PDA

View Full Version : The Science of Pocket Billiards by Jack Koehler



1hit1der
02-27-2008, 06:52 PM
I've been reading this book (ok, skimming it) and it seems pretty interesting. He spares all the math and only gives you the results in a tabular or graphic form, which might appeal to some people but not others. Particularly interesting was the section on aiming for rail shots and the optimum spin, accounting for all the throws involved. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that as I read it late last night.

I was just wondering though if anyone else has seen or read this book and what they thought about it. I found it in my library, so I'm not sure if it's still in print or in stores.

Bob_Jewett
02-27-2008, 07:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1hit1der</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ... I was just wondering though if anyone else has seen or read this book and what they thought about it. I found it in my library, so I'm not sure if it's still in print or in stores. </div></div>
There is a lot of good information in it based on a lot of experiments.

My main complaint is that he doesn't touch at all on the physics involved. For example, the carom angle for a smoothly rolling cue ball has a fairly well-known formula, and it would have been nice to see that formula compared to actual data. Instead, we get neither.

People still teach "hit the ball and cushion at the same time for a frozen ball." As we learn in Koehler such people are, put charitably, confused, and put bluntly, fools. It is almost always wrong to have the cue ball first touch rail and ball at the same time. You almost always want to hit the rail first.

I think the book is useful for players and essential to authors and instructors.

There are a couple of areas I don't agree with, but as I recall, the problems were minor. As with any book, you need to test what the author says for yourself to see if it works in your game. Trust no one.

av84fun
02-27-2008, 10:22 PM
I think the book is considered to be a "must read." As Bob points out, he actually took the time to conduct experiments to substantiate his views rather than just pass on "urban legend" as is too often the case.

I am WAY less interested in the kind of scientific data that Bob wishes was there...but then he is a noted scientist and I am not.

I'm pretty sure that there are several world champions who think a "right triangle" is the one on the right. (-:

IMHO, the ideal "library" would include Science and his companion book, Upscale 9 Ball...everything ever written by Robert Byrne...everything by Bob Jewett...99 Critical Shots and of course, everything written by our own dr_dave.

There is literally a lifetime and more of information to absorb and practice in those writings and at some point, we need to stop expanding our libraries and master the information in what we have. To do otherwise is a big mistake.


Regards,
Jim

cushioncrawler
02-28-2008, 04:31 AM
Loved the book. Its nice to read a book that haznt had an editor near it. This book provides all the knowledge necessary to go from a beginner to a professional pool player. At least it will help u to be prepared the next time you're challenged. madMac.

1Time
02-28-2008, 10:59 AM
I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.

BigRigTom
02-28-2008, 11:26 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.</div></div>

1TIME,
if everyone followed your advise we would not had read your advise, so maybe you are right after all and I will ignore your advise and pretend I didn;t read it in the 1stplace.....he he.

Everyone learns in their own way and I say what ever works use it. Pool was a dark science until the internet came along and now we are just starting to get a glimpse of all the knowledge of the ledgends of the game. Who knows how many great players will evolve out of the information explosion who may have never even become interested the old fashioned way?

1Time
02-28-2008, 11:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: BigRigTom</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.</div></div>

1TIME,
if everyone followed your advise we would not had read your advise, so maybe you are right after all and I will ignore your advise and pretend I didn;t read it in the 1stplace.....he he.

Everyone learns in their own way and I say what ever works use it. Pool was a dark science until the internet came along and now we are just starting to get a glimpse of all the knowledge of the ledgends of the game. Who knows how many great players will evolve out of the information explosion who may have never even become interested the old fashioned way? </div></div>

Yes, of course reading my advise is not required to play better pool, just like reading this board or a book is not required either. Thanks for confirming my advise.

cushioncrawler
02-28-2008, 08:25 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.</div></div>I remember playing billiards against a former Ozz snooker champ. I woz surprized when he told me that he had never read a book on snooker nor billiards. madMac.

dr_dave
02-29-2008, 11:04 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1hit1der</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I've been reading this book (ok, skimming it) and it seems pretty interesting. He spares all the math and only gives you the results in a tabular or graphic form, which might appeal to some people but not others. Particularly interesting was the section on aiming for rail shots and the optimum spin, accounting for all the throws involved. I'm still trying to wrap my head around that as I read it late last night.

I was just wondering though if anyone else has seen or read this book and what they thought about it. I found it in my library, so I'm not sure if it's still in print or in stores. </div></div>This book is definitely a "must read."

FYI, I have a good collection of super-slow-motion clips that show and explain various rail cut shots here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GlODnkORyw&eurl=http://dr-dave-billiards.com/high_speed_video/hsv_dvd.html) (starting at 0:46).

Check it out,
Dave

Regards,
Dave

1Time
03-01-2008, 02:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This book is definitely a "must read." </div></div>

No, it definitely and obviously is not.

av84fun
03-07-2008, 06:05 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This book is definitely a "must read." </div></div>

No, it definitely and obviously is not. </div></div>

A couple of questions.

1. What would you estimate your speed to be if A+ = a Top 20 touring pro?

2. What makes "Science" obviously not a must read in your view?

Regards,
Jim

1Time
03-07-2008, 09:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This book is definitely a "must read." </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it definitely and obviously is not. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. What would you estimate your speed to be if A+ = a Top 20 touring pro?</div></div>
Irrelevant. Would you like to know the weight of my pool cue too?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. What makes "Science" obviously not a must read in your view?</div></div>
Re-read the thread if you didn't catch it the first time.

av84fun
03-07-2008, 10:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This book is definitely a "must read." </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, it definitely and obviously is not. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1. What would you estimate your speed to be if A+ = a Top 20 touring pro?</div></div>
Irrelevant. Would you like to know the weight of my pool cue too?
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">2. What makes "Science" obviously not a must read in your view?</div></div>
Re-read the thread if you didn't catch it the first time. </div></div>

OK, I read the thread...just to make sure that I wasn't missing something that would change my opinion that your comments are among the most ignorant I've seen posted on this or any other forum.

Don't you realize how preposterous it is to condemn a book you have never read on the basis that it contains nothing you don't already know?

That comment suggests that you know everything there is to know about playing pool...which would make you the only person on earth to have achieved the impossible dream.

Sir, wisdom is realizing what you do not know. Clearly you are not wise....but appear to be a wise guy.

In any event, your post now requires me to rephrase my original recommendation. Science of Pocket Billiards is a must read for anyone who does not already know everything there is to know but should be completely ignored by fools.

Jim

1Time
03-08-2008, 09:57 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, I read the thread...just to make sure that I wasn't missing something that would change my opinion that your comments are among the most ignorant I've seen posted on this or any other forum.</div></div>
You've misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you realize how preposterous it is to condemn a book you have never read on the basis that it contains nothing you don't already know?</div></div>
No one in this thread condemned this or any other book.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That comment suggests that you know everything there is to know about playing pool...which would make you the only person on earth to have achieved the impossible dream.</div></div>
No, my comment does not suggest I have all pool knowledge. When taken in context, my comment clearly suggests reading this or any other book is not required to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sir, wisdom is realizing what you do not know. Clearly you are not wise....but appear to be a wise guy.</div></div>
Said the wise man... :).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any event, your post now requires me to rephrase my original recommendation. Science of Pocket Billiards is a must read for anyone who does not already know everything there is to know but should be completely ignored by fools.</div></div>
This and other books are a "must read" for those in search of an infinitude of pool knowledge. However, not a single word "must" be read in order to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool. If you do not now see your misunderstanding, I suggest a more careful re-reading of this thread. By the way, I often enjoy reading your posts and find myself more in agreement with yours than many others.

av84fun
03-08-2008, 01:47 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OK, I read the thread...just to make sure that I wasn't missing something that would change my opinion that your comments are among the most ignorant I've seen posted on this or any other forum.</div></div>
You've misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Don't you realize how preposterous it is to condemn a book you have never read on the basis that it contains nothing you don't already know?</div></div>
No one in this thread condemned this or any other book.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That comment suggests that you know everything there is to know about playing pool...which would make you the only person on earth to have achieved the impossible dream.</div></div>
No, my comment does not suggest I have all pool knowledge. When taken in context, my comment clearly suggests reading this or any other book is not required to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sir, wisdom is realizing what you do not know. Clearly you are not wise....but appear to be a wise guy.</div></div>
Said the wise man... :).

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In any event, your post now requires me to rephrase my original recommendation. Science of Pocket Billiards is a must read for anyone who does not already know everything there is to know but should be completely ignored by fools.</div></div>
This and other books are a "must read" for those in search of an infinitude of pool knowledge. However, not a single word "must" be read in order to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool. If you do not now see your misunderstanding, I suggest a more careful re-reading of this thread. By the way, I often enjoy reading your posts and find myself more in agreement with yours than many others. </div></div>

thanks for your kind remark...and the feeling is mutual which is why I was so surprised at your seeing dismissive attitude with regard to certain classic instructional books.

Possibly the disconnect arose from the definition of "must read." I believe that phrase is merely a "high recommendation" and should not be so strictly construed to mean that "You must read this book or you cannot learn to shoot pool."

Personally, I think that there is no such thing as a "natural" pool player...one who just picked up a cue stick and started running racks.

Many players say they have never had a lesson...but they have. As a young man, Mosconi toured exetnsively with Greenleaf and even though Greenleaf refused to "teach" him anything, Mosconi leared a massive amount about the game.

So, in my view, taking formal lessons from highly qualifed instructors is, by far, the best and quickest way to improve one's game. However, reading such classic works as Science before taking such instruction will make the student a better student...one more capable of UNDERSTANDING what is being taught.

Knowledge is power...it's as simple as that.

Sorry if I was a little abrupt with you. But your comments, as written, left open a reasonable interpretation of your remarks that such books as Science are worthless.

Onward and upward.

Regards,
Jim

wolfdancer
03-09-2008, 04:58 PM
" OK, I read the thread...just to make sure that I wasn't missing something that would change my opinion that your comments are among the most ignorant I've seen posted on this or any other forum.

Don't you realize how preposterous it is to condemn a book you have never read on the basis that it contains nothing you don't already know?

That comment suggests that you know everything there is to know about playing pool...which would make you the only person on earth to have achieved the impossible dream.

Sir, wisdom is realizing what you do not know. Clearly you are not wise....but appear to be a wise guy.

In any event, your post now requires me to rephrase my original recommendation. Science of Pocket Billiards is a must read for anyone who does not already know everything there is to know but should be completely ignored by fools."

All that just for disagreeing over the merits of a book? ( But I see you have made amends... )
Good thing I never mentioned that I donated my copy of Jack's "Bible" to the local library, "cause as Gertrude Stein remarked about Oakland "There's nothing there, there" (just kidding)
Gertrude also wrote:
"Disillusionment in living is finding that no one can really ever be agreeing with you completely in anything."
Some people seemingly have a hard time dealing with that.....

av84fun
03-09-2008, 11:12 PM
wolfie...""Disillusionment in living is finding that no one can really ever be agreeing with you completely in anything."
Some people seemingly have a hard time dealing with that....."

Well, at least you posted on the forum this time instead of harassing me with PM's. Thanks for all small favors.

1Time used as excessively narrow connotation to the word "must" and in doing so didn't disagree about the "merits of the book" but rather dismissed it in its entirely.

In addition, my first post was entirely appropriate and not argumentative. but I got the following rather snippy response.


"Originally Posted By: av84fun1. What would you estimate your speed to be if A+ = a Top 20 touring pro?
Irrelevant. Would you like to know the weight of my pool cue too?
Originally Posted By: av84fun2. What makes "Science" obviously not a must read in your view?"

When I get dished snippy, I dish snippy back.

But as you NOTED, that exchange was put to rest until YOU BUTT IN...AGAIN...to stir up the pot. You seem to enjoy causing rancor on the forum...and then when called out...you send your pitiful litte PMs and come whining on the forum that you are such a nice guy at heart and are being mistreated.

Well, that's a stupid little game and you demean yourself by playing it.

And of course, Stein was wrong about quite a few things*** including the quote you attribute to her. It is not at all unusual for people to agree with each other completely.

Nevertheless, in your case, I much prefer the Lincoln admonition that it is "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Sadly, you have already removed all doubt.

)-:


With the outbreak of World War II, Stein and Toklas moved to a country home that they had rented for many years previously in Bilignin, Ain, in the Rhône-Alpes region. Referred to only as "Americans" by their neighbors, the Jewish Gertrude and Alice escaped persecution probably because of their friendship to Bernard Fa˙, a collaborator with the Vichy regime and connections to the Gestapo. When Fa˙ was sentenced to hard labor for life after the war, Gertrude and Alice campaigned for his release. Several years later, Alice would contribute money to Fa˙'s escape from prison.

__________________________________________________ _____________

For all her literary greatness, the above was not particularly nobel choice for Jews, or anyone else to make during WWII.

Jim

1Time
03-10-2008, 02:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thanks for your kind remark...and the feeling is mutual which is why I was so surprised at your seeing dismissive attitude with regard to certain classic instructional books.</div></div>
You're welcome and thank you. But I said nothing to impune or dismiss this or any other book. You simply misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Possibly the disconnect arose from the definition of "must read." I believe that phrase is merely a "high recommendation" and should not be so strictly construed to mean that "You must read this book or you cannot learn to shoot pool."</div></div>
Yes, "must read" was used as a high recommendation. I used its meaning literally. (correction / deleted)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I think that there is no such thing as a "natural" pool player...one who just picked up a cue stick and started running racks.</div></div>
I agree. "Natural pool player" is simply a figure of speach. It has been said of me that I play pool with such ease and competence that it seems I'm a "natural". Of course this is an illusion. Some tell me I make it look easy, and I usually reply something like "It is easy".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many players say they have never had a lesson...but they have. As a young man, Mosconi toured exetnsively with Greenleaf and even though Greenleaf refused to "teach" him anything, Mosconi leared a massive amount about the game.</div></div>
Much can be learned by observing and then practicing it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in my view, taking formal lessons from highly qualifed instructors is, by far, the best and quickest way to improve one's game. However, reading such classic works as Science before taking such instruction will make the student a better student...one more capable of UNDERSTANDING what is being taught.</div></div>
And I doubt anyone who frequents this forum would disagree with your views here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Knowledge is power...it's as simple as that.</div></div>
No, it obviously takes more to demonstrate power on a pool table than knowledge.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry if I was a little abrupt with you. But your comments, as written, left open a reasonable interpretation of your remarks that such books as Science are worthless.</div></div>
No problem, but reading my comment within the context in which I wrote it left no room for such an interpretation. And I made your misunderstanding of this matter clear in my previous post.

1Time
03-10-2008, 02:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Time used as excessively narrow connotation to the word "must" and in doing so didn't disagree about the "merits of the book" but rather dismissed it in its entirely.</div></div>
No, you have misunderstood again, or else you're playing stupid. I did not dismiss the book. I had not even addressed or referred to the book, which means I could not have dismissed it. I simply posted about something else: the fact that words need not be read in order to play better pool. And, I used the word "must" literally, as opposed to figuratively as it was used before me. And so my use of the word "must" was correct and was in no way used with an excessively narrow connotation.

This really isn't that hard to understand, but here's a simplification that may help (just in case you're not playing stupid or being antagonistic on purpose).

Someone: Good pool book.
Someone: It's a "Must read" (figuratively)
Me: It's not a must read. (literally) Reading is not required to shoot better pool. (This is the context where it becomes obvious I am using the word "must" literally).

The book literally could have represented the entire sum of knowledge on pool, or been a trashy romance novel. But, it mattered not because I had not posted positively or negatively about the book. I simply did not address it at all. I addressed something entirely different, the fact that reading is not required to play better pool. Did you get it that time?

wolfdancer
03-10-2008, 03:04 AM
You seem to enjoy causing rancor on the forum...and then when called out...you send your pitiful litte PMs and come whining on the forum that you are such a nice guy at heart and are being mistreated.

You are "mistreating" me?????? I get insulted by pros on the stock message boards, and laugh it off while I'm having coffee...I'd only get upset if someone I had some respect for, "dissed" me..
I originally sent you a pm, and wrote that I disagreed with some of your pool dogma, but didn't wish to get involved in a big debate over that. You had to post that for the same reason that you reacted to 1Time's post....someone had the nerve to disagree with you.
The final pm I sent you the other day...after you tried to keep the disagreement going...I wrote that you could have the last word publicly, asked you to just drop the matter...and even offered a conditional apology...if I had misinterpreted your posts.
It was a big mistake contacting you in the first place....I've since found out....and it would be an even bigger mistake for me to keep this conversation going.
We don't have anything to discuss since you are an accomplished player, and I just play at the game...for the enjoyment of playing.....

av84fun
03-10-2008, 09:00 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">thanks for your kind remark...and the feeling is mutual which is why I was so surprised at your seeing dismissive attitude with regard to certain classic instructional books.</div></div>
You're welcome and thank you. But I said nothing to impune or dismiss this or any other book. You simply misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Possibly the disconnect arose from the definition of "must read." I believe that phrase is merely a "high recommendation" and should not be so strictly construed to mean that "You must read this book or you cannot learn to shoot pool."</div></div>
Yes, "must read" was used as a high recommendation. I used its meaning literally. (correction / deleted)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Personally, I think that there is no such thing as a "natural" pool player...one who just picked up a cue stick and started running racks.</div></div>
I agree. "Natural pool player" is simply a figure of speach. It has been said of me that I play pool with such ease and competence that it seems I'm a "natural". Of course this is an illusion. Some tell me I make it look easy, and I usually reply something like "It is easy".

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Many players say they have never had a lesson...but they have. As a young man, Mosconi toured exetnsively with Greenleaf and even though Greenleaf refused to "teach" him anything, Mosconi leared a massive amount about the game.</div></div>
Much can be learned by observing and then practicing it.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, in my view, taking formal lessons from highly qualifed instructors is, by far, the best and quickest way to improve one's game. However, reading such classic works as Science before taking such instruction will make the student a better student...one more capable of UNDERSTANDING what is being taught.</div></div>
And I doubt anyone who frequents this forum would disagree with your views here.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Knowledge is power...it's as simple as that.</div></div>
No, it obviously takes more to demonstrate power on a pool table than knowledge.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry if I was a little abrupt with you. But your comments, as written, left open a reasonable interpretation of your remarks that such books as Science are worthless.</div></div>
No problem, but reading my comment within the context in which I wrote it left no room for such an interpretation. And I made your misunderstanding of this matter clear in my previous post. </div></div>

Well, thanks to wolfie we are engaged in a needless debate. You keep referring to the context of your comments. Here is your original comment.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word. </div></div>

You CLEARLY dismissed the content of books as "containing a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know."

Further, your comment was fundamentally incorrect when you said that proficiency in playing pool "can be easily and quickly learned without reading a single word."

You are incorrect because very few things in the game of pool can be either quickly or easily learned to a level of proficiency...which means "well advanced"..."expert."

So, there can be no misunderstanding about what you wrote. You simply and clearly wrote off instructional books and videos as learning tools...and you are incorrect.

Regards,
Jim

av84fun
03-10-2008, 09:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, you have misunderstood again, or else you're playing stupid.</div></div>

Well there you go with your snippy comments again...so I shall respond in kind. If you don't understand that you DID dismiss the value of instructional books then you are not "playing stupid" you ARE stupid.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had not even addressed or referred to the book, which means I could not have dismissed it.</div></div>

I hope you don't suffer from any cognitive disorders but you seem to. You specifically wrote relating to The Science of Pocket Billiards.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But, it mattered not because I had not posted positively or negatively about the book. I simply did not address it at all. I addressed something entirely different, the fact that reading is not required to play better pool. Did you get it that time? </div></div>

Yes you DID address the book. And no I didn't "get it" this time or any other time because your petty, hairsplitting attempt to cover your preposterous tracks by arguing about what the phrase "must read" obviously means did't even appear in your orignal post.

It was only when I and others pointed out the silliness of your views that you started splitting hairs. The phrase "must read" does not imply that "You must read this book or you will never learn to play pool."

The phrase...OBVIOUSLY...is merely a high recommendation. GET IT???

dr_dave
03-10-2008, 09:27 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Knowledge is power...it's as simple as that.</div></div>No, it obviously takes more to demonstrate power on a pool table than knowledge.</div></div>Good points on both sides of the argument. I would like to add: "If you don't know, you won't know that you don't know what you should know." Also, see more here (http://billiards.colostate.edu/threads/mental.html).

Regards,
Dave

av84fun
03-10-2008, 09:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You are "mistreating" me?????? I get insulted by pros on the stock message boards, and laugh it off while I'm having coffee...</div></div>

Well, as a professional investment advisor, I can comment on how silly but telling your above comments is.

You might want to give some thought to why investment pros insult you on stock message boards. If your posts there are as misguided as your posts here are then there is no doubt about why you are insulted by people who know what they're talking about.

I'd only get upset if someone I had some respect for, "dissed" me..

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You had to post that for the same reason that you reacted to 1Time's post....someone had the nerve to disagree with you.</div></div>

No, wolfie. This forum is not Mixed Martial Arts. It does not require "nerve" to disagree with anyone...especially not you.

But if you will READ the thread, you will see that it was 1Time who disagreed with me and other posters...not the other way around. HE initiated the snippy remarks, not me.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The final pm I sent you the other day...after you tried to keep the disagreement going...I wrote that you could have the last word publicly, asked you to just drop the matter...and even offered a conditional apology...if I had misinterpreted your posts.[</div></div>

That is a load of crap and you know it. Each one of your supposedly conciliatory posts to me contains one of your little jabs.

So, if I were to say to you..."Hey wolfie, let's just let bygones be bygones. I won't comment further about your stupid posts."...would you think that was a genuine offer to stand down???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was a big mistake contacting you in the first place....I've since found out....and it would be an even bigger mistake for me to keep this conversation going.</div></div>

EXACTLY...so why did you butt in on the dialog with 1Time???

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">We don't have anything to discuss since you are an accomplished player, and I just play at the game...for the enjoyment of playing..... </div></div>

Well, players at all levels can carry on a meaningful and useful dialog. It is just people like you who take offense at being corrected POLITELY...such as my correcting you on your badly mistaken reference to stun shots...who make meaningful dialogs problematic.

Jim

wolfdancer
03-10-2008, 05:07 PM
actually, they aren't investment pros....just pro a'holes on insulting people that try to exchange info.....
With an idiot in the WH, the economy in ruins, and the market tanking.....I could care less about stun shot theory; it's the least of my problems....besides the cb usually goes where I want it to go, although we do have an ongoing love/hate relationship.
Let's just end this charade of "meaningful dialoge" There's nothing you have to write that I'd be the least bit interested in...and I'm sure you feel the same about my posts.

av84fun
03-10-2008, 10:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">actually, they aren't investment pros....just pro a'holes on insulting people that try to exchange info.....
With an idiot in the WH, the economy in ruins, and the market tanking.....I could care less about stun shot theory; it's the least of my problems....besides the cb usually goes where I want it to go, although we do have an ongoing love/hate relationship.
Let's just end this charade of "meaningful dialoge" There's nothing you have to write that I'd be the least bit interested in...and I'm sure you feel the same about my posts.


</div></div>

Well, that's about the 4th time you have made that suggestion but you keep butting in. If you stop taking swipes at me I will be MORE than happy to stop drilling you.

But we DO AGREE on one thing at least...there IS an idiot in the White House...and sadly, there ain't no world champions to choose from to replace him.

Woe is us.

(-:

HiPockets
03-15-2008, 06:08 PM
I have the book and also the book, "The Science of Pocket Billiards"...the later is very scientific and you need a background in applied physics to understand...sometimes a lot is too much...I agree that when I played pool in the early 60's it was a mystery...I had a feeling that there was something (throw) but did not know what to call it...the same with other moves on the table...I knew they were there and used them but only after trial and error...one thing that I don't think anyone can forget is that pool is as much an art as it is mechanical...I think you can get too mechanical and you loose the "art" of the game...

av84fun
03-16-2008, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: HiPockets</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have the book and also the book, "The Science of Pocket Billiards"...the later is very scientific and you need a background in applied physics to understand...sometimes a lot is too much...I agree that when I played pool in the early 60's it was a mystery...I had a feeling that there was something (throw) but did not know what to call it...the same with other moves on the table...I knew they were there and used them but only after trial and error...one thing that I don't think anyone can forget is that pool is as much an art as it is mechanical...I think you can get too mechanical and you loose the "art" of the game... </div></div>

I too believe and have often posted that there is a risk of "paralysis by analysis" but I am surprised at your comments about Science. I am NO engineer...and as far as I am concerned a "right triangle" is the one to the right of the other triangle!
(-:

While "Science" does discuss the physics of pool to some extent,(hence the title) I didn't find it to be less-than-readable as a layman and I would <u>higly</u> recommend it to anyone.

Regards,
Jim

1Time
03-16-2008, 07:43 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You CLEARLY dismissed the content of books as "containing a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know." </div></div>
You're right. Obviously, since I dismissed all written words, that includes this book. I was thinking in terms of not having dismissed only this book. And so back to my point: reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Note here that I did not include instructional videos in this statement.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Further, your comment was fundamentally incorrect when you said that proficiency in playing pool "can be easily and quickly learned without reading a single word."

You are incorrect because very few things in the game of pool can be either quickly or easily learned to a level of proficiency...which means "well advanced"..."expert."</div></div>
No, I am not incorrect, and you have misunderstood again. I never said or implied "proficiency in playing pool can be easily and quickly learned without reading a single word". I referred to learning a more proficient level of pool, and that is quite different. And so, for example, if a beginner picks up a cue for the first time and quickly and easily learns to shoot a few balls in, there you go. A level of proficiency has been established. And, reading is not required for that player to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Notice the difference. This is not a pool player who has attained a level of proficiency that you or anyone else has arbitrarily determined to be "proficient". This is a pool player who has learned to play a more proficient level of pool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, there can be no misunderstanding about what you wrote. You simply and clearly wrote off instructional books and videos as learning tools...and you are incorrect.</div></div>
No. You have misunderstood again. I did not "write off" instructional books, and I did not "write off" instructional videos. And, neither are required to quickly and easily learn a more proficient level of pool. And, I am not incorrect. And, instructional books and videos can be helpful. And, most will prefer learning from videos over books.

1Time
03-16-2008, 08:29 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No, you have misunderstood again, or else you're playing stupid.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well there you go with your snippy comments again...so I shall respond in kind. If you don't understand that you DID dismiss the value of instructional books then you are not "playing stupid" you ARE stupid.</div></div>
Yes, I dismissed the value of instructional books but only within this context: the written word is not required (or even fundamental) to quickly and easily learning a more proficient level of pool. Instructional videos and books can be helpful, but are not required or even fundamental to doing so.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I had not even addressed or referred to the book, which means I could not have dismissed it.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I hope you don't suffer from any cognitive disorders but you seem to. You specifically wrote relating to The Science of Pocket Billiards.</div></div>
No, I originally did not specifically address this book. I clearly dismissed all written word as it pertains to quickly and easily learning a more proficient level of pool, and that of course includes this book.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> But, it mattered not because I had not posted positively or negatively about the book. I simply did not address it at all. I addressed something entirely different, the fact that reading is not required to play better pool. Did you get it that time? </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yes you DID address the book. And no I didn't "get it" this time or any other time because your petty, hairsplitting attempt to cover your preposterous tracks by arguing about what the phrase "must read" obviously means did't even appear in your orignal post.</div></div>
I referred to the entirety of the written word and not this book specifically, and my first post clearly shows this.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It was only when I and others pointed out the silliness of your views that you started splitting hairs. The phrase "must read" does not imply that "You must read this book or you will never learn to play pool."</div></div>
I simply clarified what you misunderstood. I've made my point of view quite plain and understandable. And, if there is anyone reading this who thinks otherwise, I'm sure they can speak for themselves.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The phrase...OBVIOUSLY...is merely a high recommendation. GET IT??? </div></div>
Perhaps you will "man up" to your misunderstandings once you calm down and read what I've written more carefully.

1Time
03-16-2008, 08:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: dr_dave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would like to add: "If you don't know, you won't know that you don't know what you should know." </div></div>
Irrelevant. You can pull your head out and learn by doing.

av84fun
03-21-2008, 02:20 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You CLEARLY dismissed the content of books as "containing a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know." </div></div>
You're right. Obviously, since I dismissed all written words, that includes this book. I was thinking in terms of not having dismissed only this book. And so back to my point: reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Note here that I did not include instructional videos in this statement.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Further, your comment was fundamentally incorrect when you said that proficiency in playing pool "can be easily and quickly learned without reading a single word."

You are incorrect because very few things in the game of pool can be either quickly or easily learned to a level of proficiency...which means "well advanced"..."expert."</div></div>
No, I am not incorrect, and you have misunderstood again. I never said or implied "proficiency in playing pool can be easily and quickly learned without reading a single word". I referred to learning a more proficient level of pool, and that is quite different. And so, for example, if a beginner picks up a cue for the first time and quickly and easily learns to shoot a few balls in, there you go. A level of proficiency has been established. And, reading is not required for that player to easily and quickly learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Notice the difference. This is not a pool player who has attained a level of proficiency that you or anyone else has arbitrarily determined to be "proficient". This is a pool player who has learned to play a more proficient level of pool.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, there can be no misunderstanding about what you wrote. You simply and clearly wrote off instructional books and videos as learning tools...and you are incorrect.</div></div>
No. You have misunderstood again. I did not "write off" instructional books, and I did not "write off" instructional videos. And, neither are required to quickly and easily learn a more proficient level of pool. And, I am not incorrect. And, instructional books and videos can be helpful. And, most will prefer learning from videos over books. </div></div>

Well, since you don't put much stock in the written word, you are no one to tell me what I do and don't understand.

It is the last bastion of a person being defeated in a debate to aruge that the opponent misunderstood his premise. But your premise is as clear as it is wrong.

You hold yourself out a being a "natural" and playing the game with such ease as is the envey of those who watch you. So, what national or world titles do you hold? Just curious.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool....And so, for example, if a beginner picks up a cue for the first time and quickly and easily learns to shoot a few balls in, there you go. A level of proficiency has been established.</div></div>

That is a preposterous statement and proves that it is YOU who misunderstand your own comments! I tried to explain it to you but you just don't get it.

NO A PERSON WHO LEARNS TO POCKET A FEW BALLS IS NOT "PROFICIENT" and one cannot become "more proficient" unless one has first becomne "proficient."

Let me try again. "Proficient" means:

Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert; an adept.

Some beginner who learns how to pocket a few balls DOES NOT possess "an advanced degree of competence nor is such a person an "expert."

Even if you put the OB in the jaws, such a person will scratch and/or miscue and miss with some frequency!

You have dismissed the value of the printed word in general and Science in particular which is wrong enough but then you compound the felony by stating REPEATEDLY that learning to play pool is "EASY."

Well, it is NOT easy...for you or for anyone else and your protestations to the contrary are about as wrong as any comments I've seen on this or any other forum.

You would be wise to just drop this whole matter while you still have some credibility left.

Regards,
Jim

cushioncrawler
03-21-2008, 04:18 PM
Jack sez (paragraff No 1 on page No 1) -- "Life is too short to worry about semantics just for the sake of semantics." (I dont agree).

Jack allso sez (page 178) -- "A person can know all there is to know about pool, or any other sport, and still not be able to play worth a hoot." (I dont agree).

Jack allso sez (page 179) -- "Beginners should spend about 80 percent of their time doing practice drills and 20 percent of their time on practice play."

I would go further and break billiards things up like this.....
Reading etc books and magazines -- 15%.
Reading etc internet stuff -- 10%.
Solo praktis -- 25%.
Writing notes and diagrams in diary -- 5%.
Experiments -- 10%.
Watching others live or video -- 5%.
Discussion with others -- 5%.
Teaching others -- 5%.
Getting taught by others -- 5%.
Competition play -- 5%.
Friendly play -- 5%.
Writing serious articles etc -- 5%.
madMac.

wolfdancer
03-21-2008, 05:44 PM
Mac, I noticed you haven't allotted any time for quaffing a few pints of stout. Good thing that you are the only Aussie on the board here; they would disown you if they knew of your omission. Pool is just something to do, between drinks....
internet stuff 10%...?????? I'd estimate that the percentage of useful info on the 'net is about 1%. Now if they would add a pro/teaching section here, and one would have to have some credentials to post there....then I'd think the 10% would be worthwhile time spent.....
"Solo praktis"....is that what they call it down there???

cushioncrawler
03-21-2008, 08:09 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Mac, I noticed you haven't allotted any time for quaffing a few pints of stout. Good thing that you are the only Aussie on the board here; they would disown you if they knew of your omission. Pool is just something to do, between drinks.... internet stuff 10%...?????? I'd estimate that the percentage of useful info on the 'net is about 1%. Now if they would add a pro/teaching section here, and one would have to have some credentials to post there....then I'd think the 10% would be worthwhile time spent..... "Solo praktis"....is that what they call it down there???</div></div>Yeah, i think most of us uze "solo", its a good word. That "10%" internet time iz made up of 1% reading and 9% damned waiting for the screen(s) to kum up. Hey Woofly, haz your halfball potting improovd???

I hardly ever touch beer, i drink red -- but just one glass and any more solo praktis iz useless, might az well watch tele. This iz on an empty tummy -- i dont ever have breakfast, and nowadayz lunch iz one banana -- but dinner iz allwayz huge -- i have gone down from 13st-6lb to 12st-0lb and still falling i think. madMac.

1Time
03-24-2008, 01:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, since you don't put much stock in the written word, you are no one to tell me what I do and don't understand.</div></div>
False claim. My statements are clear and understandable, and your misunderstandings are here for all to read.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It is the last bastion of a person being defeated in a debate to aruge that the opponent misunderstood his premise. But your premise is as clear as it is wrong.</div></div>
False again. This book and all written word need not be read to learn to play better pool, and this is obvioiusly true. Many people shoot pool and learn to do many other things without first reading. A baby walks. A child swims. A mother gives birth. You misunderstood this (and several other things). I called you on it. You won't admit to any of your misunderstandings, apparently because you are concerned with saving face. And, in an effort to divert attention away from this, you assert irrelevant or false claims.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You hold yourself out a being a "natural" and playing the game with such ease as is the envey of those who watch you. So, what national or world titles do you hold? Just curious.</div></div>
Case in point. This is irrelevant to my first post in this thread and your subsequent misunderstandings, and your reason for posting this is far from being just curious. No, here you are going at it, and as if my achievements in competitive pool are somehow relevant to my or any casual onlooker's reference to myself as a natural pool player. Would you like to debate this (or anything else)? Probably. And why? You're looking for anything else to argue about since your misunderstandings in this thread are so obvious and undefendable.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool....And so, for example, if a beginner picks up a cue for the first time and quickly and easily learns to shoot a few balls in, there you go. A level of proficiency has been established.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That is a preposterous statement and proves that it is YOU who misunderstand your own comments! I tried to explain it to you but you just don't get it.

NO A PERSON WHO LEARNS TO POCKET A FEW BALLS IS NOT "PROFICIENT" and one cannot become "more proficient" unless one has first becomne "proficient."</div></div>
No, not at all. Here's another example since you yet again failed to understand. A person who can tread water for 15 seconds has attained a level of proficiency. A person who immediately begins to sink and drown has not attained that level of proficiency. An olympic swimmer is more proficient than either of these two people when it comes to many swimming related tasks. However, the person who can tread water for 15 seconds is just as proficient as the olympic swimmer at treading water for 15 seconds. Both can pass this test. Another explanation in case you still have not understood. A third grader passes a third grade final spelling test. It can be said of that third grader that he or she has attained a third grade level of proficiency in spelling. That third grader need not be a U.S. or world renown expert in spelling to be proficient in spelling at the third grade level. A Googling of the words "level of proficiency" will produce many links that show other examples.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Let me try again. "Proficient" means:

Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert; an adept.</div></div>
You simply misunderstood. Google the words "level of proficiency" and read a little if that's what it takes for you to get up to speed.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some beginner who learns how to pocket a few balls DOES NOT possess "an advanced degree of competence nor is such a person an "expert."</div></div>
No. If, for example, the task at hand is to pocket a couple of balls and a beginner does so, then that beginner is proficient at that task. A level of proficiency has been established. That beginner need not be proficient at the entire sport of shooting pool in order to attain that particular level of proficiency. The examples I gave demonstrate this concept and so does what can easily be found by Googling "level of proficiency". You misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if you put the OB in the jaws, such a person will scratch and/or miscue and miss with some frequency!</div></div>
Irrelevant. If the level is defined as, for example, able to shoot a few balls in and that player attains that level by being able to do so, that does not mean that player cannot then subsequently miss a shot. Pros miss shots too. The only relevant difference between them and such a beginner is they shoot at a much higher level of proficiency.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> You have dismissed the value of the printed word in general and Science in particular which is wrong enough but then you compound the felony by stating REPEATEDLY that learning to play pool is "EASY."</div></div>
All together false. I have not stated that learning to play pool is easy, and what I have written should not be misconstured in this way. And you just quoted me, yet you cannot grasp this. You simply are not reading what I am writing carefully enough, and you are making up things as though I stated them. This really is quite simple, and I've already explained this. Reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Even complete illiterates can do this. See how I have stated nothing about pool being easy to learn. Learning to play pool usually is difficult and time consuming, yet it need not be that way. Again, reading simply is not required (or even fundamental) to easily and quickly learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool. Reading can help, and so can using an instructor. Use of an instructor is one's best bet for quickly and easily learning to shoot a more proficient level of pool. And finding that instructor is key.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Well, it is NOT easy...for you or for anyone else and your protestations to the contrary are about as wrong as any comments I've seen on this or any other forum.</div></div>
You hold this opinion because you did not read carefully enough. You misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You would be wise to just drop this whole matter while you still have some credibility left.</div></div>
Said the wise man. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I am posting for the benefit of the readers and will continue to do so at my leisure. I may even start a new thread on this topic and post quotes from this thread, again for the benefit of the readers. We wouldn't want to leave the readers of this forum with any doubt about whether reading is necessary to quickly and easily learn to shoot a more proficient level of pool, now would we?

av84fun
03-28-2008, 01:15 AM
Oh no. Now you are trying to rewrite history. Here is your initial post...verbatim:

"I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.

You wrote it and you are stuck with it. You were NOT referring to some 10 year old who can be taught to pocket balls that are sitting in the jaws.

You were referring to a "high level of pool." And you dismissed Science of Pocket Billiards...SPECIFICALLY as a book containing "a bunch of stuff I don't need to know."

Me:
NO A PERSON WHO LEARNS TO POCKET A FEW BALLS IS NOT "PROFICIENT" and one cannot become "more proficient" unless one has first becomne "proficient."

You
No, not at all. Here's another example since you yet again failed to understand. A person who can tread water for 15 seconds has attained a level of proficiency. A person who immediately begins to sink and drown has not attained that level of proficiency.

Again, you don't understand what the word "proficiency" means...so I'll give you the definition again.


Having or marked by an advanced degree of competence, as in an art, vocation, profession, or branch of learning.
n.
An expert;

You are confusing that word with "ability" which means:

Ability

The quality of being able to do something, especially the physical, mental, financial, or legal power to accomplish something.

A natural or acquired skill or talent.
The quality of being suitable for or receptive to a specified treatment; competence:
"Competence suggests the ability to do something satisfactorily but not necessarily outstandingly:

And go GOOGLE whatever you want but you are not the only person to misunderstand and misuse the word "proficiency."

And FINALLY...because this WILL be my final post on your ridiculous pronouncements...

1. You were IN FACT, dismissive of Science by the clear and unambiguous statement in your original post and

2. You were IN FACT referring to a "high level of pool" and asserted that such a level can be "easily and quickly learned."

That statement was, is and will forever be preposterous and all your bobbing and weaving and attempts to blow smoke about what you ACTUALLY WROTE cannot change that FACT.

Jim

JJFSTAR
03-28-2008, 10:09 AM
So 1time without getting without getting into some heated argument I have a quick question for you.

Let’s say hypothetically that you take 5 people and lock them in a house for 5 months with a pool table and tell them that they are going to play 5 other people for 10 million dollars in 5 months. Let’s say you lock 5 other people in another house and tell them the same thing but the only difference is that you give the second group 5 books and 5 videos on how to play pool. Now you have no internet access all the life sustaining "stuff" both groups need. Both groups are of roughly the same IQ and neither has any physical impediments that would hinder them. What group will win the money? The more naturally talented or the group with the learning materiel?

eb_in_nc
03-28-2008, 12:27 PM
JJFSTAR, in your scenario, logic would dictate that the group with books & videos on the topic of playing pool would undoubtedly be in the better position to win. But what's lacking in this scenario is which people in both groups have the greater "natural ability" to shoot pool which for me would be the swing vote. Since this is an unknown, we cannot say with any assurance that either of these two groups would have an edge over the other. I say this as I know some people just cannot get the "angles" involved to shoot many shots, and no matter how much they may read or watch on this topic, they are never going to get much better because the lack the basic fundamental skills necessary to perform the shots. Informational instructions can only take you so far and they can never supplement raw talent.

Treehumper
03-28-2008, 02:46 PM
Some people have a natural aptitude for somethings. Some can play a violin or piano or sport without ever having any guidance, coaching or reading. When we're that lucky so much the better but, when we're not, reading others view and understanding helps to gain a higher level of skill.

So,1Time count your blessings that you are among the few with such natural talent. Me, I've gained some from reading and watching better players.

Treehumper
03-28-2008, 03:08 PM
Nature or nurture. This debate is as old as this game if not older. It still resides with the individuals level of motivation and learning methodology.

It's too bad, that the above debate got down to a matter of semantics. In the one case, one side using the phrase Level of proficiency in relative terms and on the other, holding forth the word proficiency in absolute terms. If the two of you would recognize and accept the others approach you would both understand where each is coming from.

But that would be too easy....

New2Pool
03-28-2008, 03:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eb_in_nc</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JJFSTAR, in your scenario, logic would dictate that the group with books & videos on the topic of playing pool would undoubtedly be in the better position to win. But what's lacking in this scenario is which people in both groups have the greater "natural ability" to shoot pool which for me would be the swing vote. Since this is an unknown, we cannot say with any assurance that either of these two groups would have an edge over the other. I say this as I know some people just cannot get the "angles" involved to shoot many shots, and no matter how much they may read or watch on this topic, they are never going to get much better because the lack the basic fundamental skills necessary to perform the shots. Informational instructions can only take you so far and they can never supplement raw talent. </div></div>

Well, 5 is too small of a sample to have much confidence and we are talking about group averages, not which group has the top player at the end. But, if we took the group dynamics out of the equation and added enough players, at least 30, then I have a high degree of confidence that JJFSTAR would see the results he implies. But, without actually doing the experiment we can't know for sure so it was meant as a thought experiment only so it does not do much good to disect it too much.

And natural aptitude is not nearly as important as deliberate practice.

Treehumper
03-28-2008, 03:45 PM
True, while natural ability will take one a given level it is desire and motivation to strive beyond that which takes the person to ultimately the highest "level of proficiency".

Look at Tiger Woods, while a gifted natural at golf, he still has coaching and continues to develop his game.

av84fun
03-28-2008, 05:04 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Treehumper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Nature or nurture. This debate is as old as this game if not older. It still resides with the individuals level of motivation and learning methodology.

It's too bad, that the above debate got down to a matter of semantics. In the one case, one side using the phrase Level of proficiency in relative terms and on the other, holding forth the word proficiency in absolute terms. If the two of you would recognize and accept the others approach you would both understand where each is coming from.

But that would be too easy.... </div></div>

Well, I guess I have to chime in again. I respect your comments but as I noted, by definition, the word "proficient" has a BASELINE under which the word is not properly used.

In that sense, it is like words such as "catastrophy" or "brutal"
or "hysterical" just to name a few. Sure, there are gradations where one fist fight can be more brutal than another but a certain level of mayhem must be present before the fight can be considered "brutal" AT ALL.

But 1Time states that acquiring EXPERT status in pool (required to use the word "proficient" is "quick and easy" but it is NOT.

Then he back pedals to say that he just meant teaching people to pocket a few hangers. But it is NOT. The average person who had never held a pool cue cannot even "quickly and easily" form an open bridge and in many cases will miss the CB entirely on their first attempt at a stroke...let alone pocket balls.

He also is STUCK with his statement that pool instruction books are useless and that Science IN PARTICULAR does not contain any information that he needs to know.

That is just preposterous and he stubbornly sticks with it by blowing smoke about my "misunderstanding" what he stated. But there IS not misunderstanding...except his about facts and reality.

Regards,
Jim

cushioncrawler
03-28-2008, 05:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So 1time without getting without getting into some heated argument I have a quick question for you.

Let’s say hypothetically that you take 5 people and lock them in a house for 5 months with a pool table and tell them that they are going to play 5 other people for 10 million dollars in 5 months. Let’s say you lock 5 other people in another house and tell them the same thing but the only difference is that you give the second group 5 books and 5 videos on how to play pool. Now you have no internet access all the life sustaining "stuff" both groups need. Both groups are of roughly the same IQ and neither has any physical impediments that would hinder them. What group will win the money? The more naturally talented or the group with the learning materiel?</div></div>The Filipino'z will win the money. But the Yanks will have the cleanest cues. madMac.

JJFSTAR
03-29-2008, 10:54 AM
I agree with Treehumper's take on this one. There are different learning methodologies. I have been teaching pool for many years and have found that most people fall into a couple of categories, oh sure there are mutants out there who are perfectly split between the couple of routes that there are to learning the game but not many and others that don’t fit into either but there aren’t many of those either. I have said for many years that most people not all (mind you nit pickers out there) are either what I call "feel" players or "technical" players. Feel players don’t want to know a lot of calculations or systems or even exactly where to place the balls on specific drills; they want to feel their way through they want to be shown the basic premise of the lesson whatever that may be and get onto that table ASAP and rely on their talent and instinct to guide them. Then there are the other what I call "technical" players who need to know everything before they do anything. They want to know what force what spin and specifically the idea of the shot the drill the lay of the table or whatever the lesson may be before they rush to that table to try it out. I have taught both kinds and I have found much talent on both extreme sides as I have found talent in those that are fairly close to center. Both have their challenges as students and I find the "feel" players to be slightly more difficult to teach because for the most part they are more emotionally charged. IMHO the conflict between 1time and av84fun is that we have two extreme examples of this fundamentally different approach to learning the game. As for my earlier “experiment” I am curious to know what group people would put a side bet on. I think it would be interesting to see the results. I obviously would place a large side bet on the 5 with the learning materiel without hesitation; $2,000,000.00 dollars is enough motivation for most people and I think that a base of more than three is a large enough base for such an experiment to be viable. One would obviously have to omit expert pool players, pro’s, people who shoot pool every day, people who own a pool table or pool hall or anyone else who shoots any more than once or twice a month or grew up with a pool table in addition to the other restrictions I placed on the experiment earlier. I am particularly interested in the responses of those players that have taught pool for more than a few years.

JoeW
03-29-2008, 02:20 PM
1Time said, "I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word."

What a deceptively simple statement and one that challenges the foundation of our whole civilization. No wonder that so many have had a difficult time providing an answer. The issue, if I read the comment as intended, has to do with the idea that one does not need to read a book or watch a video to learn to play pool well. Perhaps this is true for some people. I think the issue that is bothersome is the notion that “book learning” is not needed.

Apparently, 1Time thinks that one does not need instruction to learn this skill. Our civilization disagrees. Welding is a skill, tool and die making is a skill, surgery is a skill, carpentry is a skill. At the journeyman level all of these are in some ways comparable to playing pool well. People can, and do, learn these skills on the job and there are some very fine self trained craftsman. I suspect that most of the good ones have read a book or two. However, and it is a big however ---

Our civilization pays higher wages to those with vocational training in a skill. Companies fund skill training in many areas of life. Those who are well trained in a skill progress faster and make more money. It is not necessary to conduct a study in this area, simply go to the employment office or ask at a personnel office who they want to hire for some particular skill. If you want to make the big bucks and make them quicker – get some training in your skill area.

If the issue is that playing pool is not all that difficult, this too is easily addressed. Physicists, engineers, mathematicians, physicians, lawyers, and any number of professions are represented among pool players. It would be a small matter to query some of these people and ask if playing pool is as difficult as some of the skills required for their profession.

If 1Time’s underlying issue is that education does no good for the unmotivated, I would have to sincerely agree. Far too many students attend college and have no underlying motivation for the education offered. I truly believe that people solve problems when they have problems to solve. Until one recognizes the need for education there is no benefit.

av84fun
03-31-2008, 12:19 PM
Thanks for your typically thoughtful comments. But 1Time's indictment was not limited to the issue of whether book/video learning is worthwhile. In addition, he demeaned ALL books and videos and therefore, the specific book...Science of Pocket Billiards as containing ..."a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know."

When called out on that irrefutable smear he back peddles at an extremely high rate of speed and even denied that he had been dismissive of Science of Pocket Billiards!

And then he accuses me of being "stupid" for not understanding his posts. But HIS problem is that his posts are as CLEAR as they are preposterous.

He stated REPEATEDLY that acquiring higher levels of "proficiency" can be accomplished "quickly and easily."

Even giving the most liberal (and inaccuracte) construction to the word "proficiency" and dumbing it down to mean ANY level of ability, he is STILL wrong.

In fact, the better one becomes at playing pool, the more difficult it is to achieve INCREMENTAL improvement.

Increasing one's "proficiency" from running 2 balls to 6 balls (consistently) takes "X" length of time and effort but increasing that proficiency from running from 6 balls to 9 balls (consistently would take 20X time for some and the vast majority of pool players will never acquire that proficiency AT ALL...EVER!

But even learning to run TWO BALLS is a process that is neither quick nor easy. There are LOTS AND LOTS of 2 ball position routes that require substantial expertise to run and getting from the beginner level to THAT level is not now, never has been and never will be quick and easy.

Regards,
Jim



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Time said, "I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word."

What a deceptively simple statement and one that challenges the foundation of our whole civilization. No wonder that so many have had a difficult time providing an answer. The issue, if I read the comment as intended, has to do with the idea that one does not need to read a book or watch a video to learn to play pool well. Perhaps this is true for some people. I think the issue that is bothersome is the notion that “book learning” is not needed.

Apparently, 1Time thinks that one does not need instruction to learn this skill. Our civilization disagrees. Welding is a skill, tool and die making is a skill, surgery is a skill, carpentry is a skill. At the journeyman level all of these are in some ways comparable to playing pool well. People can, and do, learn these skills on the job and there are some very fine self trained craftsman. I suspect that most of the good ones have read a book or two. However, and it is a big however ---

Our civilization pays higher wages to those with vocational training in a skill. Companies fund skill training in many areas of life. Those who are well trained in a skill progress faster and make more money. It is not necessary to conduct a study in this area, simply go to the employment office or ask at a personnel office who they want to hire for some particular skill. If you want to make the big bucks and make them quicker – get some training in your skill area.

If the issue is that playing pool is not all that difficult, this too is easily addressed. Physicists, engineers, mathematicians, physicians, lawyers, and any number of professions are represented among pool players. It would be a small matter to query some of these people and ask if playing pool is as difficult as some of the skills required for their profession.

If 1Time’s underlying issue is that education does no good for the unmotivated, I would have to sincerely agree. Far too many students attend college and have no underlying motivation for the education offered. I truly believe that people solve problems when they have problems to solve. Until one recognizes the need for education there is no benefit.

</div></div>

Treehumper
03-31-2008, 12:39 PM
You were offended by 1Time's comments. Rightly so, he's belittled what you old to be an unalienable truth. But, as pointed out by JJFSTAR there are differently learning styles that whether you agree with or not, are valid and must be acknowledge if, as a teacher, one would want to convey some learning.

To not work with the different learning styles results in a large percentage of the a class not getting it. Furthermore, we get back to my point of motivation and desire. JoeW reinforces this in his last comments.

A side note to JoeW;s reference to hiring and learning. Formal education provides companies with a benchmark of proficiency. A degree from a recognized institution demonstrates a fixed level of skill and knowledge. The person who comes to them without this but may have the skills and knowledge through life-long learning is a wildcard, unknown as to the nature and level of skill. Business doesn't bet on wildcards readily.

Av84Fun and 1Time have come to the point of agreeing to disagree. Let's get on with the topic, "The Science of Pocket Billiards".

eb_in_nc
04-01-2008, 08:28 AM
A side note to JoeW;s reference to hiring and learning. Formal education provides companies with a benchmark of proficiency. A degree from a recognized institution demonstrates a fixed level of skill and knowledge. The person who comes to them without this but may have the skills and knowledge through life-long learning is a wildcard, unknown as to the nature and level of skill. Business doesn't bet on wildcards readily.

A degree demonstrates a persons ability to meet the criterion of the college or university awarding that degree, it has no reference to skills and knowledge. In a large sense, it is a "license to learn" more than anything else. I have personally dealt with ph'Ds that for the most part had no common sense even though they were at the top of their level for their specific discipline. But it does not mean they are skilled and knowledgeable about many things across the board.

Formalized instruction about anything needs to be taken in context with what is trying to be achieved. It could never hurt, but we should not be so naive to believe it will satisfy most situations in lieu of practical experience or "raw talent". I don't think any one of us would want to get in a plane with a new pilot who just got done reading and watching all there is about how to fly a plane, but never having really flown one.

Treehumper
04-01-2008, 08:40 AM
It is a reference to skill and knowledge of a specific topic. If you mean by "license to learn" a demonstration of learning skills then, yes it is. I agree fully that it does not demonstrate common sense and certainly doesn't apply to a broad spectrum of knowledge and skill.

Having worked with people of all disciplines, education, and experience I have found many formally educated people to be babes in the woods when it comes to anything outside of their sphere of knowledge.

As for the rookie pilot, that's why they incorporate plenty of hands-on flying while learning the technical knowledge.

av84fun
04-01-2008, 11:33 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Treehumper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You were offended by 1Time's comments. Rightly so, he's belittled what you old to be an unalienable truth. But, as pointed out by JJFSTAR there are differently learning styles that whether you agree with or not, are valid and must be acknowledge if, as a teacher, one would want to convey some learning.

To not work with the different learning styles results in a large percentage of the a class not getting it. Furthermore, we get back to my point of motivation and desire. JoeW reinforces this in his last comments.

A side note to JoeW;s reference to hiring and learning. Formal education provides companies with a benchmark of proficiency. A degree from a recognized institution demonstrates a fixed level of skill and knowledge. The person who comes to them without this but may have the skills and knowledge through life-long learning is a wildcard, unknown as to the nature and level of skill. Business doesn't bet on wildcards readily.

Av84Fun and 1Time have come to the point of agreeing to disagree. Let's get on with the topic, "The Science of Pocket Billiards". </div></div>

Right. Getting back to the topic, what started the meltdown was the use of the phrase "must read." Of course, that term was obviously used in its figurative, not literal sense.

In the sense of "high praise" and more specifically "contains essential knowledge" then I highly recommend the book and Koehler's companion work, Upscale Nine Ball.

However, for those who prefer to learn by some combination of trial and error and/or via mentoring or professional lessons, I would never write dismissively about that approach because to do so would ignore many great champions who never cracked a book and would be as silly as being dismissive about books.



Regards,
Jim

Treehumper
04-02-2008, 08:36 AM
"must read" is like the expression "to die for", not meant to be taken literally...

Here's a link to the amazon listing http://www.amazon.com/Science-Pocket-Billiards-Jack-Koehler/dp/0962289027

Myself, I have to do first then read after. It gives me the context for what I'm about to read. If I read then do, I'll often have to go back and read again to cement the learning.

SpiderMan
04-02-2008, 01:53 PM
It's another really good book.

Years ago, a local magazine called "Texas Billiard News" (which later became "American Cueist") was running it in installments. This prompted me to go out and buy a copy, and it still accompanies me on many a shithouse adventure.

SpiderMan

cushioncrawler
04-02-2008, 04:42 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Treehumper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"must read" is like the expression "to die for", not meant to be taken literally... Here's a link to the amazon listing http://www.amazon.com/Science-Pocket-Billiards-Jack-Koehler/dp/0962289027 Myself, I have to do first then read after. It gives me the context for what I'm about to read. If I read then do, I'll often have to go back and read again to cement the learning.</div></div>Yeah, "must read" iz a strong term but duznt mean "must". Re do first then read after, this iznt az silly az it sounds. I say -- I'll see it when i beleev it. For example i have watched (video copy of film footage) Walter Lindrum run nurserys hundreds of times. After many years of experimenting i invented a new type of clever little shot when the balls are in a certain formation. Then one day i found that Wally had actually played this shot in the middle of one of hiz runs -- i only saw it when i knew what to look for. madMac.

1Time
05-24-2008, 02:24 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">1Time said, "I haven't read a single book on pool or even a chapter, and I have done very little reading online on "how to". I haven't even watched both of my pool instructional VHS tapes that I've had since the 80's. And I'm sure there is a life time of learning "about" pool out there. It's just that I much prefer shooting a high level of pool to learning a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know.

What needs to be learned in order to shoot a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word."

What a deceptively simple statement and one that challenges the foundation of our whole civilization. No wonder that so many have had a difficult time providing an answer. The issue, if I read the comment as intended, has to do with the idea that one does not need to read a book or watch a video to learn to play pool well. Perhaps this is true for some people. I think the issue that is bothersome is the notion that “book learning” is not needed.

