Its definitely quality over quantity. I know several guys that hit a million balls a day and haven't moved up in years and don't have any idea why.
How Many Years Have You REALLY Been Playing?
- Thread starter BasementDweller
- Start date
In my opinion
Hello Eric! It's good to see you on here. I hope all is well. I'd just like to say that I am familiar with the 10,000 hour theory and don't believe it can be applied in the case of fine tuned sports such as billiards and golf. The reason being is that it does not factor in a few VERY important variables in the equation.
1) The number of hours put in on a table could be bad if you're only reinforcing bad habits that need to be broken. That will only ensure a player of becoming stagnant in their development and progression in the process of actually executing anything they learn. PROPER practice hours are required to build and advance one's game which may also require guidance and perhaps lessons even.
2) There is a certain level of understanding of physics and geometry that is required and unfortunately not so common among many enthusiasts.
3) A certain level of natural ability and coordination is another key factor in the rate of growth or even max potential of a student of the game.
4) The platform and environment someone plays on has a great deal of influence in seasoning a person's game to a higher level both physically and mentally.
These are only 4 of probably 20 variables at least, that are not covered by the sole factor of "time".
Nonetheless, I'd just like to point out a small error in assumption my friend since I know you personally as well as another fine gentleman on here, Ron F. You are BOTH quality characters that I respect as gentlemen that share the same passion for the sport as I do. I have seen and/or played with you both. If there is a question of who is the more avid player, I must say it is Ron. Both of you possess a great deal of knowledge of the game but there is a good amount of room between levels of play. If I had to label it, I would say the difference would be a full ball spot. I'd place Ron in the upper "B" lower "A" category at the least.
The game we played is tough to use as a guide but one night, Ron and his friend came down to play and wound up getting into some friendly play with Dinko and I in scotch double play and tortured us. In our defense, we never play scotch around this area and strategy was unfamiliar to us.
Anyhow, I'm going to stop rambling on here and get back to helping those here at Sandcastle Billiards at this time. I have action players that need a hit call and a nice gentleman waiting for me to begin our 4th lesson today. Before that, I MUST have my 1st cup of coffee today! LOL
I don't know if my 2 cents cleared anything up or not but there it is.
Have a good day gentlemen and SHOOT STRAIGHT!
Hello Eric! It's good to see you on here. I hope all is well. I'd just like to say that I am familiar with the 10,000 hour theory and don't believe it can be applied in the case of fine tuned sports such as billiards and golf. The reason being is that it does not factor in a few VERY important variables in the equation.
1) The number of hours put in on a table could be bad if you're only reinforcing bad habits that need to be broken. That will only ensure a player of becoming stagnant in their development and progression in the process of actually executing anything they learn. PROPER practice hours are required to build and advance one's game which may also require guidance and perhaps lessons even.
2) There is a certain level of understanding of physics and geometry that is required and unfortunately not so common among many enthusiasts.
3) A certain level of natural ability and coordination is another key factor in the rate of growth or even max potential of a student of the game.
4) The platform and environment someone plays on has a great deal of influence in seasoning a person's game to a higher level both physically and mentally.
These are only 4 of probably 20 variables at least, that are not covered by the sole factor of "time".
Nonetheless, I'd just like to point out a small error in assumption my friend since I know you personally as well as another fine gentleman on here, Ron F. You are BOTH quality characters that I respect as gentlemen that share the same passion for the sport as I do. I have seen and/or played with you both. If there is a question of who is the more avid player, I must say it is Ron. Both of you possess a great deal of knowledge of the game but there is a good amount of room between levels of play. If I had to label it, I would say the difference would be a full ball spot. I'd place Ron in the upper "B" lower "A" category at the least.
The game we played is tough to use as a guide but one night, Ron and his friend came down to play and wound up getting into some friendly play with Dinko and I in scotch double play and tortured us. In our defense, we never play scotch around this area and strategy was unfamiliar to us.
Anyhow, I'm going to stop rambling on here and get back to helping those here at Sandcastle Billiards at this time. I have action players that need a hit call and a nice gentleman waiting for me to begin our 4th lesson today. Before that, I MUST have my 1st cup of coffee today! LOL
I don't know if my 2 cents cleared anything up or not but there it is.
Have a good day gentlemen and SHOOT STRAIGHT!
I have read almost all of the replies on this thread and i was wondering, for those of you that have spent 2000 plus hours "playing" a year, how many of those hours to you figure were practice hours?
I would be willing to bet a person with 100 hours of quality practice and 10 hours of play would be better than a person with 10 hours of practice and 5000 hours of play. They are both essential, but I have learned to increase my amount of practice hours to the point that it exceeds my playing hours and it has served me well.
I would be willing to bet a person with 100 hours of quality practice and 10 hours of play would be better than a person with 10 hours of practice and 5000 hours of play. They are both essential, but I have learned to increase my amount of practice hours to the point that it exceeds my playing hours and it has served me well.
I whole heartedly agree with what you're saying. I'm curious about the numbers though. I'm certain this has been studied in other sports (I won't even bring up the game of g*#$).
What you're saying is the ratio is 100 hours of practice is better than 5000 hours of play? Maybe you just threw those numbers out there, I don't know. I'm no math expert but it sounds like that's 50:1 ratio. I don't think it's quite that high but I really have no idea what the ratio would be. Maybe it would be that high. Of course it would also depend on the type of play (tournament, gambling, everybody is going to laugh at you if you suck) vs. the type of practice (same drill over and over and over). It kind of takes us back to the gambling vs. practicing debate.
I have always thought that improvement comes mainly on the practice table but in order for your practice to have any meaning (intense focus) you have to be out competing. They work hand in hand.
Absolutely. Yeah, I threw out some numbers. I'm sure it's probably not that extreme but I bet it's still higher than most think it is. Notice I also said quality practice and by that I mean structured. Always have a goal to your practice. I even set up a practice schedule to follow to help me stay on task. Ex: 15 min on cut shots, 20 min on break shots ect.
Using your practice time wisely makes all the difference.
I have even got to the point where I make a note on each of the games I have lost as to why I think I lost it. Then i work that weakness into my practice routine.
Hello Eric! It's good to see you on here. I hope all is well. I'd just like to say that I am familiar with the 10,000 hour theory and don't believe it can be applied in the case of fine tuned sports such as billiards and golf. The reason being is that it does not factor in a few VERY important variables in the equation.
Eddie, are you sure that you are familiar with what the theory states? Read on.
1) The number of hours put in on a table could be bad if you're only reinforcing bad habits that need to be broken. That will only ensure a player of becoming stagnant in their development and progression in the process of actually executing anything they learn. PROPER practice hours are required to build and advance one's game which may also require guidance and perhaps lessons even.
This is narrow hypothesis. Another side of it is that while proper instruction in the beginning, can speed the learning curve, even without it, given enough hours, one can gain a very high level of proficiency just by purely putting the time in. Eventually, bad habits can be over come or made adaptable. There are several champion Pool players that have proven that theory. Keith McCready comes to mind.
2) There is a certain level of understanding of physics and geometry that is required and unfortunately not so common among many enthusiasts.
I 100% disagree with this.
Again, there are many champion level players that probably never went to college, let alone, taken these courses in high school. In plain English, there are players that weren't very smart, by the academic standard, but managed to become tremendous pool players.
3) A certain level of natural ability and coordination is another key factor in the rate of growth or even max potential of a student of the game.
This is why I feel you don't quite understand the 10,000 hour theory. According to the theory, you should achieve a majority of your potential after 10,000 hours of doing anything. Thing is, eveyrbody has a different max potential.
4) The platform and environment someone plays on has a great deal of influence in seasoning a person's game to a higher level both physically and mentally.
I'm not quite sure what you are trying to say here.
These are only 4 of probably 20 variables at least, that are not covered by the sole factor of "time".
Nonetheless, I'd just like to point out a small error in assumption my friend since I know you personally as well as another fine gentleman on here, Ron F. You are BOTH quality characters that I respect as gentlemen that share the same passion for the sport as I do. I have seen and/or played with you both. If there is a question of who is the more avid player, I must say it is Ron. Both of you possess a great deal of knowledge of the game but there is a good amount of room between levels of play. If I had to label it, I would say the difference would be a full ball spot. I'd place Ron in the upper "B" lower "A" category at the least.
I'll address this below
The game we played is tough to use as a guide but one night, Ron and his friend came down to play and wound up getting into some friendly play with Dinko and I in scotch double play and tortured us. In our defense, we never play scotch around this area and strategy was unfamiliar to us.
Anyhow, I'm going to stop rambling on here and get back to helping those here at Sandcastle Billiards at this time. I have action players that need a hit call and a nice gentleman waiting for me to begin our 4th lesson today. Before that, I MUST have my 1st cup of coffee today! LOL
I don't know if my 2 cents cleared anything up or not but there it is.
Have a good day gentlemen and SHOOT STRAIGHT!
Regarding the last paragraphs, I think you are using terminology that isn't quite correct. Saying Ron is "more avid" isn't the same as saying that you feel Ron plays better than me. "Avid" means to have a keen interest in something. To say "who is the more avid player" in the sens of who plays better is way off, but I digress.
I have no idea how Ron plays, other than his stated high run of 80. Then again, a high run of 80 for a dedicated 14.1 player equals a B player.
Ed, while I appreciate your assessment of our repsective games, I think you might be a bit off. For one, despite you and I knowing each other for several years, you and I have never played a game. I know, i couldn't believe that either. If you want a more accurate assessment of my game, I think you should ask DINKO. He would know. Also, ask him if he'd be willing to give me more than the called 9, playing 10 ball. :wink:
Lastly, Ed, you kinda jumped into the middle of a back and forth Ron and I had and might not have gotten the gist of it. Long story short, Ron stated that he had 30,000+ hours in the game. I mentioned that if that is really true, then he should be playing champion level or at a much higher level than his high run of *80*. Ron responded with "I know. I stink! But I never said I was a John Schmidt, a Thurston Hohmann or an Eric.! lol", which brought on my last response to him.
So, you see? It's not about who plays better than whom (Ron or Eric). If you wanted to say I insinuated anything, then you can say that I think Ron F. is lying about his hours played. Either that, or he has plateaued at a very modest level, for that many hours. He may have more hours in than Shane Van Boening.
Eric
IMO, close. I haven't read any of the books you mention. But I have a pretty good number in mind and it was agreed on by a few real players from back in the day.
I don't like the hours thing particularly, it's how you practice and how much competition you engage in.
The bottom line is that for ANY stick and ball sport, you can't be a true master without putting in 7 years of 10 hr days and hitting a total of 2 million balls.
Mind you those 10 hour days can be broken up into rest periods and talking and learning periods. Even watching better players. But you better be on the table a minimum of 6-8 hours.
I speak from personal experience I did this from roughly 17 to 24 yrs. of age. I started at 14, but the education laws got in my way.
College didn't care if I showed up or not, just so long as I passed the mid terms and finals.Those were likely the toughest and yet most enjoyable years of my life as an individual. As a family guy, I simply can't equate the two. The pleasures are simply different.
So I'm talking 21,000 hours roughly to master this whore of a sport.
But the 2 million balls is more important than the hours imo.
ps: the last 2 1/2 years (of those 7) for me, was well over 50% of the time spent in tough money games. That's where one learns to think smart and where one learns to battle through impossible situations.
Last edited:
I'm not totally familiar with the 10,000 hour theory. I've heard it thrown around on AZ several times, but I've never actually read the book. So, I'm just throwing out my opinion on the matter. Take it for what it's worth.
To me, saying that it takes 10,000 hours to become world class at something is completely arbitrary. When you consider pool 200 years ago (or would it be just billiards) would it take 10,000 hours to become world class? Of course not. How about professional basketball just 50 years ago? I've seen the clips of those guys playing. They didn't have nearly the skill of today’s players. So, what I'm getting at is the number of hours it takes to become world class at something is going to constantly be increasing, barring some sort of massive disinterest in the sport/endeavor.
Look what SVB is doing right now with pool. I imagine a lot of his peers are already throwing around the "Yeah, I would be that good too if I could practice 12 hours a day" card. He is setting the bar pretty high.
I guess since the days are always 24 hours long and none of us can live forever, we will run into limits as to how much time you can put into something before your physical abilities begin to deteriorate. So, at some point in time, the bar will come to a slow crawl.
With pool, I think the number of hours it takes to actually play at the world class level is closer to 20,000 than it is to 10,000.
To me, saying that it takes 10,000 hours to become world class at something is completely arbitrary. When you consider pool 200 years ago (or would it be just billiards) would it take 10,000 hours to become world class? Of course not. How about professional basketball just 50 years ago? I've seen the clips of those guys playing. They didn't have nearly the skill of today’s players. So, what I'm getting at is the number of hours it takes to become world class at something is going to constantly be increasing, barring some sort of massive disinterest in the sport/endeavor.
Look what SVB is doing right now with pool. I imagine a lot of his peers are already throwing around the "Yeah, I would be that good too if I could practice 12 hours a day" card. He is setting the bar pretty high.
I guess since the days are always 24 hours long and none of us can live forever, we will run into limits as to how much time you can put into something before your physical abilities begin to deteriorate. So, at some point in time, the bar will come to a slow crawl.
With pool, I think the number of hours it takes to actually play at the world class level is closer to 20,000 than it is to 10,000.
Last edited:
You missed the gist of the theory. In a nutshell, the 10,000 hour theory more or less says that you will reach a big majority of your maximum potential after 10,000 hours. You may not have the talent to get to world class. You should at very least, be highly proficient at what ever it is that you are working at, though.
Eric
I wasn't quite ready for this thread to die. I think this is some interesting stuff here.
I agree with Mantis - It would have been nice to know everybodies speed and then compare it to the hours played.
I also think West Point is right about the density of hours that are played. He mentioned the league players that put in a few hours a week. If they do this long enough they will accumulate a lot of hours but not necessarily see the improvement that a player with far fewer calender years but an equal number of hours at the table will.
Some of you logged some serious hours -- Holly, I'm talking to youThat's a lot of hours.
I think I have a good feel for how well Masayoshi plays just from reading a lot of his posts and I'm thinking he has really spent a lot of quality time at the table. Not much banging of balls there. I think Jaden falls into this category as well. Good work guys.
All in all, this thread has made me feel better about my game and where it's at. I would actually feel pretty good matching up against most anybody that had under 5,000 hours of table time.
Thanks for all the replies.
Now I'll let it die :thumbup:
You give me too much credit. lol. I assure you, I can bang balls with the worst of them. :grin:
10 years solid. the first two were fun the rest were painful
My first ten years from ages 18-27 I'm guessing I played at least 2,500 hours a year, for 25,000 total. I literally played every day, only taking a day off if I was sick. 90% of the traveling I did took place in that time frame, prior to opening my first pool room. The next thirty years I may have played another 30,000 hours total. And the last few years substantially less. I probably have at least 60,000 hours of playing pool in my lifetime. Like John said, to be a decent player, somewhere along the way you need to have been somewhat obsessed with playing. I know I was the first ten years.
Ive been playing since i was 14,30 years,i will never forget,my cousin and i never played on or even seen a 9ft table,we always played on the small tables that all took quarters,so we walk in this pool room and see the big tables,so we watch the players go up to the counter and grab racks of balls and they would start to play on the big tables,so for some dumb reason i tell my cousin lets go get a rack in try to play on the big table,why not it is free,cause there no place to put your quarters in,so it must be free,so we played for about 3hrs,take the balls back up ,then the man behind the counter says you guys owe 6 dollars,i look at my cousin and say do u have any money he says no and i had but 50 cents in my pocket,so i tell the guy,we thought because there was no places to put the quarters in,that it was for free,any way he let us vacume the floors and clean up a little,and let us play the rest of the day for free!That was the first time i ever walked in that pool hall or any other,now 30years later thats still my home room.
West Point
I think this post hits the nail on the head, for me anyway. From 79 to 87 I played in a very old school, 2 table pool and card room. Table time was $1/hr so that wasn't a barrier to playing A LOT of pool for very little money. In those days there was no internet, there was no Accu-Stats Video's to buy and study; so you only got good enough to beat the other guys that played in that room. A lot of bad habits were formed and there was nobody around to teach you the game the way it's supposed to be played. In the past 3 years I've rededicated myself to playing straight pool (the traditionally correct way) and have been pleased with my progress.
It's no surprise that I have logged more hours on the table than say, Shane Van Boening. I started learning to play 4 years before he was even born! I just enjoy the game, enjoy the people around the game, and enjoy life when I'm playing. These days I fit pool in whenever I could. It's not easy balancing family life, a career and grad school; but I haven't lost touch with the game and I'll never lose touch with the kind and helpful people I've met along the way.
Ron F
I think this post hits the nail on the head, for me anyway. From 79 to 87 I played in a very old school, 2 table pool and card room. Table time was $1/hr so that wasn't a barrier to playing A LOT of pool for very little money. In those days there was no internet, there was no Accu-Stats Video's to buy and study; so you only got good enough to beat the other guys that played in that room. A lot of bad habits were formed and there was nobody around to teach you the game the way it's supposed to be played. In the past 3 years I've rededicated myself to playing straight pool (the traditionally correct way) and have been pleased with my progress.
It's no surprise that I have logged more hours on the table than say, Shane Van Boening. I started learning to play 4 years before he was even born! I just enjoy the game, enjoy the people around the game, and enjoy life when I'm playing. These days I fit pool in whenever I could. It's not easy balancing family life, a career and grad school; but I haven't lost touch with the game and I'll never lose touch with the kind and helpful people I've met along the way.
Ron F
1982-1985: 3-4 hours a day-sometimes more plus competition/league. each day (next to work)
1986-1990: 3-4 times a week- 2-4 hours + competition/league (next to work)
1990-1997: as time allowed-still league/competition (next to work)
1997-1999: just league/competition to help out (next to work)
1999-oct 2009: no billiards at all/complete break
since oct2009 playing again- but more about instruction-and how work allows (and wife).
lg from overseas,
Ingo
1986-1990: 3-4 times a week- 2-4 hours + competition/league (next to work)
1990-1997: as time allowed-still league/competition (next to work)
1997-1999: just league/competition to help out (next to work)
1999-oct 2009: no billiards at all/complete break
since oct2009 playing again- but more about instruction-and how work allows (and wife
). lg from overseas,
Ingo
Eric,
I don't know whether you've read Gladwell's "Outliers" or anything else written on the 10,000 hour rule, but it certainly doesn't appear so since you totally miss the gist of it yourself.
In "Outliers", which I have coincidentally reviewed from an academic perspective, Gladwell reflects on the 10,000 hour rule as being the amount of time needed to master something as an apprentice or with the most beneficial resources available (as in, the best resources on the planet).
It is not the simple fact that someone has spent 10,000 hours doing something that would make them world class. It is also the extraordinarily unique opportunities that are available to these people as they put in their 10,000 hours of strenuous practice (not lazy pool).
Gladwell speaks of success stories such as Bill Gates, who was fortunate enough to live a short walk from the only main frame computer system in the western hemisphere in the late 1960's and had enough interest to take advantage of that opportunity. The fact that he put in 10,000 hours was unimportant without the opportunity the University of Washington mainframe allowed him. Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems, same deal but at the University of Michigan.
What you're failing to understand is time spent playing and practicing is irrelevant unless you also have the world's best resources available to blow away the learning curve. Opportunities!! That is what is at the crux of the 10,000 hour theory. That is the case with pool players as well. All great players you can think of had unique opportunities - to play with and learn from some of the best players in the world. Even Mosconi had his Greenleaf.
So it would benefit all of us if you'd stop bastardizing the "10,000 hour theory" and spreading misinformation by judging people who have logged more than 10,000 hours on the table and saying they suck because they aren't US Open champions.
Ron F
Ron F
Ron,
While I've never studied the 10,000 hour rule, nor do I claim to be highly versed on it, I most certainly have read a little bit on it; I was the one to mention it originally, in this thread. It's ironic that you say I missed the gist of it cuz you just said the same things about it that *I* did.
If you read this thread, *I* also corrected the one poster that was incorrectly correcting me where he misinterpreted that I said that you need more than 10,000 hours to be world class, when I also mentioned that the theory only postures that you become "highly proficient"(not world class), that you reach a majority of your maximum potential(after 10,000 hours).
There are several different interpretations of the 10,000 hour theory, not just Gladwell's. I'm not positive, but I don't think Gladwell came up with the 10,000 hour theory nor did I make specific references to Outliers, exclusively. By the same token, you are way off base by saying that I "bastardized" the 10,000 hour theory. For the sake of this topic, I think it is more than applicable and correctly used.
Lastly, if *you* are gonna make accusations and be defensive, *you* need to review the facts first. I wasn't the one that started saying "you suck". IT WAS YOU. You said it about yourself, first.
*PS-in post #56, you state that you balance family life, a career and grad school, but in an earlier post, you state that the last few years, you STILL log in 1,000 hours a year (19+ hours a week). WHEN DO YOU SLEEP?? :
:
Eric
While I've never studied the 10,000 hour rule, nor do I claim to be highly versed on it, I most certainly have read a little bit on it; I was the one to mention it originally, in this thread. It's ironic that you say I missed the gist of it cuz you just said the same things about it that *I* did.
If you read this thread, *I* also corrected the one poster that was incorrectly correcting me where he misinterpreted that I said that you need more than 10,000 hours to be world class, when I also mentioned that the theory only postures that you become "highly proficient"(not world class), that you reach a majority of your maximum potential(after 10,000 hours).
There are several different interpretations of the 10,000 hour theory, not just Gladwell's. I'm not positive, but I don't think Gladwell came up with the 10,000 hour theory nor did I make specific references to Outliers, exclusively. By the same token, you are way off base by saying that I "bastardized" the 10,000 hour theory. For the sake of this topic, I think it is more than applicable and correctly used.
Lastly, if *you* are gonna make accusations and be defensive, *you* need to review the facts first. I wasn't the one that started saying "you suck". IT WAS YOU. You said it about yourself, first.
*PS-in post #56, you state that you balance family life, a career and grad school, but in an earlier post, you state that the last few years, you STILL log in 1,000 hours a year (19+ hours a week). WHEN DO YOU SLEEP?? :
:Eric
Last edited:
Jay,
By your numbers, by age 22, you should have logged in 10,000 hours of play. Can you tell us how good of a player you were? Also, how much of your full potential did you reach after the first 4 years i.e. 50%, 75% of your highest level?
Eric