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

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Snapshot9
- Start date

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

I'll have to remember that one.

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?

**********

Last edited:

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.

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:

Hell no!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Usually the opposite

Usually the opposite

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.

Last edited: