Yeah, but this topic was not about "who's talented in what", but it was "What does it take to become a Champion", and as I understood it, word Champion means something like Mika Immonen or Ralf Souquet, who doen't just win one but multiple Majors.
What does it take to become a Champion?
- Thread starter tigerseye
- Start date
Yeah, but this topic was not about "who's talented in what", but it was "What does it take to become a Champion", and as I understood it, word Champion means something like Mika Immonen or Ralf Souquet, who doen't just win one but multiple Majors.
Yeah, but forget about Rodney and Diliberto too.
If you look at those Champions which shine year after year, not only in top 16-32, but in top 5 year after year, they are not just talented ballers. They are very determined and dedicated fellows. They don't have time to play all these different sports, as they are playing pool.
When I was watching Mika winning the World 10-Ball Championships and putting up one of the winningest and most dominant streak in the history of Pro Pool, one thought came to my mind suddenly; "He never went to Golf nor other stuff, his mind is, was and will be on Pool".
What happened to for example Corey? He was the best in 2001, after that he has been like somewhere there in top 16 - top 32, if all the Asian Pro's counted, not even there.
Mika won his first World Championships at 2001, and kept going. He had few mediocre years there, but now he's higher on the top than anyone since Earl and Efren. That's not only because he's talented baller, but because he's also extremely determined and hard working. Ralf maybe even more, Mika is just having the nuts at the moment, but both good examples of the TRUE and REAL Champions, which this topic was about..
But a true talent doesn't yet make a True Champion. Or have you "been there done that", in the same level as Ralf, Mika or dozen True Champions I could list?
And don't get me wrong, I do respect you as World Beater, Major Winner, great talent etc, but it's just not the same as being a True Champion. I think, at the moment at least, you are lacking few qualities and aspects of qualifying yet there.
Of course defining the concept "True Champion" is also a matter of opinion, and if the opinion is that winning a Major qualifies for a Champion, then John is there.
I'd say to the level as few others, he still have distance. His talent is bringing him far, but his lackings are preventing him to go further.
good points.
you make good points for sure.john does not have as many wins as them. he also plays in half the amount of tourneys,never plays international,and played his first pro event at 30.
i would say for the limited amount of tourneys hes played and the limited amount of years hes tried to play them hes done allright.
by the way hes won one pocket events too.maybe ralf,mika or yourself markus juva a proplayer also would like to play him onehole..onepocket is my favorite game.
the fact that mika and ralf are not great at onehole to me means they have a ways to go to be true champion.like you said what it takes to be champion is a matter of opinion and in mine until you play all the games great something is lacking.jmho
you make good points for sure.john does not have as many wins as them. he also plays in half the amount of tourneys,never plays international,and played his first pro event at 30.
i would say for the limited amount of tourneys hes played and the limited amount of years hes tried to play them hes done allright.
by the way hes won one pocket events too.maybe ralf,mika or yourself markus juva a proplayer also would like to play him onehole..onepocket is my favorite game.
the fact that mika and ralf are not great at onehole to me means they have a ways to go to be true champion.like you said what it takes to be champion is a matter of opinion and in mine until you play all the games great something is lacking.jmho
Last edited:
My perspective on champions is putting them on different levels: Local, Regional, National, International. But you guys are talking about Archer, Efren, Ralf, Earl those guys are not champions. They are what every other sport would call Legends. A champion to me is someone who is better then 90% of the competition, a Legend is someone who is better then 99% of the competition.
There is all this arguing about what it takes and I think you guys just have it different perspectives of a common word. I hate to agree with JS, I don't really like the posts he was making. But if you want to talk about what it takes to become a Legend, then I'd take his word for it.
Now the argument about the different levels of champions, i'm all ears. I'm just a youngin and would like to know what it takes.
There is all this arguing about what it takes and I think you guys just have it different perspectives of a common word. I hate to agree with JS, I don't really like the posts he was making. But if you want to talk about what it takes to become a Legend, then I'd take his word for it.
Now the argument about the different levels of champions, i'm all ears. I'm just a youngin and would like to know what it takes.
I think you misspelled the title of your post. I think it should be hi and not good points, or am I wrong?
Godfather
Out of the racket
Poor John
This is pretty ludicrous to me on several levels. One is that Russ seems to be arguing against John even after John agreed with his main point that some people are never going to make it and that others with less talent can make up all or some of the distance with a little less talent by working hard. John’s pretty much arguing only against gatz’s statements that anyone can be come a champion at anything through work. This is simply not the case and is only obvious to anyone who’s been around or has tried, themselves. I don’t know how many thousands of hours I’ve put in, but anyone who knows me in Phoenix or Portland, knows not only how much I played in stretches, but how much I practiced and worked. I’m a 9 in Phoenix and a low A player in Portland. And I’m by no means handicapped. I’m one of the guys who got a small piece of the pie. In everything I’ve ever done from academics to athletics, I’ve been in the 95th to 99th percentile. John isn’t one in a hundred, he’s more like one in a million. I still like to think if I worked hard I could be a decent pro, but John was twice as good as I am now, after playing half as much. And I know a ton of guys who have played eight hours a day, at least, for long stretches and had the desire and never came close.
I used to think almost anyone could do anything anyone else had done, given the right circumstances, too, but personal experience and research has proven me wrong. Just for one example is that the neuro-chemical, dopamine, is proven to enhance physical coordination and that’s just one that we know of. Everybody has different proportions and amounts of these chemicals, so it makes sense that we’d all have different ability potentials.
This is for ShootingArts, or Hu. First let me say that it is possible for great players, especially at that time, to fly under the radar, so there is a chance that he could be great, and even if he was just a really good player and did it for a living, I’m sure he has a ton of experience. Having said that, some of this stuff is pretty dumb. I know players personally who gambled for a living in the sixties and seventies and they say it was a lot different, then, with everybody betting who could barely play. Loggers playing people for 20 a game and pimps playing for 10,000. If you take everyone who plays pool, from loggers to college kids to pros, a guy like me, or any other A player is in the top 1 percent in the world. If all those idiots were gambling, then I’d play anyone who came to the table, too. You’re pretty much guaranteed to win every time and the one percent of the time you’re matched up bad you can afford to duke it out a little against champions. And if you play tight with a road player on your home table bar box, you probably play pretty good, but you’re by no means a champion. I played Shane for a little over an hour, ridiculously cheap, even, in that situation, by the game, in 2007, played great and broke even. Shane is so, much better than me, it’s stupid.
And to brag about betting 80, 000 dollars, all the money you’ve got from 8 years of blood, sweat and work on one game of bar-box 8 ball against a run-out player, doesn’t show anything except that you have some trouble with money management. I know a lot of guys that have made a living gambling in cards and pool, and except for a couple go-offs who stay at the broke level most of the time, they manage their money well, putting only percentages of their stack in play at a time, so they don’t chance going broke and not having the money to play if an easy game comes along. If John were to tell people that he decided to take his life savings and bet it on a coin flip or a hand of blackjack, most people wouldn’t think that that means he’s a good gambler, they would just think it’s stupid or that he has a gambling problem. So you haven’t said anything that would make me think that you could come close to playing John in your prime, and have said a couple things that make me doubt both your judgment and understanding.
~Jeremy Nelson
This is pretty ludicrous to me on several levels. One is that Russ seems to be arguing against John even after John agreed with his main point that some people are never going to make it and that others with less talent can make up all or some of the distance with a little less talent by working hard. John’s pretty much arguing only against gatz’s statements that anyone can be come a champion at anything through work. This is simply not the case and is only obvious to anyone who’s been around or has tried, themselves. I don’t know how many thousands of hours I’ve put in, but anyone who knows me in Phoenix or Portland, knows not only how much I played in stretches, but how much I practiced and worked. I’m a 9 in Phoenix and a low A player in Portland. And I’m by no means handicapped. I’m one of the guys who got a small piece of the pie. In everything I’ve ever done from academics to athletics, I’ve been in the 95th to 99th percentile. John isn’t one in a hundred, he’s more like one in a million. I still like to think if I worked hard I could be a decent pro, but John was twice as good as I am now, after playing half as much. And I know a ton of guys who have played eight hours a day, at least, for long stretches and had the desire and never came close.
I used to think almost anyone could do anything anyone else had done, given the right circumstances, too, but personal experience and research has proven me wrong. Just for one example is that the neuro-chemical, dopamine, is proven to enhance physical coordination and that’s just one that we know of. Everybody has different proportions and amounts of these chemicals, so it makes sense that we’d all have different ability potentials.
This is for ShootingArts, or Hu. First let me say that it is possible for great players, especially at that time, to fly under the radar, so there is a chance that he could be great, and even if he was just a really good player and did it for a living, I’m sure he has a ton of experience. Having said that, some of this stuff is pretty dumb. I know players personally who gambled for a living in the sixties and seventies and they say it was a lot different, then, with everybody betting who could barely play. Loggers playing people for 20 a game and pimps playing for 10,000. If you take everyone who plays pool, from loggers to college kids to pros, a guy like me, or any other A player is in the top 1 percent in the world. If all those idiots were gambling, then I’d play anyone who came to the table, too. You’re pretty much guaranteed to win every time and the one percent of the time you’re matched up bad you can afford to duke it out a little against champions. And if you play tight with a road player on your home table bar box, you probably play pretty good, but you’re by no means a champion. I played Shane for a little over an hour, ridiculously cheap, even, in that situation, by the game, in 2007, played great and broke even. Shane is so, much better than me, it’s stupid.
And to brag about betting 80, 000 dollars, all the money you’ve got from 8 years of blood, sweat and work on one game of bar-box 8 ball against a run-out player, doesn’t show anything except that you have some trouble with money management. I know a lot of guys that have made a living gambling in cards and pool, and except for a couple go-offs who stay at the broke level most of the time, they manage their money well, putting only percentages of their stack in play at a time, so they don’t chance going broke and not having the money to play if an easy game comes along. If John were to tell people that he decided to take his life savings and bet it on a coin flip or a hand of blackjack, most people wouldn’t think that that means he’s a good gambler, they would just think it’s stupid or that he has a gambling problem. So you haven’t said anything that would make me think that you could come close to playing John in your prime, and have said a couple things that make me doubt both your judgment and understanding.
~Jeremy Nelson
hard to believe
Jeremy,
Hard to believe you were above the 95 percentile academically with your rush to judge me on few facts. You didn't get many high grades doing that. I did bet the $80K with someone I had played a half dozen times a week for months. I had better cue ball control than the other player so I figured to win the lag. Winning the lag, I broke safe. His only chance was throwing away a shot to rebreak the pile and hope for luck. He didn't do that so while it was a twenty or thirty minute game of barbox eightball there was little doubt in my mind of the outcome following the lag and break.
I did all the other things I said I did including dominating Johnny Archer the one time we played on a table I knew well. That indeed makes it likely that I was a pretty good shortstop, all I have ever claimed to be at my best in pool. Making a living at it, that just took smarts, something you have rushed to decide I don't have.
I bet everything when I was young, healthy, and single with a handful of marketable skills. Had I lost I didn't doubt I could roll up another $80,000 in another five years or so. I bet that much and more when I opened several businesses. I have owned over a dozen small businesses, every one of those involved betting far more than the average pool player ever bets. Then I put years of hard work into making the business a success. It was no worse betting $80,000 on a bet I figured to win or lose in thirty minutes or less work on a pool table than betting the same money and years of work on a business. At the time I valued my time and effort far more than I valued money anyway.
You are right about the risk involved when I gambled regularly. There simply wasn't any even when I played champions. My win percentage was 85% and that included stalling a bit to keep it that low. That meant that I could always crank the percentage up a little to make up for any losses. You can't really have it both ways, saying I am stupid and smart though.
I put a hell of a lot more hours in pool than John has and to date I am quite sure I have taken more money net out of pool than he has. As a gambler that is my measure of success. At my peak I would have tied John up in knots on a pool table just like I did Johnny Archer. The difference is that John S is a pale fraction of the competitor Johnny Archer is and he would have cracked like a rotten gourd under that kind of pressure.
Hu
Jeremy,
Hard to believe you were above the 95 percentile academically with your rush to judge me on few facts. You didn't get many high grades doing that. I did bet the $80K with someone I had played a half dozen times a week for months. I had better cue ball control than the other player so I figured to win the lag. Winning the lag, I broke safe. His only chance was throwing away a shot to rebreak the pile and hope for luck. He didn't do that so while it was a twenty or thirty minute game of barbox eightball there was little doubt in my mind of the outcome following the lag and break.
I did all the other things I said I did including dominating Johnny Archer the one time we played on a table I knew well. That indeed makes it likely that I was a pretty good shortstop, all I have ever claimed to be at my best in pool. Making a living at it, that just took smarts, something you have rushed to decide I don't have.
I bet everything when I was young, healthy, and single with a handful of marketable skills. Had I lost I didn't doubt I could roll up another $80,000 in another five years or so. I bet that much and more when I opened several businesses. I have owned over a dozen small businesses, every one of those involved betting far more than the average pool player ever bets. Then I put years of hard work into making the business a success. It was no worse betting $80,000 on a bet I figured to win or lose in thirty minutes or less work on a pool table than betting the same money and years of work on a business. At the time I valued my time and effort far more than I valued money anyway.
You are right about the risk involved when I gambled regularly. There simply wasn't any even when I played champions. My win percentage was 85% and that included stalling a bit to keep it that low. That meant that I could always crank the percentage up a little to make up for any losses. You can't really have it both ways, saying I am stupid and smart though.
I put a hell of a lot more hours in pool than John has and to date I am quite sure I have taken more money net out of pool than he has. As a gambler that is my measure of success. At my peak I would have tied John up in knots on a pool table just like I did Johnny Archer. The difference is that John S is a pale fraction of the competitor Johnny Archer is and he would have cracked like a rotten gourd under that kind of pressure.
Hu
certainly the most interesting . . .
Certainly the most interesting post in the thread. Godfather posts for ten days in February of 2006 and then disappears until John leaves this thread in a huff vowing to never post on AZB again under his own name.
Anybody betting against Godfather posting at John's behest? Outside chance of John using the account but if so somebody edited the post for him.
Hu
Certainly the most interesting post in the thread. Godfather posts for ten days in February of 2006 and then disappears until John leaves this thread in a huff vowing to never post on AZB again under his own name.
Anybody betting against Godfather posting at John's behest? Outside chance of John using the account but if so somebody edited the post for him.
Hu
Godfather
Out of the racket
Hey, Hu
Hey, Hu,
I met John once at Classic Billiards in Portland, OR before he won Reno, when he came through town on the road. I haven’t talked or written to him since. I doubt he remembers me. All I was saying was that you were arguing that in your prime you would have beaten John and I said that this was possible, but that in all your writing you never said anything that would convince me of that. Now you write that you were just a good shortstop but that you still would have tied John in knots. I don’t know what game you were playing against Archer if that went down, but if you tried safety breaking JS in bar table 8 ball, I can pretty much guarantee that he’d roast any shortstop doing that. I mean he’s a world class straight pool player and recently won what many consider the one-pocket world championships at DCC. He’d outshoot and out move any shortstop on any table. And I never said you were both smart and stupid. I said any decent player would beat almost all the guys who were gambling back then. And that betting all the dough on essentially one lag isn’t that great a gambling decision even if you’re the favorite. It’s true that if you even have only a fifty one percent chance of success you should bet if you’re guaranteed a large number of decisions with that margin. That’s how casinos make their money. But I know a lot of professional gamblers who wouldn’t bet their whole stack in the situation you describe even if they’re a sixty to seventy percent favorite. It’s just not good gambling.
And as for challenging John to a pistol or rifle competition in which he has presumably no experience at all and you are an expert is weird. He never said that he picked up a pool cue for the first time and beat great players. He just said he got there faster. From my understanding of what he’s saying, he would probably agree that he believes after 20,000 rounds of shooting he would be where you were after 100,000. To say he’s ducking you in a shooting contest when he may never have fired a gun makes no sense at all.
And I didn’t judge you. I said it was possible that you were as good as John, but that you hadn’t given me any reason to believe it. The 80,000 was why I said it indicated some poor judgment and the lack of understanding was referring to the pistol challenge. It shows that you didn’t understand what John was saying.
And as for my academics, my lowest grade my freshman year in high school was a 99 percent at a private school. I got bored, dropped out, took my SATs and got a partial academic scholarship to Whitman College. After a semester I got a full ride tennis scholarship to Southern Illinois University and accepted it as I wanted to have more competition in tennis, because that was more important to me than the academics at Whitman.
Hey, Hu,
I met John once at Classic Billiards in Portland, OR before he won Reno, when he came through town on the road. I haven’t talked or written to him since. I doubt he remembers me. All I was saying was that you were arguing that in your prime you would have beaten John and I said that this was possible, but that in all your writing you never said anything that would convince me of that. Now you write that you were just a good shortstop but that you still would have tied John in knots. I don’t know what game you were playing against Archer if that went down, but if you tried safety breaking JS in bar table 8 ball, I can pretty much guarantee that he’d roast any shortstop doing that. I mean he’s a world class straight pool player and recently won what many consider the one-pocket world championships at DCC. He’d outshoot and out move any shortstop on any table. And I never said you were both smart and stupid. I said any decent player would beat almost all the guys who were gambling back then. And that betting all the dough on essentially one lag isn’t that great a gambling decision even if you’re the favorite. It’s true that if you even have only a fifty one percent chance of success you should bet if you’re guaranteed a large number of decisions with that margin. That’s how casinos make their money. But I know a lot of professional gamblers who wouldn’t bet their whole stack in the situation you describe even if they’re a sixty to seventy percent favorite. It’s just not good gambling.
And as for challenging John to a pistol or rifle competition in which he has presumably no experience at all and you are an expert is weird. He never said that he picked up a pool cue for the first time and beat great players. He just said he got there faster. From my understanding of what he’s saying, he would probably agree that he believes after 20,000 rounds of shooting he would be where you were after 100,000. To say he’s ducking you in a shooting contest when he may never have fired a gun makes no sense at all.
And I didn’t judge you. I said it was possible that you were as good as John, but that you hadn’t given me any reason to believe it. The 80,000 was why I said it indicated some poor judgment and the lack of understanding was referring to the pistol challenge. It shows that you didn’t understand what John was saying.
And as for my academics, my lowest grade my freshman year in high school was a 99 percent at a private school. I got bored, dropped out, took my SATs and got a partial academic scholarship to Whitman College. After a semester I got a full ride tennis scholarship to Southern Illinois University and accepted it as I wanted to have more competition in tennis, because that was more important to me than the academics at Whitman.
Who, or what, are champion pool players. They are money players. I have known of no pro player who didn't gamble, at least until their reputation caught up with them. If a young player isn't willing to put his hard earned on the line, he or she will never make it to the top. If you don't believe me ask Luther, or Willie, or Cornbread, or Jack, or Fats, et al.
Yeah, but the title wasn't "how to become a great all around player" nor it was "who's good in onehole".
It was about becoming a True Champion.
Mika and Ralf for example, might not be so interested in one pocket, as they are more interested to become True Champions, or remaining there..
Seriously, John's achievements in relation to the fact that he started after teens and hasn't practiced much, are something extraordinary. I don't know if Mika could have done that (he started at relatively old age too, about 15-16 - and I concider him as a great talent also), and I would guess Ralf certainly not, but that's completely different issue.
To become a True Champion, you need talent, but you for sure need hard work also. Hard work needs determination and dedication, which John S might be lacking a bit.
If he developes in that, (probably learns some humility first also
) I don't see any reason why he couldn't become a true champ.
Ehem, how can you ask when they are all dead?
Why don't we ask Ralf, Thorsten, or few others?
I think you misspelled the title of your post. I think it should be hi and not good points, or am I wrong?
Roy "Sherlock" Steffensen
interesting
Jeremy,
For someone that doesn't know John or myself your bias is amazing. You accept he can't beat me with a pistol and assume I never played his level of pool although I never fired a shot in pistol competition until I was in my mid-thirties and don't have more than a very tiny percentage of the hours in shooting a pistol that I do playing pool. I put in over 25,000 hours shooting pool before I was twenty-five. I doubt I have 2,500 hours in shooting a pistol.
Of course if you read this thread before posting into it you saw that why John attacked me to begin with is because I said there was more than one path to obtaining a skill level. After John showed a total lack of respect I responded in kind. No apologies for that.
Hu
Jeremy,
For someone that doesn't know John or myself your bias is amazing. You accept he can't beat me with a pistol and assume I never played his level of pool although I never fired a shot in pistol competition until I was in my mid-thirties and don't have more than a very tiny percentage of the hours in shooting a pistol that I do playing pool. I put in over 25,000 hours shooting pool before I was twenty-five. I doubt I have 2,500 hours in shooting a pistol.
Of course if you read this thread before posting into it you saw that why John attacked me to begin with is because I said there was more than one path to obtaining a skill level. After John showed a total lack of respect I responded in kind. No apologies for that.
Hu
You are beating a dead horse.
This nature versus nurture debate has been going on for centuries with no resolution.
Genetics accounts for some talents. Training for others.
You've chased John away, now. Nice job. I think most of us would rather hear from him than you. Give it up already.