10,000 hours
- Thread starter alstl
- Start date
I've been playing pool for 57 years.
10,000 hours works out to 3.37 hours a week.
i think I'm well past 10,000 hours.
10,000 hours works out to 3.37 hours a week.
i think I'm well past 10,000 hours.
I'm gonna quote what the legendary Travis Trotter with his more than legendary Cuetec cue once said, that defies that theory....
"So I'm shooting this one shot, and I have shot it 300 times, and missed it every time. I haven't changed anything about the way I shoot it, everything is the same each time, but I don't know why I keep missing it"
"So I'm shooting this one shot, and I have shot it 300 times, and missed it every time. I haven't changed anything about the way I shoot it, everything is the same each time, but I don't know why I keep missing it"
Like measureman pointed out....
I've been playing for 48 years, that comes to 4 hours per week.
There were stretches when I played 12 hours per day...
Wonder how many hours of my life have been spent shooting pool?
30,000 maybe 40,000?
I'm not sure it's the amount of hours played that makes a great player.
I think it's the time spent doing actual practice. Setting up shots, working on fundamentals like stance, grip, stroke, alignment.
Some players just start out with much better eye/hand coordination. This will put them leaps and bounds above their peers.
I would have to say that it would vary from player to player. Some can play their whole life and never achieve better than a 400 Fargo. Some punk *** kids can take it up and be rated 600+ in just 1 year.
I would say 5,000+ would be a good benchmark though.
I've been playing for 48 years, that comes to 4 hours per week.
There were stretches when I played 12 hours per day...
Wonder how many hours of my life have been spent shooting pool?
30,000 maybe 40,000?
I'm not sure it's the amount of hours played that makes a great player.
I think it's the time spent doing actual practice. Setting up shots, working on fundamentals like stance, grip, stroke, alignment.
Some players just start out with much better eye/hand coordination. This will put them leaps and bounds above their peers.
I would have to say that it would vary from player to player. Some can play their whole life and never achieve better than a 400 Fargo. Some punk *** kids can take it up and be rated 600+ in just 1 year.
I would say 5,000+ would be a good benchmark though.
I believe the fine print says something like: 10,000 hours of *purposeful* practice.
Lou Figueroa
This comes from the research of Anders Ericsson where he measured the amount of practice violinist in a music school had undertaken up to that point. He found that those violinists identified as being elite or experts had put in an average of 10,000ish hours, whereas those who were at lower standards had fewer hours. Therefore, it was concluded that 10,000(ish) hours of deliberate practice would create an expert. I am paraphrasing from memory so some details may be slightly off.
There are a couple of quibbles though. First, the conclusions cannot be transferred from violin to other activities. We can't measure the progress of a musician and determine that a physical sport or a cognitive pursuit would have similar results. Too many variables.
Second, Gladwell takes the generalizations of this study too far. In an interview Gladwell claimed that there was no evidence of an "eternal grafter", someone who practices deliberately and works hard for decades but achieves nothing. But the fact is, the study (if you are to draw Gladwell's conclusions) suffers from selection bias. If I remember correctly, regardless of the skill level, all participants were admitted into the school on merit. So even the lower skilled performers were, by most standards, good violinists. The eternal grafter would not have been admitted into the school.
Third, follow up studies have been done and with many different results. They measured chess players, some reach grandmaster levels after 4000 hours others at 25,000 hours, some were at 25k and counting. Rugby players were reaching professional levels after around 4000 hours. In fact for physical sports, it probably isn't ideal to push to reach 10,000 hours due to the increased risk of injury.
Finally, the whole thing doesn't work as a rule or theory. It's neither provable or disprovable. If I provide examples of eternal grafters, the response is "well it wasn't deliberate practice". Unless we actually get 10,000 hours videotaped, reviewed and verfied of an eternal grafter, we can never prove it wrong. Even that Dan Plan guy who tried it with golf gets criticism that his practice regimen in the last few years wasn't proper.
Essentially, what this 10,000(ish) hour thing works as is a nice illustration of the time and effort high performers put in to reach their standard. We need to constantly push our boundaries, challenge ourselves, open ourselves to criticism, seek out people who make us better and accept that true mastery will take many years of work. That is the takeaway. I would caution anyone against doing a 10,000 hour countdown and just focus on your development and being the best you can be. It certainly shouldn't be a goal line or measuring point.
Here is a video that explains a few of the things I speak of better than I can,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVXUWWFEXQQ. This gentleman is an expert on talent identification.
I also would like to clarify, that I'm not suggesting all expert ability is based on unmeasurable innate talent. Although I do believe talent exists, I think the majority of talent, particularly as it relates to something like pool, is primarily cognitive. People learn at different paces, but I don't believe anyone should reach an impassable plateau where improvement is impossible (assuming they are completely healthy with no physical impairments).
