Lets have some members watch this video of Caudron's high run of 28, to see if they can see the REAL lucky shots in his run.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSRSSdfxvUs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSRSSdfxvUs
What are the REALLY...
- Thread starter mr3cushion
- Start date
None looked lucky to me
A few near Miss kisses
About 4 really tough shots I think
Like 1,10 and I forget the others
The rest looked pretty standard for a world class player
Got a funny bend on that shot close to the corner,
Funny because he didn't seem to hit it hard enough to do that but, that's how it looks to me
A few near Miss kisses
About 4 really tough shots I think
Like 1,10 and I forget the others
The rest looked pretty standard for a world class player
Got a funny bend on that shot close to the corner,
Funny because he didn't seem to hit it hard enough to do that but, that's how it looks to me
I don't play this game, but 7 seemed a bit lucky to me, as the ball he struck went straight into the corner and appeared to hit both cushions simultaneously, and yet came off straight down the short rail to hit the target ball.
Point 8 had something special in it.
I think he got the pattern he was playing there but he was very close to hitting the wrong rail first.
Last edited:
A little hint to all!
The, 'luck factors' for the top players in the world in any game, are NOT of the conventional manner!
Look more closely at each shot in this video, or any videos of top players!
The, 'luck factors' for the top players in the world in any game, are NOT of the conventional manner!
Look more closely at each shot in this video, or any videos of top players!
Have to admit, didn't see anything lucky. Bob's mention of shot 8 I agree to a point. There were a few other shots where kisses were avoided, I would have suffered. Is that lucky? Maybe.
There were no kisses in the entire run so that's not part of the quiz unless you're saying that was luck.
Playing .750 vs 1.00 is a big step. Playing 1.00 vs 1.30 is another level. Constantly playing 2.00+ is elite and few have any clue the thought process.
I'll accept that someone can think in those terms but can't physically achieve the number, but even that is hard to achieve IMO.
There were no kisses in the entire run so that's not part of the quiz unless you're saying that was luck.
Playing .750 vs 1.00 is a big step. Playing 1.00 vs 1.30 is another level. Constantly playing 2.00+ is elite and few have any clue the thought process.
I'll accept that someone can think in those terms but can't physically achieve the number, but even that is hard to achieve IMO.
There was absolutely NO luck in shot #7!
I've been playing this shot for over 40 years, in exhibition and tournaments when it lays good!
Here's an example of me playing the shot for the guys in Savannah, GA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_POaAjPY4Q
Last edited:
I would say shots 6. 11 15 and 20 but even tho FC and i share the same day of birth he is a touch better player than me.
Another hint, the very 1st and 2nd shots have 'TOP' player luck in them!
Does anyone get it NOW!
Does anyone get it NOW!
No luck,
Position play with incredible talent
Position play with incredible talent
Well, in shot 1 he was lucky to hit ball 3 thin and pass below it. If he hits it full, the shot is probably a lot harder. Similarly, in shot 2 he ended up with naturals off the close ball after hitting it twice.
And that is the NOT so obvious LUCK factor to most players viewing games between 2 TOP players! Also, TOP players have the ability to take FULL advantage of these little nuggets of fortunate rolls!
Conversely, the other side of the coin applies to the opposing player! Unlucky 3rd ball contacts!
I might also add, it usually does NOT switch gears in the middle of a game!
WOW! I thought I was going to have to drop a sledgehammer on this thread! :grin:
P.S. Playing to 'land' on a particular portion of the 3rd ball where it lies no more than 3 balls width from the 3rd cushion, (LSL) and 4 cushions (LSLS) is played with much by some of the BEST players! Caudron being the BEST, IMHO.
Last edited: