Pool Is One Of The Hardest Games

[JB Cases]

I guess that's why the experts keep paying huge dollars in stud fees for the right to a vial of jism from the top champions huh? You conveniently forgot the other part of that equation. While most of the offspring of champions don't become champions, most of the champions are the offspring of champions.

Desire is great but it simply can't overcome LOFT (lack of f'ing talent). You can go out every day from the time you walk and run sprints but if you weren't genetically blessed with enough fast twitch muscles, you'll never compete in the Olympics in the 100M dash. You can shoot hoops, dribble, run sprints, etc. all day long for your entire life but if your 5'5" Parents provide you with a 5'5" body, you're not playing in the NBA.

You talk about this desire thing all the time, so what is it you desire so much John? What are you world class at? Seems like, since you're convinced that desire is pretty much all it takes, either you're world class at something or you're cursed with apathy. So which is it?

BECAUSE racehorse are CHOSEN from stock bred from champions. So obviously any horses that become champions will have had a champion pedigree. People aren't going to persia to capture wild stallions to enter into the Kentucky Derby. The horses are weeded through to find the ones that are willing to run and those horses are intensively trained to run. Unlike the movies they don't go from plowhorse to triple crown winner.

Yes, in ANIMALS other than humans, if you selectively breed for traits then you get those physical traits. You don't get the psychological ones necessarily. However it's certainly possible to attempt to breed for psychological ones. This experiment was done in Russia with foxes to try and determine how long it would take to breed domesticated foxes. The experiment was simple, fox pups that bared their teeth at humans were killed and fox pups that were friendly and curious were bred. In short order the foxes were coming out like dogs, friendly with droopy ears.

And of course folks go the other way and breed pitbulls that are exceptionally game and roosters for fighting etc....

And this all may be possible in humans as well. When you're ready to set up you're own human breeding farms to breed for traits let us know......Shane is probably available for a stud fee. But for now it's just guessing to assume that one person is born with a "sports gene" while another is not, especially if the subject is some random person who just happens to be successful.

As the other old saying goes success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. And so far that's proving more true than any other theory according to the studies.

Even the brilliant Nikola Tesla who said his ideas just came to him had a thorough grounding in engineering and a lab to test and refine his designs. He took the 1% inspiration and put 99% perspiration behind it.

 

[nobcitypool]

I'm totally with you on actual athletic sports. It has more to do with genetics though. Look at Lebron James. Genetically he's built to be an athlete. He works extremely hard on his game, but he'd still be a top 10 player if he didn't.

All that aside, the argument is about pool players. I would just like to know exactly what a "natural" pool player has that can't be learned with dedicated practice.

The argument, along the way, has expanded past pool players. However, how many great pool players have you seen wearing glasses?

At a younger age, I took some lessons and played racquetball with a lady who for several years fluctuated between the number 1 to 3 ranking in the world. Prior to that, she was a very high level tennis player. Without having ever picked up a club, within a year, she became a single digit handicap golfer. If you saw her in street clothes or even in gym clothes, there was nothing spectacularly athletic in her appearance. However, if you spent some time around her, there was just something special that was impossible to put a precise finger on. Yes, she had incredible desire. Great fast twitch muscles. Very intelligent. Super human focus. Exceptional coordination. Very disciplined. It was all those things that made her exceptional at nearly anything she decided to take on.

It would be interesting to conduct a study of a group of professional pool players to determine if there are some common characteristics that separate them from the rest. I would bet a fair amount of money they would find there is more to it than simply desire. Were I to guess how they compare against the average pool player, I'd say it is eyesight, hand to eye coordination, better than average at spatial relationships. I would agree that desire would also be a major factor ... but not the only factor.

 

[JB Cases]

5 out of 9 and I took less than 5 minutes. I'd bet money if I took 1/2 hour I could get at least 8 out of 9. 2 or 3 were fairly obvious, 3 or 4 took a little thinking and 3 weren't obvious at all as I was looking at them. I'd have to take a fair amount of time to assemble them all in my mind to figure out which one. Tough test. I believe a lot of people couldn't get 1 out of 9 if you took guesswork out of the equation (they'd have to explain how they arrived at their answer instead of just picking multiple choice). With 4 choices on each question, simple statistics tell you pure guesswork should average 2 to 3 correct answers.

also five min and I thought I had 8 right for sure.

 

[nobcitypool]

BECAUSE racehorse are CHOSEN from stock bred from champions. So obviously any horses that become champions will have had a champion pedigree. People aren't going to persia to capture wild stallions to enter into the Kentucky Derby. The horses are weeded through to find the ones that are willing to run and those horses are intensively trained to run. Unlike the movies they don't go from plowhorse to triple crown winner.

Yes, in ANIMALS other than humans, if you selectively breed for traits then you get those physical traits. You don't get the psychological ones necessarily. However it's certainly possible to attempt to breed for psychological ones. This experiment was done in Russia with foxes to try and determine how long it would take to breed domesticated foxes. The experiment was simple, fox pups that bared their teeth at humans were killed and fox pups that were friendly and curious were bred. In short order the foxes were coming out like dogs, friendly with droopy ears.

And of course folks go the other way and breed pitbulls that are exceptionally game and roosters for fighting etc....

And this all may be possible in humans as well. When you're ready to set up you're own human breeding farms to breed for traits let us know......Shane is probably available for a stud fee. But for now it's just guessing to assume that one person is born with a "sports gene" while another is not, especially if the subject is some random person who just happens to be successful.

As the other old saying goes success is 99% perspiration and 1% inspiration. And so far that's proving more true than any other theory according to the studies.

Even the brilliant Nikola Tesla who said his ideas just came to him had a thorough grounding in engineering and a lab to test and refine his designs. He took the 1% inspiration and put 99% perspiration behind it.

You overlooked my question directed to you regarding what you're world class at John. Again, as convinced as you are that it is about desire, you must be world class at something.

 

[rubell]

Im special...:wink:

Nice!

Me too.

View attachment 314409

 

[nobcitypool]

The same situation exists in the human gene pool..You simply CANNOT take a John Barton, and breed him with a Rosie O'Donell, and expect to produce a Joe Montana, or an Efren Reyes !..(tho, you might get lucky and get an Earl Strickland )

Hilarious!!! Were that to happen, however, and the sport of Obnoxious Argumentative were formed, you would definitely have the genetically perfect specimen.

 

[JB Cases]

You overlooked my question directed to you regarding what you're world class at John. Again, as convinced as you are that it is about desire, you must be world class at something.

I am a world class case maker. The product we make is the best in the world and I worked very hard putting in a ton of hours and trial and error to make them that way.

That's my area of expertise and yet I am not ever satisfied with the product we are making.

 

[JB Cases]

I can find many of them not just one and not just one sport either ,,its simply a rediculas argument .. ask John Morra how many he's got in I can assure u its well past 10k
Everyone has a cap limit in everything they do ,, and if they tried achieving something after early 20s that cap limit is several notches down as the brain is already hard wired
Pool certainly would be the easiest to prove your theory since it has the least amount of physical restrictions but at the end of the day there are guys who practice as much as Shane that are not in his class


1

You can assure me? How? Did you follow John around and log his hours? Did you do the same for Shane? I am guessing no, you didn't. I am also going to guess that if someone DID then they might find out that Shane actually has more hours in than John. And PERHAPS those hours were also more intense.

I don't know, I never heard any other pro say they worked for 18 straight hours ONLY on the break. And that was just the longest session Shane could remember.

 

[nobcitypool]

I am a world class case maker. The product we make is the best in the world and I worked very hard putting in a ton of hours and trial and error to make them that way.

That's my area of expertise and yet I am not ever satisfied with the product we are making.

I think you make an excellent product that is also a great value. World class? I'm not trying to insult you but I don't believe that is a fair assessment. Obviously, that is just one opinion and you're certainly welcome to your own.

I would also point out, using that as an example in this debate is hardly relevant. If you lose to Lou in your one pocket match, does that mean he has more desire than you to win? It sure wouldn't seem that way reading all the posts, in fact, it doesn't even seem close.

 

[CJ Wiley]

playing that speed at a younger age

True, except unlike pool, there are actually naturals in music. People that can take to an instrument, and play beautifully in a short time with no formal instruction.

Nobody just picks up a cue and starts running out.

I could run 2 racks in a row on a 9' table when I was 8 years old......and I've heard of kids playing that speed at a younger age.

 

[JB Cases]

The argument, along the way, has expanded past pool players. However, how many great pool players have you seen wearing glasses?

Is this a serious question?

Recently, He Li Wen, World Championship runner up for one.

Many great players can't read a menu and have terrible vision. Many wear contacts.

In fact if excellent vision is a requirement then the pros that do have corrective lenses or whom have had laser surgery should be a huge advantage over those who do not have corrected vision. Having perfect eyesight is pretty much available to anyone on Earth these days unless a person has a situation that is not adjustable to perfect.

 

[nobcitypool]

Very serious. You pointed out one, runner up in one world championship. Maybe you can point out where I said NO world class pool players had less than excellent vision. And if corrective lenses or lasik surgery improve their vision to above average, how then does that prove your point? Further, how many world class players with serious astigmatism can you name? Perhaps by pure coincidence, none of those folks had enough desire. :scratchhead:

 

[JB Cases]

I think you make an excellent product that is also a great value. World class? I'm not trying to insult you but I don't believe that is a fair assessment. Obviously, that is just one opinion and you're certainly welcome to your own.

I would also point out, using that as an example in this debate is hardly relevant. If you lose to Lou in your one pocket match, does that mean he has more desire than you to win? It sure wouldn't seem that way reading all the posts, in fact, it doesn't even seem close.

My opinion is based on comparison with other similar products AND the judgement of master leather workers.

Again you cannot take a small sample size and make inferences from it. You can't use me and Lou as examples of anything because we don't represent the majority or the mean. We are two individuals who each have our own paths to whatever skill level we will be at when the match happens. If I lose then it will either be because Lou is better on that day, better overall, because he can control himself better and stay cool, or any number of factors, and if I win all the same reasons may apply the other direction. None of it means much in the context of this debate because you can't use two bangers as examples UNLESS you really charted the time and quality of practice they put in in their lifetime to compare their levels when they meet.

IF you had some sort of data that was fairly accurate THEN you could chart where a person should be at any given time and see how they should match up on paper.

As we all know though sometimes people play over their heads and IF I am the weaker player and Lou plays the best he can and doesn't give it away and I do manage to win then that certainly points to more desire on my part I think.

I will say this as pertains to the ACTUAL subject of the thread, one reason pool is one of the hardest sports to master, and I have learned this these past few months more than ever, is because amateurs are constantly trying to do things with the balls that are extremely tough or even physically impossible.

Which ties into an experiment that was done where pros were instructed to shoot ONLY the shots that amateurs directed them to. It was found that the pros could not execute a lot of the shots because they were too tough yet to the amateur those shot selections seemed perfectly reasonable. The amateurs simply did not have enough experience to know that the shots they thought would go actually were far tougher than they imagined them to be.

 

[one stroke]

OK I highlighted the part I am interested in... Let me guess.. Practice???

I would love to know what it takes to be a great pool player... Not a good one... Great as in world class... Something tells me you have zero clue same as 99.99999% of the pool players on here RJ especially... strike that... exponentially included... I'd say every good player is waiting with bait on their breath for the messiah... Pretty sure we are all gonna still be waiting....

If you have an answer that would rock but I don't think anyone who has not been there could even start to quantify the skill set...

You want a rude awakening? try this... http://psych.io/spatial/

I know most of you that don't get it will lie about your score or you will cheat and use more than your mind... but you will always know what it really was....

Chris

I got 1 no wonder I can't see patterns LOL. .. What I think it takes is a great deal of playing starting at young age with above average eye hand ability

1

 

[nobcitypool]

Which ties into an experiment that was done where pros were instructed to shoot ONLY the shots that amateurs directed them to. It was found that the pros could not execute a lot of the shots because they were too tough yet to the amateur those shot selections seemed perfectly reasonable. The amateurs simply did not have enough experience to know that the shots they thought would go actually were far tougher than they imagined them to be.

All debate aside, I believe that is invaluable information. :thumbup:

 

[CJ Wiley]

As long as you can see the edge and the center of the object ball

Very serious. You pointed out one, runner up in one world championship. Maybe you can point out where I said NO world class pool players had less than excellent vision. And if corrective lenses or lasik surgery improve their vision to above average, how then does that prove your point? Further, how many world class players with serious astigmatism can you name? Perhaps by pure coincidence, none of those folks had enough desire. :scratchhead:

Mike Lebron won the US OPEN at age 53 and had less than average vision. Wade Crane wore glasses when he won several major tournaments, and wore contact lenses the rest of the time.

As long as you can see the edge and the center of the object ball you can play championship speed.

 

[nobcitypool]

Mike Lebron won the US OPEN at age 53 and had less than average vision. Wade Crane wore glasses when he won several major tournaments, and wore contact lenses the rest of the time.

As long as you can see the edge and the center of the object ball you can play championship speed.

What's your eyesight CJ? Again, I never said there wouldn't be exceptions. Do you think if you took the top 50 professionals and tested their eyesight, when compared with the general public, it would be worse, average or better? I'd bet better.

 

[JB Cases]

duplicate post - sorry.

 

[rubell]

Completely agree.

I think the most difficult and influential part in pool is psychological one, after that it goes mechanical and sensory one and the eyesight is at the last place. I am leaving logical part aside.

CJ, what do you think is the most difficult part in pool? How would you rate difficulty of different aspects of the game?

Mike Lebron won the US OPEN at age 53 and had less than average vision. Wade Crane wore glasses when he won several major tournaments, and wore contact lenses the rest of the time.

As long as you can see the edge and the center of the object ball you can play championship speed.

 

[CJ Wiley]

It's more about the kinesthetic sense (feel/touch) than the visual one

What's your eyesight CJ? Again, I never said there wouldn't be exceptions. Do you think if you took the top 50 professionals and tested their eyesight, when compared with the general public, it would be worse, average or better? I'd bet better.

I'm not sure what my vision is, with age it's tougher to read things close up. I take some supplements every day that seem to work pretty well, I"ve even noticed improvements over time.

Earl has really good eye sight, but even he said he was having more trouble with {certain} long shots lately.

On average, I'd say Pro players are above average, although I don't think you need great eye sight to play at an exceptional level. Performance is more about the kinesthetic sense (feel/touch) than the visual one......like I mentioned it's vital to see the edge, the center of the object ball, and the cue ball "tip target"....anything other than that is "icing on the eye cake". :wink2: