Does pool appeal especially to intelligent people ... or does AZB prove otherwise?
- Thread starter 9BallPaul
- Start date
av84fun said:
Jim,
I'm with Ross on this. I know what you meant, but the way it's worded, it appears to say "The greatest hitters fail to hit over .600" Like that was the uppermost plateau.
Obviously you meant they don't hit over .400.
That's a good example of how some things can be read different ways by different people. You wrote with emphasis on "fail", others read with emphasis on "more".
What I find curious is why you, Jim, a pool lover, wouldn't say "The greatest pool players fail to hit over 1.000% on Accu-Stats"?
Anyway, enough baseball on the pool thread! Take it to AZBaseball!
Terry Ardeno said:Jim,
I'm with Ross on this. I know what you meant, but the way it's worded, it appears to say "The greatest hitters fail to hit over .600" Like that was the uppermost plateau.
Obviously you meant they don't hit over .400.
That's a good example of how some things can be read different ways by different people. You wrote with emphasis on "fail", others read with emphasis on "more".
What I find curious is why you, Jim, a pool lover, wouldn't say "The greatest pool players fail to hit over 1.000% on Accu-Stats"?
Anyway, enough baseball on the pool thread! Take it to AZBaseball!
Respectfully to one of my favorite members (you) the post says what it says which is that great hitters fail to get hits more than 60% of the time.
Turn that around and it would have read that great hitters SUCCEED in getting hits more than 60% of the time which would equate to .600 and would be wrong.
I just don't see how the original comment could possibly be misinterpreted.
At WORST both interpretations would be reasonable and Ross should know that I am not QUITE ignorant enough to think that MLB batting champs hit .600.
But he has a history of enjoying sniping at my posts...which is fine with me.
(-:
What duh????
jsp,
This thread was nicely showing Paul some great info. He had a hypotenuse that he wanted to find out if we are smart or not smart. Then, you gotta chime in with stuff that NOBODY knows how to check on, because nobody even knows what it IS! Way to tip the see-saw the other way!
A reciprocal when I was growing up was if you get punched, then you reciprocaled in kind!
So, to better understand this, I did some quick research on that failsafe site, YouTube. After some searching, I found something that basically explains what I think you just said. I think it explains it better as it goes along.
Here it is.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06V9xuLdqg
PS-Your medulla oblongata is bigger than mine!
jsp said:Um...incorrect.
60% expressed as a fraction is 3/5. The reciprocal of 3/5 is 5/3, or roughly 1.667.
But that doesn't mean you're not an intelligent poster.
jsp,
This thread was nicely showing Paul some great info.
He had a hypotenuse that he wanted to find out if we are smart or not smart. Then, you gotta chime in with stuff that NOBODY knows how to check on, because nobody even knows what it IS! Way to tip the see-saw the other way!A reciprocal when I was growing up was if you get punched, then you reciprocaled in kind!
So, to better understand this, I did some quick research on that failsafe site, YouTube. After some searching, I found something that basically explains what I think you just said. I think it explains it better as it goes along.
Here it is.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x06V9xuLdqg
PS-Your medulla oblongata is bigger than mine!
jsp said:Um...incorrect.
60% expressed as a fraction is 3/5. The reciprocal of 3/5 is 5/3, or roughly 1.667.
But that doesn't mean you're not an intelligent poster.
Right! My bad!!!
What the hell IS the expression I should have used????
I am still brain cramping!!
And THANKS for being gentle!
(-:
I love lamp.
Beware_of_Dawg said:
I don't get that?
Who or what does that mean?
9BallPaul said:
I believe it does. I liken pool to chess but with sticks, 'balls', and a table instead of a board and chess pieces. The physical, mental, psychological, emotional and intellectual aspects/assets of a person/player must all come together for a player to prevail and succeed or at least come close to it.
Then again what defines intelligence? Barring higher levels of education, I think intelligence is inherent/natural. It typically goes hand-in-hand with the thirst for knowledge achieved through education and experience. Unfortunately though, not everybody born intelligent has the opportunity for higher education. However, history has proven time and again that many intelligent people has come and gone , succeeded and left innumerable legacies through diligence and intelligence. Take Efren for example, the man barely had education for reasons beyond his control yet with talent, diligence and intelligence, he became the best pool had to offer. Also, his passion for chess in addition to pool is another indicator.
As mentioned previously in this thread, pool is a good cross section of society in general, but if one looks hard enough and focus on the serious pool players, one will find that many will be above average in intelligence. Taken seriously, pool is a mental and intellectual game.
One thing I know is a fact about serious pool players intelligent or not, ALL, I repeat, ALL are perfectionist bar none. Everyone is on a quest to achieve and sustain that perfect game. Coupled with passion, the quest for perfection is what keeps us coming back.
Last edited:
hippiepool
Banned
I was going to be the first person to actually answer the original question of this post ....Terry Ardeno beat me to it ...JoeW said:
There are definitely "many kinds of smart" ...excellent post ...!
Last edited: