Do you have a "learning style"? Maybe not

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
If you are interested in stuff like this, I much recommend the book "The Sports Gene" if you haven't read it yet. It details the story of Albert Pujols - one of baseball's greatest hitters in his time - who was completely blown away by a softball pitcher throwing underhand. Upon goading by Barry Bonds, the same pitcher, throwing underhand, demolished him with pitches traveling about 68mph, well below what these two were subject to in overhand pitches in MLB. How is that possible? The book offers this thesis before explaining the rest: "It's because the only way to hit a ball traveling at high speed is to be able to see into the future, and when a baseball player faces a softball pitcher, he is stripped of his crystal ball."

It's been a while since I've read it, but I do believe it covers the chess story as well.

As for me, I guess I'm what this would call kinesthetic? I need to go through the experience of something to really get a handle on it. Worst thing for me is being handed instructions and just left alone - I often have too many questions and confusions.
Thanks for the info. Yes, very interested. The book sounds fascinating, and I just purchased a digital copy.
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Just as a point of interest, triggers tend to be physical.
An emotional response, as found in phobias, triggers a cascade in response.
A forward press as found in golf, or ball bounces as found in tennis or basketball, trigger the attached behavior.

In my case, my subconscious is visual.
Where Brett triggers the stance into the whole swing starting with a foot placement vertical leg, I too have a physical transition.
My heel is about where his is, but my foot is pivoted towards the cb.
I stand squarer and my left feet is about half my foot length ahead.
My trigger is to bend from my slightly angled hip line with my long bridged cue hinging down the line where my head advanced to the shot line from away from the table.
The vertical leg stiffening as I hinge is my trigger to all things visual taking center focus.
I heard Jim Wych describe it as a bubble, during commentating.
The visual elements I have identified during planning and aiming come into play.
The long bridge during pre-foot plant places the cue visually on the reference line and any cue line modifications, deviations from the subconscious shot picture, help set the cue line.
Now my foot, vertical leg and hip bend hinge me down the line, shortening my bridge to normal.
Part of that shortening is me watching my cue come back straight before finding its final resting place pointed on target.
The straightness test, with tip contact set, then lets me turn the execution over to the automatic straight cueing vision set.
My kinesthetic reside in my unconscious.
If I am aware of the physical parts of the stroke here, I need to get up.
While the feel part of execution and pace are indeed part of the shot, only detached background and peripheral awareness should be there.
At the end of most strokes I’m not aware of the physical only the visuals.

This is a personal process that applies to my specific consciousness profile.
Each persons trigger will likely be specific to them.
People sometimes wear a rubber band on their wrist, they snap, when wanting to initiate (trigger) specific behaviors.

Apologies to Fran if this feels like a further overflow of information.
Well, I did manage to see that last line! (y) But honestly, I wish you would reconsider your posting style. You have a lot to offer, and I'm positive you would reach more people if you changed your approach of how you share information here.
 

3kushn

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Darn, I should have answered the question here before watching the video, then see how full of it I am.
Believe it or not I would have said "all the above."

As this would related to my game, 3Cushion, I used to go through books with lots of diagrams in preparation for a tournament. Sometimes I'd read what was said about the shot, most times I didn't. I mostly just wanted to see the lines, fall asleep with diagrams floating in my head. With those shots I felt like I needed to read/review the paragraph, I would sometimes also physically practice the shot a couple dozen times. Not to perfection (why I'm not a better player) but to get a better feel for the situation.
 

BC21

Poolology
Gold Member
Silver Member
If you are interested in stuff like this, I much recommend the book "The Sports Gene" if you haven't read it yet. It details the story of Albert Pujols - one of baseball's greatest hitters in his time - who was completely blown away by a softball pitcher throwing underhand. Upon goading by Barry Bonds, the same pitcher, throwing underhand, demolished him with pitches traveling about 68mph, well below what these two were subject to in overhand pitches in MLB. How is that possible? The book offers this thesis before explaining the rest: "It's because the only way to hit a ball traveling at high speed is to be able to see into the future, and when a baseball player faces a softball pitcher, he is stripped of his crystal ball."

