Biggest myths in pool today

iusedtoberich

iusedtoberich

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
dr_dave said:
So you think "natural talent" is more important than "hard work" in pool? I think this might be the case for some individuals (e.g., a few top pros who don't seem to need to work that hard on their game). But I think for the majority of pool players, hard work trumps talent in a big way.

Regards,
Dave

PS: I read the entire book and enjoyed it very much.
Click to expand...

A few points:
1. I am shocked you read the whole book and you use that book as a footnote in your #97 myth. If anything, that book supports the nature argument significantly more than the nurture argument. Did we read the same book??? In fairness, I'm not completely through it yet. But almost everything I read thus far in it is in favor of nature.

2. To answer your question, yes, I do think talent is much more important than hard work in pool. But let me qualify that. IMO, if you found 2 12 yr olds that never held a pool stick before, but both played on a softball team where everyone who signed up was on the team (no tryouts). If you took the player who was the pitcher, who is usually the best on the team, and the player in right field, who is usually the worst, and had them both play pool for 6 months, the pitcher would be significantly better than the right fielder. If you repeated this many times, a pattern would emerge showing the same.

In contrast, if you take that right fielder, and have him play pool for 20 years, he might become a decent player, like my speed perhaps. And he will beat the pants off of ANY all-star pitcher with all the talent in the world that never held a cue before. But, that all-star pitcher might catch up to the 20 yr right fielder in just 2 years.

Now, this is my opinion. No study like this has ever been done, as far as I know, in pool, or any other sport. (The info we have is usually after the fact looked at). Which brings us to #3.

3. We are all talking out of our ass's in this thread. It's all opinion, including what I say. But, you are in a position of authority. I asked my question, because I'm fairly certain you can not quantify the statement on your site. You can't make a stament as fact on your site where thousands visit, without having evidence to support it. If you do, then show it. If not, then your statement should be amended to say "IMO.... ".

I'm sorry to pick on you, but IMO, you should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us:)

Best,
Nick
 
spartan

spartan

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
-Winning at gambling matches is harder than winning tournaments
-Snooker requires more skill than pool
-Professional pool players behave like professionals
:grin:
 
The Renfro

The Renfro

Outsville.com
Silver Member
arps said:
this.
the truth is that "Snooker requires a DIFFERENT set of skills compared to pool."
Click to expand...

Ask Alex or Jim Wych... I will take their opinions over any anon in a forum... All day every day..... Not directed at you Arps... Just stating an opinion based on actually hearing the answers......
 
arps

arps

tirador (ng pansit)
Silver Member
The Renfro said:
Ask Alex or Jim Wych... I will take their opinions over any anon in a forum... All day every day..... Not directed at you Arps... Just stating an opinion based on actually hearing the answers......
Click to expand...

im basing my opinion on:
1. what Daz said about snooker on a TAR episode
2. a conversation with Marlon Manalo about snooker and pool
3. what Efren said when i saw him in a local pool hall
4. watching lots of snooker on youtube

besides, the idea that pool and snooker are two different things is very simple to understand; and there's a small chance someone will disagree. i mean, you dont really have to get the opinion of alex or wych.
 
S

(((Satori)))

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
iusedtoberich said:
A few points:
1. I am shocked you read the whole book and you use that book as a footnote in your #97 myth. If anything, that book supports the nature argument significantly more than the nurture argument. Did we read the same book??? In fairness, I'm not completely through it yet. But almost everything I read thus far in it is in favor of nature.

2. To answer your question, yes, I do think talent is much more important than hard work in pool. But let me qualify that. IMO, if you found 2 12 yr olds that never held a pool stick before, but both played on a softball team where everyone who signed up was on the team (no tryouts). If you took the player who was the pitcher, who is usually the best on the team, and the player in right field, who is usually the worst, and had them both play pool for 6 months, the pitcher would be significantly better than the right fielder. If you repeated this many times, a pattern would emerge showing the same.

In contrast, if you take that right fielder, and have him play pool for 20 years, he might become a decent player, like my speed perhaps. And he will beat the pants off of ANY all-star pitcher with all the talent in the world that never held a cue before. But, that all-star pitcher might catch up to the 20 yr right fielder in just 2 years.

Now, this is my opinion. No study like this has ever been done, as far as I know, in pool, or any other sport. (The info we have is usually after the fact looked at). Which brings us to #3.

3. We are all talking out of our ass's in this thread. It's all opinion, including what I say. But, you are in a position of authority. I asked my question, because I'm fairly certain you can not quantify the statement on your site. You can't make a stament as fact on your site where thousands visit, without having evidence to support it. If you do, then show it. If not, then your statement should be amended to say "IMO.... ".

I'm sorry to pick on you, but IMO, you should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us:)

Best,
Nick
Click to expand...

Here is another way to view this.

New scientific research has shown that your genes can be effected by your diet, but even more importantly here, your thoughts.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/04/11/epigenetic-vs-determinism.aspx

Your mind is powerful my man. Your beliefs are powerful. They can turn on and off genes... that is how powerful they are. I think talent in large part is a result of ones beliefs... their self concept. I think talent is a "this is pretty easy" mindset. In other words, a kid who grew up watching his older brother play top notch pool has a better chance of developing a self concept that says I can do this than a kid who watched a big brother that played at a b speed as he was growing up. The kid who watched his older brother effortlessly pocket balls and run out has a better chance of being talented imo because he will likely have different beliefs about the game and different beliefs about his own ability to play it well. A study was done back in the 60's where kids took a test and then were randomly told that they were either gifted or normal and the teachers were unknowingly teaching either the gifted group or the normal group for the year. Even though there was not really a difference between the gifted group and the normal group according to tests before the year... after going through a year believing they were gifted the "gifted" students scored much higher on tests at the end of the year. The way you see yourself is powerful.


But that is only part of it. Like you said, some kids are pitchers and others are right fielders. And pitchers generally do better in other sports too. But we can only see the difference in performances. What if we could take a look at the differences in their thoughts? My guess is that there would be a lot of difference between the two. I think that talented people think differently. Not only do they have a greater overall self concept but they also generally carry what is called a growth mindset. Less talented people generally have a fixed mindset. A fixed mindset is one that believes that their genes will or will not allow them to do this or that. A growth mindset says with practice and study I can do this or that. It is vitally important to have a growth mindset because even the most talented people will face obstacles and a person with a fixed mindset will respond with negative emotions because of the belief that they were robbed in the genetic pool while a growth mindset gets excited to find a solution. The fixed mindset when faced with an obstacle might even permanently settle on that being their skill level and therfore develope that skill level as being then... that is their self concept... and once that is done it is hard to get better. But a growth mindset finds a way to get better.


So the "pitchers" I believe have a strong self concept along with a growth mindset.

Even when someone is starting a new task that they do not have a strong self concept or strong self belief in... they must still carry that growth mindset. They must believe that they can get this with some study and practice. One part of practice is developing skill but another part is developing belief. When someone is practicing they must reinforce their success and simply learn from their mistakes. There will be plenty of mistakes but that is good. The mistake does not ever mean that you cant do this even if you make the same mistake over and over. It just means that you have not figured out how yet or that you need more practice. I think someone can always get better when they cant do something. There is a solution... it is not a genetic pre-determination that someone can only get so good... just keep studying and keep practicing imo. Develope the skill and the belief.

>>>>>>>>>>> https://youtu.be/AjZ0KbJcav0 <<<<<<<<<<<
 
Last edited:
V

vjmehra

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Ak147 said:
Exactly my thoughts! e.g. break shots, jump shots
Click to expand...

I know this has been done to death...but snooker is harder, only some pro-pool players regularly hit century breaks...any amateur snooker player can regularly break and run on a 9 foot pool table (or smaller).

Or to look at it another way, try playing the ghost on both tables and then decide...

A better way of looking at it is the degree of difficulty with which you can win major tournaments and that is a totally different concept where rightly it could even be argued that for the equivalent top level pro's pool tournaments are harder to win as so many players could win any given event, whereas really in snooker only the top 16, maybe top 32 have a chance.

In short what I'm trying to say is that fundamentally snooker is unquestionably harder, however that doesn't make it any easier to win tournaments.
 
V

vjmehra

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
[color]Personally I don't consider any game played on less then a 4.5*9 surface pool at all, that includes the worst game of them all, UK pool.[/COLOR]
Click to expand...

Our country is much smaller than yours...we can't fit bigger tables in our pubs :-( it's not like our fault!
 
Poolplaya9

Poolplaya9

Tellin' it like it is...
Silver Member
iusedtoberich said:
Dave, how have you quantified this? (Ps, I am almost done reading that book myself)
PPS, I think you have it backwards, especially after almost finishing reading that book;)
Click to expand...

dr_dave said:
So you think "natural talent" is more important than "hard work" in pool? I think this might be the case for some individuals (e.g., a few top pros who don't seem to need to work that hard on their game). But I think for the majority of pool players, hard work trumps talent in a big way.
Click to expand...

I think you are both right in a way. I believe that everybody's ultimate potential is limited by their talent. Most simply could never reach true pro level if they played eight hours a day for twenty years and had the best coaching etc. Some would be better than others but everybody would ultimately be limited to/capped at a certain performance level by their talent if they put forth maximum effort for long enough. I also believe that players are limited in reaching their full potential (whatever it may happen to be) due to not putting in enough effort to reach that full potential and this is the wall most people hit first "in the real world".

As well as limiting how good you ultimately could get (with maximum effort), talent also has a great effect on how fast you will make improvements with X amount of effort.

Bottom line, we mostly limit ourselves by not putting in the additional effort to further improve, talent has a lot of effect on how much time and effort will be required to hit any particular performance level, and if we did all put in maximum effort for many years we all would ultimately be limited by our talent and for most people that would be before hitting true pro level.
 
dr_dave

dr_dave

Instructional Author
Gold Member
Silver Member
Nick,

Your points are well taken. However, I think my description of the message of the book is fair:

from Dr. Dave's Top 100 Myths page (#97):
Natural talent is more important than hard work.
See the book: "The Sports Gene." For certain sports (e.g., anything involving jumping or speed like some track and field events), this can be true. Also, someone with good eye-hand coordination (e.g., from genetics and/or previous experience with other activities and sports) will have an advantage over someone who is not very coordinated. It also helps to have sharp vision and depth perception. However, practice, experience, and hard work are the most important ingredients of success in pool.

Both nature and nurture are extremely important to reach excellence in anything. For some sports (e.g., sprinting and jumping events), nature is much more important. If you don't have the right muscle physiology (enough fast-twitch fibers), no amount of hard work and dedication can transform you into a world-class athlete in those sports.

Now, people who have poor eye-hand coordination (part nurture, part nature), and don't have good fine-control motor skills (part nurture, part nature), and have difficulty mentally focusing and concentrating (part nurture, part nature), and don't have excellent vision (mostly nature) would also be at an extreme disadvantage concerning becoming a top pool player. For them, you could easily say that nature is more important than nurture. However, I think that for the majority of people, training, hard work, and dedication can lead to excellence in pool. However, not all people will have the ability or desire to do what it takes to reach excellence. I think both nature and nurture play a part there also.

Bottom line: Some people could never excel at pool, but many could if they had the desire and time and worked hard at it.

Regards,
Dave


iusedtoberich said:
A few points:
1. I am shocked you read the whole book and you use that book as a footnote in your #97 myth. If anything, that book supports the nature argument significantly more than the nurture argument. Did we read the same book??? In fairness, I'm not completely through it yet. But almost everything I read thus far in it is in favor of nature.

2. To answer your question, yes, I do think talent is much more important than hard work in pool. But let me qualify that. IMO, if you found 2 12 yr olds that never held a pool stick before, but both played on a softball team where everyone who signed up was on the team (no tryouts). If you took the player who was the pitcher, who is usually the best on the team, and the player in right field, who is usually the worst, and had them both play pool for 6 months, the pitcher would be significantly better than the right fielder. If you repeated this many times, a pattern would emerge showing the same.

In contrast, if you take that right fielder, and have him play pool for 20 years, he might become a decent player, like my speed perhaps. And he will beat the pants off of ANY all-star pitcher with all the talent in the world that never held a cue before. But, that all-star pitcher might catch up to the 20 yr right fielder in just 2 years.

Now, this is my opinion. No study like this has ever been done, as far as I know, in pool, or any other sport. (The info we have is usually after the fact looked at). Which brings us to #3.

3. We are all talking out of our ass's in this thread. It's all opinion, including what I say. But, you are in a position of authority. I asked my question, because I'm fairly certain you can not quantify the statement on your site. You can't make a stament as fact on your site where thousands visit, without having evidence to support it. If you do, then show it. If not, then your statement should be amended to say "IMO.... ".

I'm sorry to pick on you, but IMO, you should be held to a higher standard than the rest of us:)

Best,
Nick
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
cueman

cueman

AzB Gold Member
Gold Member
Silver Member
Myth: It is the Indian and not the arrow.
Truth: Players play better with a well balanced straight cue.
 
Q

qfans

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Myths

AZBers with hot women in their signature, have probably slept with those women!!!, may not be the winner but it definetly cashed haha!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top