I've heard the stories. Something about working on a scaffold in Mississippi... during the summer.
Lou Figueroa
The Talent Code
- Thread starter chefjeff
- Start date
I've heard the stories. Something about working on a scaffold in Mississippi... during the summer.
Lou Figueroa
But did this 'not fun' activity lead to or create more happiness for Jerry?
Happiness is a long-term general feeling of well being and satisfaction; fun is a short term pleasure, sometimes adding to happiness, many times not. It seems in Jerry's case it did add to his happiness. If it didn't have that potential, I'd guess he'd have not done the work. That is the "important" point he made in that statement. Happiness is important; fun isn't.
Ever notice how many pool players want to win every game (fun and urgent) and think THAT is where the self improvement goal is and where the happiness lies? Not the work of building a great shot, but the result of winning? Therein, imho, lies the frustration, the dishonest bragging, the stupid betting, and the eventual quitting of the game by those who seek the win more than the shot quality. With only winning as the main goal, a quick fix, magic potion is sought after instead of working to build a shot that leads, more often than not, to persistent winning and abiding happiness with the game.
Are we talking in circles?
Jeff Livingston
No doubt it created more happiness and rewards for Mr. Rice. And I agree with you whole heartedly that some players focus too much on the win vs the quality of their play. It's like some guys are totally happy slopping in a 9ball and are content to ignore the fact that they hit the shot so bad that something totally unexpected happened.
So no, I don't think we're talking in circles. I think it's an interesting discussion.
Lou Figueroa
There was an article in the NTimes recently about research that shows that "grit" can be an accurate predictor of a student's success. (There's even a test to find out where you fall on the "Grit Scale.") Basically the idea is that if a student has the character/grit to stick with a task, despite failures, they are the most likely to eventually succeed.
I think that is certainly true for pool. Maybe we're more inclined to call it "heart," but it's basically the drive and determination to stick with the monumental task of getting good at this game. The guys that are willing to stay the course and work hard (HAMB) are the most likely to succeed. The other guys look for the magic pill, short cut, system, shaft, tip, chalk, etc., etc.
Lou Figueroa
Here's a link to the NYTimes story on "grit."
http://goo.gl/gW3bE
Lou Figueroa
Yeah, I like this.
scrappy, can we be friends?....I promise not to measure your pockets any more...:smile:
Kinda like the saying that the amateur practices until they get it right and the pro practices until they can't get it wrong.
The whole thread is about understanding what makes "great".
In summary it's three things.
Circumstances/Influences (coaching, observing, immersing)
Biology (myelin production)
Focused Hard Work (putting in the time to fail enough to know what to do)
People who get "good" simply have stopped or are missing one of these three components.
In Talent is Overrated the author makes the point that we are collectively BETTER at most things we do than we were 100 or 1000 or 10,000 years ago. So the pool of people who are good at things is much larger than ever before. Because this bar has been steadily raised what we see as GREAT has also been raised.
That last part sort of jumped out at me. I have often thought about this when in other more "athletic" sports a commentator will mention that so-and-so has "lost a step". I often think - well that may be, but the new players are also getting better. When you objectively compare Michael Jordan with Kobe Bryant you will see what I'm talking about. MJ is considered by most, to be the greatest basketball player ever but Kobe (love him or hate him) took a lot of the things MJ did with the ball and took it a step further.
Personally, I still consider MJ to be the greatest ever but it's worth noting how all of our human games continue to evolve and as long as people continue to play them we will play them better than before.
In pool I think the rapid improvement in the woman's game over the course of the past 10-20 years is evidence of this. The men are getting better too, it's just not as easy to see. One thing I have noticed just by reading here on AZ and watching pool from all over the world on the internet is that kids are starting out younger and younger. Maybe not in the U.S. but in other countries. I think the days of not picking up a cue until your late teen's or early 20's and still finding a way to compete at an elite level are history.
I don't know that I totally agree with this. The general consensus seems to be that if you put in the time the right way with the right environment then mastery happens.
Biologically though myelin production slows down with age. Socially people who get older generally have less time to totally commit to an activity. They also often have less resources to spend entirely on an activity.
But in the last summer olympics we had the story of the swimmer Dara Torres who is the oldest olympic medal winner at 41. Now this a story of a world class athlete who managed to come back to world class status at an age thought impossible. But if one looks around then there are plenty of stories of people who picked up a sport or other activity at a later age and still managed to become world class.
As Dara said, "the water doesn't know how old you are". And neither does the pool table.
Start at 20 having never picked up a pool cue, go to the Phillipines and let them pound on you for 10,000 hours and then go back to the USA and see how you stack up. Or better yet split the time between Taiwan and the Philippines to get the best of both styles.
I bet you won't get a lot of TAR matches offered after your first trip through Derby City.
Last edited:
I suppose there will always be exceptions to this rule -- passion can make up for a lot of lost time. Your example wasn’t really a good one though since Dara Torres was an elite swimmer who made a comeback (I think). I think it has been shown lately that more and more athletes are competing at a high level into their twilight years. In pool, with the kids in Europe and Asia starting out earlier and earlier, those that wait until later in life are going to be running far behind. Look at what has happened with golf - you still see a few kids that start late but this usually means they start out at 14 or 15.
Part of my thinking is based on how I view my own game. I have always felt that I could have been a pretty good player had I started sooner. I think I see this playing out with my own son. He definitely has the aptitude for this game and I can see him getting better than me in no time - provided he stays interested in it.
I know there are quite a few people on this site that take your view – that you can start out later in life and if you put in the time you can become an elite player. Well, that’s a nice theory but I haven’t actually seen this happen. Of course everybody can continue to improve until their health begins to deteriorate. I guess I’m thinking about this from a purely statistical standpoint and you are thinking about it from an individual one. So I will agree with you that any 1 individual can start out later in life and become a good player. But generally speaking, this will become rarer and rarer as players across the world start younger and younger.
Bottom line - I bet there aren't many pros that wish they would have started later in life.
It's not a theory. It's a fact. People often take up activities late in life and become very good, even great. They put in the time because they have the time to put in.
Notice I did mention Dara Torres' stats as a world class swimmer who came back.
In our sport we have Mike Davis and John Schmidt who both started playing seriously as adults and who became world class. Dennis Orcullo was an adult fisherman before deciding to devote himself to pool entirely.
I am not looking for an argument. I am merely giving you my thoughts based on three books I have read/am reading, The Talent Code, Outliers, and Talent is Overrated. All of those books suggest that while it would harder to start late due to other social factors it's not impossible and putting in the time and practicing deeply yields results that can propel a person of any age to good, great and sometimes world class. (within physical limits of course as you are not going to see an 80 year old running a 9.7 second hundred yard dash.)
The biggest driving factor seems to be quality time spent deeply learning. Thus you can have a kid start piano at 5 and spend 3 hours a day doing it for 15 years and the kid who starts at 10 but puts in 5 solid hours a day will likely be the better pianist when they both reach 20. And not just a little better but a LOT better. By the same token you take a 20 year old who never played a note and start them off and give him five solid hours a day for a decade and he is also likely to become great assuming he is able to deeply practice without social distractions and obligations.
Really I am not. I am pretty much parroting what's in the books. It's hard to have a discussion where one side has a book full of research and the other side has common opinion.
Which is why I said earlier that it would be better if we discuss in this thread the concepts put forth on the blog and in the book(s) rather than simply hurl hypotheticals and common-assumptions at each other.
Common Knowledge. :thumbup:
That's the whole point of the books. What you consider to be common knowledge doesn't bear out when the data is gathered and analyzed.
That's why I said common opinion.
Over the years, I have done both instruction and put in many hours on the table. Both have reslulted in positives. Instruction has shown me some issues with my set up and delivery, while more hours on the table have resulted in better play. I think they actually work pretty good together, at least they have for me.
To say just one, or the other is correct is not true in my case. They have complimented each other nicely.
To say just one, or the other is correct is not true in my case. They have complimented each other nicely.
Has this been answered? Did I miss it?
From Talent is Overrated
key word in this attribute is designed. In the example of my pathetic routine on the driving range, I was designing my own practice activity, even though it’s clear that I’m completely unqualified to do so. The mechanics of hitting golf balls have been studied for decades and are extremely well understood by those who have made it their profession, but I have virtually none of their knowledge. It’s the same in almost every field: Decades or centuries of study have produced a body of knowledge about how performance is developed and improved, and full-time teachers generally possess that knowledge. At least in the early going, therefore, and sometimes long after, it’s almost always necessary for a teacher to design the activity best suited to improve an individual’s performance. In some fields, especially intellectual ones such as the arts, science, and business, people may eventually become skilled enough to design their own practice. But anyone who thinks they’ve outgrown the benefits of a teacher’s help should at least question that view. There’s a reason why the world’s best golfers still go to teachers.
Colvin, Geoff (2008-10-04). Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (p. 67). Portfolio. Kindle Edition.
key word in this attribute is designed. In the example of my pathetic routine on the driving range, I was designing my own practice activity, even though it’s clear that I’m completely unqualified to do so. The mechanics of hitting golf balls have been studied for decades and are extremely well understood by those who have made it their profession, but I have virtually none of their knowledge. It’s the same in almost every field: Decades or centuries of study have produced a body of knowledge about how performance is developed and improved, and full-time teachers generally possess that knowledge. At least in the early going, therefore, and sometimes long after, it’s almost always necessary for a teacher to design the activity best suited to improve an individual’s performance. In some fields, especially intellectual ones such as the arts, science, and business, people may eventually become skilled enough to design their own practice. But anyone who thinks they’ve outgrown the benefits of a teacher’s help should at least question that view. There’s a reason why the world’s best golfers still go to teachers.
Colvin, Geoff (2008-10-04). Talent Is Overrated: What Really Separates World-Class Performers from Everybody Else (p. 67). Portfolio. Kindle Edition.