Just to add a little to this. I have experienced this in another sport where I reached fairly high level a number of years ago. Firstly there must be some degree of ability. Execution of a skill based activity can be taught up to a point (ie talent/ability plays a part too). Bad players don't get into the 'flow'.
There needs to be thousands of hours, quite literally, for it to become natural (some say at least 10,000 hours)
The references above to 'temporal concerns' and self say/do are what we most recently call 'boxing the inner chimp'
We've all seen that classic shot where someone lines up a pot then looks away at your opponent or the camera or whatever and still makes the pot so focus on cue ball object ball etc is not necessarily critical - what therefore must be critical is prior aim 100% correct and then no change after that such that the aim/execution is delivered correctly.
Now I will state here I am not a good snooker player Im just hypothesising on what I observe with regards to those who can lien up a shot then pot it after looking away.
In other areas (sport, business , other skill based activities) they call it the four levels of competence
1 -Unconscious incompetent - one who does not know how bad he or she is at a given task (auditions for X factor spring to mind)
2 -Conscious incompetent - one who knows how bad he or she is (most of us)
3 -Conscious competent - one who is good at it when he or she thinks about it (some of us)
4- Unconscious competent - one is good at it without even thinking (professional sports persons such as top snooker players) - now that is not to suggest that they aren't thinking at all because they are but the 'flow' state for the pros is when they are in the unconscious competent stage. Quite often they fall back to the level below.
It is not possible so far to teach someone to be the fourth level. Some reach it and some never do. Re the recent debate about the merits of MArk Selby, I'd say he generally sits at level 3 and rarely gets to level 4 BUT that is not necessarily a bad thing because he is constantly thinking and of course became World Champion but I think he rarely gets into the unconscious competent stage.
There needs to be thousands of hours, quite literally, for it to become natural (some say at least 10,000 hours)
The references above to 'temporal concerns' and self say/do are what we most recently call 'boxing the inner chimp'
We've all seen that classic shot where someone lines up a pot then looks away at your opponent or the camera or whatever and still makes the pot so focus on cue ball object ball etc is not necessarily critical - what therefore must be critical is prior aim 100% correct and then no change after that such that the aim/execution is delivered correctly.
Now I will state here I am not a good snooker player Im just hypothesising on what I observe with regards to those who can lien up a shot then pot it after looking away.
In other areas (sport, business , other skill based activities) they call it the four levels of competence
1 -Unconscious incompetent - one who does not know how bad he or she is at a given task (auditions for X factor spring to mind)
2 -Conscious incompetent - one who knows how bad he or she is (most of us)
3 -Conscious competent - one who is good at it when he or she thinks about it (some of us)
4- Unconscious competent - one is good at it without even thinking (professional sports persons such as top snooker players) - now that is not to suggest that they aren't thinking at all because they are but the 'flow' state for the pros is when they are in the unconscious competent stage. Quite often they fall back to the level below.
It is not possible so far to teach someone to be the fourth level. Some reach it and some never do. Re the recent debate about the merits of MArk Selby, I'd say he generally sits at level 3 and rarely gets to level 4 BUT that is not necessarily a bad thing because he is constantly thinking and of course became World Champion but I think he rarely gets into the unconscious competent stage.
Comment