by Stev » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:25:03
by weedwack » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:30:28
> Hmmm, 8 hours a day doesn't that kind of define "professional" in most
> endeavors. I know I wish my work days were that short.
> I think most professionals aren't good because they started young,
> rather they started young because they were good right away.
> Steve.
Millions of kids start playing baseball, football, basketball, tennis,
golf, etc. at young ages because, unlike pool, there are many
organized leagues in these sports for kids at younger ages. At each
stage (Little league, High School, College, etc.) people get weeded
out and the cream generally rises to the top. If there were more
organized pool leagues for kids, would we have more superstars? Based
on statistical probability, probably, at least a few more. The more
young participants, the more likely you will have greater numbers that
make it to that high level.
But ultimately, making it to the highest level requires special
talent, a young start, and desire to be the best. There are probably
many people out there in many sports who started young and have become
very accomplished in their sport. Let's say someone who started young
is in the top 1% of their sport (a great, tremendous accomplishment).
Well, if there are a million people playing the sport, that means
there may be 9,999 people better than you. Sorry, but being in the
top 10,000 in a sport won't put you on the radar.
It's tough to be one of the best.
by Elijah Fayerma » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:37:15
Starting young does have a greater advantage due to some other factors than
desire to exercise and time devotion.
Elijah.
by lfiguero » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:45
Lou Figueroa
> > Exactly. Starting young, in and of itself, is not so significant.
> > Starting young, combined with real natural talent and desire to
> > exercise that talent by playing a lot and devoting oneself to the game
> > is what makes one the best, IMO.
> I have to disagree with you. Look at the immigrants and their children.
> While it takes years for an *** to learn, let's say, English and then
> speak it with a heavy accent for the rest of his/her life, it might take
> less than a year for a 7-13 year old child to start speaking perfect
> English. While children might not have a rich vocabulary, they don't need
> any natural talent or any desire or even devotion to the language that
they
> learn automatically. Children need, however, a foreign-language
environment
> to progress. For children, 7 years of formal education in languages might
> give less than a year of playing with their neighborhood peers.
> Starting young does have a greater advantage due to some other factors
than
> desire to exercise and time devotion.
> Elijah.
by Frank Glen » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:08:27
by JoeBLo » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:22:20
Pool is completely different. it requires fine motor control and good
judgement. Both of these are used in everyday life and both can be refined.
(this can be easily proved by looking at ***s who buy video game systems,
within a couple of weeks their hand-eye coordination and the motor control
of their thumb is FAR supierior to what it was originally).
Anyway...jsut wanted to point out that from a medical/neurological
standpoint language is a whole different beast.....apples to oranges.
Keith McCready told me once that i could be as good as him, he said anyone
could and all they had to do was play pool ALL DAY EVERY DAY. He said it
was simple.
> > Exactly. Starting young, in and of itself, is not so significant.
> > Starting young, combined with real natural talent and desire to
> > exercise that talent by playing a lot and devoting oneself to the game
> > is what makes one the best, IMO.
> I have to disagree with you. Look at the immigrants and their children.
> While it takes years for an *** to learn, let's say, English and then
> speak it with a heavy accent for the rest of his/her life, it might take
> less than a year for a 7-13 year old child to start speaking perfect
> English. While children might not have a rich vocabulary, they don't need
> any natural talent or any desire or even devotion to the language that
they
> learn automatically. Children need, however, a foreign-language
environment
> to progress. For children, 7 years of formal education in languages might
> give less than a year of playing with their neighborhood peers.
> Starting young does have a greater advantage due to some other factors
than
> desire to exercise and time devotion.
> Elijah.
by weedwack » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:33:16
> > Exactly. Starting young, in and of itself, is not so significant.
> > Starting young, combined with real natural talent and desire to
> > exercise that talent by playing a lot and devoting oneself to the game
> > is what makes one the best, IMO.
> I have to disagree with you. Look at the immigrants and their children.
> While it takes years for an *** to learn, let's say, English and then
> speak it with a heavy accent for the rest of his/her life, it might take
> less than a year for a 7-13 year old child to start speaking perfect
> English. While children might not have a rich vocabulary, they don't need
> any natural talent or any desire or even devotion to the language that they
> learn automatically. Children need, however, a foreign-language environment
> to progress. For children, 7 years of formal education in languages might
> give less than a year of playing with their neighborhood peers.
> Starting young does have a greater advantage due to some other factors than
> desire to exercise and time devotion.
> Elijah.
I will illustrate my point using language as an example since you
brought it up above. We all learn language at a young age, but not
all of us become adept enough at our use of language to make a living
from our ability with language. In fact, some people can barely put
together a sentence. Some people become journalists, commentators, or
win a Pulitzer prize in literature. I assume that the person who
can't put together the sentence and the person who wins the Pulitzer
prize both started learning language early (probably as early as mom
and dad could coax a "Mama" or "Dada" out of their mouths). So what's
the difference between the two? Not how young they started, but
natural talent and desire to be good.
However, I do want to note that, according to scientists, language is
apparently somewhat unique in our ability to learn it well.
Specifically, scientists have noted that the human brain has a special
ability (probably developed through evolution to ensure survival) to
learn language(s) at an early age. This ability apparently declines
precipitously at about 12 years old. Specifically, languages can be
absorbed readily and easily in young children from the age they start
learning to speak (about 2 yrs.) until about 12 yrs. This ability is
especially apparent children just learning to speak. In other words,
if you were locked in a closet for the first twelve years of your life
and didn't learn to speak, the theory is you would never learn to
speak much at all (obviously, it's difficult to do adequate
experimentation to prove the theory, but that's what scientists
believe).
by Ravelom » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:32:43
In the case of pool, I do not believe that it is too far of a stretch to
believe that processes similar to the above, occur in all children, and not
just in language processing but also throughout the entire range of human
capabilities. So it may just be possible that pool may be learned far quicker
in children, provided they have an interest in it and have a teacher.
Jerry R
by Patrick Johnso » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:53:31
Pat Johnson
Chicago
by OrangeCru » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:22:37
> > ... those who were first exposed to English prior to age
> > 10 have a native-speaker level of fluency, and this includes regional accents
> > (US). OTOH, those who learned English at ages 11 and 12 are able to read, write
> > and speak English very well, but still retain (even if just a trace of) a
> > Spanish accent.
> And those who learned English even later in life often have strong accents.
> > ... it may just be possible that pool may be learned far quicker
> > in children
> I'd guess that some things in pool can only be learned at a young age.
> A "natural fluency" that those who start later can't attain to the same
> degree.
> Pat Johnson
> Chicago
by cycopa » Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:10:25
> > [about becoming a champion after starting late]
> > > John Schimdt didn't pick up a cue until he was 19 yrs old.
> > > Look at him now.
> > Well, yes, but, he is not yet the best in the world, and I wouldn't be
> > surprised if he averages 8 hours a day of play.
> Perhaps. But I'd like to know if this is true about John Schmidt.
> These things have a way of getting embellished. If it's true, I think
> it's pretty significant.
> I mean if you collect together all the players in this country who
> have a chance getting the six ball from John Schmidt, I suspect the
> overwhelming majority of *them* started as kids...