Do you think more skilled players are more intelligent than lesser skilled players?

Snapshot9

son of 3 leg 1 eye dog ..
Silver Member
This is something I have thought about for the last 50 years. In the beginning, and yet even now, I have thought that getting beat was an insult to my intelligence. Either that there was something I didn't know, or that the other player could be smarter than me. Refusing to accept that, I made it a point to educate myself more, while analyzing other players games looking for weak points in their games so I could use them to defeat the other player. What has resulted has been a good ability to judge a players speed, and to spot what their weak points are.

So I have to ask, do you think that the better players are smarter than their opponents or not?
 

1pRoscoe

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
This is something I have thought about for the last 50 years. In the beginning, and yet even now, I have thought that getting beat was an insult to my intelligence. Either that there was something I didn't know, or that the other player could be smarter than me. Refusing to accept that, I made it a point to educate myself more, while analyzing other players games looking for weak points in their games so I could use them to defeat the other player. What has resulted has been a good ability to judge a players speed, and to spot what their weak points are.

So I have to ask, do you think that the better players are smarter than their opponents or not?

Not hardly. I've seen many shortstop and pros that are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Just look at some of the "prestigious" that have posted here over the years.... note the horrible grammar and punctuation and you can answer your own question.

I am not referring to anyone in particular, but have seen a common trend of some....
 

bdorman

Dead money
Silver Member
Define "smart."

To me it means being able (and open) to see possibilities that other don't see. Albert Einstein wasn't the top physicist or mathmatician of his day; but he was the most creative thinker.

I think Reyes is the best (smartest) in this regard. I love it when tournament commentators say "to get out of this problem he'll need to do X" and then he does something that no one expected.
 

david(tx)

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Rote learning vs. critical thinking

Rote methods are routinely used when quick memorization is required, such as learning one's lines in a play or memorizing a telephone number. Rote learning is widely used in the mastery of foundational knowledge. Examples of school topics where rote learning is frequently used include phonics in reading, the periodic table in chemistry, multiplication tables in mathematics, anatomy in medicine, cases or statutes in law, basic formulae in any science, etc. By definition, rote learning eschews comprehension, so by itself it is an ineffective tool in mastering any complex subject at an advanced level. For instance, one illustration of Rote learning can be observed in preparing quickly for exams, a technique which may be colloquially referred to as "cramming".

Rote learning is sometimes disparaged with the derogative terms parrot fashion, regurgitation, cramming, or mugging because one who engages in rote learning may give the wrong impression of having understood what they have written or said. It is strongly discouraged by many new curriculum standards. For example, science and mathematics standards in the United States specifically emphasize the importance of deep understanding over the mere recall of facts, which is seen to be less important, although advocates of traditional education have criticized the new American standards as slighting learning basic facts and elementary arithmetic, and replacing content with process-based skills.

"When calculators can do multidigit long division in a microsecond, graph complicated functions at the push of a button, and instantaneously calculate derivatives and integrals, serious questions arise about what is important in the mathematics curriculum and what it means to learn mathematics. More than ever, mathematics must include the mastery of concepts instead of mere memorization and the following of procedures. More than ever, school mathematics must include an understanding of how to use technology to arrive meaningfully at solutions to problems instead of endless attention to increasingly outdated computational tedium."
-National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commonsense Facts to Clear the Air[1]

In math and science, rote methods are often used, for example to memorize formulas. There is greater understanding if students commit a formula to memory through exercises that use the formula rather than through rote repetition of the formula. Newer standards often recommend that students derive formulas themselves to achieve the best understanding.[2] Nothing is faster than rote learning if a formula must be learned quickly for an imminent test and rote methods can be helpful for committing an understood fact to memory. However, students who learn with understanding are able to transfer their knowledge to tasks requiring problem-solving with greater success than those who learn only by rote.[3]

Eugène Ionesco commented upon rote learning in his play "The Lesson":[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning
 

scratchs

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've often wondered..why nerds an book worms couldn't
perform simple tasks with their hands :grin:..
 

the kidd

VOTE ONE TIME
Silver Member
The definition of an intelligent man.

The definition of an intelligent man. " One who is smart enough to remember what a wise man once said"


Rote learning vs. critical thinking

Rote methods are routinely used when quick memorization is required, such as learning one's lines in a play or memorizing a telephone number. Rote learning is widely used in the mastery of foundational knowledge. Examples of school topics where rote learning is frequently used include phonics in reading, the periodic table in chemistry, multiplication tables in mathematics, anatomy in medicine, cases or statutes in law, basic formulae in any science, etc. By definition, rote learning eschews comprehension, so by itself it is an ineffective tool in mastering any complex subject at an advanced level. For instance, one illustration of Rote learning can be observed in preparing quickly for exams, a technique which may be colloquially referred to as "cramming".

Rote learning is sometimes disparaged with the derogative terms parrot fashion, regurgitation, cramming, or mugging because one who engages in rote learning may give the wrong impression of having understood what they have written or said. It is strongly discouraged by many new curriculum standards. For example, science and mathematics standards in the United States specifically emphasize the importance of deep understanding over the mere recall of facts, which is seen to be less important, although advocates of traditional education have criticized the new American standards as slighting learning basic facts and elementary arithmetic, and replacing content with process-based skills.

"When calculators can do multidigit long division in a microsecond, graph complicated functions at the push of a button, and instantaneously calculate derivatives and integrals, serious questions arise about what is important in the mathematics curriculum and what it means to learn mathematics. More than ever, mathematics must include the mastery of concepts instead of mere memorization and the following of procedures. More than ever, school mathematics must include an understanding of how to use technology to arrive meaningfully at solutions to problems instead of endless attention to increasingly outdated computational tedium."
-National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Commonsense Facts to Clear the Air[1]

In math and science, rote methods are often used, for example to memorize formulas. There is greater understanding if students commit a formula to memory through exercises that use the formula rather than through rote repetition of the formula. Newer standards often recommend that students derive formulas themselves to achieve the best understanding.[2] Nothing is faster than rote learning if a formula must be learned quickly for an imminent test and rote methods can be helpful for committing an understood fact to memory. However, students who learn with understanding are able to transfer their knowledge to tasks requiring problem-solving with greater success than those who learn only by rote.[3]

Eugène Ionesco commented upon rote learning in his play "The Lesson":[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rote_learning
 

TATE

AzB Gold Mensch
Gold Member
Silver Member
This is something I have thought about for the last 50 years. In the beginning, and yet even now, I have thought that getting beat was an insult to my intelligence. Either that there was something I didn't know, or that the other player could be smarter than me. Refusing to accept that, I made it a point to educate myself more, while analyzing other players games looking for weak points in their games so I could use them to defeat the other player. What has resulted has been a good ability to judge a players speed, and to spot what their weak points are.

So I have to ask, do you think that the better players are smarter than their opponents or not?


Intelligence certainly helps make good decisions, assess risk, solve problems, plan in advance.

But ask yourself this, did the most intelligent gunfighter win?
 

EasyEJL

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
would anyone think the top football, baseball or basketball players are the most intelligent?
 

rayjay

some of the kids
Silver Member
Smarter in some ways, dumber in others...just like everybody else.
 
Last edited:

Luxury

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
Being an intelligent person will get you there much much faster IMO.

Hand-eye coordination is critical though.
 

bigshooter

<--vs Chuck Norris on TAR
Silver Member
It's a question of natural ability and intelligence, if you are severely lacking in either you are at a disadvantage. If you have at least a medium range of both you can go places. Exceptions do happen of course, I've witnessed players who appeared to have the intelligence level of a brain damaged monkey shoot lights out.
 

Cuaba

Livin Large
Silver Member
There are several different types of intelligence.

To be great at pool, you have to excel at a couple of them.
 

Christian C

New member
You don't need intelligence to practice or have natural skill. I think it's those that devote more time and effort to practice that tend to be the best. Though every once in a while you run into somebody that was just born with a natural talent.
 

CreeDo

Fargo Rating 597
Silver Member
I've wondered if it might actually be a disadvantage to be a smart, analytical type... you can end up overthinking everything and don't have the comfort of just making balls go where you want without knowing why.

But... there are definitely more times where I've seen someone's lack of brains work against them, no matter how straight they shoot. They try a wild breakout instead of a safe, they keep sinking balls in 8 ball even when they can't run out, they take a flyer at a full table bank that sells out if they miss.

Intelligence helps in ANYthing you try to excel at, even sports that are dominated by the physical (weightlifting for example). But the more intelligent player doesn't always win. If nothing else, there's sometimes enough luck in pool to wipe out any physical or mental edge.
 

Pidge

AzB Silver Member
Silver Member
I've got numerous friends who would score higher than me on an IQ test, and know the required angle to pot a ball, where the CB will go etc but when they try shoot a shot their arms don't communicate with their brain. If you imagine captain hook eating Thai food with chop sticks you get the idea.
 
Last edited:

CJ Wiley

ESPN WORLD OPEN CHAMPION
Gold Member
Silver Member
Certainly not....Playing great pool is a sign of a "miss spent" youth

This is something I have thought about for the last 50 years. In the beginning, and yet even now, I have thought that getting beat was an insult to my intelligence. Either that there was something I didn't know, or that the other player could be smarter than me. Refusing to accept that, I made it a point to educate myself more, while analyzing other players games looking for weak points in their games so I could use them to defeat the other player. What has resulted has been a good ability to judge a players speed, and to spot what their weak points are.

So I have to ask, do you think that the better players are smarter than their opponents or not?

Certainly not....Playing great pool is a sign of a "miss spent" (or "not made" spent) youth,":wink: and has nothing directly related to intelligence in the literal sense of the word.

Pocket Billiards is learned by experience, knowledge, and "emotional intelligence," not commonly taught in schools and institutions.
lindrum2.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top