Developing Expertise In Pool
- Thread starter Imac007
- Start date
I think the mind will correct, without being 'told' to do anything as long as you know the intent, and LOOK at the outcome. Don't judge, just see it (the result) and our minds can correct all problems.... as long as there is a core skill base there.
Personally I will always keep 'visioning' shots above all the other problem solving
methods. Getting the 'thinking' mind out of the way, is what "The Inner Game of
Tennis" is all about. Bounce/Hit or reading the letters is all about getting the
conscious mind out of the way. It's astounding how we can just look at a spot on
the table and without any direction, words, or calculating the CB falls on the exact
spot, or spotting a serve in tennis and bombing one to the dot.
The conscious mind is fantastic for a lot of things... practice, building core knowledge,
and myriad others... but the unconscious mind creates magic… like Fast Eddie said..
"you just know"
JMHO,
td
Context is so important in what we decide to do, why we decide to do it and how we go about doing it. The Inner Game thesis framed the inner dialogue in a somewhat negative light. I end up questioning everything because most generalities like that tend to only be true in certain contexts. The question to ask is, is inner dialogue always a bad thing? Now that we know that cognition is embodied, that it is what our body is telling our mind, is thought really bad? When it interferes with physical execution and assumes the role of critical judge, I think the answer is yes. The language of thought is the embodied information encoded in words and physiological/cognitive bundles we call emotions. Emotions can drive us through motivation but can be destructive to performance. Again the appropriate response in context is the key. When the thoughts (inner conversation) are outwardly focused on situational factors, contextual evaluation criteria and appropriate decision making, those are pro behaviors.
Gallwey by creating a self 1 & 2 at odds with one another and having the observer triumph over the evaluator (judgemental mind), unintentionally created an analogous duality. There is no real separation of the mind only roles assumed contextually. We are so much more than two roles, that in Gallwey’s time, were considered non-embodied, two separate mental realm realities. During that era the dual functioning fit a left brain, right brain theory.
Embracing the embodied information, the source of touch and feel, no matter how it presents itself in mind, seems apt input, in most contexts. Understanding the role of context and its place in generating options, providing evaluation criteria and leading to appropriate situational decision making, is a bigger picture. The inner player is so much more than two inner selves fighting for control. They are two slaves available to serve when the master within awakens.
Among the evaluation criteria, that emerge, a hierarchy of importance is established. Intentions, desires and consequences feed into that contextual decision complex. We must be willing to give the conscious mind its place too. It’s the harmony that leads to peak performance not constraining. Same with emotions, they are an engine that drives performance but harnessing that power and controlling it situationally is a difference that makes a difference.
Love the dialogue this whole thread has generated by the interplay. Thanks for your ideas. Any more?
Last edited:
Taking off the training wheels
In child developmental psychology the concept of negation is addressed. About the age of 2 children start to understand the concept of negation. Suddenly children trying on the word NO and its implications are called terrible 2’s. It really is about an awareness of the fact that when we create a category, a second category is automatically created, its opposite. So when we say expert, whatever doesn’t fit under that label is "not" expert. "Don’t spill that milk" requires imagining what "spill that milk" looks like then negating it. Oops! with a 2 year old. A golfer trying to ignore the water on the golf course suddenly finds his ball in it. Negation doesn’t work to avoid something, it draws focus and with it energy. It’s the elephant in the room trying not to see an elephant.
When we are developing motor skills there is a problem. A Russian neurophysiologist, Nikolai Bernstein, wrote about it. It is about "degrees of freedom’. The human body has so much dexterity that it is capable of performing a skill in a multitude of ways. Since many ways deal with different muscles, with different timing and levels of coordination, the body/mind needs to make choices. It isolates and uses specific muscles, joints and coordination while constraining or shutting down others. Simplifying and minimizing movement through constraint is the beginning learner’s way to improvement.
The problem when we bring it into consciousness is it can rear its ugly head as negation. "Don’t get up" is not the same thing as staying down. The constraints that we put on our body while learning and conceptualizing too often focus on what wasn’t chosen, the constraint the body chose, instead of the action chosen.
Removing the constraints is like "taking off the training wheels". When do we do that? When my body no longer needs the constraints because it know what works. Experts know what works. Letting the body execute just happens, if you let it. Could it be the difference that makes a difference at the stage many of us are at, in our development? At some time it needs to be, if our game is to progress. When do you finally trust and let go? Let go and find out. Can you ride or are you falling off?
This goes beyond physical constraints to the mental. Give yourself permission to miss, to fail. It allows you to commit. Trying not to worry about failure fails the negation test. You rarely learn from your successes. Letting yourself fail opens the door to success even farther.
It’s an opportunity to spread your wings. Enjoy the freedom, embrace it.
In child developmental psychology the concept of negation is addressed. About the age of 2 children start to understand the concept of negation. Suddenly children trying on the word NO and its implications are called terrible 2’s. It really is about an awareness of the fact that when we create a category, a second category is automatically created, its opposite. So when we say expert, whatever doesn’t fit under that label is "not" expert. "Don’t spill that milk" requires imagining what "spill that milk" looks like then negating it. Oops! with a 2 year old. A golfer trying to ignore the water on the golf course suddenly finds his ball in it. Negation doesn’t work to avoid something, it draws focus and with it energy. It’s the elephant in the room trying not to see an elephant.
When we are developing motor skills there is a problem. A Russian neurophysiologist, Nikolai Bernstein, wrote about it. It is about "degrees of freedom’. The human body has so much dexterity that it is capable of performing a skill in a multitude of ways. Since many ways deal with different muscles, with different timing and levels of coordination, the body/mind needs to make choices. It isolates and uses specific muscles, joints and coordination while constraining or shutting down others. Simplifying and minimizing movement through constraint is the beginning learner’s way to improvement.
The problem when we bring it into consciousness is it can rear its ugly head as negation. "Don’t get up" is not the same thing as staying down. The constraints that we put on our body while learning and conceptualizing too often focus on what wasn’t chosen, the constraint the body chose, instead of the action chosen.
Removing the constraints is like "taking off the training wheels". When do we do that? When my body no longer needs the constraints because it know what works. Experts know what works. Letting the body execute just happens, if you let it. Could it be the difference that makes a difference at the stage many of us are at, in our development? At some time it needs to be, if our game is to progress. When do you finally trust and let go? Let go and find out. Can you ride or are you falling off?
This goes beyond physical constraints to the mental. Give yourself permission to miss, to fail. It allows you to commit. Trying not to worry about failure fails the negation test. You rarely learn from your successes. Letting yourself fail opens the door to success even farther.
It’s an opportunity to spread your wings. Enjoy the freedom, embrace it.
Last edited:
ones and zeroes
Seems we are getting into areas that are going to be confusing to those that take things literally. Many believe in "muscle memory" as in muscles themselves developing memory. The body seems to be given thinking ability in some of these posts.
In a digital control system ones and zeroes, on and off, make the world go round. We usually use base sixteen just to get the numbers down to size when writing them but in the computer and digital controls the signals are binary.
The body is much the same, the signals may even be binary. That is all we get from the nerves, a raw signal that means nothing at all until it is translated in the brain. Sometimes due to birth defect or injury the signals go to the wrong place and people can literally see music or hear colors for example! On a personal level, I had a surgery. Neither the injury or the surgery was near an area that was shooting a raw bolt of pain if I got some body parts slightly out of alignment. Since this was a nerve signal rather than real pain I do believe it was the greatest pain I could possibly feel! Major injuries didn't even come close.
Everything starts with nerve signals, everything involved in shooting a shot finishes with movement created by nerve signals. Our eyes don't see, they are no different then the sensor on a car engine. When they send a signal and it is processed, then we see.
Learning a physical act involves learning to receive and send finer and finer signals. We simplify the process because it would take volumes to explain all that takes place in one pool shot, much less some more complicated actions.
I agree with Grindz, often our best course is to let our unconscious know what needs doing and then get out of the way. I missed very few nights of play for ten years. After awhile I didn't really think about the spin I was applying, I looked at where I wanted the cue ball to finish and I hit the cue ball.
