drivermaker
Banned
Roach said:
Physics??? What is your definition of the word and what is included in that learning process?
Dumb people sometimes make the best players
- Thread starter whitewolf
- Start date
Physics??? What is your definition of the word and what is included in that learning process?
drivermaker said:
Oh, I don't know.............just about the entire game is physics.
How two spheres react when hitting each other. Which direction they go and why. How impact effects the speed of each. Why one stops, if it does. Why one goes, if it does. Why one draws. Throw. Squirt. Deflection. Tangent line.
You know.........physics.
Or do you?
whitewolf said:
This observation was made by a famous trick shot artist whom we have all come to love and admire. I will not memtion his name here in order not to take anything away from this thread. His reasoning was that a very intelligent person has a tendency to become overwhelmed by a greater number of possibilities.
Sometimes I think this may be true because my engineering buddies on my team who were very smart could never learn the game of 8 ball.
What do you think?
I think he's probably right, at least for beginning and intermediate players. "Paralysis by analysis" can be a big problem, and actually slows down the learning curve. For example, a "dumber" person only sees one choice on a particular type of shot, always shoots it the same and quickly becomes proficient at it. A "smarter" person will see more options, and not be sure which one to use, and basically requires more practice to learn what each of the options does.
It isn't until the "smarter" person has put enough time in at the table to see what every shot does that they can begin to make progress again. It might make them a better player in the long run, or when they come up against something totally new, but often enough the simple answer is the best answer.
Roach said:
plenty great players learned the game without learning the physics of it. the how and why are not required. some decide to learn the how and why, some don't.
VAP
I think people are over simplifying the relationship between one's intelligence and proficiency at learning pool.
The "over-analysis" often associated with "smart" people is an over exaggeration. Being "smart" isn't about being over analytical. In fact, if you over analyse, you're not being smart. Some people's tendency to over analyze is a result of their habits or personality. Smart people analyze quickly, see patterns, and find the right solutions efficiently. 'Dumb' people also analyze, but they only see more problems than answers and quickly become overwhelmed. An overwhelemd mind cannot think logically and will result in an error in judgement. All these are supported by academic studies on the subject of critical thinking.
A thinking mind will always have an edge over a mind that can't think. A good friend of mine (god bless him, but he isn't the smartest guy in the world) started playing pool at the same time as my other friends and I. He always has trouble making the 'right' decisions when it comes to pattern play. He tries his best to analyze the situation, but he can't.
Also, whether or not someone's attended post-secondary education has very little to do with one's intelligence. It's more about WHICH secondary institution you attended. (IE. Harvard > University of Last Resort) In addition, 'smart' people can have relatively low levels of education. I watched a special on CNN about a woman that had a genetic disease since she was a child. The disease caused her to appear and act like a retarded person, so she was assumed and treated like a retarded person. It was not until the advance of science allowed her to communicate with the rest of the world that it was discovered that she had over 130 IQ. She had very little formal education when that discovery was made.
The "over-analysis" often associated with "smart" people is an over exaggeration. Being "smart" isn't about being over analytical. In fact, if you over analyse, you're not being smart. Some people's tendency to over analyze is a result of their habits or personality. Smart people analyze quickly, see patterns, and find the right solutions efficiently. 'Dumb' people also analyze, but they only see more problems than answers and quickly become overwhelmed. An overwhelemd mind cannot think logically and will result in an error in judgement. All these are supported by academic studies on the subject of critical thinking.
A thinking mind will always have an edge over a mind that can't think. A good friend of mine (god bless him, but he isn't the smartest guy in the world) started playing pool at the same time as my other friends and I. He always has trouble making the 'right' decisions when it comes to pattern play. He tries his best to analyze the situation, but he can't.
Also, whether or not someone's attended post-secondary education has very little to do with one's intelligence. It's more about WHICH secondary institution you attended. (IE. Harvard > University of Last Resort) In addition, 'smart' people can have relatively low levels of education. I watched a special on CNN about a woman that had a genetic disease since she was a child. The disease caused her to appear and act like a retarded person, so she was assumed and treated like a retarded person. It was not until the advance of science allowed her to communicate with the rest of the world that it was discovered that she had over 130 IQ. She had very little formal education when that discovery was made.
Last edited:
whitewolf said:
His reasoning was that a very intelligent person has a tendency to become overwhelmed by a greater number of possibilities.
Gee, I never considered the possiblity of that. So, does that make me dumb enough to beat him, or is he too smart to lose, or...?
Come to think of it (egad!), I dunno if starting this thread was smart or dumb.
Jeff Livingston
drivermaker
Banned
Roach said:
I'll tell you what I know...that you don't have a single clue and you're one of the struggling hacks at this game. You know.....hack. Or do you?
Read what Keith McRready wrote in his "Ask the Pro" section regarding that question. Every pro out there will say exactly the same thing.
drivermaker said:
The one that basically says "I watched good players, and then tried to play like them"? I guess that makes sense if you don't want to bother to think about how the game works. Of course, if everybody had that attitude, we wouldn't even have leather tips to play with. Everybody else played the same, so why try anything new?
Just because somebody is learning the physics of the game by observation, rather than calcualtion, doesn't mean that they are any better or worse off. Every player will eventually tell you that the CB will take the tangent line off any stun shot. Will they use those words? No. Did they figure it out, or read it? Who cares? Will knowing it make them a better player? Probably, but learning it by observation generally takes longer.
Whether you "discover" the physics of the game, or read about it has no direct effect on your game either way. Reading about it won't make you instantly better because you can't apply it. You would be all theory and no execution.
Observing and understanding it after pocketing 1000s of balls won't suddenly make you suck either. Look here, stroke there, and bingo.... shape on the next ball. You already knew what to do, now you know why.
Two roads to the same place, AFAIK.
drivermaker
Banned
Mungtor said:
Shall I take a guess as to what road you're on...or would you like to blurt it out. C'mon Mungy...emerge from that closet and set yourself free.
drivermaker
Banned
Roach said:
Sounds like you smoked one too many roach, Roach. (Don't you just love it when some wannabe big mouth forum hack comes on here that knows more than a pro player and one of the best money players in history. And then wants to get into a long distance woofing match) LMAO What a hack loser...
Maybe you're the OTHER KIND of roach...crawl back into your garbage can.
drivermaker said:
I didn't think you could argue your point.
Change the subject, ad hominen, shoot the messenger, red herring, anything but staying on point. Typical losers argument.
Surprised it comes from you though. I expected a better fight.
But, when you believe physics has nothing to do with pool, or pool has nothing to do with physics, I guess shooting the messenger makes more sense than showing your ignorance.
BTW, it's not my point that McCready or any pool player learned to play pool by reciting the chapter and verse from a physics text book that applies to their knowledge or skill. But, whether they can recite from the text book or not, whether they talk in "lay" terms, pool lingo, or whatever, the laws of physics still apply.
It must be your contention that pool has it's own laws. Well, you're not too far off on that. The physics part stays the same but the laws regarding decency are definately different in the pool world.
Last edited:
drivermaker
Banned
Roach said:
I'm here to learn...the forum is now open and your oyster. Start as many threads as you like on any subject and start teaching Einstein...I'm all ears.
What's thread #1 and #2 going to be about? I can't wait....
The contention made in this thread's title is one I've heard many times over the years, and I honestly believe there is, at least some, truth in it. Sometimes, the cerebral player who sees five choices will be less committed to the choice he/she makes than the less cerebral player who only spotted two choices and selected one of them. The player who plays more on instinct may, in specific cases, be mentally stronger because of this.
Still, pool is not rocket science. The processes needed to learn sound angle management, good speed selection and solid tactical decision making at the table can be learned by almost anyone. I really can't think of many I've ever met that didn't have the capacity to develop a solid understanding of the game and its underlying theory.
Finally, while I believe that while physics may underly cue design or the development of some instructional agendas, I see very little value for any player to learn the physics of the game, unless they have an academic fascination with the subject. For example, physics can be used to prove that it's best to have a level stroke, but what difference does it make if a player understands the principle without understanding the underlying science?
Still, pool is not rocket science. The processes needed to learn sound angle management, good speed selection and solid tactical decision making at the table can be learned by almost anyone. I really can't think of many I've ever met that didn't have the capacity to develop a solid understanding of the game and its underlying theory.
Finally, while I believe that while physics may underly cue design or the development of some instructional agendas, I see very little value for any player to learn the physics of the game, unless they have an academic fascination with the subject. For example, physics can be used to prove that it's best to have a level stroke, but what difference does it make if a player understands the principle without understanding the underlying science?
Last edited:
physics shmysics...
it's existense and relation to pool only has value to people who make it so. end of story.
seeing 5 choices as opposed to 2 has little to do with whether or not a player is "cerebral". an instinctive player,,,a "natural" might see 10, but quickly discerns the best 2. he doesn't sit there mulling over choices and outhinking himself. the process of rhythm is reactive and a culmination of experience and knowledge......and when one is in rhythm, both instinct and knowledge act harmoniously. there is no line to be drawn.
and the great players don't outthink themselves, average players do. and so it's not that average players loaded with tons of knowledge who overthink themselves,,,,,,,it is that they probably couldn't execute in the first place. overthinking merely exaserbated the whole situation.
it's existense and relation to pool only has value to people who make it so. end of story.
seeing 5 choices as opposed to 2 has little to do with whether or not a player is "cerebral". an instinctive player,,,a "natural" might see 10, but quickly discerns the best 2. he doesn't sit there mulling over choices and outhinking himself. the process of rhythm is reactive and a culmination of experience and knowledge......and when one is in rhythm, both instinct and knowledge act harmoniously. there is no line to be drawn.
and the great players don't outthink themselves, average players do. and so it's not that average players loaded with tons of knowledge who overthink themselves,,,,,,,it is that they probably couldn't execute in the first place. overthinking merely exaserbated the whole situation.
Roach said:
Hmmm...methinks you are using a rather broad sense of the term 'physics' there. Knowing that a ball will go in a certain direction does not constitute knowledge of the actual physics involved, and I doubt many top pool players know much of anything about *why* the balls move that way, if the *why* is about the actual physics of the collisions and interactions.