Measure of Skill

[LastTwo]

Do you think that one's skill should be measured by how they play when they are at their best, or at their worst? I think skill should be measured about how one plays when they are struggling. The reason why is because almost all of the male professionals have a top gear where they just never miss, so that kind of evens them all out, but there is a big difference on how everyone plays when they are off their game.

Take Efren for example. Most of the time when he is struggling he is still capable of beating anyone in the world. Efren is considered playing bad if he misses 4 or 5 balls in a race to 11 or something. I've seen other top players play bad and they would miss alot more than that. What do you all think? Do you think it's how Efren plays when he is struggling, which is still world class, is the reason why he is the best player ever?

 

[Loun]

Do you think it's how Efren plays when he is struggling, which is still world class, is the reason why he is the best player ever?

A solid mental game, dedication, desire, and consistancy is what would make someone the best player ever in my opinion.

As far as measuring someones skill by how they play when they are struggling goes, would you measure it from when they are "just struggling" or when they are "really struggling"? It just cant be done that way. You measure skill by consistancy and how someone plays when they are on. That is what makes all of the players force themselves to bear down and or get better at all skill levels. When someone has to play up, or has some pressure to play better than they are.. they improve their game. I personally think skill should be measured by consistancy like a batting average in baseball BUT then you can get into sandbagging... throwing some smaller ranked games to let ones skill level go down so they can have an advantage at a higher paying one. However if you throw out a few of the lower games then you might make it not worth it to sandbag.

-Lou

 

[vapoolplayer]

You measure skill by consistancy and how someone plays when they are on. -Lou

again.....i whole heartedly disagree with you.

ever heard the saying that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link???

that hold true for pool. a player is only as strong as his worst game.

another piece of advice i picked up somwhere was "you have to get so good, that when you play bad, you still win"



honestly, someone's skill needs to be done with an average. you would not have to worry about sandbagging, because there is NO incentive for a pro player to lose in a tournament for the most part.

it should be done by the average accustat score. say you have to have a minumum of 50 accustat scores or something, and the average score would dictate your rough skill level.

thanks

VAP

 

[Flex]

another piece of advice i picked up somwhere was "you have to get so good, that when you play bad, you still win"

...

honestly, someone's skill needs to be done with an average.

I wholeheartedly agree with your approach, VAP. The average is the key. When playing 9 ball, luck is a factor, too, plus one's ability to hang tough when needed.

While in one tournament (handicapped) that I sometimes play in the TD ranks me as a B player, maybe I am, maybe I'm not, there are times when my game is a solid B, other times it's lower, and sometimes it's just brilliant. I'm probably not even a B, but that doesn't matter to me. I just do my best, and figure that if my handicap is too high I'll just have to play better, which is a good thing.

And then there's the psychological side to it as well. If I'm not a B, and I come up against a better player, he may play me tighter, or more carefully, and end up losing to me if he's psyched out. I've seen that happen. Especially if my game is on and I'm playing like there's no tomorrow. Running over someone tends to put a crimp in their style...

VAP, I really like your quote up above... thanks for that, I'll not forget it.

Cheers!

Flex

 

[Celtic]

I am going to go against the grain and say you judge a person's "skill" on their best day. Their top speed when they are feeling the best they can feel and seeing the table clearly is showing their true potential when all emotional and physical aiments are absent. Judging a persons game based on how they play on a day they just so happen to have the flu, got 3 hours of sleep last night, and are emotional on edge because their girlfriend just dumped them is not exactly going to hold alot of water with me and if you all think that is a fair time to judge a persons skill then you are on your own there.

Again there is a huge grey area. How do you know that persons game is not being affected by outside forces? I shot like shit in the last tournament I played in, but I also was thinking more about the thesis I had to write that is supposed to be 18,000 or so words that was due in less then a month that I should have been doing instead of the tournament. Is that the proper time to judge my speed? Do we now have to wait for the other guys in the event to have some huge weight on their mind that makes them shoot terrible due to not keeping their mind on the game and then compare their game at a time of emotional stress that has nothing to do with pool to mine under the same situation?

How are you to say WHY a person is shooting bad on a given day? Simply not in stroke? Or maybe there are reasons we cannot comprehend that have nothing to do with pool, and as such how the heck are we to judge the speed of a player on their worst day and assume that the reason for their bad playing has anything to do with their skill?

I think the only proper way to judge peoples skill is to take them at their best. When we are all feeling tip top, healthy, and have nothing else on our minds weighing us down and we shoot our best.

Heck I have watched Earl shooting his worst, he was terrible. Some players have huge top gears and extremely low bottom gears. If we judge players by their lows Earl would rank below Edwin Montal from what I have seen since I have never seen Edwin shoot as bad as I have seen Earl shoot on occasion. That is ludicrous though, Edwin might have a higher bottom gear then Earl but his top gear falls far short and at the end of the day those top gears of Earls have caused him to win alot of really important events.

 

[mjantti]

I agree with LastTwo. A good measure of skill is how good is a player's worst game plus how fast he can get a hold on oneself and make the level of execution to rise. If you ask any top player, they will tell you that they rarely play their top game. Most of the time they are just executing shots with pure routine and occasionally underperforming.

I know very good players who are already pissed off when missing a shot in the first rack of the match and are already on the edge of losing the match in their heads. They are quite vulnerable. Then I know some average players who forget the mistakes they've made and keep their level nice and steady throughout the match despite the score. Now, my question is: which opponent you prefer ? The one with high ups and low downs or the player with a steady performance ?

 

[mjantti]

I shot like shit in the last tournament I played in, but I also was thinking more about the thesis I had to write that is supposed to be 18,000 or so words that was due in less then a month that I should have been doing instead of the tournament.

I know what you mean... I'm grateful there aren't any tournaments during the summer, my Master's thesis is due in the end of July !

 

[vapoolplayer]

there are shortstops out there that on their best day, efren wouldn't get to the table.......

is that guy going to match up that way all the time when he's gambling???

if he does, he's not gonna eat, he'd judge his own game by his average game, not his best game.

ask yourself, if you were to matchup with the BEST player in your area, would you match up based on the best day you've had? or how you play most of the time. remember, cash is on the line.

VAP

 

[sjm]

Well, a player's average game defines them best. Having said that, though, I think how a player plays when they are playing their worst game gives a far greater hint of their quality as a player than how high their best game is. I believe that it is in the area of decision making where some players manage to excel in each and every session. Knowledge, composure, and playing discipline are the key ingredients of good decision making, and those (and there sure aren't many of them) having these qualities, in my opinion, manage to keep their worst game at a level that still ives them a chance to succeed.

 

[Celtic]

ask yourself, if you were to matchup with the BEST player in your area, would you match up based on the best day you've had? or how you play most of the time. remember, cash is on the line.

VAP

Last time I did that I got 2 games in a race to 9 for $50, it is a spot that required my best game to win the set because the guy is awesome and I will admit quite alot better then me as well as extremely consistent. I usually match up when I feel good and I do so taking into account the better game I can play since the stakes actually cause me to shoot better. My game will change based on the situation, I shot like crap against him in straight up sets for $20 playing races to 9 even and we broke even because we both shot without a care in the world. When the bet got raised and the stakes went up with a small 2 game spot the attitudes went from casual fun pool to a real set and both of our games rose to the new situation. So I ask you, which game should judge our speed? The casual "dont give a shit" sets we played earlier in the night, or the last set we played for $50 when we both got serious and actually put true effort into winning and our games went from running a rack on occasion to putting 2 and 3 packs out there with extreme regularity?

I understand your "average" game way of deciding, that is great as long as the "average" only takes into account the times when you are not putting zero effort into the game. But the idea of judging people on their "worst" game is simply a terrible way to do things because when a person is shooting their worst factors that have nothing to do with pool skill are often causing that weak performance and they actually might not even be trying.

I rarely put my 110% into the game, when I do the stakes and my emotional and physical situation are usually the things that cause my game to reach the higher levels. If I am shooting bad it is not a sudden lack of skill, it usually has reasons far beyond pool and as such what are you really measuring by judging that game? Because it is not pool skill, it is more likely stress or health or apathy towards winning or loosing.

 

[vapoolplayer]

I rarely put my 110% into the game, when I do the stakes and my emotional and physical situation are usually the things that cause my game to reach the higher levels. If I am shooting bad it is not a sudden lack of skill, it usually has reasons far beyond pool and as such what are you really measuring by judging that game? Because it is not pool skill, it is more likely stress or health or apathy towards winning or loosing.

this is going on a different tangent than thread but, isn't being able to cope with stress, fatigue, etc etc, also part of the skill required to play this game at a higher level?

thats like a soldier who knows how to hit his target on the range, but when he gets some heat on him, he can't hit shit........he's worthless. you can have all the "pool skill" in the world, but if you can't consistently put it together and be able to control your mindset, then how good are you????

VAP

 

[Celtic]

thats like a soldier who knows how to hit his target on the range, but when he gets some heat on him, he can't hit shit........he's worthless. you can have all the "pool skill" in the world, but if you can't consistently put it together and be able to control your mindset, then how good are you????

VAP

Yeah but do you take that soldier and his shooting ability as poor because one day an hour after a grenade went off at close range and damaged his cornia blurring his vision he happend to miss a shot he would normally make from 60 yards at a stationary target?

I am by no means talking about the guy who cannot shoot under pressure as a rule as you seemed to have shifted the focus to. I am talking about the guy that can win the World 9-ball Championships 5 times and in between doing so at different tournaments can shoot a set where he misses 14 makeable shots in a race to 9. Is the guy great at pool because he beat the best in the world and has run 11 straight racks? Or does he suck because once in a while when his mind falters he plays no better then a APA 6? How good is Earl really? Is he a champ or a chump? Because he plays both games and if you average them out that lower level drops him below alot of more consistent players that have nowhere near the championships due to the fact that when Earl IS on he is a phenomenal player. I look at his list of things he has won against unreal fields and say that is his true skill level. You and others would look at his worst day against a weak field and say that is his true skill level?

 

[vapoolplayer]

Yeah but do you take that soldier and his shooting ability as poor because one day an hour after a grenade went off at close range and damaged his cornia blurring his vision he happend to miss a shot he would normally make from 60 yards at a stationary target?

I am by no means talking about the guy who cannot shoot under pressure as a rule as you seemed to have shifted the focus to. I am talking about the guy that can win the World 9-ball Championships 5 times and in between doing so at different tournaments can shoot a set where he misses 14 makeable shots in a race to 9. Is the guy great at pool because he beat the best in the world and has run 11 straight racks? Or does he suck because once in a while when his mind falters he plays no better then a APA 6? How good is Earl really? Is he a champ or a chump? Because he plays both games and if you average them out that lower level drops him below alot of more consistent players that have nowhere near the championships due to the fact that when Earl IS on he is a phenomenal player. I look at his list of things he has won against unreal fields and say that is his true skill level. You and others would look at his worst day against a weak field and say that is his true skill level?

he's as good as his average game overall. would he match himself up all the time with his best game? no. you would take his average game as his overall skill level.

alot of baseball players carry .400 averages part of the way through the season. they have the POTENTIAL to hit .400 for the season, but they end up average OVERALL in the .300's. they are ranked on their AVERAGE game.

barry bonds has the POTENTIAL to hit 70 home runs in a season, but he doesn't, just like earl has the POTENTIAL to run 11 racks at any given moment, but he doesn't do it consistently.

your skill SHOULD NOT be based on your best game. this is the reason for MANY a dollar lost. someone who thinks they are better than they are because they have play at a higher level every now and then, and they think thats how they play.

VAP

VAP

 

[vapoolplayer]

this is why you hear things like "he's supposed to win, but he doesn't always have to like it" when guys are gambling. meaning that one person on AVERAGE would have the better of the game, but if the other guy is on, then he can beat him. would he beat him the next few times??? probably not.

VAP

 

[Kevin]

Maybe there is no "One True Skill Level" a player has, it simply can't be reduced to that. Everyone has a high gear where they are unbeatable, and a lower gear. The question really is, as Jan McWhorter told me, bringing up your lower gear so you can still learn to win when it isn't your best day.

Working on strengthening fundamentals, stroke, pattern and position play, etc. ensures you have the basic tools in place so when the mental aspect of focus, concentration, desire, fire, etc. fall into place you wake up after the tournament and someone tells you about the 4-pack you just ran, and you are lucky if you remember two shots from the entire match, because you were just solving problems sequentially then letting it go to move on to the next one.

I like Earl and when he is on he is awesome, but he is one high-strung trapeze act and it doesn't take too much these days to shake his confidence.

 

[CaptainJR]

This hits on the reason I don't play handicapped league pool. I'm not disagreeing with most of you though. I do think that your average or worst day tells more about how good you are. However, in a league situation your handicap should be based on your best play. In most other sport handicapping (golf, bowling) your handicap is based on your best play and then your only given a portion of that. Thus giving the better player the slight edge that his or her hard work has earned them. In pool handicapping it seems to be done the other way giving the weaker player that slight advantage. At least I know this is true in APA, however it took a series of 7 emails before they admitted it to me.

Sorry for getting slightly off subject but I do this it is related.

 

[mjantti]

It's weird, some of the players who start playing in tournament somehow subconsciously think that if they are not playing well, they don't deserve to win and they continue to blow easy chances. An experienced player accepts the situation and continues to give the best effort and realizes that matches are won with crappy play as well. If two high caliber players (not pros) are playing each other and both shoot their worst game, the winner is usually the one who can overcome the mental barrier of winning with bad play. The eventual loser has a "good" excuse of a "bad day" or something for losing long before the match is actually lost and doesn't give 100% of his current level of play because he feels he should lose.

 

[drivermaker]

In most other sport handicapping (golf, bowling) your handicap is based on your best play and then your only given a portion of that.

That's not exactly the case with golf. The handicap is determined by whatever score you turn in whether it's good OR bad...an average is then taken and it's then a percentage of that. (always a stroke or two lower than the average). Some players, however, only choose to turn in their GOOD scores to obtain a low handicap and look good on paper to stoke their ego.
Other players NEVER turn in their real good scores in order to increase their handicap higher and stoke their wallet. You can always screw with the system one way or another.

A game I used to play by myself many times in golf is to play "best ball/worst ball".

What you do is hit two shots off the tee and then play your best shot from there and your worst shot from wherever it ends up and keep playing it that way on every shot (even putts) for 18 holes for score on both.

You'll learn pretty damn quick what your best potential is for scoring and also your worst. There can be a tremendous discrepency between the two scores. It's only when your worst shot and best shot scores are within a couple of strokes of each other that you know your game is pretty damn sharp and the consistency factor is where it should be.

I don't know how you could do that with pool, but it might be quite interesting as well.

 

[Paul8ball]

Do you think that one's skill should be measured by how they play when they are at their best, or at their worst? I think skill should be measured about how one plays when they are struggling. The reason why is because almost all of the male professionals have a top gear where they just never miss, so that kind of evens them all out, but there is a big difference on how everyone plays when they are off their game.

Take Efren for example. Most of the time when he is struggling he is still capable of beating anyone in the world. Efren is considered playing bad if he misses 4 or 5 balls in a race to 11 or something. I've seen other top players play bad and they would miss alot more than that. What do you all think? Do you think it's how Efren plays when he is struggling, which is still world class, is the reason why he is the best player ever?

If we all play 10 matches, 2 or 3 times we will play great, 3 or 4 will be normal speed, and 2 of 3 will be bad. A measure of someones competetive spirit is how they compete when they are struggling with their game. A guy that is tough to beat when he is playing poorly is someone to be reckoned with. For tournament play, that is the player who will tend to prevail. When matching up for the cash, I think you should use your normal game because if you play average or really well then you should prevail (approx 70%) of the time.

 

[CaptainJR]

That's not exactly the case with golf. The handicap is determined by whatever score you turn in whether it's good OR bad...an average is then taken and it's then a percentage of that. (always a stroke or two lower than the average). Some players, however, only choose to turn in their GOOD scores to obtain a low handicap and look good on paper to stoke their ego.
Other players NEVER turn in their real good scores in order to increase their handicap higher and stoke their wallet. You can always screw with the system one way or another.

A game I used to play by myself many times in golf is to play "best ball/worst ball".

What you do is hit two shots off the tee and then play your best shot from there and your worst shot from wherever it ends up and keep playing it that way on every shot (even putts) for 18 holes for score on both.

You'll learn pretty damn quick what your best potential is for scoring and also your worst. There can be a tremendous discrepency between the two scores. It's only when your worst shot and best shot scores are within a couple of strokes of each other that you know your game is pretty damn sharp and the consistency factor is where it should be.

I don't know how you could do that with pool, but it might be quite interesting as well.

Where I played golf they use the best 10 out of the last 20. I believe this is how it is to be done. Then they take your average of those best 10 and give you part of that?