In my early days of playing shape I often hit the next object ball I wanted to shoot. That was because it was the last thing I looked at before the shot. When I learned to look at the spot on the table I wanted the cue ball to stop things got much much better. Got to do the groundwork to train the mind, then we have to get out of the way! Micro-management doesn't work well when we are already skilled at something or have skills that will translate.
Hu
Seems we are getting into areas that are going to be confusing to those that take things literally. Many believe in "muscle memory" as in muscles themselves developing memory. The body seems to be given thinking ability in some of these posts.
In a digital control system ones and zeroes, on and off, make the world go round. We usually use base sixteen just to get the numbers down to size when writing them but in the computer and digital controls the signals are binary.
The body is much the same, the signals may even be binary. That is all we get from the nerves, a raw signal that means nothing at all until it is translated in the brain. Sometimes due to birth defect or injury the signals go to the wrong place and people can literally see music or hear colors for example! On a personal level, I had a surgery. Neither the injury or the surgery was near an area that was shooting a raw bolt of pain if I got some body parts slightly out of alignment. Since this was a nerve signal rather than real pain I do believe it was the greatest pain I could possibly feel! Major injuries didn't even come close.
Everything starts with nerve signals, everything involved in shooting a shot finishes with movement created by nerve signals. Our eyes don't see, they are no different then the sensor on a car engine. When they send a signal and it is processed, then we see.
Learning a physical act involves learning to receive and send finer and finer signals. We simplify the process because it would take volumes to explain all that takes place in one pool shot, much less some more complicated actions.
I agree with Grindz, often our best course is to let our unconscious know what needs doing and then get out of the way. I missed very few nights of play for ten years. After awhile I didn't really think about the spin I was applying, I looked at where I wanted the cue ball to finish and I hit the cue ball.
In my early days of playing shape I often hit the next object ball I wanted to shoot. That was because it was the last thing I looked at before the shot. When I learned to look at the spot on the table I wanted the cue ball to stop things got much much better. Got to do the groundwork to train the mind, then we have to get out of the way! Micro-management doesn't work well when we are already skilled at something or have skills that will translate.
Hu
I don't think "muscle memory" is completely metaphorical. Just as muscles develop strength over time to perform practiced tasks, the brain and neural pathways controlling the muscles also become physically optimized to do them.
Here's an article about a specific way that happens:
pj
chgo
Last edited:
For some yes. But I've known and still know some great players that couldn't even spell "physics" or "geometry" if their bankroll depended on it. They have very little knowledge of the science behind the motion/action of billiard balls, but they have plenty of experience in knowing what happens if they do this or that. They just don't know why it happens, and as long as they get the results they expect there is no need to understand why it happens.
For others, however, understanding the why can open the door to a higher level of play.
Although there is a tendency to think about nerve signals = electric current. Our body’s molecular infrastructure will conduct the signal, however, the reality is that we are chemical soup; biochemistry. While neurons have been the focus of most narratives about the brain, the other half of the brain has become the focus in recent times. Glial cells outnumber neurons and discoveries so far show they are extremely important in moderating neuronal signals. They are the gatekeepers and caretakers of the synaptic gap. Nothing happens there that glial cells don’t know about. They go beyond knowing to being able to moderate neuronal signals. Scientific American offers the following quote and article. "Glial cells maintain the brain's environment, regulate synapses and neurotransmitters,".
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/brainwaves/know-your-neurons-meet-the-glia/
From The Scientist magazine "myelin is produced by non-neuronal glial cells called oligodendrocytes, which myelinate axons by extending thin processes of their cell membranes to wrap around them". Myelin has several functions. It sheaths the nerve to protect it. It also serves a function as signal conductor. As motor actions are repeated myelin becomes thicker and creates a conduit channeling the signals faster based on how much myelin coats the signal pathway. We are not limited to our genetics. You create speed and coordination through repetition that builds a signal pathway.
https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/myelins-role-in-motor-learning-36579
Glial cells control the speed of signals on both the infrastructure level and at the site of neuronal signals, the synapse. The speed of signal transmission is within their control. Without analog control of actions, movement would be robotic and jerky.
This is not a digital on/off computer version of the brain. Yesterday’s model fails to meet the test today. It and the electricity comparison were just metaphors. Ones that fails the reality test.
Evidence based skill development needs facts, not outdated mythical metaphors.
first step in learning is recognizing the mistake
gaining or facilitating more insight in the process speeds up learning curve; insight in why mistakes happen and secondly how to learn the correct way
process of:
- a shot:
analysis
decision
visualization
pre shot routine
delivery stay down
evaluate
- learning:
motivation
repetition
(out of) comfort zone
explicit technical training
instinctive ballrunning
frustration
goal-setting
making good mistakes (for the good reason)
knowledge
purposeful practice
- mental game:
under the gun
resilience
resets
TILT
gaining or facilitating more insight in the process speeds up learning curve; insight in why mistakes happen and secondly how to learn the correct way
process of:
- a shot:
analysis
decision
visualization
pre shot routine
delivery stay down
evaluate
- learning:
motivation
repetition
(out of) comfort zone
explicit technical training
instinctive ballrunning
frustration
goal-setting
making good mistakes (for the good reason)
knowledge
purposeful practice
- mental game:
under the gun
resilience
resets
TILT
faster bus
In computer terms, you are all talking about developing a faster bus to carry information. However, no matter how fast that bus gets, if there are bottlenecks in processing or in inputting the information, the lightning bus means little or nothing. The fastest motherboard of today would crawl with the screaming 486-25 processor I once owned.
Genetics not mattering would be news to the horse breeding world. It has been based on genetics for a couple thousand years. I'll have to tell people spending hundreds of thousands on horses that they can buy a few thousand dollar horse and get the same results. It happens, but only one time in thousands. Even then, the genetics are there. A draft horse will never outrun a running bred thoroughbred or quarterhorse no matter how you train it from birth. Hook the horses to a few tons of weight and the speed horses can't compete with the draft horse. Genetics.
Getting personal, I have been a successful competitor because I focused on areas of competition that only made limited physical demands. I once ran at least every other day for six months. The primary goal was weight loss which I was very successful at, dropping from a desk job plumpness to a very fit and trim weight. Naturally, being competitive I set goals. One was to run a few 10K competitions just for my personal pleasure. The best in the world were over twice as fast when my body started breaking down and telling me I had peaked as far as my running went. Genetics. I never broke an hour.
Both in my successes with horses and personal successes and failings, genetics and training have played big roles. The idea that anyone that trains hard enough could be competitive in the olympic event of their choice is laughable.
We can improve to our optimum but ultimately our physical and mental abilities are governed by the Peter Principle. We reach a point we can't surpass by a significant level with any amount of effort. That point is different for every person, every animal too. Any current theory that holds that genetics don't play a major factor in abilities is plain wrong and will be laughable not far down the road.
Hu
In computer terms, you are all talking about developing a faster bus to carry information. However, no matter how fast that bus gets, if there are bottlenecks in processing or in inputting the information, the lightning bus means little or nothing. The fastest motherboard of today would crawl with the screaming 486-25 processor I once owned.
Genetics not mattering would be news to the horse breeding world. It has been based on genetics for a couple thousand years. I'll have to tell people spending hundreds of thousands on horses that they can buy a few thousand dollar horse and get the same results. It happens, but only one time in thousands. Even then, the genetics are there. A draft horse will never outrun a running bred thoroughbred or quarterhorse no matter how you train it from birth. Hook the horses to a few tons of weight and the speed horses can't compete with the draft horse. Genetics.
Getting personal, I have been a successful competitor because I focused on areas of competition that only made limited physical demands. I once ran at least every other day for six months. The primary goal was weight loss which I was very successful at, dropping from a desk job plumpness to a very fit and trim weight. Naturally, being competitive I set goals. One was to run a few 10K competitions just for my personal pleasure. The best in the world were over twice as fast when my body started breaking down and telling me I had peaked as far as my running went. Genetics. I never broke an hour.
Both in my successes with horses and personal successes and failings, genetics and training have played big roles. The idea that anyone that trains hard enough could be competitive in the olympic event of their choice is laughable.
We can improve to our optimum but ultimately our physical and mental abilities are governed by the Peter Principle. We reach a point we can't surpass by a significant level with any amount of effort. That point is different for every person, every animal too. Any current theory that holds that genetics don't play a major factor in abilities is plain wrong and will be laughable not far down the road.
Hu
I have been using electrical current to partially jam nerve signals for over ten years. It works for me.
Hu
Ever since I was a young boy
I've played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton
I must have played them all
But I ain't seen nothing like him
In any amusement hall
That deaf dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pin ball!
He stands like a statue,
Becomes part of the machine
Feeling all the bumpers
Always playing clean
He plays by intuition,
The digit counters fall
That deaf dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pin ball!
He's a pin ball wizard
There has got to be a twist
A pin ball wizard,
S'got such a supple wrist
How do you think he does it? I don't know!
What makes him so good?
He ain't got no distractions
Can't hear those buzzers and bells
Don't see lights a flashin'
Plays by sense of smell
Always gets a replay
Never seen him fall
That deaf…
I've played the silver ball
From Soho down to Brighton
I must have played them all
But I ain't seen nothing like him
In any amusement hall
That deaf dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pin ball!
He stands like a statue,
Becomes part of the machine
Feeling all the bumpers
Always playing clean
He plays by intuition,
The digit counters fall
That deaf dumb and blind kid
Sure plays a mean pin ball!
He's a pin ball wizard
There has got to be a twist
A pin ball wizard,
S'got such a supple wrist
How do you think he does it? I don't know!
What makes him so good?
He ain't got no distractions
Can't hear those buzzers and bells
Don't see lights a flashin'
Plays by sense of smell
Always gets a replay
Never seen him fall
That deaf…
I think this post, and Imac007's contribution to it, are priceless.
I was thinking after the first couple pages he might a psychologist by trade?? Then I read his example on the last page which cites a reference to child psychology... Hmmm.
At any rate, I don't have anything constructive to add at the moment. Just wanted to give props on this post. I'm at the point in my own game where the desire to improve intersects with this kind of examination. I think of it as "taking inventory".
I was thinking after the first couple pages he might a psychologist by trade?? Then I read his example on the last page which cites a reference to child psychology... Hmmm.
At any rate, I don't have anything constructive to add at the moment. Just wanted to give props on this post. I'm at the point in my own game where the desire to improve intersects with this kind of examination. I think of it as "taking inventory".
Atoms have electrons. So biochemistry has an electrical component, it’s just not the sole activity going on. The body has rheostats.
Genetics is just one of many factors. How are genius offspring born to non-genius parents? Other factors are in play and it’s not static. People who claim genetics is the sole determinant believed in 4 minute miles and other supposedly self imposed human limits. 526 was one of those belief limits until recently.
Not a psychologist. Just interested in how performance works and finding the differences that make a difference. Thanks for the compliment. Reputation upgrades are appreciated too.
not the sole determinate
There is research that says that it takes ten thousand hours to fully master something, like pool for instance. It took me that long or a bit longer, four to five years of many hour weeks. I logged time on a table for three weeks several times. I averaged over sixty hours a week. That was holding full time jobs, usually over forty hours a week. I basically peaked at that time, I never got significantly better.
That is fine and dandy, but then a kid comes along, say a Keith McCready or Allen Hall, and in a tiny fraction of the time reaches my level or higher. That is the difference between being genetically inclined to be able to do something and achieving it by main force. Some things, like gymnastics for example, someone will never be world class without some gifts they are born with regardless of effort. The same is true of dance, I can't dance for chit!
I don't know if it is spatial geometry or what the proper name is, I can judge objects in motion to a gnat's butt. A circle track car was a second skin. With my usual intense focus on whatever I did, I rode my horse 364 days one year, rain or shine. He was a working cow horse off of a world class bloodline. By the end of the year it was impossible to tell who was directing our activities, we were one.
As a side note, if anyone was using interval training on horses at the time they weren't talking about it. I used it on my foundation quarterhorse and went nine for nine racing at the local match track before I went on to other things.
Hard work can take anyone so far. When we peak after I did in about five years playing pool, either we find a new approach or direction or we stop there. We have went as far as our genetics will let us go. I hadn't peaked on a snooker table but I had plateaued. My high run was six balls, banks, in regulation play. I had done that a handful of times before moving where there were no snooker tables. I had plateaued at four balls for awhile running that maybe a dozen times without being successful running five so I never considered six balls my limit, never found my limit on the snooker table.
I was perhaps the worst pool player I have ever seen when I started, no running racks first time I hit a ball like Allan Hall claims, I was lousy! Not willing to accept that I spent a lot of hours getting pretty decent.
When all is said and done, I can train and condition myself, I can train and condition animals. Like the old men of yesteryear I much respected, I may not always be 100% accurate about why but I do know how. How gets the job done.
Hu
There is research that says that it takes ten thousand hours to fully master something, like pool for instance. It took me that long or a bit longer, four to five years of many hour weeks. I logged time on a table for three weeks several times. I averaged over sixty hours a week. That was holding full time jobs, usually over forty hours a week. I basically peaked at that time, I never got significantly better.
That is fine and dandy, but then a kid comes along, say a Keith McCready or Allen Hall, and in a tiny fraction of the time reaches my level or higher. That is the difference between being genetically inclined to be able to do something and achieving it by main force. Some things, like gymnastics for example, someone will never be world class without some gifts they are born with regardless of effort. The same is true of dance, I can't dance for chit!
I don't know if it is spatial geometry or what the proper name is, I can judge objects in motion to a gnat's butt. A circle track car was a second skin. With my usual intense focus on whatever I did, I rode my horse 364 days one year, rain or shine. He was a working cow horse off of a world class bloodline. By the end of the year it was impossible to tell who was directing our activities, we were one.
As a side note, if anyone was using interval training on horses at the time they weren't talking about it. I used it on my foundation quarterhorse and went nine for nine racing at the local match track before I went on to other things.
Hard work can take anyone so far. When we peak after I did in about five years playing pool, either we find a new approach or direction or we stop there. We have went as far as our genetics will let us go. I hadn't peaked on a snooker table but I had plateaued. My high run was six balls, banks, in regulation play. I had done that a handful of times before moving where there were no snooker tables. I had plateaued at four balls for awhile running that maybe a dozen times without being successful running five so I never considered six balls my limit, never found my limit on the snooker table.
I was perhaps the worst pool player I have ever seen when I started, no running racks first time I hit a ball like Allan Hall claims, I was lousy! Not willing to accept that I spent a lot of hours getting pretty decent.
When all is said and done, I can train and condition myself, I can train and condition animals. Like the old men of yesteryear I much respected, I may not always be 100% accurate about why but I do know how. How gets the job done.
Hu
Malcom Gladwell popularized the concept of 10,000 hours in his book Outliers. His guesstimate was based on calculating the number of hours several prominent performers put in before becoming the cream of the crop in their field. He extrapolated from a study done by sports researcher Anders Ericsson.
From Wikipedia we find contrary evidence
"Case Western Reserve University's assistant professor of psychology Brooke N. Macnamara and colleagues have subsequently performed a comprehensive review of 9,331 research papers about practice relating to acquiring skills. They focused specifically on 88 papers that collected and recorded data about practice times. In their paper, they note regarding the 10,000-hour rule that "This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing" but "we conducted a meta-analysis covering all major domains in which deliberate practice has been investigated. We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued".[25]
From the actual data for about 1 in 5 athletes that work ethic set them apart. That said the work smarter not harder approach probably applies to most of the rest. They found a difference that made a difference in their field.
I had access to unlimited pool for 2 years and put in around 5000 hours. My best run on a snooker table is a total clearance in practice and 93 in competition. My early efforts found me as Joe Davis claimed, making maybe 3 balls and missing the 4th. Like him I felt like I was a dismal player. He claimed despite having to fight for every little bit of improvement it was his learning how to learn that enabled him to become a world champion. He said that natural talent players seemed to plateau because they never had to learn how to learn. I worked hard and despite taking a 35 year hiatus from the game, am improving now still despite my age. I returned to the play on the 7, 8 and 9 foot tables. I basically started over with some potting skill still intact.
I put in time researching every facet I could think would be relevant. For the most part I’m sharing the insights I think I’ve gleaned over the past 4 decades of studying and trying to understand the factors that will lead to top performance.
Gladwell is an author. Making generalities may add to pop folklore and become part of mainstream culture. Sport scientists, coaches and trainers need evidence based methods, not folksy memes. While nobody gets there without lots of work, there are tons of players who have HAMB and put in their hours. As Paul McCartney said after reading about the concept.
" [...] I've read the book. I think there is a lot of truth in it [...] I mean there were an awful lot of bands that were out in Hamburg who put in 10,000 hours and didn't make it, so it's not a cast-iron theory. I think, however, when you look at a group who has been successful... I think you always will find that amount of work in the background. But I don't think it's a rule that if you do that amount of work, you're going to be as successful as the Beatles.[24]"
In particular, Anders Ericsson, who conducted the study upon which "the 10,000-Hour Rule" was based has written that Gladwell had overgeneralized, misinterpreted, and oversimplified their findings. Wikipedia
I too thought the book was great. I question everything and now give it the weight I think it deserves, in my thinking. It’s good for people to have the full story so thanks for bringing it to the forum here.
Last edited:
science is an ever shifting field but always claimed to be true
My mom was a documented genius, turned down a Mensa invite when you needed one to get in. She started our education in the sciences by the time I could understand her voice. Since then I have seen scientific "truths" change dozens of times, each time supposed to be the truth when it was declared. Some of science today is BS, it doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test. However, it is the proclaimed truth of the moment.
Having worked in R&D, I have learned to be very sceptical of science that isn't borne out in the lab or shop. One of my jobs was setting up testing. I have never yet found the testing to be wrong although it defied the science sometimes. Fairly well known now but a friend of mine held the patent on a technique to make a heavier than air craft fly with no moving parts. I was skeptical until I saw for myself. Later I made some models that flew, it works. The process may have been used as early as Desert Storm and certainly seems to be in use now. They have renamed the process after the patent expired and I forget what they call it now. Doesn't matter, the craft flies although only one man claimed to understand the math behind why it flies.
A humorous story, Goodyear Aerospace was interested. The inventor flew the craft off of a conference table and fourteen high executives were highly excited, would get back with him in a few days. After two weeks of silence Mr. Hagan contacted Goodyear. "Not interested. Our scientists and engineers say it is impossible. It had to be mass hallucination or hypnosis and if we invest in it we will be the laughingstock of the world!"
We look at the science of five hundred or a thousand years ago and laugh. It is hard for us to believe that in five hundred or a thousand years the scientists of the day will look back at our science and laugh also.
I have seen enough revisions in science that I consider few things absolute. Another funny, they always said that man came down out of the trees then started walking erect. Now they say he started walking erect then came out of the trees. This makes sense to me. After watching one Tarzan movie too many I tried walking erect in a tree. I came down from the tree very shortly afterward and very rapidly! I can see one early man saying to another, "Dude, I think if we are gonna keep trying this walking erect thing we should start off on the ground." The other one rubs a large knot on his head, "Yeah, lets try it that way!"
Hu
My mom was a documented genius, turned down a Mensa invite when you needed one to get in. She started our education in the sciences by the time I could understand her voice. Since then I have seen scientific "truths" change dozens of times, each time supposed to be the truth when it was declared. Some of science today is BS, it doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test. However, it is the proclaimed truth of the moment.
Having worked in R&D, I have learned to be very sceptical of science that isn't borne out in the lab or shop. One of my jobs was setting up testing. I have never yet found the testing to be wrong although it defied the science sometimes. Fairly well known now but a friend of mine held the patent on a technique to make a heavier than air craft fly with no moving parts. I was skeptical until I saw for myself. Later I made some models that flew, it works. The process may have been used as early as Desert Storm and certainly seems to be in use now. They have renamed the process after the patent expired and I forget what they call it now. Doesn't matter, the craft flies although only one man claimed to understand the math behind why it flies.
A humorous story, Goodyear Aerospace was interested. The inventor flew the craft off of a conference table and fourteen high executives were highly excited, would get back with him in a few days. After two weeks of silence Mr. Hagan contacted Goodyear. "Not interested. Our scientists and engineers say it is impossible. It had to be mass hallucination or hypnosis and if we invest in it we will be the laughingstock of the world!"
We look at the science of five hundred or a thousand years ago and laugh. It is hard for us to believe that in five hundred or a thousand years the scientists of the day will look back at our science and laugh also.
I have seen enough revisions in science that I consider few things absolute. Another funny, they always said that man came down out of the trees then started walking erect. Now they say he started walking erect then came out of the trees. This makes sense to me. After watching one Tarzan movie too many I tried walking erect in a tree. I came down from the tree very shortly afterward and very rapidly! I can see one early man saying to another, "Dude, I think if we are gonna keep trying this walking erect thing we should start off on the ground." The other one rubs a large knot on his head, "Yeah, lets try it that way!"
Hu
Maybe it's sweat............???
Sometimes I really wonder about this "expertise in pool" topic. How does a guy know WHAT to believe and rely on??????
Mosconi says do this, Buddy Hall says do that, Ray Martin says do this, Mizerak said do this, Eddie Taylor said do it this way, The Fat Man said "no, do it this way", Shane says do that, The Lion says do this, The Poolology Man says do that, The Physics and Geometry Man says do this, Bert Kinister says "learn the 60 minute workout and practice shot #1 4000 times",One instructor says it's all about stroke, the next instructor says "no, it's about everything stance and stroke", then another instructor says...."just split the difference on your target ball and shoot the ball", CJ Wiley says..."do this and use a touch of inside", another instructor says "pay me $200 and I will show you how to be a player", and on and on and on it goes.
One thing is for sure, (except for the Physics and Geometry Man who can't play a lick), ALL OF THOSE GUYS can/could play...some fantastic, some not fantastic....BUT they all can play and are formidable opponents who can win the money.
So what's a guy going to do?
In my opinon, the only thing he can do to develop consistency and continue to advance is to pick out something that WORKS FOR HIM and just stick with it. Stick with it and rehearse it over and over and over and over until he has poured gallons of sweat for months and just feels like saying "to hell with this silly ass pool stick, I've got a life to live".
Donald O'Connor, one of the greatest dancers in the movie history made the statement that "you rehearse and rehearse and rehearse a routine until you just cannot stand it yourself. And when you get to the point you don't want to even see yourself on screen doing it, at THAT point, you finally have an act."
Maybe pool is the same way...??
Sometimes I really wonder about this "expertise in pool" topic. How does a guy know WHAT to believe and rely on??????
Mosconi says do this, Buddy Hall says do that, Ray Martin says do this, Mizerak said do this, Eddie Taylor said do it this way, The Fat Man said "no, do it this way", Shane says do that, The Lion says do this, The Poolology Man says do that, The Physics and Geometry Man says do this, Bert Kinister says "learn the 60 minute workout and practice shot #1 4000 times",One instructor says it's all about stroke, the next instructor says "no, it's about everything stance and stroke", then another instructor says...."just split the difference on your target ball and shoot the ball", CJ Wiley says..."do this and use a touch of inside", another instructor says "pay me $200 and I will show you how to be a player", and on and on and on it goes.
One thing is for sure, (except for the Physics and Geometry Man who can't play a lick), ALL OF THOSE GUYS can/could play...some fantastic, some not fantastic....BUT they all can play and are formidable opponents who can win the money.
So what's a guy going to do?
In my opinon, the only thing he can do to develop consistency and continue to advance is to pick out something that WORKS FOR HIM and just stick with it. Stick with it and rehearse it over and over and over and over until he has poured gallons of sweat for months and just feels like saying "to hell with this silly ass pool stick, I've got a life to live".
Donald O'Connor, one of the greatest dancers in the movie history made the statement that "you rehearse and rehearse and rehearse a routine until you just cannot stand it yourself. And when you get to the point you don't want to even see yourself on screen doing it, at THAT point, you finally have an act."
Maybe pool is the same way...??
Last edited:
Good post. But pool is an ever-changing act with so many moves to learn, and after you think you've learned all you need, based on performance, you discover something else, another move or step or tool to throw into the overall mix of your game.