Determining pool playing aptitude.

D

dearnold

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
So I got into a minor disagreement over on the instructional forum about innate ability. Most behavioral scientists would concur that performance in anything is part innate ability and part training (the ole nature/nurture thing). But of course many folks don’t like to admit that, mostly aspiring world beaters and instructors. ;o)

But let’s start with the assumption that innate ability plays a pretty big role in where you can peak out as a pool player. The question is, what test would you devise to select from a population of humans those with the best innate ability to shoot pool.

Here is a practical example. Let’s take the staple of instruction, the full table stop shot. Let’s take 100 people of similar current ability, let’s say B players. The question is, can any of these B players turn into world beaters? There might be a battery of tests you run them through. I’ll pick one candidate, the stop shot. I take those 100 players and I make them shoot the same stop shot over and over for 30 days, maybe a couple of hours a day. At the end of that time period, I test them in an appropriate manner and performance will most likely be a normal distribution curve, and those at the very top of the curve (the top 5%), would be the folks that I would submit have the highest probability of being world beaters given enough training, practice, motivation, other skills (creativity, problem solving), etc.

But there are lots of weaknesses of just using the stop shot. And let’s assume that all these folks have NO PREVIOUS POOL experience. What is your test of choice to isolate those that have the most ability?? If we were looking for future world class weight lifters, the choice of tests would be obvious. But pool is more subtle.

So why do I care? Well, I have been practicing that stop shot for a long time. And I, like most of you, wonder just how good I can be. And those of us who are enlightened and educated understand that there is a limit to how good each of us can get. Take the top 50 players on the AZ list. I would bet a lot that all of them practice their asses off. That they really want to be number 1. That they have good equipment, good instruction, good practice, good motivation, good support, etc. But they also have their own personal limitations, which is why not all of the contenders can be the best. I’d love to be able to run 50 balls in straight pool once a week. I’m trying real hard to get there, but it might very well be the case that I do not have the innate ability to pull that off, no matter how hard I try. Now I haven’t given up, I think I could get there, so don’t feel sorry for me or give me advice, that’s not the point of the post.

BUT WHAT IS THE MOST EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WAY TO MEASURE INNATE POOL ABILITY? What you COULD be, not what you currently are.

What is the pool IQ test?
 
The IPAT tests are an excellent means of measuring one's skill playing abilities. I built my own training regimen around the IPAT tests, and used the tests to measure the level of improvement I was making through my training efforts. I would recommend you start with the PAT 1 book. There are 3 PAT tests. You can find the books through ozonebilliards and bebob publishing. There are video/DVD's for each book, and I would recommend that you get the dvd for each book as well.
 
I believe it all boils down to TRUE desire. People enjoy doing things they are good at. We get gratification from having success not failures. To become the best at anything requires years of dedication regardless of natural ability. So to me the test is simple, if given the opportunity to spend eight hours a day for a lenght of time say five years or even one. How many people would actualy enjoy the game enough to accomplish the goal? People always talk about "if" they had the chance to play pool all day long. I say not many people really have the desire to play the amount of time it requires to be good. The players who have success and the most gratification from playing will get there. What ever your endeaver is if you want it bad enough you will do what ever it takes. Right now with pool having such little monetary rewards you have to enjoy the game an awful lot to put in the time needed.
 
The truth is without natural talent none will become pro level players reguardless of how much they play. I would say without natural talent the best anyone can expect to play would be a A level, and not many will achieve that level. Even with natural talent, one would have to dedicate his life to pool to have a chance to become a top player. I have known guys who have played pool at a serious level for over 30 years and still play at a low B level. Why is this? because they have no natural talent. I know there are many that will not accept this fact for many reasons, but it is what it is!
 
backplaying said:
I have known guys who have played pool at a serious level for over 30 years and still play at a low B level.
Click to expand...

30 years and low B? Unless they're crippled I conclude that they were not 'playing pool at a serious level.'
:wub:
 
Neil said:
There is no test to measure innate ability. And, anyone that says there is, is trying to "sell' you something. You CANNOT take adults from across the board, have them practice something new to them, such as pool, and then say some have more natural talent than others.

To do that, requires you to make WAY to many assumptions that simply are not fact. The problem arises when you assume that just because ten people have never played pool before, then they are equal except for natural talent. That simply is not so. Talent in pool actually starts soon after birth, in my opinion. And, continues throughout childhood.

Because of that early training, it is impossible to say what is natural talent, and what is not. Much of the talent is trained, not given. Many things go into that training. Even from such an early start as simply having a mobile over their crib to not having one. Having a mobile starts spatial training earlier. Rolling a ball to a baby that can sit up is training. Giving "safe" toys to babies to learn co-ordination is training. Children playing ball instead of reading is training eye-hand co-ordination.

Teaching children to really pay attention to just what they are doing is training. Teaching children to actually care about consequences and doing their best is training.

So, you see, there is much training that goes on "behind the scenes" that is not given proper credit as training, but instead is looked at by some as natural talent. If someone that had proper training (proper meaning some training that is beneficial to the later endeavor) as a child is then given a task to do as an adolescent or adult, they will perform it at a higher level quicker than the person that had no training for that endeavor as a child.

From what I have seen and read, the consensus is still out on whether or not an adult can achieve the same with adult training as the person who started receiving the training as a child. It obviously would take longer for the adult with no previous training, because they would have to undo what training they currently posses that is not beneficial to the task at hand. Some seem to think that by the time we become adults, we become "hardwired" in how we think, and that is not changeable. Some disagree and say it is changeable.

This all applies to not only the physical training, but also the mental training. Mental being how we adapt to different situations, how we handle taking what we do know, and coming up with something totally new from the previously learned principles, how we react to failure and disappointment, desire to win, desire to be the best we can be, ect.

Basically, I believe it is nuture, not nature. But, some get a real big head start on the required nuture.

edit: As far as some sort of test to see where you would peak out, I believe that currently to be impossible to do or say. We all have nutured different abilities to different levels. No one has ever done an intensive study to see exactly what abilities are actually required, and at what level to play pool to a high level. When you look at the top players, you can get a rough idea of some of the requirements, but not to what level each requirement is actually important. The easiest requirement is obviously that you have to be able to see. To what level of seeing, is not even known. Without my glasses, I can't begin to even read the numbers on the balls, but I can still run a rack out without them. You don't even need arms to play to a high level! A man named Sutton proved everyone wrong on that one!

So, in essence, there is no answer to your question. All one can do is continue to train, find the best ways to train, which means find an area you have trouble in, and learn what kind of training will help that area. That training doesn't have to be pool related either. It just has to be training that helps you become better in some aspect that applies to pool, such as eye-hand co-ordination, visual acuity, concentration, ect. Think "wax-on-wax-off".
Click to expand...

Phenomenal post Neil!

I credit any "natural ability" I had/have for pool to my early years of playing basketball. I would play basketball for hours. More specifically, I would dribble the ball for hours and hours. I'm certain this developed my eye/hand coordination quite well. Although it was no replacement for the real thing - too bad I wasn't spending those early years shooting the stop shot.

As far as the OP is concerned, it is an interesting take on the nature/nurture thing. The funny thing is though, I no longer believe that early natural ability really accounts for much in the big scheme of things. In pool, I think the only thing it really does is help someone develop that early interest in the game (not that this isn't huge). But just about everybody quickly discovers how hard this game is. At this point, it is only those that are truly passionate about the game that continue on.

I will say without any hesitation that the whole concept of natural ability and my thinking that I was limited by my lack of it - was the single biggest reason that my game stopped improving. Once I discarded this idea, and instead embraced the idea of nearly unlimited human potential, my game began to improve again.

I'm certain of one thing - in the year 2087 pool players will still be sitting around debating about natural ability. Many players will still believe that their game is limited by their lack of it. They will be busy running 10 packs of 10 ball on 10 foot tables with 3.5 inch pockets, but they will just shake their heads at those players with more natural ability that can run 15 racks. Life just isn't fair.
 
There are savants in all fields of endeavor--including pool. Just ask anyone who watched Keith McCready at age 13!!
 
What is "natural talent" in pool? Great coordinated movements of muscles? Great hand eye coordination? Ability to see angles?
 
The way i see talent is when you first start playing the game you become as good as you can without a lot of hard work and relatively quickly, this is based on your talents. After the honeymoon phase is over is all hard work to increase one's skills.
 
Pool is a little different than other physical activities in that everything that matters in a pool match can be done by almost ANYONE. I guess you could call the mental advantage the top players have "talent", but I would prefer to just say that they are more dedicated, more experienced, more cool under pressure, and more analytical (at least in terms of pool) than everyone else. I wouldn't put any one of those attributes under talent. Maybe genius would be a better word.
 
From someone with NO natural ability ...

backplaying said:
The truth is without natural talent none will become pro level players reguardless of how much they play. I would say without natural talent the best anyone can expect to play would be a A level, and not many will achieve that level. Even with natural talent, one would have to dedicate his life to pool to have a chance to become a top player. I have known guys who have played pool at a serious level for over 30 years and still play at a low B level. Why is this? because they have no natural talent. I know there are many that will not accept this fact for many reasons, but it is what it is!
Click to expand...

Someone once told me long ago that Willie Mosconi believed natural ability was essential to become a top player. You can compare people who have the same desire and drive for the game and see that some just learn the concepts much quicker than others. To me, this must be natural ability at work. To be a top player, it will still require a lot of time and devotion.

As far as a test to determine who has that natural ability, I don't know of any, but I think experienced players could pick out these folks who have it. There are subtle things that veteren players can see that separate developed talent from natural talent. From what I understand, Mosconi picked out McCready early on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top