Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by Stev » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 03:25:03


Quote:


> ...
> 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.
> ...

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.
 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by weedwack » Sun, 01 Feb 2004 10:30:28

Quote:

> ...

> 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.

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.

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.

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by Elijah Fayerma » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 00:37:15

Quote:

> 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.

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by lfiguero » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 01:35:45

I suppose one could say that youngsters learn language with a different part
of their brains than ***s.  Perhaps the same is true of learning skills
like pool and is why those that start out playing when young, do so well  --
while trying to learn something like pool, they rewire their brain, using a
different portion than those who learn the game later in life.

Lou Figueroa


Quote:

> > 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.

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by Frank Glen » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:08:27



:|:I suppose one could say that youngsters learn language with a different part
:|:of their brains than ***s.  Perhaps the same is true of learning skills
:|:like pool and is why those that start out playing when young, do so well  --
:|:while trying to learn something like pool, they rewire their brain, using a
:|:different portion than those who learn the game later in life.
:|:
:|:
Maybe, but I think those that get good starting young are started off
on the right foot, so to speak. I started at age 10 with no one to
show me anything. Because of this, I have developed bad habits that I
still have trouble with. I am not world class and will never be (I'm
57). I shoot better than average and have a very good knowledge of
the game, but my execution of the game is not anywhere close to my
knowledge level. If someone had taught me proper fundamentals and
then sent me downstairs to play pool, instead of just sending me down
there on my own, perhaps my game would be much better now.
Frank
 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by JoeBLo » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 02:22:20

This is completely wrong.  The neurons used in the brains language centers
will "go away" if not used by about 5 years of age (which is why kids
transplanted from their native languages before that age can become very
fluent in more than 1 language).  Some of these neural connections are need
to both comprehend and produce the sounds of various languages...which is
why as ***s it can be literally impossible to duplicate the sounds of some
foreign languages.

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.


Quote:

> > 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.

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by weedwack » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 05:33:16

Quote:


> > 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'm not sure I see where we disagree.  My comments above were simply
in agreement with someone who stated that starting young is not the
ONLY factor involved in becoming one of the best in pool or other
sports (not just good, one of the best). I agree that starting young
is an important factor in becoming one of the best.  However, you also
need natural talent and desire.

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).

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by Ravelom » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 09:32:43

Quote:

>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.

I am 100% bilingual and was first exposed to English at age 7. In my extended
family I have noticed that 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.

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

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by Patrick Johnso » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 14:53:31

Quote:

> ... 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.

Quote:
> ... 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

 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by OrangeCru » Mon, 02 Feb 2004 22:22:37

Quote:


> > ... 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

  Since you're from Chicago you must know Jeff Sergent & know that he
didn't start playing until he was 23.
 
 
 

Pool: start late and get eminently good?

Post by cycopa » Fri, 06 Feb 2004 09:10:25

Quote:




> > [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...

Yes it is true. Schmidt played out of a hall I frequented and my step
brother, Will, was very friendly with him. Will asked John if he could
play some cheap 9ball with him and John told him just to get the table
time and that would be good enough. So Will played him as much as he
could, getting casual lessons. Schmidt is a stand up guy. As a matter
of fact John told Will that he plays better than John did at his age
(which was 20 at the time).