What do you think makes a monster player?

[TheThaiger]

This is the age old nature vs nurture discussion we are having in this thread. There is no conclusive test that proves its one over the other, as you have stated. There may be a research paper that you read that favors one over the other, but this debate will be going on forever...

The romantic part of it I actually see the opposite viewpoint that you do. I think its "romantic" for a person to tell themselves:

"I can be that good, if I just work at it by doing xyz. But I have other priorities in my life. We are all created equal".

The other side of it is: "I'm not as talented as that person, no matter how much I work at xyz, I will never make it to their level. We are not all created equal"

In my view, it is easier for a person to swallow the first quoted sentence, not the second. The second sentence makes the person feel inferior. Even in this thread, there was 2 pages of posts before someone mentioned talent. I feel its just a way for a player that never had or can have it, to justify to themselves that its not a lack of talent that is holding them back, but just a lack of practice/competition/desire/etc.

Lets look at two extremes of pool players: Thorston and McCready. Throston grew up with coaches, lessons, structured practice, tournament competing, etc. McCrready grew up gambling his brains out. He probably never head a lesson in his life, or a practice session. (I don't know this as fact). Thorston has a fundamentally perfect stroke and stance. McCready is all over the place with a goofy side arm stroke and stance.

But both players reached the top of the world status in their respective generations. tHey both went about it in completely opposite fashions. What was the one thing they both have in common? Natural talent is my answer.

Here's another example of pool players. Me vs Corey Deuel. We both are from the same room in Philadelphia. He was 5 years before me in that room, but the same players were still there for both of us, save Caras. We were both around super high level players. We both had access and participated in the same weekly tournaments, gambled with the same old retired guys in the afternoons, gambled with the same guys in the evenings. I know he put in tons of time, but so did I. I went a period of at least 5 years when a teenager of playing probably an average of 5 hrs a day. I had the desire. I used to write lists of the people I wanted to kill on the pool table, and the order I was going to do it in. He not only got to the top of the local scene, he got to the top of the world. I can't even beat the mid level locals. What separates us? Natural talent is my answer.


Lets look at sports where there is total and rigid structure, unlike pool: Olympic gymnastics. Now, I'm not an expert by any means, and all I know about the Olympics is what I see on tv every 4 years.

But in that world, children from every country in the world that compete in the Olympics are plucked from their parents home every morning at like 4am to go to the gymnasium, then they go to school, then they go to the gymnasium again, then they go home back to parents for dinner, homework, and sleep. This continues from the time they are 5, till they are 15. These kids all have rigid and structured practice sessions, coaches, local, regional, and national competition. Yet, they don't all make it to the Olympics. Hell, even on the local level, there are probably kids that suck, and kids that are great. Probably only a tiny percentage make it to the national level, and then the Olympics. Why is that? They were all afforded ALL the oppurtunities mentioned in this thread with regard to becoming a world beater in pool. My opinion is some people just have it, and some don't. The "it" is talent.

Good discussion going here.

I quite agree. Anyone who's ever seen me throw a dart at a big round board straight in front of me, and miss the entire wall, will know some people are born to do something, and others' just aren't.

My sister in law is an art teacher. She laughed when i said I couldn't draw, saying we all can, it's just a matter of learning the fundamentals, then becoming confident enough to apply them. 30 mins after she'd volunteered to teach me, she'd gone ashen and had begun to question her entire belief system. I still don't think she's fully recovered.

 

[TheThaiger]

Posting in my thread and taking their time to do so? If so, Why? I appreciate people's input into my thread!! You tell me what is wrong with me thanking someone for something? Their time is worth me thanking them!! I noticed you are the only one saying something about me thanking people!!!! Thanking people and saying you are welcome is an act of appreciation! Perhaps I am wrong?
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

Jesus...

I don't 'have a problem' (why does everyone have to have a problem with everything, including those who have a problem with those having a problem?), it's just nobody else does it. Ever wondered why that is? If everyone does it, the board would be clogged up in no time. I presume that's why the rep system is there.

Keep doing it if it makes you happy, it's just unnecessary IMO.

 

[pt109]

I quite agree. Anyone who's ever seen me throw a dart at a big round board straight in front of me, and miss the entire wall, will know some people are born to do something, and others' just aren't.

My sister in law is an art teacher. She laughed when i said I couldn't draw, saying we all can, it's just a matter of learning the fundamentals, then becoming confident enough to apply them. 30 mins after she'd volunteered to teach me, she'd gone ashen and had begun to question her entire belief system. I still don't think she's fully recovered.

Art is a subject that I like.
An experiment was done once with people who felt they had no artistic
ability.
They were asked to draw a picture of my avatar...
..the results were atrocious.

Then they turned the picture of JFK upside down and asked them
to try again.
Evey picture was recognizably JFK.

I feel everybody living has talent...sometimes it is hard to find....
..but more often there is no hunger for it.

Personally, I am horrible at table tennis...but I don't care.

 

[TheThaiger]

Art is a subject that I like.
An experiment was done once with people who felt they had no artistic
ability.
They were asked to draw a picture of my avatar...
..the results were atrocious.

Then they turned the picture of JFK upside down and asked them
to try again.
Evey picture was recognizably JFK.

I feel everybody living has talent...sometimes it is hard to find....
..but more often there is no hunger for it.

Personally, I am horrible at table tennis...but I don't care.

Tennis is for girls.

Don't make me do to you what I did to my sister in law...Upside down, sideways, right way up; makes no difference to my artistic ability, trust me.

 

[Lock N Load]

I read a lot of threads on AZB....

Jesus...

I don't 'have a problem' (why does everyone have to have a problem with everything, including those who have a problem with those having a problem?), it's just nobody else does it. Ever wondered why that is? If everyone does it, the board would be clogged up in no time. I presume that's why the rep system is there.

Keep doing it if it makes you happy, it's just unnecessary IMO.

And anytime someone quote you in their post they are responding to what you have wrote! I see you are posting back to PT109!!!! And anyone else who responds to you!!!
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

 

[angldemn]

Don't make me do to you what I did to my sister in law...Upside down, sideways, right way up

Sounds like quite a threat with the rest of the quote missing.

 

[TheThaiger]

Sounds like quite a threat with the rest of the quote missing.

Well I have been tempted on occasion...

 

[TheThaiger]

And anytime someone quote you in their post they are responding to what you have wrote! I see you are posting back to PT109!!!! And anyone else who responds to you!!!
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

What a bizarre post...

 

[Rico]

Read about the greatest competitor ever! DAN GABLE. GABLE teaches you to look in a mirror at yourself and say Itried my best . If you can thats all you can do . Try to give 100% That is all there is win or lose .You can only control what you can do.
Yes Dan Gable is the greatest competitor and coach.ever

 

[pt109]

Posting in my thread and taking their time to do so? If so, Why? I appreciate people's input into my thread!! You tell me what is wrong with me thanking someone for something? Their time is worth me thanking them!! I noticed you are the only one saying something about me thanking people!!!! Thanking people and saying you are welcome is an act of appreciation! Perhaps I am wrong?
Many Regards,
Lock N Load.

Lock, some people arent ready for the concept of Southern hospitality.

And some are not ready for British wry humor.
My Yorkshire ancestors were quick to stand up and be counted...
or to make a wise crack dead-pan.

Both can be admirable positions.

regards
double hemlock..<..who may have to buy you a bourbon

 

[TheThaiger]

Lock, some people arent ready for the concept of Southern hospitality.

And some are not ready for British wry humor.
My Yorkshire ancestors were quick to stand up and be counted...
or to make a wise crack dead-pan.

Both can be admirable positions.

regards
double hemlock..<..who may have to buy you a bourbon

My Yorkshire ancestors were/are quick to disappear from the bar when it's their round. First out of the taxi, last to the bar.

 

[JoeW]

I doubt that one person could answer this because they only know themselves and what they did. However, I think the question could be answered by anyone (such as a coach) who really wanted to know the answer. Here is how I would do it.