Apparently, 1Time thinks that one does not need instruction to learn this skill. </div></div>

Wrong. In short my contention is the written word is not needed to learn pool. I did not exclude in person instruction or videos in that quote. And in subsequent posts I made it clear that in person instruction is the best way to improve one's game, and videos can be very useful. The written word can be useful too, however my contention is that the written word is not needed. And that's because a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word. And our civilization does not disagree with this. Learning has long been done without reading and still is being done without reading, and I already gave examples of this. Reading simply is not required.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JoeW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If 1Time’s underlying issue is that education does no good for the unmotivated, I would have to sincerely agree. Far too many students attend college and have no underlying motivation for the education offered. I truly believe that people solve problems when they have problems to solve. Until one recognizes the need for education there is no benefit. </div></div>

No, this is not the underlying issue. The point I've been making has nothing to do with the motivated or unmotivated to learn. The written word can be communicated in other ways such as with speach, demonstration, instruction, and video. And, most people learning pool don't want to read a book to learn pool, and they don't need to. Reading a book about pool is entirely unnecessary because a more proficient level of pool can easily and quickly be learned without reading a single word.

1Time
05-24-2008, 03:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thanks for your typically thoughtful comments. But 1Time's indictment was not limited to the issue of whether book/video learning is worthwhile. In addition, he demeaned ALL books and videos and therefore, the specific book...Science of Pocket Billiards as containing ..."a bunch of stuff I simply don't need to know."</div></div>
Again, this is very simple. Reading is not necessary to learn better pool. It can be helpful, but again it is not necessary.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When called out on that irrefutable smear he back peddles at an extremely high rate of speed and even denied that he had been dismissive of Science of Pocket Billiards!</div></div>
Wrong, no back peddling. The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">And then he accuses me of being "stupid" for not understanding his posts. But HIS problem is that his posts are as CLEAR as they are preposterous.</div></div>
False. You were not accused of being stupid. Again with the false claims. And, my claim is obviously correct and easily understandable. You simply misunderstood.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He stated REPEATEDLY that acquiring higher levels of "proficiency" can be accomplished "quickly and easily."
And I will state it again, because it is true. You don't need to read to do this. You can learn by doing, from instruction, or from videos. Reading is not needed. You can't possibly not understand this BECAUSE nearly everyone reading this does.

[quote=av84fun]Even giving the most liberal (and inaccuracte) construction to the word "proficiency" and dumbing it down to mean ANY level of ability, he is STILL wrong.</div></div>
Wrong again. Define the phrase "level of proficiency" and not just the word "proficiency". I even gave you elementary examples so you could understand. You simply have refused to read what I've written and instead argue about what I have not written. You're wrong.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In fact, the better one becomes at playing pool, the more difficult it is to achieve INCREMENTAL improvement.</div></div>
This is absolutely true. I had the vast majority of players in mind when making my claim of "quickly and easily". For example, it does not seem likely Efren Reyes or yourself would quickly and easily attain a higher level of proficiency from instruction. However, it is possible. And when I make the claim "can", that means it is possible. And you have no way to prove that it is not. Therefore, my claim is true.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Increasing one's "proficiency" from running 2 balls to 6 balls (consistently) takes "X" length of time and effort but increasing that proficiency from running from 6 balls to 9 balls (consistently would take 20X time for some and the vast majority of pool players will never acquire that proficiency AT ALL...EVER!</div></div>
In short my claim is a player can quickly and easily go from one level to another without reading a single word. That does not mean a level is defined by the number of balls one can consistently run. I can set up a cue ball and 2 object balls on a table to run and no one in the world will run them 2 times in a row consistently, ever. This is not to suggest a discussion on what determines one level of proficiency in pool from another. If you get it out of your head that I'm not referring to proficiency and I am referring to a level of proficiency, or said another way a level of pool skills and abilities, then you should be able to acknowledge I'm simply referring to a player getting better, even incrementally, but definitely noticeably.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">But even learning to run TWO BALLS is a process that is neither quick nor easy. There are LOTS AND LOTS of 2 ball position routes that require substantial expertise to run and getting from the beginner level to THAT level is not now, never has been and never will be quick and easy. </div></div>
And this just shows my point made earlier. Forget about trying to define a level of proficiency in pool. It's completely arbitrary how anyone determines one level from another. The point is the person "can" easily and quickly get better without reading, a very simple and understandable point.

1Time
05-24-2008, 03:14 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: av84fun</div><div class="ubbcode-body">However, for those who prefer to learn by some combination of trial and error and/or via mentoring or professional lessons, I would never write dismissively about that approach because to do so would ignore many great champions who never cracked a book and would be as silly as being dismissive about books.</div></div>
No, it's not at all silly for me to make such an obviously true statement that reading is not needed (in short) to shoot better pool. And siting as you have here that many great champions never cracked a book validates my claim. Reading simply is not needed for this. It can be helpful, but it certainly is not needed.

JJFSTAR
05-25-2008, 11:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word.</div></div>

What a fascinating contention I am going to have to ponder that question for at least a week.

1Time
05-25-2008, 01:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word.</div></div>

What a fascinating contention I am going to have to ponder that question for at least a week. </div></div>

Sorry, you will have to try a little harder than that. Just consider my statement within the context of learning pool and in which I wrote it (instead of pulling it out of context). And then you should be able to quickly realize that reading is not required to learn (in short) to shoot better pool. This is commonly done in pool and in a wide variety of activities, just as I suggested earlier with a few examples.

JJFSTAR
05-26-2008, 10:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word.</div></div>

What a fascinating contention I am going to have to ponder that question for at least a week. </div></div>

Sorry, you will have to try a little harder than that. Just consider my statement within the context of learning pool and in which I wrote it (instead of pulling it out of context). And then you should be able to quickly realize that reading is not required to learn (in short) to shoot better pool. This is commonly done in pool and in a wide variety of activities, just as I suggested earlier with a few examples. </div></div>

Sorry, you will have to try a little harder than that.

Pardon me but what do you mean by that?

1Time
05-27-2008, 07:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What a fascinating contention I am going to have to ponder that question for at least a week.</div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Sorry, you will have to try a little harder than that. </div></div>
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pardon me but what do you mean by that? </div></div>
An apology. For if you think pondering my statement is worth at least a week of your effort, you likely are wasting your time. Because, it should take you only a very short time to realize what I meant by my statement, "The reading of that book is unnecessary, and so is the entirety of the written word."

As I previously explained...
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1Time</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Just consider my statement within the context of learning pool and in which I wrote it (instead of pulling it out of context). And then you should be able to quickly realize that reading is not required to learn (in short) to shoot better pool. This is commonly done in pool and in a wide variety of activities, just as I suggested earlier with a few examples.</div></div>

1Time
05-27-2008, 09:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: JJFSTAR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So 1time without getting without getting into some heated argument I have a quick question for you.

Let’s say hypothetically that you take 5 people and lock them in a house for 5 months with a pool table and tell them that they are going to play 5 other people for 10 million dollars in 5 months. Let’s say you lock 5 other people in another house and tell them the same thing but the only difference is that you give the second group 5 books and 5 videos on how to play pool. Now you have no internet access all the life sustaining "stuff" both groups need. Both groups are of roughly the same IQ and neither has any physical impediments that would hinder them. What group will win the money? The more naturally talented or the group with the learning materiel?
</div></div>
Here's a better example, and it is entirely hypothetical.

3000 sets of identical triplets are split up into 3 groups with no sibling in the same group. Each triplet has identical pool skills, IQ, abilities, etc. Group A receives one on one pool instruction from their choice of pool instructors, and they view their choice of any videos, internet or otherwise, but are not allowed to read words. Group B receives the same as Group A, but they also are allowed to read anything they want from any source. Group C only has access to reading anything they want from any source, but no video or instruction. Which will win a competition in 5 months?

It only stands to reason that the group with the most resources should win, that being Group B. Group A should come in 2nd, and Group C should come in a distant 3rd.

These results are entirely consistent with what I've been stating throughout this thread.

So if one wanted to learn to shoot better pool, wouldn't it be better to also read? Yes.

And so isn't it necessary to read in order to quickly and easily learn to shoot better pool? No. Reading is not required to be able to quickly and easily learn to shoot better pool.

JJFSTAR
05-27-2008, 11:08 AM
So you didn’t say that the entirety of the written word has been for you and is unnecessary for one to shoot better pool?

Or do you mean that one can become an expert pool player without reading books?

Or do you mean that the written word has not been necessary for you and your development as a pool player?

Or all of the above?

I like the identical triplets example and I agree with it.

The thing that I am pondering is the last part of your statement.

and so is the entirety of the written word.

I am in full realization that it pertains solely to pool and does not go beyond that so I am keeping it in the context in which it was meant and said. I realize that you not infer that it (the written word about pool) is worthless, just unnecessary. However I am of the opinion that that question is not as easily answered as you believe it is; and is worth examination that’s all no biggie.

If you could expound upon exactly what you meant by this that would be helpful, and would shorten my cogitation time by a few days.