. The level of improvement and refinement they seek is completely and totally different than what the tyro or intermediate player is looking for and will listen to -- because they don't know any better.

You're not going to tell Cliff (or maybe you would) to straighten out his bridge arm. What you're going to tell Cliff is that you've watched old videos of him and notice his footwork is a bit different than it used to be in his glory days, or that he's using a slightly longer bridge nowadays, or that his grip wrist is pronated more than it used to be.

The new guys don't know what to believe.

Lou Figueroa

That's why the same approach is not taken with everyone. That is the hallmark of a good coach.

But you'd be wrong if you don't think that good players don't seek instruction on the basics. Darren Appleton is a recent example of a top level player who at the top of his game went to a coach to fix his stroke. He said this in an interview.

Stevie Moore was already a world class player when he went to Stan.

And of course new guys don't know what to believe. That's why they are called "new" guys. So who should they believe? You? Why? Why should a new guy believe anything you have to say over a coach/instructor with 20 years of experience coaching thousands of players. Not trying to bust your balls, you can switch Lou F. out for any decent middle aged player in the pool room, why should the newbie "believe" that guy versus a professional coach?

The point is that everyone has to start somewhere. Regardless of what they believe they have to begin. And once begun they have to approach the task with intense focus to build the neural pathways so that they can be able to discern the BS from the fertilizer.

There is a HUGE difference in a person who says, I tried that for a week and really got into it and now I know why it doesn't work and the person who says I ain't trying that because Bob says it's bullshit.

The first guy LEARNED. Even if he drops the technique he still learned valuable lessons about himself and his game. The second guy didn't learn anything and won't learn anything.

 

[chefjeff]

No. HAMB just means you must put in the time.

You must do the roadwork, do the reps *with focus and concentrations to discern what is is happening each time you shoot.*

Something wrong with that?

Something wrong with an instructor telling you what to do, how to set up, how to pause, only to find out later that it was completely and totally wrong for you as an individual player?

Or do you hit a million balls, pay attention, and figure it out on your own rather than waste time going down a bad road?

Lou Figueroa

Why not both things?

You can't know that without trying it, either. So try it! Evalutate it, do it again and again.

It takes work...both in the number of reps and how those are done and what reps you're doing and re-doing and why and when. It takes work and effort and thought and discipline over a long time period.

Everything in life that means anything involves this process, doesn't it? I don't understand why the arguments here?

Jeff Livingston

 

[lfigueroa]

That's why I said for "some" people. For others HAMB = putting in the time.

The only two ways you know a road is bad is to have an accurate and up to date map (i.e. a good coach) or to go down it and have to turn around.

There is nothing wrong with an instructor who doesn't give you what you need. Sometimes you have to explore the "bad" to find the good.

If you would read the book then you would understand this. Getting the wrong information also builds myelin in that it builds the pathways to quickly process input to determine what is "good" and what is "bad".

I am of course assuming that you have not read the book yet based on your responses. If you have then perhaps it's better to discuss which parts you don't agree with.

HAMB does equate to trial and error. Whether it's trial due to being coached or simply unscripted follow-your-whim discovery it's still TRY-ERR-MASTER.

That is what the book is about. A good coach becomes a good coach by virtue of trying-erring-mastering. Thus the combination of a good coach/instructor with a student willing to put in the time practicing DEEPLY is an important part of understanding how proficiency evolves in the brain.

The book opens with an example of a mediocre music student who works through a difficult piece in six minutes rather than the month it normally takes. Why? The book posits that it's because she is intently focused and that intensity drives myelin production which makes the neurons make faster connections. Thus each rep brings her understanding of the complexity to another level. Wheras if she simply "put in the time" without putting in the focus then it would take her a month to reach the same level of proficiency playing the same piece.

We don't know if there was an instructor who said or did something to spark that intensity. Maybe, maybe not but it's there and that sort of deep intense focused practice is what is important.

Thus a person CAN develop into a good player with an "unorthodox" style. Because as Dave Segal put it, "it's all about the balls going in the holes and it doesn't matter how they got there". The balls don't care if the person did an irish jig before they were struck. They only go where directed. So you take a Keith Mcready and toss him into a pool room with a bunch of stone-cold killers as a teenager where the only "instruction" is win or be broke then that kid is going to figure out how to get the balls to the holes. He is in what is a "hotbed" for nurturing and challenging and channeling desire. At that moment no one cares about the form if the goal is met. The score is kept by how much money is won in that situation. So myelin production is going crazy in that situation.

Now imagine if a little Keith Mcready with all that desire is paired up with an Efren Reyes as a coach/role model.

Oh wait, you have one, his name is Ronnie Alcano, world champion.

Not all maps are created equally. Some are guides to dead ends. I personally believe that if an instructor has traveled the try-err-master path they should have, at least at one time, performed themselves at a very high level. But that is not the case for many instructors. I'm not saying all instructors, just a lot of them. I know that when I travel to some of these tournaments and look at the players chart I rarely, if ever, see the names of guys who teach. You don't see them in tournaments, you don't hear about them matching up, you don't know if they ever did anything other than hang out a shingle.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

That's why the same approach is not taken with everyone. That is the hallmark of a good coach.

But you'd be wrong if you don't think that good players don't seek instruction on the basics. Darren Appleton is a recent example of a top level player who at the top of his game went to a coach to fix his stroke. He said this in an interview.

Stevie Moore was already a world class player when he went to Stan.

And of course new guys don't know what to believe. That's why they are called "new" guys. So who should they believe? You? Why? Why should a new guy believe anything you have to say over a coach/instructor with 20 years of experience coaching thousands of players. Not trying to bust your balls, you can switch Lou F. out for any decent middle aged player in the pool room, why should the newbie "believe" that guy versus a professional coach?

The point is that everyone has to start somewhere. Regardless of what they believe they have to begin. And once begun they have to approach the task with intense focus to build the neural pathways so that they can be able to discern the BS from the fertilizer.

There is a HUGE difference in a person who says, I tried that for a week and really got into it and now I know why it doesn't work and the person who says I ain't trying that because Bob says it's bullshit.

The first guy LEARNED. Even if he drops the technique he still learned valuable lessons about himself and his game. The second guy didn't learn anything and won't learn anything.

I didn't say the top guys didn't occasionally get coaching. And as I said: the top level guys know what they're looking for -- perhaps that's why they are getting "coaching" vs "instruction."

But as far as most instructors go in terms of the average player, I don't know how much individualization you're going to get. I mean, if you go to say an SPF class, is not the entire group of students going to be doing that by the end of the day? Or is each student going to be spoken to, evaluated, and maybe taught something else?

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Why not both things?

You can't know that without trying it, either. So try it! Evalutate it, do it again and again.

It takes work...both in the number of reps and how those are done and what reps you're doing and re-doing and why and when. It takes work and effort and thought and discipline over a long time period.

Everything in life that means anything involves this process, doesn't it? I don't understand why the arguments here?

Jeff Livingston

I don't think there's anything wrong with both things. But there always seems to be this subtext, if not outright claim, that if you go with an instructor you'll only have to put in 5,000 vs the 10,000 hours, or hit 500,000 balls vs the 1,000,000. You will still have to put in the time and do the reps.

Lou Figueroa

 

[JarnoV]

I don't think there's anything wrong with both things. But there always seems to be this subtext, if not outright claim, that if you go with an instructor you'll only have to put in 5,000 vs the 10,000 hours, or hit 500,000 balls vs the 1,000,000. You will still have to put in the time and do the reps.

To set the record straight, the "10,000 hour rule" originated from expertise studies from the likes of K. Anders Ericsson and they concluded that one crucial aspect of the 10 year / 10,000 hour journey was indeed high quality practice with the aid of coaching. These researchers view coaching as an essential part of most experts' practice.

Furthermore, those 10,000 hours are specifically disciplined, focused practice. This kind of activity is mostly hard and requires a lot of physical and mental effort. While the performer might enjoy practicing at some level, this type of practice is not what you would call 'fun'.

 

[chefjeff]

I don't think there's anything wrong with both things. But there always seems to be this subtext, if not outright claim, that if you go with an instructor you'll only have to put in 5,000 vs the 10,000 hours, or hit 500,000 balls vs the 1,000,000. You will still have to put in the time and do the reps.

Lou Figueroa

I agree that the time factor HAS TO BE HAD.

I started a thread long ago about Malcolm Gladwell's (is that right?) book, The Outliers where he shows that to be true. There are no shortcuts, but there are better techniques that make the job easier.

But doing it with purpose and with constant correction is more effective, I'd think, just based on common sense and 50 years of playing experience.