It's been a while since I've read it, but I do believe it covers the chess story as well.

As for me, I guess I'm what this would call kinesthetic? I need to go through the experience of something to really get a handle on it. Worst thing for me is being handed instructions and just left alone - I often have too many questions and confusions.

It's one of my favorite books.
 

Tennesseejoe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Sports Gene is based on physical ability and improvement....but while you are reading it, consider replacing the physical aspect with intelligence as a subject. The result will be almost illegal.
thephysical tThanks for the info. Yes, very interested. The book sounds fascinating, and I just purchased a digital copy.
ne
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
The Sports Gene is based on physical ability and improvement....but while you are reading it, consider replacing the physical aspect with intelligence as a subject. The result will be almost illegal.

ne
Hey Tennesseejoe, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you think the book is racist. You might be right. I haven't read it yet. But instead of using substitutions and analogies, just have the courage to say what you really mean.
 

Tennesseejoe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Hey Tennesseejoe, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you think the book is racist. You might be right. I haven't read it yet. But instead of using substitutions and analogies, just have the courage to say what you really mean.
I said nothing about race...you are incorrect...and I am insulted...you owe me an apology. Never mind the apology...I prefer to cease this communication.
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I said nothing about race...you are incorrect...and I am insulted...you owe me an apology. Never mind the apology...I prefer to cease this communication.
I don't owe you anything when you're cryptic like that. Write clearer next time and people won't have to try to interpret your intent. Now, are you going to explain to us what the "almost illegal" comment is all about or are you going to remain cryptic and continue to keep us guessing?
 

Pin

Registered
If I present information and don’t connect the dots, people don’t get the message.
If I connect the dots, it’s overload.
Meh!
It seems to me that your posts condense a vast amount of information into a very compact space.
By principles of clear and concise writing, this would measure as spectacular! In practice, people like some filler to allow time for complex ideas to be absorbed. But if you did that, the post would turn into a short book.
I found it necessary to go through the posts very slowly, dwelling on the ideas in every line. Which is an unusual style of reading, and takes a bit of self-discipline to maintain. And even then, I'm going through them one post at a time.

But the choices are:
- Don't give the in-depth information
- Give the information in a compact way that's hard to read
- Give the information in an enormous post that people will quit on.

I prefer the option you chose!
 

Pin

Registered
Learning what dominates your subconscious helps determine individually what’s going on in the playing mind, when you are at your best.
Discovering that each level of consciousness is dominant in a different sense means we get to choose the level of consciousness currently processing information, by making it predominant in the mind.
This fascinates me.

I've read in sports psychology literature that the subconscious uses 'feel' more effectively than words. That this is inherent to the subconscious (at least as a broad generalization).
(I use this in my own game using feel cues to 'warm up' the pool subconscious. I find it very effective.)

But does this oppose the idea that the subconscious can have one of three 'learning style' preferences. (If not outright contradiction, it's pulling in the opposite direction.)

I suppose the 'subconscious feel' theory is contrasting feel with linguistic information. Which isn't quite the same as contrasting kinesthetic preference with visual/auditory preference.

But 'feel' and 'kinesthetic' seem very close.

[Edit to add: There is also a left-brain right-brain thing involved here. The right brain functioning better with 'feel' than linguistics. Another model to throw into the mix!]
 
Last edited:

JusticeNJ

Four Points/Steel Joints
Silver Member
The Sports Gene is based on physical ability and improvement....but while you are reading it, consider replacing the physical aspect with intelligence as a subject. The result will be almost illegal.

ne
Not trying to sling mud here, as I enjoy your posting, but physical ability is thought of as a form of intelligence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_multiple_intelligences#Bodily-kinesthetic

Pick any 800FR player today, or any of the past greats, and I bet you'll find they have genius levels of kinesthetic intelligence. It's not just genetic lung capacity, blood cells, heart size, etc.

Take, for example, the description of this type of intelligence to include "a sense of timing, a clear sense of the goal of a physical action, along with the ability to train responses," and it's basically describing the fundamentals of a billiard stroke. Some people are just better at it because they intuitively understand how it all comes together better; not necessarily because they have better muscles or eyeballs.

Consider Dan DiLiberto. Great boxer, but weak hands (damn genetics!), so he took up pool at a high level, with a straight pool high run in the 300s. Also bowled 300.
 

Pin

Registered
Fran, I saw your name on here a couple of months ago and I had the weirdest feeling that I knew it from somewhere.
Then out of the blue it occurred to me: I've read your 'Everything' book!
May I say it was exceptionally well written. One of the clearest and most level-headed pool books I've read.
 

FranCrimi

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Fran, I saw your name on here a couple of months ago and I had the weirdest feeling that I knew it from somewhere.
Then out of the blue it occurred to me: I've read your 'Everything' book!
May I say it was exceptionally well written. One of the clearest and most level-headed pool books I've read.
Thank you! I was just a co-author at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pin

Imac007

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This fascinates me.

I've read in sports psychology literature that the subconscious uses 'feel' more effectively than words. That this is inherent to the subconscious (at least as a broad generalization).
(I use this in my own game using feel cues to 'warm up' the pool subconscious. I find it very effective.)

But does this oppose the idea that the subconscious can have one of three 'learning style' preferences. (If not outright contradiction, it's pulling in the opposite direction.)

I suppose the 'subconscious feel' theory is contrasting feel with linguistic information. Which isn't quite the same as contrasting kinesthetic preference with visual/auditory preference.

But 'feel' and 'kinesthetic' seem very close.

[Edit to add: There is also a left-brain right-brain thing involved here. The right brain functioning better with 'feel' than linguistics. Another model to throw into the mix!]
The ideas are not really at odds.
The “feel” often acts as a trigger accessing fully developed skills.
When the stroke is a single act, not a conscious mishmash of pieces hoping coordination is in the mix this time, the subconscious was in charge.
In Lee Brett’s case his subconscious and the trigger would likely be in the same sense.
In my case, my subconscious is visual.
Looking at the shot from distance, my sight line decision is a felt sense on my body center.
If it looks/feels right I’m ready to go. (hand/eye task)
Stepping up to the shot I have the cue angled vertically, over that line.
My bridge holds the cue at about the joint so I see the shaft as I drop into the shot.
The process involves my elbow hinge aligning to pull the cue back along the shot line while the bridge finds its place on the line.
This is deliberate, holding onto the look/feel, linked directly to retaining the aim line.
Since the grip is pulling back into set position it only needs to return on the retracted path to move back through the ball.
It’s a bit like pulling back a bow, but the extension needs to be to the vertically dropped right arm, hinging at the dropped forearm, from the elbow.
Once that hinge feels physically and visually aligned everything become vision centric.
The cue moving straight, then stopping to fixate on the target and future landing place/ path of the cue ball.
Execution in my case is now more a mindless act, with the height of contact being the exception on certain precision shots.
Even pace is often based on visuals.
I imagine the cue ball path, with or without spin, reacting with balls and rails in specific ways, based on the envisioned contact point and pace.
If there is a feel element it is at my unconscious level.
This is why I say that it’s literally, “different strokes for different folks”.
Maybe your “warm ups“ might better be termed as “waking up” subconscious resources.
Pulling automated skills into consciousness lets your subconscious “tweak” or “tune into” slight variations, based on observed differences vs situational needs.
The resultant adjustment can still be subconsciously executed, with the adjusted contact criteria in mind.

Kinesthetic and feel are in the same domain, including the physiological effects we call emotions.
 
Last edited:
Top