Where are the Ladies in professional Snooker?

[PatBlock]

jesus this is getting very technical now its like a biology lesson..

I bet you're just waiting for the dirty pictures to be passed around now

-

[wildJONESEYE]

Michael judge is no mug.



Reanne Evans 4-1 Michael Judge

[the_paz]

not read through all the pages here but women shouldnt be playing snooker or pool imo.

ok, fair enough if they enjoy it or whatever, but then they start taking it serious, and start the womens tour etc, then they think they have a bit of power and it all goes to their heads!

women should be banned from all sport apart from tennis, volleyball and netball, i mean its got way out of hand, their even playing rugby for gods sake!!!

they should be in the kitchen cooking and cleaning, thats why their feet are smaller than ours, so they can get closer to the worktop!

[PatBlock]

not read through all the pages here but women shouldnt be playing snooker or pool imo.

ok, fair enough if they enjoy it or whatever, but then they start taking it serious, and start the womens tour etc, then they think they have a bit of power and it all goes to their heads!

women should be banned from all sport apart from tennis, volleyball and netball, i mean its got way out of hand, their even playing rugby for gods sake!!!

they should be in the kitchen cooking and cleaning, thats why their feet are smaller than ours, so they can get closer to the worktop!

Yeah, I know what you mean, they're even allowed on the same busses as us now! What's that all about??

-

[wildJONESEYE]

all i can say thank god they are allowed in the same bed as us

[nrage]

Wouldn't you say that walking on 2 legs as we do, is precise and extensively controlled in it's nature? As I'm sure you know, it's an extremely subtle and highly complex task, requiring great accuracy.

Walking is not precisely controlled nor does it require great accuracy, it requires some accuracy, some balance, and a lot of gross motion. In contrast consider walking a tight rope, or walking across a ladder suspended horizontally. This is one of the points I was trying to make, most (perhaps all) activities are a combination of both GMC and FMC, not simply one or the other.

The key is where the balance lies i.e. how much of the success of the activity is down to accuracy, and how much is down to speed/power. The more accuracy required, the more we use the small muscle groups, and the more FMC is required.

In the case of snooker, because the required accuracy is very high, and the speed/power less so, that makes FMC more important than GMC. Of course, you want to be as good at both as possible, but people with higher FMC and lower GMC will do better than the reverse.

But if you're right, how can that be? After all, it apparently comes under the GMC umbrella.

I think it's a mistake to lump all accurate motor control into the 'fine' category.
And I don't think that the action of delivering the cue belongs there, for the reasons I gave earlier.

But, that's my point all accurate motor control is FMC, by definition. All of our fine adjustments are made with small muscle groups and the term which describes our accuracy with those is FMC.

Incidentally, talking of walking, have a look at this:

http://hypotheticalthinking.wordpres...ing-really-is/

Neat .. I managed 3.9m

[PatBlock]

Walking is not precisely controlled nor does it require great accuracy....

Have to disagree there.

In the case of snooker, because the required accuracy is very high, and the speed/power less so, that makes FMC more important than GMC....

I think power plays more of a significant role in the game than you're suggesting.

By what measure are you gauging speed/power? Is it possible d'you think for a human arm to perform that particular specific cueing action much faster and with any more power than we see from the top players today? I don't think so. When we see a shot like 'that black' from Judd Trump in this years WC final (I'm sure you know the one I mean) I think we're seeing the human body perform that particular action at pretty much close to 100% of maximum capacity. So during normal play, they're cue-arm is frequently going to be operating at 40/70% capacity of maximum available power, occasionally peaking to higher levels. This is hardly what I'd call an insignificant amount of speed/power.

The way I see it, snooker needs far Moore accuracy than any other sport I can think of, and the relationship between accuracy and power is far more significant.

The difference between playing a shot at 10% or 70% of max capacity impacts dramatically on the players accuracy. They may have fantastic FMC at 10%, but try the exact same shot at 70%, and only the very best would be able to get anywhere near the same level of accuracy. So it's actually power, and your ability to deliver it with accuracy, that is the great leveler.