Jeff Livingston

 

[pt109]

Thanx for this thread, Jeff
I've got it on subscribe and have showed it to a bunch of people.
Everyone was impressed.
...I've got Gladwell's books also...very informative

and I think a combination of coaching and hitting balls with INTENT for
those 10,000 hours can take you to a higher level than just HAMB....
..a lot of HAMB guys think they'll get good by osmosis....
...their body will, but not necessarily their mind.
I've seen it on a golf course, people GROOVING their mistakes

 

[JB Cases]

Not all maps are created equally. Some are guides to dead ends. I personally believe that if an instructor has traveled the try-err-master path they should have, at least at one time, performed themselves at a very high level. But that is not the case for many instructors. I'm not saying all instructors, just a lot of them. I know that when I travel to some of these tournaments and look at the players chart I rarely, if ever, see the names of guys who teach. You don't see them in tournaments, you don't hear about them matching up, you don't know if they ever did anything other than hang out a shingle.

Lou Figueroa

Fair enough. But perhaps they are busy teaching while you are busy playing.

Didn't you get on Geno's ass for a bit? I haven't really followed him nor your comments about him but I got the gist of you putting him down in some manner. But it seems as if Geno gets in tournaments and does pretty good against good players. So does he get a pass to teach since he proved he can do?

Not all good coaches have to have been good players. Sometimes a person excels at being a top level analyst. They get good at seeing things that others can't and figuring out how to connect to each student the way they need to.

 

[Neil]

..............

 

[lfigueroa]

To set the record straight, the "10,000 hour rule" originated from expertise studies from the likes of K. Anders Ericsson and they concluded that one crucial aspect of the 10 year / 10,000 hour journey was indeed high quality practice with the aid of coaching. These researchers view coaching as an essential part of most experts' practice.

Furthermore, those 10,000 hours are specifically disciplined, focused practice. This kind of activity is mostly hard and requires a lot of physical and mental effort. While the performer might enjoy practicing at some level, this type of practice is not what you would call 'fun'.

Yes, I'm familiar with Ericsson. And I know about deliberate practice not being fun, and some of his other concepts, like the role of memory, and the multiplier effect -- that the more you practice the more you train yourself to be able to sustain more practice.

I also know a bit about how he viewed the role of instructors and coaches. But, IMO, part of the problem is that in pool -- unlike music, chess, or even other sports -- we lag far behind in the quality of instruction that is available. We don't have concerto masters, or folks that have won international competitions, or who have played Carnegie Hall teaching pool. I guess you could say some is better than none. I just believe that potential pool students should be especially wary. With the wrong instructor, that 10,000 hours could turn into 20,000.

Lou Figueroa

 

[lfigueroa]

Fair enough. But perhaps they are busy teaching while you are busy playing.

Didn't you get on Geno's ass for a bit? I haven't really followed him nor your comments about him but I got the gist of you putting him down in some manner. But it seems as if Geno gets in tournaments and does pretty good against good players. So does he get a pass to teach since he proved he can do?

Not all good coaches have to have been good players. Sometimes a person excels at being a top level analyst. They get good at seeing things that others can't and figuring out how to connect to each student the way they need to.

I don't see how, at pool, you can teach without being able to do and do well, either presently or in the past. And I don't see a lot of evidence of that level expertise in the pool instructor cadre. That's all.

Lou Figueroa

 

[sfleinen]

Fair enough. But perhaps they are busy teaching while you are busy playing.

Didn't you get on Geno's ass for a bit? I haven't really followed him nor your comments about him but I got the gist of you putting him down in some manner. But it seems as if Geno gets in tournaments and does pretty good against good players. So does he get a pass to teach since he proved he can do?

Not all good coaches have to have been good players. Sometimes a person excels at being a top level analyst. They get good at seeing things that others can't and figuring out how to connect to each student the way they need to.

John:

I don't have a "horse" in this race, other than being a fan of any material that deals with the human mind -- the inner workings. I'm going to purchase my copy of The Talent Code today, based on yours and others' reviews of it.

Concerning Geno-marketing-machino, if I recall correctly (Lou, correct me if I'm wrong), not only Lou, but many people -- including myself -- got on Geno about his parasitic, opportunistic, loaded-bait marketing on these forums, without (at the time) having purchase either a club membership or a banner ad. Geno's since purchased a club membership, but no banner ad, and still engages in the parasitic marketing. For example, in a thread about, oh, let's say, stroke mechanics, he'll come in there with how "the eyes have to be in the correct place" and proceed to shamelessly plug his product. In a thread about cues, he'll come in there and say how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" to use that cue, with same shameless marketing. In a thread about how so-and-so matches up with so-and-so, he'll come in there and find a way to shoehorn how the "eyes have to be in the correct place" for so-and-so to beat so-and-so. You get the idea. It has nothing to do with Geno's playing ability related to his teaching ability, but rather his marketing practices. Completely separate problem from what Lou's getting at with instructors who've "never been there" (playing ability-/accomplishment-wise).

Personally, I'm on the fence about the instructors-who've-never-been-there issue. While an instructor who *has* been there will make me sit up in my chair and take notice, it's not a mandatory thing for me. I do believe in coaches, who may not be able to execute to the same level as the person they're coaching, but are EXCELLENT analysts, and are able to offer alternatives to the player, that the player him/herself might never have thought of. It's that "you can't see yourself from within yourself" thing -- outside eyes have tremendous value. I'm a firm believer in that. And I believe so are the European players, many of which have such coaches, and attribute much of their consistent success to having a coach.

Anyway, that's my scrappy lint-covered $0.02 (that I dug out of my pocket) on this issue.

-Sean

 

[JB Cases]

I didn't say the top guys didn't occasionally get coaching. And as I said: the top level guys know what they're looking for -- perhaps that's why they are getting "coaching" vs "instruction."

But as far as most instructors go in terms of the average player, I don't know how much individualization you're going to get. I mean, if you go to say an SPF class, is not the entire group of students going to be doing that by the end of the day? Or is each student going to be spoken to, evaluated, and maybe taught something else?

Lou Figueroa

Well part of the book is about hotbeds of talent. One of the examples is a tennis school in Russia where the students spend all day imitating the style of other players. Without a ball. They practice doing the same swing style, same footwork, same movements.

Perhaps SPF is a good thing to teach a group and then with that as the baseline the individuals will tweak it to suit themselves.

Another part of the book is that good coaches are able to coach each person in a group setting where all are doing the same thing by tailoring their comments to each person's needs. So I can only imagine that an SPF class also has the instructors doing a similar type of individual commenting based on what they see that each person needs.

I am NOT saying that SPF is the best and only way to play. Again I have not really followed all the discussions on it. All I am saying is that good coaches have also put in the time to become good coaches and if some of them have decided that SPF is a good basic foundation to teach from then I don't see anything wrong with that approach. Obviously success depends on the success of the students. So if the instruction leads to better performances, in league, in tournaments, in gambling then what more needs to be said? If it doesn't lead to better performance then testimonials drop off, word of mouth takes the product off the menu and that's that.

Regarding top level players knowing what they are looking for....I can't really speak for top-level players since I have never been one. I know that when I go looking for something as a leather worker then I have a pretty good idea what skills I am lacking and need improvement on. I would tend to agree that top players should be much more sensitive to where they are in their game than the average banger. Just as a race car driver is much more attuned to what the car is doing than the average driver is with their car. I am not even sure really what the point is here regarding top players. In the book there is a story about how a small time coach at a junior college who is considered to be someone who can connect with and channel big time talent. Tom Martinez. I am sure you can google him.

Get the book. It's better to discuss it rather than the pros/cons of any particular method. The book clearly explains that your brain does not care whether you are learning chess or learning to play pool. It's the WAY you practice and the input you get that determines how good you will become.

 

[lfigueroa]

Same old tired rhetoric. This topic has been talked about many times on here. You stating it again doesn't give your thoughts any more credence than in the past. We "get it" Lou, you and a few others think instructors are a waste of money. Despite the countless number of posts on this forum stating otherwise from those that have received instruction. Give it a rest already. Find a tree to chop down that actually has some merit to it.

I don't think instructors are a waste of money. I think some instructors are a waste of money.

I think the guys that compete or have competed and performed at the highest levels are worth money. I think at pool you need to have "done" to know what to teach.

There are too many "instructors" that do not and have never "done."

Lou Figueroa

 

[JarnoV]

I also know a bit about how he viewed the role of instructors and coaches. But, IMO, part of the problem is that in pool -- unlike music, chess, or even other sports -- we lag far behind in the quality of instruction that is available. We don't have concerto masters, or folks that have won international competitions, or who have played Carnegie Hall teaching pool. I guess you could say some is better than none. I just believe that potential pool students should be especially wary. With the wrong instructor, that 10,000 hours could turn into 20,000.

OK, cool. I think we are on the same map.

And I agree with what you said.

I just wanted to make sure that readers who are not familiar with the original studies would not get the impression that this legendary 10,000 hour rule means 10,000 hours of sloppy, non-determined practice. The most important insight of their research was that it seems to take much time regardless of the supposed talent of the player.