Locate 10 – 30 monster players and determine how well they play against say the 10 – Ball Ghost. Include another 30 or so “regular” tournament players. This will allow you to determine relationships and the most important variables. Next interview each player concerning their life history, hand eye coordination, pool playing habits, personality characteristics, and oher potentially interesting variables. A multivariate analysis could then tease out the most import characteristics that monster players have relative to others.

This type of discriminant function analysis is probably more difficult than the average person could conduct. If you were to discuss the idea with local professors in the social sciences you could easily interest someone in this type of work because they would get a publication out of it.

The finding would be of use to those who coach others. The difficulty would be in the data collection.

 

[JoeW]

My Yorkshire ancestors were/are quick to disappear from the bar when it's their round. First out of the taxi, last to the bar.

AN Irishman walked out of a bar -- it could happen.

 

[Lock N Load]

Why, I thank you Double HemLock.

Lock, some people arent ready for the concept of Southern hospitality.

And some are not ready for British wry humor.
My Yorkshire ancestors were quick to stand up and be counted...
or to make a wise crack dead-pan.

Both can be admirable positions.

regards
double hemlock..<..who may have to buy you a bourbon

The only problem is I do not drink! Except for water, cold drinks...Root Beer, Coke, Orange juice, ECT! I would like for you to buy me a Root beer though! Barq's Root Beer that is! You are alright Double HemLock. Glad to have you on board in the Lock Society. Thanks again.
Many Regards,
Lock N load.

 

[Banks]

Barq's Root Beer that is!

Barq's has bite. I do miss the good old A&W stands from L.A. to the Colorado River, though.

Monster players.. the definition may kind of vary. Are we talking like Atwell is a monster on the barbox, or that a very strong Master caliber player is a monster, or is it enough to be a Master to start being considered a monster?

When somebody says monster, I conjure up ideas of somebody coming through town and sucking the blood(money) right out of the players. So, in that case, it would be somebody that's Pro speed or very, very close. Any spot you put them in, they have an answer. Some may be more difficult than others, but there isn't much at all that can catch them by surprise. They can turn on a game if need be and actually catching that high gear is like a star running back pulling away from the pack.. nobody's gonna catch them.

Monsters come in all shapes and sizes.. from the gremlins to Godzilla.

I still wonder what shortstop speed is exactly. I know we've got a few good players up here in the Northwest, but would most of them be considered Pros, shortstops or something else? For that kind of stuff, I usually default to BCA rankings and their tournament history for how strong they are. As an example.. what would somebody be considered if they were strong runners for the top 5 in the regional Masters division? Then we've got a Grandmaster 8-person tournament.. Pro and shortstop speed for those, I'd think?

 

[JB Cases]

The answers are contained in your comments.

This is the age old nature vs nurture discussion we are having in this thread. There is no conclusive test that proves its one over the other, as you have stated. There may be a research paper that you read that favors one over the other, but this debate will be going on forever...

It will until the research filters out to the world. There are lots of beliefs that science has investigated and now very few people believe the mystical side whereas 100-200-1000 years ago nearly all the common people believed the mystical side. I like to believe the natural talent side because it saves me from having to face the fact that I just don't want it as much as the guy who beats me and won't put in the work needed to be as good or better than him.

The romantic part of it I actually see the opposite viewpoint that you do. I think its "romantic" for a person to tell themselves:

"I can be that good, if I just work at it by doing xyz. But I have other priorities in my life. We are all created equal".

The other side of it is: "I'm not as talented as that person, no matter how much I work at xyz, I will never make it to their level. We are not all created equal"

In my view, it is easier for a person to swallow the first quoted sentence, not the second. The second sentence makes the person feel inferior. Even in this thread, there was 2 pages of posts before someone mentioned talent. I feel its just a way for a player that never had or can have it, to justify to themselves that its not a lack of talent that is holding them back, but just a lack of practice/competition/desire/etc.

Well, the second sentence IS a statement of inferiority. But the fact is that people also USE the second statement as an EXCUSE not to excel. Most people just do enough to get along, enough to not get fired, not all that they can do, they don't be all that they can be in any endeavor. Some do and they are seen as ultra-talented when in fact the studies show that they work harder, they work smarter, they learn deeper, they push themselves farther.