There are a couple of quibbles though. First, the conclusions cannot be transferred from violin to other activities. We can't measure the progress of a musician and determine that a physical sport or a cognitive pursuit would have similar results. Too many variables.
Second, Gladwell takes the generalizations of this study too far. In an interview Gladwell claimed that there was no evidence of an "eternal grafter", someone who practices deliberately and works hard for decades but achieves nothing. But the fact is, the study (if you are to draw Gladwell's conclusions) suffers from selection bias. If I remember correctly, regardless of the skill level, all participants were admitted into the school on merit. So even the lower skilled performers were, by most standards, good violinists. The eternal grafter would not have been admitted into the school.
Third, follow up studies have been done and with many different results. They measured chess players, some reach grandmaster levels after 4000 hours others at 25,000 hours, some were at 25k and counting. Rugby players were reaching professional levels after around 4000 hours. In fact for physical sports, it probably isn't ideal to push to reach 10,000 hours due to the increased risk of injury.
Finally, the whole thing doesn't work as a rule or theory. It's neither provable or disprovable. If I provide examples of eternal grafters, the response is "well it wasn't deliberate practice". Unless we actually get 10,000 hours videotaped, reviewed and verfied of an eternal grafter, we can never prove it wrong. Even that Dan Plan guy who tried it with golf gets criticism that his practice regimen in the last few years wasn't proper.
Essentially, what this 10,000(ish) hour thing works as is a nice illustration of the time and effort high performers put in to reach their standard. We need to constantly push our boundaries, challenge ourselves, open ourselves to criticism, seek out people who make us better and accept that true mastery will take many years of work. That is the takeaway. I would caution anyone against doing a 10,000 hour countdown and just focus on your development and being the best you can be. It certainly shouldn't be a goal line or measuring point.
Here is a video that explains a few of the things I speak of better than I can,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVXUWWFEXQQ. This gentleman is an expert on talent identification.
I also would like to clarify, that I'm not suggesting all expert ability is based on unmeasurable innate talent. Although I do believe talent exists, I think the majority of talent, particularly as it relates to something like pool, is primarily cognitive. People learn at different paces, but I don't believe anyone should reach an impassable plateau where improvement is impossible (assuming they are completely healthy with no physical impairments).
Last edited:
10k hours is garbage. IF you have the genetics to get to mastery, it probably will take 5 years. If you don’t have the genetics, you won’t get there in 50 years.
SWAG theory! (Silly, wild ass guess)
Achieving a high level of skill takes constant assessment of the weak areas of your game, focusing on those and being determined to conquer the difficult things that require perfect execution. Top that off with a heavy dose of knowing when and how to make the right decision in a game and you'll be a winner.
More than cue ball control, it's all about self control.
If you lose, be a gracious loser and you'll gain the respect of your peers.
More than cue ball control, it's all about self control.
If you lose, be a gracious loser and you'll gain the respect of your peers.
If 10.000 hours was the bar for achieving mastery in a field, one would expect people to be masterfull at several fields within a lifetime.
You need to factor in the time it takes to reach those 10.000 hours, genes and enviroment. When those three criteria meet in just the right way, the potential for greatness is there.
You need to factor in the time it takes to reach those 10.000 hours, genes and enviroment. When those three criteria meet in just the right way, the potential for greatness is there.
69-72
In the early years of play, I played minimum 9,100 hours in 3.5 years, this gave me Great Speed control and the muscle memory to ''feel'' the shots.
In the early years of play, I played minimum 9,100 hours in 3.5 years, this gave me Great Speed control and the muscle memory to ''feel'' the shots.
Depends what age you start, fine motor skill learning drops off as time goes on and drops off severely in your 20's.
3hrs a day for 9 years is about 10K hrs.
Nadia Comaneci started when she was 6 and scored a perfect 10 around 9 years later coincidence? I think not :grin:
3hrs a day for 9 years is about 10K hrs.
Nadia Comaneci started when she was 6 and scored a perfect 10 around 9 years later coincidence? I think not :grin:
I think it took Earl 6-7 years to get in dead punch. Road punched a few times along the way.
Gladwell is basically a glam pop psychology writer. He tries to oversimplify complex ideas and make it fashionable for the common denominator audience. 10000 hours is already passé and behind the curve. The new thing is 10,000 experiments http://observer.com/2017/11/forget-...kerberg-follow-the-10000-experiment-rule/amp/ 
It's a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.
Actually, it's not necessary. See "The Sports Gene" for some counterexamples.
The author of the original study (of violinists and chess players) basically said that Gladwell got it wrong. But he did sell a lot of books.
And, as Lou pointed out, it is 10,000 hours of directed (coached) practice.
If you practice the wrong thing for 10,000 hours, you'll be very good at doing the wrong thing.
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent...
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent...