We'll have to agree to disagree.
I think a lot of you are overestimating how hard it is to play at a pro level.
Once again, PLAY AT A PRO LEVEL. Not be a pro. HUGE difference.
Now the John vs. Lou poll removed
- Thread starter itsfroze
- Start date
We'll have to agree to disagree.
I think a lot of you are overestimating how hard it is to play at a pro level.
Once again, PLAY AT A PRO LEVEL. Not be a pro. HUGE difference.
I knew a kid from Michigan called Rick Grazyk, in six months this kid played better than 99% of the players on AZ and in a year was one of the top players in Michigan and played at a Pro level. He hated to practice and had the worse attitude I had ever seen. If he would of dedicated himself to pool he would of been one of the greatest ever. He had natural talent but no discipline. I am certain if I played pool everyday for the rest of my life I wouldn't be able to play as well as he did after six months of picking up a cue.
For people to not believe or understand that some people have a natural talent for pool is funny to me, you can see there are just naturals at just about any sport.
For people to not believe or understand that some people have a natural talent for pool is funny to me, you can see there are just naturals at just about any sport.
To be one of the top players in the world you would need a lot of natural talent along with a lot of hard work.
To be a great player you could have less natural talent than a top player but put in the hard work or a lot of natural talent but not work hard at it.
If you have average to just above average talent you can become very good with the hard work.
If you have below average talent even with hard work you will not reach the higher levels.
If Lou and John both fall into the category of above average talent then the hard work will go a long way to determining the better player.
Other factors can play a part also: experience, heart, luck, having a good or bad day, health, rest, willingness to learn etc.
I have to lean towards John based on his open mind to learning. I have learned a great deal from playing or watching great players and observing the systems of aiming they use and implementing them into my game. It is obvious to me that some pro's use no aiming system because they just have the natural ability and experience to hit the ball in the right spot with the right speed. Lou does not fall into this category so his close-mindedness could come back to haunt him under a pressure situation.
To be a great player you could have less natural talent than a top player but put in the hard work or a lot of natural talent but not work hard at it.
If you have average to just above average talent you can become very good with the hard work.
If you have below average talent even with hard work you will not reach the higher levels.
If Lou and John both fall into the category of above average talent then the hard work will go a long way to determining the better player.
Other factors can play a part also: experience, heart, luck, having a good or bad day, health, rest, willingness to learn etc.
I have to lean towards John based on his open mind to learning. I have learned a great deal from playing or watching great players and observing the systems of aiming they use and implementing them into my game. It is obvious to me that some pro's use no aiming system because they just have the natural ability and experience to hit the ball in the right spot with the right speed. Lou does not fall into this category so his close-mindedness could come back to haunt him under a pressure situation.
Last edited:
I do agree that everyone does have a skill ceiling, or better yet, a skill capacity that they may perform at. I say capacity to offer a sort of resolution to what is being pranced around here in this thread. Sure, you can learn every trick in the book, but putting it all together and making fluid relative solutions to the game environment presently at-hand is entirely a horse of a different color.
Think of it as Pool IQ or sheer IQ. Intelligence Quotient does not necessarily measure how much you know (point of fact, there is the assumption that you do know the basics), but primarily how efficiently one employs the knowledge they posses in order to arrive at solutions to increasingly complex problems. Again, it is about ones capacity to draw upon what they know and put it to gainful use.
This, I think is a good perspective to work from. If not... I will continue to read and play with my belly-button intermittently.
Regards,
Lesh
Think of it as Pool IQ or sheer IQ. Intelligence Quotient does not necessarily measure how much you know (point of fact, there is the assumption that you do know the basics), but primarily how efficiently one employs the knowledge they posses in order to arrive at solutions to increasingly complex problems. Again, it is about ones capacity to draw upon what they know and put it to gainful use.
This, I think is a good perspective to work from. If not... I will continue to read and play with my belly-button intermittently.
Regards,
Lesh
Last edited:
If we are talking champion as the few who consistently wins championships not the player who wins once in a while then I agree. That extra spark to be the best of the best separates world class from champion class.
But world class skill is well within reach by almost anyone who trains for it. There have been many cases of world class players in all sports and other careers who were built and who hated it. These were players who were pushed by their parents rather than doing it for the love of the game.
I think this is a gray area. The great (and sometimes frustrating) thing about pool is there are more different levels of defined ability (whether it is league play, tournaments, rankings, or other categories) vs other games and sports. Also, to prove this would also be difficult as you would need an appropriate sample size (just like proving any hypothesis), as well as all the variables and results required for the hypothesis to be proven defined ahead of time. That in itself would be difficult as everybody has their own definitions of this.
I would like to see a thread where 5-10 people are taken under a pros wing for one full year to test this. The pro would be living in the area of the students and the results would be documented via video/drill tests etc. The pro would have to be compensated for a full year of course monetary wise and the students would need 24/7 access to a pool table.
My guess is all the students would improve to various degrees, but the likeliness of one of them hitting a huge speed (would have to be defined as what actually "huge" speed means) in a year (with the assumption they are all beginners), is very low...but it would still be interesting to watch the progress and reports.
CJ once mentioned he could do what you are also saying JB, but he never followed through after many people told him they would volunteer for this test (myself included)...I live in Iowa though and he probably wanted a student in Texas....still, I would absolutely love to see this put to the test. Now 10 students is obviously lol sample size, but the documentation would be a great thread for pool in general (assuming all mud slinging would not happen). I also just think that some people have the natural ability and hard work to be able to get to the top defined level, and that very very few raw players can get to that top speed...doesn't mean they can't get good...but world class good is tough.
I've been thinking about this quite a bit as well. John has a background in thinking outside the box, as well as competitive, athletic competition. He is also inventive, tenacious and ferocious when it comes to competition.
If John keeps learning as he appears to be doing, it is most likely that he will make Lou crap on himself with the high dollar betting.
Lou said that he once got a phony, hundred dollar bill off of a well-known Russian pool player, so maybe I will be wrong about the him dogging the huge bet.
JoeyA
Please stop, you're making too much sense. This thread is dedicated to non-sense!
I think you're talking to the wall.
Well, as I have said dozens of times my opinion is based on science and studies. Sorry if I am so gullible as to read the studies and agree with their findings.
Anyway one thing I know for a fact, I am as good as Lou right now and in two months I will be much better. I don't have to be pro speed I just have to be good enough to beat him.
Off to yoga and one pocket lessons now.
On March 18th I will have approximately 20k extra in cash if anyone wants to invest on the other side of this. I doubt that any of you will want to but if you are still convinced that I am just a stone cold sucker with his nose open who couldn't possibly learn anything in four months of solid practice - my window is open.
I would like to see this as well. But you can already see it to some degree by looking at the relationships of great players who cited that they were mentored by other great players. Mosconi reported a huge leap in his game after spending six months on the road playing Greenleaf every night and that was one where Greenleaf wasn't even teaching Mosconi anything - they were simply competing every day in exhibitions.
Also, where people ARE definitely different is in desire. My prediction is that IF you somehow had ten people who all had incredible desire and they were all of average intelligence and physically capable then all ten of them would reach world class speed.
But more likely is you would get ten people who all start out with the same instruction but some of them will practice harder and will show more desire than others, these players would then get extra instruction and attention. They would be the ones that would have to be pried from the pool table every night while the others could not wait for practice to be over.
So while all of them might end up being very good players and possibly technically world class only a few of them might have the inner drive to become even greater.
One thing I would bet SUPER HIGH on. And I mean I would bet my life on it.
If you had ten players complete a year with CJ and then you sent those players to different places where no one knew them and they didn't reveal their backgrounds two things would happen in short order.
#1. each one of them would be a top ranked player in their area.
#2. each one would be considered a naturally gifted player if an opinion about their skill was asked for of the other players in the area.
But more likely is you would get ten people who all start out with the same instruction but some of them will practice harder and will show more desire than others, these players would then get extra instruction and attention. They would be the ones that would have to be pried from the pool table every night while the others could not wait for practice to be over.
So while all of them might end up being very good players and possibly technically world class only a few of them might have the inner drive to become even greater.
One thing I would bet SUPER HIGH on. And I mean I would bet my life on it.
If you had ten players complete a year with CJ and then you sent those players to different places where no one knew them and they didn't reveal their backgrounds two things would happen in short order.
#1. each one of them would be a top ranked player in their area.
#2. each one would be considered a naturally gifted player if an opinion about their skill was asked for of the other players in the area.
I don't know if you can take 10 players with average ability and make them world class players. Guess it depends on what average is. Not only do they have to put the same practice time in just for making shots. They have to put in so much more for cue ball control. How to understand layouts, jumping, kicking, breaking and playing stiff safes. All which comes naturally to top players. I don't know about aiming systems but I do think they can help. Same with kicking and banking systems. However they are all systems that is just natural to top players. These 10 players would have to master everything that comes natural to others. Guess it could be done but it sure would be hard.
There is one thing missing from this equation, that may be the single most important factor in the making of a champion. I call it HEART! Try to quantify that. I defy anyone to tell me how to teach a player to have a strong heart, if he doesn't already have one. "Deliberate Practice" or anything else can't make a man grow balls! 
To add to this, in my 40+ years of experience ALL the champions I've seen have been able to play under pressure. This point was touched on here in an earlier post but I can't stress it enough. Probably the winner of this match will be decided by who has the most heart. That's my opinion anyway.
To add to this, in my 40+ years of experience ALL the champions I've seen have been able to play under pressure. This point was touched on here in an earlier post but I can't stress it enough. Probably the winner of this match will be decided by who has the most heart. That's my opinion anyway.
Last edited:
Jerry Forsyth
Well-known member
OK, so what is the line that this match actually takes place? I know, I know, both guys will come in here and say "I'll be there!". But being there does not a match make. I have it at less than even money that the match ever occurs at the SBE. For whatever reason.
No, I am not taking bets. I only bet on things where I have some control of the outcome. Betting on the rail is a great way to have two brothers walk out with your money.
No, I am not taking bets. I only bet on things where I have some control of the outcome. Betting on the rail is a great way to have two brothers walk out with your money.
Jerry Forsyth
Well-known member
The money has been posted? I guess I missed that. Who is holding the funds? I need a loan.
Mike Page, about as trustworthy as you can get for something like this.
The only exception is death, too. That's a pretty good stipulation. They will be there, in sickness and in health. I am pumped for this match.