The area where the advantage gained by women, due to their better FMC, is at the lower end of the power scale, and that advantage decreases significantly, as more power is required. Whereas men may start off at the lower end of the power scale with a FMC disadvantage compared to women, but as more power is required, there's a crossover point, and the advantage shifts.

Neat .. I managed 3.9m

Good job! I just kept falling flat on his face.

-

[jrc750]

6.8 m .....get in there lol

[Odrl]

81.6 But I wouldn't call it walking, it was mostly crawling. It's really easy not to "die" once you get in the right position. But the progress is so slow that your fingers start to hurt.

[PatBlock]

In the case of snooker, because the required accuracy is very high, and the speed/power less so, that makes FMC more important than GMC....

Thinking a bit more about the action involved in delivering the cue, the movement is generated by the biceps and triceps of the cue arm. To make the arm below the elbow move forwards the biceps contracts, pulling on the tendons attached to your forearm, it's this simple but powerful lever action which brings the arm up and forwards so to speak. At the same time the triceps expand acting as a sort of counterweight.
(An very similar flexing action to that of lifting hand weights)

The exact amount of power behind a shot is of course crucial, and one of the hardest aspects of the game to master, 1/10th of a gram either way can mean the difference between success or disaster, and this delicately controlled power is delivered mostly by two large muscles. The brain is excersizing precise control of large muscles.

Going back to waving, which we agree is GMC, if I carry out exactly the same waveing motion, but am also able to judge where the wave starts and stops with mm precision every time, even at high speed, does that action suddenlt then become FMC?

-

[nrage]

Thinking a bit more about the action involved in delivering the cue, the movement is generated by the biceps and triceps of the cue arm. To make the arm below the elbow move forwards the biceps contracts, pulling on the tendons attached to your forearm, it's this simple but powerful lever action which brings the arm up and forwards so to speak. At the same time the triceps expand acting as a sort of counterweight.
(An very similar flexing action to that of lifting hand weights)

The exact amount of power behind a shot is of course crucial, and one of the hardest aspects of the game to master, 1/10th of a gram either way can mean the difference between success or disaster, and this delicately controlled power is delivered mostly by two large muscles. The brain is excersizing precise control of large muscles.

There are 3 muscle groups involved in flexion (bending the arm). The Biceps Brachi, the Brachialis, and the Brachioradialis. This site has some cool graphics:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/anatomy.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/biceps.htm
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/forearm.htm

Mouse over those I mentioned and you'll see where they are, the relative size, and what they do 'flexion at elbow' for example. The triceps doesn't really do anything for flexion, but would be involved in the back swing.

However, the success of the shot is only partly due to the power of it. Power does partly determine position, which I agree is very important for snooker. But, where you strike the white has arguably more effect on position, likewise and most importantly where you strike the white determines whether you pot the ball (if you don't pot it it doesn't matter if you make position).

FMC is the measure of our ability to make the fine adjustments that determine where we strike the white. So, on balance, it's more important than power/GMC for snooker.

Going back to waving, which we agree is GMC, if I carry out exactly the same waveing motion, but am also able to judge where the wave starts and stops with mm precision every time, even at high speed, does that action suddenlt then become FMC?

Yes. FMC is the term we use to describe 'fine' control of our 'motors' (muscles). As soon as you need fine control/precision, it comes under FMC.

[nrage]

The difference between playing a shot at 10% or 70% of max capacity impacts dramatically on the players accuracy. They may have fantastic FMC at 10%, but try the exact same shot at 70%, and only the very best would be able to get anywhere near the same level of accuracy. So it's actually power, and your ability to deliver it with accuracy, that is the great leveler.

There is an important distinction I want to make here (but not because you necessarily disagree, just to clarify .. sorry, if this is self evident); FMC is a constant (more or less), it is a measure of your control over your muscles. At low power you require less control to achieve a certain level of accuracy, at higher power the level of control required increases to achieve the same level of accuracy. The FMC itself stays constant, meaning someone with a high FMC will always have a high FMC and therefore will achieve the desired level of accuracy at higher power levels more often than someone with lower FMC.

That said, I suggested earlier that the level of control required might increase more dramatically the closer you get to your maximum power. I don't have any proof for this, but it makes 'sense' to me. If this is the case then it may be possible that at the higher power levels someone with a lower FMC, but high power might draw level or even surpass someone with high FMC and lower power. But, if FMC is too low then the level of control in some shots/situations will always be out of reach, no matter the power... which would explain why some people will 'never' be any good at snooker.

The area where the advantage gained by women, due to their better FMC, is at the lower end of the power scale, and that advantage decreases significantly, as more power is required. Whereas men may start off at the lower end of the power scale with a FMC disadvantage compared to women, but as more power is required, there's a crossover point, and the advantage shifts.

This may be true, so assuming for a minute that my idea/theory above is correct the Q then becomes, how much power is required and does the average women posses it?

I would argue that there are very few shots where very high power is required. I would argue that in the 'perfect' maximum all the shots would be below the level at which your average women would suffer any loss in accuracy, and in most century breaks this is also true. For example, I watched Mark Williams make a century yesterday where almost every shot was a delicate screw or stun.

After all, it's typically only when you get in 'trouble' due to loss of position (control) that you're forced into playing a high power shot. And, if you were more accurate in the first place, you would not be in that situation and need to play that high power shot.

In addition, assuming a women does get into that situation, she still has a chance to make the shot (but perhaps less chance than a similarly skilled man), but at the same time she also has the option of playing safe instead. There are very few match situations where this is a truly bad idea.

So, overall I would say that this 'weakness', if it exists, makes very little difference in the general case, and in those rare cases where it becomes a factor, there are other options which are arguably as good. In short, I can't see it being a problem.

[nrage]

81.6 But I wouldn't call it walking, it was mostly crawling. It's really easy not to "die" once you get in the right position. But the progress is so slow that your fingers start to hurt.

I see what you mean.. no fair what they did at 50m either!

[PatBlock]

FMC is the measure of our ability to make the fine adjustments that determine where we strike the white. So, on balance, it's more important than power/GMC for snooker.

I'd say they're equally important.

Yes. FMC is the term we use to describe 'fine' control of our 'motors' (muscles).

To be fair, it seems that that's the term you use to describe 'fine' control of our 'motors' (muscles).

Every single definition I can find on the net clearly describes it as small movements involving small muscle groups:


"Motor skills are actions that involve the movement of muscles in the body. They are divided into two groups: gross motor skills, which include the larger movements of arms, legs, feet, or the entire body (crawling, running, and jumping); and fine motor skills, which are smaller actions, such as grasping an object between the thumb and a finger or using the lips and tongue to taste objects"

----------------------------------------

"Fine motor skills are movements mainly produced by the body's small muscle groups. They are used in tasks such as:

* sewing
* sculpting
* drawing
* playing most musical instruments"

--------------------------------------------------

"Definition: Fine motor skills are tasks that utilize the small muscles of the body like those in the fingers. "

-----------------------------------------------

"Fine motor control is the coordination of muscles, bones, and nerves to produce small, precise movements. An example of fine motor control is picking up a small item with the index finger and thumb."

---------------------------------------------------

" motor skills
Part of Speech: n
Definition: the ability to perform complex muscle-and-nerve acts that produce movement; fine motor skills are small movements like writing and tying shoes, gross motor skills are large movements like walking and kicking "

I still think you're misinterpricating the phrase.

-

[nrage]

To be fair, it seems that that's the term you use to describe 'fine' control of our 'motors' (muscles).

Every single definition I can find on the net clearly describes it as small movements involving small muscle groups:

My definition and those shown match, to my mind. fine control = small movements. The movements which determine where we hit the white are small up/down/left/right movements using the small muscles in the arm, so FMC. The forward motion of the cue may be a large movement with one or more larger muscles (and thus GMC) but that's not what determines where we hit the white, which is the most important aspect of the shot, hit the white in the wrong place, by as much as a few mm and you miss the pot, and/or the position.