Lets look at two extremes of pool players: Thorston and McCready. Throston grew up with coaches, lessons, structured practice, tournament competing, etc. McCrready grew up gambling his brains out. He probably never head a lesson in his life, or a practice session. (I don't know this as fact). Thorston has a fundamentally perfect stroke and stance. McCready is all over the place with a goofy side arm stroke and stance.

But both players reached the top of the world status in their respective generations. tHey both went about it in completely opposite fashions. What was the one thing they both have in common? Natural talent is my answer.

The things that they both had in common was opportunity and desire. Thorsten because he had a pool team environment that treated pool as a sport and supportive parents who encouraged him and coaches who took a structured approach to skill building. McCready was in a hotbed of champion caliber players and got to witness top level play on a daily basis and had to improve to be competitive with them. It was a situation of get better or get broke. He desired to compete and so he put in the work to get better.

Here's another example of pool players. Me vs Corey Deuel. We both are from the same room in Philadelphia. He was 5 years before me in that room, but the same players were still there for both of us, save Caras. We were both around super high level players. We both had access and participated in the same weekly tournaments, gambled with the same old retired guys in the afternoons, gambled with the same guys in the evenings. I know he put in tons of time, but so did I. I went a period of at least 5 years when a teenager of playing probably an average of 5 hrs a day. I had the desire. I used to write lists of the people I wanted to kill on the pool table, and the order I was going to do it in. He not only got to the top of the local scene, he got to the top of the world. I can't even beat the mid level locals. What separates us? Natural talent is my answer.

My answer to what separates you and Corey just by reading your story and knowing nothing else is opportunity. Corey had the opportunity to train under Jimmy Caras' presence and coaching and you didn't. So even if you both put in the same amount of hours in separate five year periods with all the same environment but Corey had Caras steering him and you didn't then that's the opportunity he has that shaped him and not you, assuming you both had an equal desire.

I think that saying that natural talent is the difference is a cop-out. It's a band-aid on the soul to look at someone who succeeds more and say well they are just more talented. Again the research proves that while one person might have more aptitude for something at any given point in time people who train harder can generally surpass the "talented" person's performance after a period of time.

Lets look at sports where there is total and rigid structure, unlike pool: Olympic gymnastics. Now, I'm not an expert by any means, and all I know about the Olympics is what I see on tv every 4 years.

I happen to know a little more than you then having been a gymnastics coach for small children and having a sister who was a national class gymnast. She went to OU on a full ride gymnastics scholarship. I was a competitive springboard diver and later a professional high diver.

But in that world, children from every country in the world that compete in the Olympics are plucked from their parents home every morning at like 4am to go to the gymnasium, then they go to school, then they go to the gymnasium again, then they go home back to parents for dinner, homework, and sleep. This continues from the time they are 5, till they are 15. These kids all have rigid and structured practice sessions, coaches, local, regional, and national competition. Yet, they don't all make it to the Olympics. Hell, even on the local level, there are probably kids that suck, and kids that are great. Probably only a tiny percentage make it to the national level, and then the Olympics. Why is that? They were all afforded ALL the oppurtunities mentioned in this thread with regard to becoming a world beater in pool. My opinion is some people just have it, and some don't. The "it" is talent.

The "it" is desire. You have actually given a perfect example of where desire makes the difference. You do have gymnasts who get all the best coaching but the ones who move up the ranks are the ones who master the toughest moves and those are the ones who put in more work. When the other girls have left the one with more desire puts in an extra hour doing something the other girls find boring. That extra hour a day of intense and deep practice pays off big when she competes. You can translate desire into numbers. More time spent plus more focus = better competitor.

If you haven't read them yet try Talent is Overrated by Geoff Colvin and The Talent Code by Daniel Coyle.

Follow up on the research these two books use as support and you might start to think a bit differently.

And as someone mentioned earlier using Michael Jordan as an example, top performers don't usually go to natural talent as the reason they are successful. They point to hard work and dedication and desire. I forget who said this but it was a famous ventriloquist who said 'any ten year old can do what I do if he has 20 years of experience'.

 

[JB Cases]

Barq's has bite. I do miss the good old A&W stands from L.A. to the Colorado River, though.

Monster players.. the definition may kind of vary. Are we talking like Atwell is a monster on the barbox, or that a very strong Master caliber player is a monster, or is it enough to be a Master to start being considered a monster?

When somebody says monster, I conjure up ideas of somebody coming through town and sucking the blood(money) right out of the players. So, in that case, it would be somebody that's Pro speed or very, very close. Any spot you put them in, they have an answer. Some may be more difficult than others, but there isn't much at all that can catch them by surprise. They can turn on a game if need be and actually catching that high gear is like a star running back pulling away from the pack.. nobody's gonna catch them.

Monsters come in all shapes and sizes.. from the gremlins to Godzilla.

I still wonder what shortstop speed is exactly. I know we've got a few good players up here in the Northwest, but would most of them be considered Pros, shortstops or something else? For that kind of stuff, I usually default to BCA rankings and their tournament history for how strong they are. As an example.. what would somebody be considered if they were strong runners for the top 5 in the regional Masters division? Then we've got a Grandmaster 8-person tournament.. Pro and shortstop speed for those, I'd think?

I think a shortstop is a player who can have a legitimate chance of beating a pro in any given set. They won't beat the pro over distance but they can play world class speed in short bursts. A shortstop dominates his local area and almost always gets into the top quarter of tournaments with full fields of good players.

I would consider the top Master level league players to be shortstops from my experience.

Of course some of them are not far from being MONSTERS who could compete easily with the best if they desired to give up their secure jobs.

 

[JB Cases]

I doubt that one person could answer this because they only know themselves and what they did. However, I think the question could be answered by anyone (such as a coach) who really wanted to know the answer. Here is how I would do it.

Locate 10 – 30 monster players and determine how well they play against say the 10 – Ball Ghost. Include another 30 or so “regular” tournament players. This will allow you to determine relationships and the most important variables. Next interview each player concerning their life history, hand eye coordination, pool playing habits, personality characteristics, and oher potentially interesting variables. A multivariate analysis could then tease out the most import characteristics that monster players have relative to others.

This type of discriminant function analysis is probably more difficult than the average person could conduct. If you were to discuss the idea with local professors in the social sciences you could easily interest someone in this type of work because they would get a publication out of it.

The finding would be of use to those who coach others. The difficulty would be in the data collection.

We already have something that works called Equal Offense and a variant called Fargo. Both of these games have a scoring system which fairly accurately correlates to Accu-Stats numbers to determine the skill level of the person being ranked.

If people REALLY took this up then two things would happen. One is that people would truly know where they stand in comparison to others and two it would be possible to have events that truly cater to different skill levels which then give a target to move up. And of course there is also the aspect of matching up where people could match up based on their "verified" Equal Offense/Fargo scores.

I think a lot of people would wear their numbers as a badge of honor.

 

[Banks]

I think a shortstop is a player who can have a legitimate chance of beating a pro in any given set. They won't beat the pro over distance but they can play world class speed in short bursts. A shortstop dominates his local area and almost always gets into the top quarter of tournaments with full fields of good players.

I would consider the top Master level league players to be shortstops from my experience.

Of course some of them are not far from being MONSTERS who could compete easily with the best if they desired to give up their secure jobs.

Thanks for the input, JB. That makes pretty good sense. I was a little confused comparing our regional BCA rankings with the national BCA rankings. I've played some of the good regional players in (real)short sets. I know there is a high gear with some of them, but I've been pretty lucky not to be on the receiving end of one of those yet. A little more time on the table and maybe I can start catching up.. heh.

Time to temporarily give up my secure job and head home.. or stop by the bar and knock around a few. Still waiting for my new tips to arrive from China.. shipped on Friday, I think.. so, what's that.. 10 days? As long as they're here before our BCA event. I can't imagine it would be easy to find a screw-on tip during the tournament. Maybe Atwell or Louie would be kind enough to give me the rainbow and show me how I can still lose.. :thumbup:

 

[iusedtoberich]

The answers are contained in your comments.
...

JB, I see what you are saying, but I respectfully disagree.