Concept from the book: The Outlier

chefjeff

chefjeff

If not now...
Silver Member
Over Christmas holiday, I read a book by the author of The Tipping Point, called The Outlier. One concept from the book intrigued me in reference to pool. Gladwell is the author.

The author makes the claim that to be an expert at something requires 10,000 hours of practicing or doing the act. That's a lot of hours if you think about it.

So, I translated that into pool shots. To be an expert at pool, assuming the concept is correct, requires 10,000 hours. I'm not talking 10,000 hours of being in a pool hall,:rolleyes: but actually shooting shots, made or missed. If one shoots 200 shots an hour ( a hefty amount acheivable only if practicing with discipline or playing lessor players only) then it would take 2 million shots to become a pool expert!*

The book uses examples of Mozart and others who didn't become experts at their chosen fields until their 10,000 hours were completed.

I thought before reading the book that 1 million shots would do it, but now it seems like it takes 2 million. Wow, that's a lot of years of shooting constantly. After 50 years, I'm up to maybe 700,000 shots so far. I'll be dead before I reach 2 million/10,000 hours.

Anyone have the discipline to go for 10,000 hours or have already done it?

Jeff Livingston

* I know the pool teachers will jump in here declaring that practicing correctly, etc. shortens that time-frame, but Gladwell seems to say that is not so...it takes the brain 10,000 hours to integrate the necessary knowledge regardless of the care in practice. More study is probably needed to be sure one way or the other.
 
chefjeff said:
* I know the pool teachers will jump in here declaring that practicing correctly, etc. shortens that time-frame, but Gladwell seems to say that is not so...it takes the brain 10,000 hours to integrate the necessary knowledge regardless of the care in practice. More study is probably needed to be sure one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Nice post Jeff. I agree with the book. Yes, there are examples of people that have exceptional talent in a sport, and it may look as if they are experts or the best, but there is no exceptions to people that practice hard. I have talked to a few top notch players, and like them, when asked the question from an amateur player, "how do I get better?", I always reply with, "Hit 200,000 more balls!" I wonder how many golf balls Tiger Woods has hit? He started at about 1yr old in his dad's garage with a sawed of club!!
 
Let's see, eight hours a day for 365 days equates to almost 3,000 hours of pool. I am CERTAIN that I averaged that much playing my first few years. I had MANY ten, twelve and longer hour days mixed in there to make up for the rare day when I missed playing due to a cold or whatever.

I used to tell people (I guess I still do) that if you want to learn to play pool, become obsessed with it for about three years. That's what it took me to become reasonably proficient as a player. In those three years, I probably put in my 10,000 hours or damn close to it. I played pool to the exclusion of everything else, and I mean everything. When I was a young man, I literally ate, slept and breathed pool. I didn't care about movies, girls, politics or anything else for that matter. Sick, huh! :rolleyes:
 
The amount of sacrifice needed to be one of the best at anything is, generally, underestimated by most.

I recall that many, many years ago, the classical pianist extraordinaire Vladimir Horowitz, appeared on the Dick Cavett show. Cavett, somewhat matter-of-factly commented to Horowitz "I'd give anything to play the piano like you do." I'll never forget Horowitz' answer. He said "No you wouldn't," and then went on to explain how he'd not had a normal childhood, for when others were playing and making friends, he was practicing piano. He then spoke of what he had sacrificed throughout his life and was still scarificing to remain at the top of his trade. Cavett was somewhat shocked that his pandering to Horowitz had met with such an aggressive reply, but Horowitz wanted people to understand what he had lost, and that he had, at least, some regrets.

Horowitz' reply taught me a lot about life and has always helped me to understand and appreciate the great sacrifices made by many of those who go on to achieve special things. Horowitz was a guy who put in his 10,000 hours as a child and paid a price often overlooked for having done so.
 
Jay...The only fallacy in this thought process, is that "playing" pool is not practicing. This is a common mistake that many amateur players make...equating playing with practicing (different mindsets and skill sets). You CAN practice playing pool, but that is not disciplined practice. Once someone has developed a repeatable stroke, THEN practicing playing has some merit. Without the stroke, you could shoot 10 million balls and ostensibly not improve dramatically, as a player. My advice?...Get some qualified instruction early on (or on an ongoing basis); practice that stuff in a regular, disciplined manner (for several months), and THEN you can play pool 24 hours a day, if you want.

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

jay helfert said:
Let's see, eight hours a day for 365 days equates to almost 3,000 hours of pool. I am CERTAIN that I averaged that much playing my first few years.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Mastery

Very interesting thread here. I was watching one of Force Follow's videos last week and he said it takes about 15,000 hours to master something that requires hand eye coordination. Unfortunately, this is also about the same amount of time children in this country have played video games by the time they are 15 years old! So, seems to me that if you want to know where pool is going the Nintendo WII system (or whatever it is called) has a pool video game with some sort of electronic pool stick.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I am reading that book now and thinking about it. Got me thinking of what some good pool players have in common. And I Wiki'd a couple. Mosconi's father owned a pool room. I think Crane's did too. Souquet's? Yes. Jake Schaeffer Jr?? Didn't Harold Worst's father buy him a table? Didn't McCready sleep in poolrooms in an abnormal childhood? By whatever means, good players had opportunities to put in hours while young. Why IMO bar tables are bad for the game. If you can already play they are just bad. If you need to put in your10K hours of drills they are horrible. because the balls require more money to come out and of you are under 21 and the bar table is in a bar you don't get to play. Put a 10 year old on a 10' pool table for 10000 hours and give hime some lessons and see what happens.
 
I agree with Scott on the stroke concept ... I had him at my house shortly after working a construction job with Leon Sly in Macon that was fun but turned into nightmare also ..lol... Since then my stroke has become more consistant and my game is starting to improve big time along with control of the cue ball... Also I noticed that in the past when I use to start off bad it would be bad all night ... Now if I have a bad game or even in the middle of a bad game I go over my stroke and often turn my game around right away by realizing I'm doing something worng in my mechanics ... Standing up in my shot .... Dropping my elbow and bringing my cue up in the shot instead of follwing through to my normal delivery point ... Know where I really did not understand the mechanics of my stroke to fix it ... I would just quit for a few days ... I have a checklist that I go through and get my stroke back on track pretty quick and with it my game ...

Also agree with the book and the hours of practice it takes but if you are not practicing correctly it won't matter how many hours you put in unless your someone like Varner , Archer , Kieth , The Iceman , Strickland who are just gifted and can deliver the shot with the stroke they are use to ... But still they also have to put in the work ...
 
The King said:
Also agree with the book and the hours of practice it takes but if you are not practicing correctly it won't matter how many hours you put in unless your someone like Varner , Archer , Kieth , The Iceman , Strickland who are just gifted and can deliver the shot with the stroke they are use to ... But still they also have to put in the work ...
Click to expand...


I am not disagreening that instruction and good practice are important, and yes, I have worked with Scott. But what I have not done, and most people haven't, is put in the 10K hours. Now my life is better for not having done it, but the pool game is worse. Why to read the book is because of the premise that talent is overrated. The most successful people are not necessarily the most talented. They have enough. of whatever the skill or talent is. Enough IQ. Enough size to play a given sport, etc... Then they put in enough hours. And few do that. And then some cultural factors come in. Why seemingly minor things like how a society respects authority or a language is structured can matter in certain skills. So read the book. because IMO it takes away the "I'm not talented" enough refrain. Maybe you aren't. But more likely you haven't put in the hours. And then if you put in the hours in pool instead of computer programming your life will be different. And if you have kids IMO the book is a definite no excuses must read.
 
jay helfert said:
Let's see, eight hours a day for 365 days equates to almost 3,000 hours of pool. I am CERTAIN that I averaged that much playing my first few years. I had MANY ten, twelve and longer hour days mixed in there to make up for the rare day when I missed playing due to a cold or whatever.

I used to tell people (I guess I still do) that if you want to learn to play pool, become obsessed with it for about three years. That's what it took me to become reasonably proficient as a player. In those three years, I probably put in my 10,000 hours or damn close to it. I played pool to the exclusion of everything else, and I mean everything. When I was a young man, I literally ate, slept and breathed pool. I didn't care about movies, girls, politics or anything else for that matter. Sick, huh! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Sounds like my life story Jay
 
chefjeff said:
Over Christmas holiday, I read a book by the author of The Tipping Point, called The Outlier. One concept from the book intrigued me in reference to pool. Gladwell is the author.

The author makes the claim that to be an expert at something requires 10,000 hours of practicing or doing the act. That's a lot of hours if you think about it.

So, I translated that into pool shots. To be an expert at pool, assuming the concept is correct, requires 10,000 hours. I'm not talking 10,000 hours of being in a pool hall,:rolleyes: but actually shooting shots, made or missed. If one shoots 200 shots an hour ( a hefty amount acheivable only if practicing with discipline or playing lessor players only) then it would take 2 million shots to become a pool expert!*

The book uses examples of Mozart and others who didn't become experts at their chosen fields until their 10,000 hours were completed.

I thought before reading the book that 1 million shots would do it, but now it seems like it takes 2 million. Wow, that's a lot of years of shooting constantly. After 50 years, I'm up to maybe 700,000 shots so far. I'll be dead before I reach 2 million/10,000 hours.

Anyone have the discipline to go for 10,000 hours or have already done it?

Jeff Livingston

* I know the pool teachers will jump in here declaring that practicing correctly, etc. shortens that time-frame, but Gladwell seems to say that is not so...it takes the brain 10,000 hours to integrate the necessary knowledge regardless of the care in practice. More study is probably needed to be sure one way or the other.
Click to expand...
Finally, speed pool makes sense to me.
 
sjm said:
The amount of sacrifice needed to be one of the best at anything is, generally, underestimated by most.

I recall that many, many years ago, the classical pianist extraordinaire Vladimir Horowitz, appeared on the Dick Cavett show. Cavett, somewhat matter-of-factly commented to Horowitz "I'd give anything to play the piano like you do." I'll never forget Horowitz' answer. He said "No you wouldn't," and then went on to explain how he'd not had a normal childhood, for when others were playing and making friends, he was practicing piano. He then spoke of what he had sacrificed throughout his life and was still scarificing to remain at the top of his trade. Cavett was somewhat shocked that his pandering to Horowitz had met with such an aggressive reply, but Horowitz wanted people to understand what he had lost, and that he had, at least, some regrets.

Horowitz' reply taught me a lot about life and has always helped me to understand and appreciate the great sacrifices made by many of those who go on to achieve special things. Horowitz was a guy who put in his 10,000 hours as a child and paid a price often overlooked for having done so.
Click to expand...
Bravo!! You put things in perfect perspective.
 
JPB...It's been a few years now...and probably time for a review lesson for you (last time it was tapes...now you get DVD's). I'll be back up in your neck of the woods later this spring. If you'd like to get together again, let me know! :D

Scott Lee
www.poolknowledge.com

JPB said:
I am not disagreening that instruction and good practice are important, and yes, I have worked with Scott. But what I have not done, and most people haven't, is put in the 10K hours. Now my life is better for not having done it, but the pool game is worse.
Click to expand...
 
Well....... I have put ten thousand hours in but unfortunately most of them were spent watching my opponents shoot :-)

So I guess I am a Master Racker at this point.
 
Jeff,

Please define expert and please define practice....without these two definitions, this argument is useless. I also think the skill in question is important to consider, for example...

I do not need to study multiplication tables in excess of 10,000 hours to become an expert arithmatician. Also, practicing multiplication tables in excess of 10,000 hours will not define me as an expert mathematician.

Another example: I can swim for 10,000+ hours and I will never ever ever achieve the level of efficiency required by "expert" swimmers. I am quite certain that people such as Carl Lewis did not spend in excess of 10,000 hours running and jumping to reach the world class level.
 
Drew said:
Jeff,

Please define expert and please define practice....without these two definitions, this argument is useless. I also think the skill in question is important to consider, for example...

I do not need to study multiplication tables in excess of 10,000 hours to become an expert arithmatician. Also, practicing multiplication tables in excess of 10,000 hours will not define me as an expert mathematician.

Another example: I can swim for 10,000+ hours and I will never ever ever achieve the level of efficiency required by "expert" swimmers. I am quite certain that people such as Carl Lewis did not spend in excess of 10,000 hours running and jumping to reach the world class level.
Click to expand...

I haven't read the book, but I am agreeing with Drew. Since "expert level" has not been defined, this claim by the author is hard to validate as an absolute. If his point is, "it takes tons of practice," I think everyone here would agree. But it sounds like this author is serious about THIS number being an absolute, like +/- 10% error at most. That would be taking the point too far.

Also, 1 hour for a naturally gifted person might be the equivalent of 3 hours for a knucklehead.

Like JBCases, I would be an expert racker at this point.
 
I disagree with the general premise that someone must have a certain number of hours doing something to be an expert. You can do something badly for an infinite period of time and it will never make you an expert.

Natural talent, aptitude and attitude play as much a part in the equation as time in my opinion.
 
JCIN said:
I disagree with the general premise that someone must have a certain number of hours doing something to be an expert. You can do something badly for an infinite period of time and it will never make you an expert.

Natural talent, aptitude and attitude play as much a part in the equation as time in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Depends on the definition of expert. At 10,000+ hours, a person of average intelligence will likely have an expert understanding of virtually any skill (exclude such outliers as theoretical physics and neuro-surgery)...whether or not that understanding can be taught is debatable. But upon completing 10,000 hours of monotonous practice, it is hard to argue that one would not have achieved an expert level of knowledge. Again, this depends on your definition of "expert."


Edit: I have achieved the 10,000 hours required in the subject of debate....what does that make me?
 
Gladwell's book

I read most of this book, as well as his others...very interesting and creative thinker.

I do have a problem with this 10,000 hour thing though. His position is a bit unclear. Is he saying that anyone meeting the 10,000 hour requirement will be an expert? Are the experts he cites the only ones to have met the 10,000 hour requirement? If not (and I think not) then what separates them from the others?

I have a tendency to bang balls around when "practicing". I find it hard to believe that 10,000 hours of that would match up with someone who spent the same amount of time in a more disciplined manner. I don't think the book addressed that.

So to me, his case here is pretty weak. (But please do read his books...they will open your mind and get you thinking)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top